What this author decries is not the CCSS in and of itself. Rather he calls for the implementation of test questions based on the "more complex" curriculum of CCSS (vs. the state curriculum which, I assume, to be deficient in some way) which, at first, would not "count." Instead, an analyses of these new questions would let parents and students know the new "expectations," which, if you listen closely, are much better than the present ones.
So, let me see if I can summarize this: new standards (CCSS) are good. Tests are fine. vaulting kids and teachers on test scores is back on the table once we make everyone aware of the new and improved curriculum and expectations. In his own words: "'Item analyses' of test questions would identify curricular areas needing improved instructional materials, increased time on task, and/or teacher professional development. Teachers would then modify lesson plans; what is tested will be taught."
So, I guess my question is: how is CCSS a terrible implementation then? Seems to me the curriculum is deemed worthy; the expectations are better. Even testing is a good thing. This is the same-old same-old under a misleading banner. And so I go back to my old drumbeat, too. The problem with CCSS is not in the implementation (though that was ham-handed at best) but also in the creation of the standards themselves, in the developmentally inappropriate nature of many of them, and in the top-down, fear-for-your-job method of forcing them into the classrooms of too many states.
Here is the headline: CCSS: BAD FOR KIDS, BAD FOR TEACHERS, BAD FOR PARENTS, BAD FOR US ALL (BUT GOOD FOR THE VENDORS MAKING MONEY THAT SHOULD GO TO FUND REAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS).