I really do enjoy reading everyone's comments, so thank you for posting.

Instead of reflecting generally on the reading, I am going to take this opportunity to try and apply the reading specifically and directly to selections from the CCSS.

1. * Copied from the standards for high school geometry (G-SRT #2):*

*Given two figures, use the definition of similarity in terms of similarity*

transformations to decide if they are similar; explain using similarity

transformations the meaning of similarity for triangles as the equality

of all corresponding pairs of angles and the proportionality of all

corresponding pairs of sides.

If our goal is to make math sensible and accessible, then this is not the way. Making sense of this statement is more challenging than doing the actual math. The grammar is terrible and the meaning is nearly indecipherable yet we are expected to use such "standards" as the basis of our curriculum!

Here's another one.

2. *Copied from the standards for high school algebra, Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI #4a):*

*Use the method of completing the square to transform any*

quadratic equation in x into an equation of the form (x – p)^2= q

that has the same solutions. Derive the quadratic formula from

this form.

Really? Are they kidding? Have you tried having students derive the quadratic formula? I have, and it's not pretty. Every year I give it a try with my most math-literate students. I happen to think it's fun, and I've had the pleasure of working with two or three students who agree, but I fail to see how proving the quadratic formula is an important life skill nor do I agree that it is a core skill or concept .

Much of the math CCSS are clear, concise, sensible, and well-written, and I believe that having consistency in curriculum and instruction is important. But I just can't wholeheartedly and without reservation support the document as it is currently written.

I welcome your feedback.