However, I have since read pertinent sections of the court ruling, and it seems that Jindal’s attorneys tried to let the contracts “speak for themselves.” Thus, the judge appears to have missed the John White sleight-of-contract in grafting PARCC into what was supposed to be a contract used by DRC for transition to PARCC. Consider this statement from the ruling: Evidence presented proves there was much discussion among [the state board of education, the Division of Administration--DOA, and the Office of Contractual Review--OCR] relating to the contract with Data Recognition Corp (DRC) and its status as “Sole Source” vendor for the implementation of common core. This evidence indicates this activity took place as far back as December, 2010. The contract with DRC was eventually approved as a “Single Source” contract with a contract term that ran through 2015. [Emphasis added.] What is missing here is that DRC could not be a “sole source” contract provider for CCSS because DRC has not been awarded the PARCC assessment contract. DRC was a “sole source” provider for the transition to the PARCC assessment. DRC cannot be a sole source provider of PARCC. DRC must do business with Pearson in order to deliver PARCC to Louisiana. deutsch29.wordpress/2014/08/19/why-the-jindal-loss-was-expected-regarding-la-s-parcc-injunction/
Posted on: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:24:32 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015