What DPI’s newly released documents reveal—and what they don’t reveal—about Superintendent Mark Johnson’s unilateral Istation contract award

Last week the NC Department of Public Instruction finally released information related to the procurement process which ended with Superintendent Mark Johnson unilaterally awarding a 3 year, multimillion dollar contract for North Carolina’s K-3 diagnostic reading assessment to Istation.

Both Johnson and DPI Communications Director Graham Wilson had previously claimed that the evaluation committee assembled in the fall of 2018 to inform the decision had failed to come to a consensus or make a recommendation.  The records provided by DPI show those claims are absolutely false.

The documents also reveal some important details about the path Johnson took as he disregarded the input of the team of evaluators.  However, the release omits records which will be crucial in substantiating DPI’s version of events.

Here’s what we know based on the records DPI released:

On October 5, 2018, the Request for Proposal (RFP) evaluation team first met under the direction of co-business managers Pam Shue and Amy Jablonski to discuss background for the project, evaluation ground rules, and how the process would work.  The team included both voting members and non-voting members and was made up of DPI employees and a broad collection of subject matter experts.  

Notice the importance of selecting an effective dyslexia screener in the initial project scope as presented to the RFP evaluation committee.  Some of the strongest outcry that has followed Johnson’s selection of Istation has been about the tool’s inability to flag children who are at risk for dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities.  DPI representatives have responded by explaining that dyslexia screening is outside the purview of Read to Achieve and is not the state’s responsibility, as DPI Director of K-3 Literacy Tara Galloway told the State Board of Education last week.


Individual team members were given until mid-November to evaluate the four vendors (Amplify, Istation, NWEA, and Curriculum Associates), at which time they were expected to be prepared to meet, discuss their findings, and come to a consensus ranking which would later be presented to Superintendent Johnson.

The consensus meeting took place on November 19 and 20, 2018.  Notes from the records release indicate that participants were reminded at the outset of the meeting that their goal was to arrive at a consensus on which product should be selected, and that “consensus means general agreement and not unanimity.”


The team discussed their findings in painstaking detail before ranking the products.  They agreed unanimously that Amplify was the best choice. Istation came in second.


On December 4, 2018, Amy Jablonski, Pam Shue, DPI Procurement Officer Tymica Dunn, and Project Manager Srirekha Viswanathan met with Superintendent Mark Johnson to present the committee’s findings in a PowerPoint which is included in the released DPI records.  They told Johnson that the team had selected Amplify’s mClass tool as its top choice to be used as the K-3 reading diagnostic assessment in all of North Carolina’s schools.

The next records DPI provided are from a meeting on January 8, 2019, between Superintendent Mark Johnson and the members of the evaluation team who worked for DPI.  The purpose of the meeting reads “consensus meeting to recommend finalist for negotiations,” which is odd since the team had already presented its unambiguous recommendation to Johnson the month before.


According to the notes, Mark Johnson began the meeting by thanking those present for their input on the K-3 screener selection.  He gave a speech about the importance of freeing up more time for teachers to teach and the need to provide them with the right tools.  As this was his first reaction to the team recommending that schools continue using the Amplify tool, Johnson’s comments could be interpreted as an attempt to influence the team toward changing their recommendation to Istation (a computer-based tool which Istation advertises as requiring minimal class time).  Johnson then asked the 10 voting members present to vote for the second time and stepped out of the room “to maintain integrity of the process.”

After the superintendent exited the room, team members wrote their choices on sticky notes, and the project manager tallied the results.  Amplify again easily came out on top, with six people recommending negotiations proceed with Amplify only, three with Istation only, and one voting that negotiations continue with both companies.  Pam Shue was tasked with informing Johnson of the committee’s recommendation the next day.

On March 8, 2019, another meeting was held to discuss the procurement.  This time only 8 of the 10 DPI voting members who had been at the previous meeting were present.  Superintendent Johnson was not in attendance, but new General Counsel Jonathan Sink was.  

Sink informed those present that the procurement process was being cancelled.  According to the notes, he gave two reasons for the cancellation. The first reason was that a voting member of the evaluation committee had breached confidentiality on the procurement process.  The second reason provided was that there had been no unanimous consensus in selecting a vendor for the K-3 reading assessment.


There are a couple of important things to note here.  First of all, Sink gave no additional detail on the alleged confidentiality breach at the meeting, and the records DPI released include no information about exactly what the breach was or the identity of the person responsible.  

Given DPI’s pattern of dishonesty on the procurement and Mark Johnson’s apparent desire to award the contract to Istation, it’s fair to wonder whether a breach really occurred.  If it did, records detailing the breach should have been provided to the public as information relevant to the procurement process. Nothing in North Carolina public records law prevents DPI from releasing that information and corroborating the claim.

Secondly, remember that the evaluation team had been informed from the beginning of the RFP process that “consensus means general agreement and not unanimity,” so the lack of unanimous agreement does not seem to be a valid reason for cancelling the procurement.  Indeed, it’s hard to imagine procurements in general being successful if the process required those involved to unanimously agree.

After the March 8 meeting, the RFP process was cancelled and restarted with a smaller evaluation committee which had very little expertise in literacy or teaching.  The new committee selected Istation as the vendor, and Mark Johnson announced the contract award to the public on June 7.

Mark Johnson appears to believe that the legislation which called for the procurement gave him sole decision-making authority on the K-3 reading assessment and, as such, that he could simply disregard all the work done by the evaluation team.  The exact wording of the bill in question reads  “…the Evaluation Panel, with the approval of the State Superintendent, shall select one vendor to provide the assessment instrument…”  

Ultimately, it may be up to a judge to determine whether Johnson had that authority.

Amplify has filed a protest with the Department of Public Instruction under North Carolina Administrative Code, and representatives of Amplify and DPI will be meeting for the first time to discuss the protest on Thursday, July 18.  

Amplify is protesting under North Carolina General Statute 150B, which mandates that government contract awards must be reversed in a number of circumstances, including if a state agency which awarded a contract “acted arbitrarily or capriciously.”  Depending on the outcome of this meeting, the procurement may then be reviewed by the Department of Information Technology and the decision is subject to appeal in superior court.

5 thoughts on “What DPI’s newly released documents reveal—and what they don’t reveal—about Superintendent Mark Johnson’s unilateral Istation contract award

  1. “DPI representatives have responded by explaining that dyslexia screening is outside the purview of Read to Achieve and is not the state’s responsibility, “ Is the DPI not aware of HB 149 passed in 2017? It clearly states that
    3. Require local boards of education to review the diagnostic tools and screening instruments they have available. So, does that mean it is a county responsibility and not a state responsibility? So if Istation is used then each county needs to buy addition screening tools? Which all may be different across the state??

  2. Dyslexia screening is not the state’s responsibility? So if districts now want to screen for dyslexia they have to waste funds and buy separate screening tools which will lead to inconsistency across the state and potentially one district not recognizing the screening outcomes of another because they used different screening tools? If dyslexia isn’t part of Read to Achieve isn’t this de facto discrimination of students with additional needs?

  3. Hmmmm…The state of NC is required to provide, “…The resources necessary to support the effective instructional program” in every school “so that the educational needs of all children, including at-risk children, to have an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, can be met.” Sounds like a direct violation of Leandro to me. The NC Supreme Court and the NCGA appear determined to give nearly unbridled power to this pathetic little farce of a superintendent, leaving NC educators, voters and our children little recourse. I plan to beg NC Attorney General Stein to intervene on behalf of the citizens of this state regarding this obscene triumvirate, but the only sure way to end this madness is at the polls. Wake up, NC!!!

  4. Another bad decision by the state of NC because unqualified individuals are serving at DPI! Who is the money behind this deal? The State Superintendent is clearly in the wrong here! More wasted money with an unnecessary lawsuit because of unqualified elected officials! Sad, once again, for the state of North Carolina!

  5. Looking at the consensus meeting table, Istation is ranked much better than Amplify on the financial measures. I wonder if this is what caused the Superintendent to eventually make this decision. Still, it doesn’t seem he had the authority to do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *