From the Wall Street Journal and UC Berkeley math professor, Marina Ratner, I think it is one swell piece of writing that - in a straight-forward manner - explains why Common Core is deeply flawed.
Ms. Ratner is professor emerita of mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley. She was awarded the international Ostrowski Prize in 1993 and received the John J. Carty Award from the National Academy of Sciences, of which she is a member, in 1994.
I loved this part at the beginning of the article:
As a mathematician I was intrigued, thinking that there must be something really special about the Common Core. Otherwise, why not adopt the curriculum and the excellent textbooks of highly achieving countries in math instead of putting millions of dollars into creating something new?
Yet the most astounding statement I have read is the claim that Common Core standards are "internationally benchmarked." They are not. The Common Core fails any comparison with the standards of high-achieving countries, just as they fail compared to the old California standards. They are lower in the total scope of learned material, in the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical concepts and skills.
It became clear that the new standards represent lower expectations and that students taught in the way that these standards require would have little chance of being admitted to even an average college and would certainly struggle if they did get in.
And this is a theme you hear a lot - these standards are NOT to get students into better colleges/universities but to just get them into any college or university.
Her review of the 6th grade Common Core math comes from working with her own grandson. And, once again, we see that math is becoming more about writing than math. A story problem for every problem on the homework? C'mon.