Reader Laura H. Chapman has read the CCSS, unlike many others who support or oppose them. She writes:

“Anyone who had READ the CCSS all the way to the footnotes, or looked at the website, and otherwise done due diligence before buying the spin would determine it is a fraud.

“Consider this: Between 2000 and 2002, Achieve conducted interviews with prospective employers and higher education officials in a few states to gather examples later cited as “evidence” to support various claims about college and career readiness.

“This work, undertaken, under the banner of American Diploma Project, is dated and limited in scope. For information about Achieve’s Research see http://www.achieve.org/Research.

“For the list of studies “consulted” in support of claims that the Standards are internationally benchmarked, see the CCSS for Mathematics (pp. 91-93). A high proportion of these studies are not peer reviewed publications, and some are not fully annotated. Comparable information on international benchmarking of the ELA Standards appears in Appendix A, p. 41.

“The benchmarking is entirely for show and to boost the “credibility” of we must do more to be globally competitive. However, during the roll-out of the CCSS, the World Economic Forum published The Global Competitiveness Report, its annual ranking of over 130 countries on 12 “pillars” in an economy. The pillars are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education (pre-collegiate), higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. In the 2010-11 report, Switzerland topped the overall ranking, followed by Sweden, Singapore, and the United States. The United States fell two places to fourth position due to the failure of financial institutions, not educational performance. See http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness

“I constructed a spreadsheet to map the major and subordinate categories in the CCSS and to place the quantity of the standards to be met at each grade level, in math and ELA, and the Literacy standards (including parts a-e).

“The result was a total of 1,620 standards to be met, with absolutely no rationale for their distribution by grade level.

“One of the examples for a grade 9/10 ELA standard was a direct lift from a community college assignment.

“Geometry is the only math topic treated in every grade.

“There is no explanation for labeling and grouping all studies in the arts under ” technical subjects”

“The average number of standards to be met verbatim in just two subjects is 91 for grades K-2; 109 for grades 3-5; and 147 for grades 6-8. In theory, one lesson, unit, or course can treat multiple standards–but these standards were written with no regard for the rollout of new standards in the sciences, or the arts, or the disciplines grouped under social studies, or the incessant calls for more standards bearing on tech savvy and financial savvy, and so on.

“Drowning the nation’s students and teachers in a sea of standards is not a solution to anything. We do not need more standards. We do not need the CCSS sucking up the time and resources for a complete education with a balanced program of studies in the arts, sciences, and humanities, including at least one foreign language still the gold standard for curriculum excellence.”