Consider me undistressed. If this means less reliance on the creaky crutch that is “reader response” in ELA classrooms, then I’m very nearly overjoyed.

The above quote comes from one of the lovely folks associated with CCSS. I honestly do not even know what I ca say without resorting to inappropriate language or unprofessnal language. Reader response as a creaky crutch? Let me say this much: response encompasses more than this person understands. Response can be personal and a motive, of course. And IMHO, this often forms the basis for other aspects of response. Those othe aspects of responses include INTERPRETIVE, CRITICAL, and EVALUATIVE. Response is more than "how do you feel and what do you think?" It includes questions such as, "what would you do in a similar situation?" (INTERPRETIVE). Critical response includes all of the typical questions about figurative language, elements of plot, etc. Evaluative response asks readers to judge a book baed on a variety of factors including personal responses as well as interpretive and critical areas.

Bottom line he: the more I read pieces about CCSS and "close" reading, the more I see the devaluing of the reader. As a reader, this offends me, and it suggests that anything other than THEIR way means the WRONG way. This narrowing further narrowing of the curriculum is distressing, disturbing, and just plain WRONG.