About That Pathetically Inadequate Common Core Survey From Mark Johnson

Last week in a politically motivated stunt, State Superintendent Mark Johnson decided to use DPI’s ties to Powerschool’s database to send out a survey concerning a fabricated campaign platform.

Actually it’s a red-herring – a smelly fish meant to distract the senses from the truth. Not to mention unethical.

Just look at the survey – six questions with about as much statistical substance as a bag of rocks.


Wonder if he would show the distribution of the answers based on the above.


That’s not a loaded question at all. Most people who are not in education couldn’t really answer that question at all because “effective path to success” might be one of the most vague concepts used to fuel Johnson’s “reform” narrative.


Really? Just because someone has heard of Common Core does not mean he/she really knows what it is. Actually, Johnson doesn’t really know what it means. Why? Because three years ago, he was a virtual no-show in realigning standards in 2017.



Imagine how many people would have answered “Not sure” if they understood what they really don’t understand about Common Core.



That has nothing to do with Common Core. That’s a cover for Dan Forest’s personal finance class. As is this next question.



So, this week Mark Johnson releases the results of the survey.



71,000 people completed the survey. He never tells you the distribution of respondents depending on if they were teachers, parents, or other “stakeholders.” And Johnson says that the “survey clearly demonstrates how important the issue is on NC.”

Actually, he only got a response from less than 2% of those who can legally cast a vote – no ID needed.



That’s a pathetically inadequate survey.

But good for gas-lighting.


One thought on “About That Pathetically Inadequate Common Core Survey From Mark Johnson

  1. Thank you for this. We all need to be concerned about the systematic corruption of data, especially longitudinal data, that had characterized this person’s tenure in office. One perfect example concerns reading achievement. We have no data. Not this year with the iStation farce, but also not last year with the use of MCLASS with completely new and wholly different and inappropriate texts. That’s just one area. Take a look at almost any other data point. He has fundamentally changed some significant factor so that we can draw valid conclusions from year to year. Incompetent? Or deliberate?


Comments are closed.