James Milgram is a professor emeritus of mathematics at
Stanford University. He served on the validation committee for the
Common Core mathematics. He did not agree to approve the standards.
He sent me the following letter. He has spoken out against the
standards in various states. See here
and here.

Dear Diane, In
your own writings you mention that the biggest issue with Core
Standards is the lack of evidence. This is largely true. But at
least in math there is significant international evidence that
major parts of the standards will not work. For example, the only
area we could find that has had success with CCSS-M's method of
treating geometry is in Flemish Belgium. But it was tried on a
national scale in Russia a number of years back, and was rapidly
dropped. Likewise, the extremely limited high school level content
is so weak that Jason Zimba, one of the three main writers
described it as follows: First, he defined "college readiness" by
stating: "We have agreement to the extent that it's a fuzzy
definition, that the minimally college-ready student is a student
who passed Algebra II." Perhaps this explains why the only math at
the high school level, aside from a snippet on trigonometry, is
material from Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. Moreover, the
Algebra II component does not describe a complete course. Zimba's
definition is taken verbatim from his March 23, 2010 testimony
before the MA State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Later, in the question period, Sandy Stotsky asked for some
clarification. The following is a verbatim transcript: Zimba stated
"In my original remarks, I didn't make that point strongly enough
or signal the agreement that we have on this - the definition of
college readiness. I think it's a fair critique that it's a minimal
definition of college readiness." Stotsky asked "For some
colleges?" and Zimba responded by stating: "Well, for the colleges
most kids go to, but not for the colleges most parents aspire to."
Stotsky then asked "Not for STEM, not for international
competitiveness?" and Zimba responded "Not only not for STEM, it’s
also not for selective colleges. For example, for UC Berkeley,
whether you are going to be an engineer or not, you'd better have
precalculus to get into UC Berkeley." Stotsky then pointed out:
"Right, but we have to think of the engineering colleges and the
scientific pathway." Zimba added "That's true, I think the third
pathway goes a lot towards that. But your issue is broader than
that." Stotsky agreed saying "I'm not just thinking about selective
colleges. There's a much broader question here," to which Zimba
added "That's right. It's both, I think, in the sense of being
clear about what this college readiness does and doesn't get you,
and that's the big subject." Stotsky then summarized her objections
to this minimalist definition by explaining that a set of standards
labeled as making students college-ready when the readiness level
applies only to a certain type of college and to a low level of
mathematical expertise wouldn’t command much international respect
in areas like technology, economics, and business. Zimba appeared
to agree as he then said "OK. Thank you." So these are the
standards that Sybilla Beckmann recently described by stating that
"No standards I know of are better than the CCSS-M." Well, if you
believe that then perhaps I can interest you in large bridge in
NYC. As to the "third pathway" that Zimba mentioned above, it never
actually existed. The version of CCSS-M Zimba was talking about was
the March 10 public draft. It had placemarkers for the key calculus
standards, but aside from those placemarkers, this version
contained about the same material -- only in Geometry, Algebra I,
Algebra II and a trig snippet -- as appears in the final version.
Moreover, the calculus placemarkers and any hint of a third pathway
are gone in the final version. It is also worth noting that
Clifford Adelman did an analysis of the odds of completing a
college degree based on the highest level math course completed in
high school. The odds for Geometry were 16.7%, for Algebra II they
were 39.3%, but for Trigonometry they were 60%, 74.6% for
Precalculus, and 83.3% for Calculus. So we can estimate that a
"minimally college ready student" has a less than 40% chance of
completing a college degree. Is this really what the National
Governor's Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers,
and the Gates and Broad Foundations want for our youth? Yours, Jim