You may have read this summary of Morgan Polikoff and William Schmidt in Education Week. The researchers wanted to address the claims made by textbook companies that their products addressed Common Core standards. The researchers, to but it conservatively, argue that the textbook companies are over reaching. Their logic is that books show be different pre and post CC.
“Page by page, paragraph by paragraph,” many were identical to the old, pre-standards textbooks, he said.
I certainly trust their detailed analysis, but I find some standards something like a Rorchach test. What you see in an ambiguous image reflects your perspective (or in this case your bias). After looking a little more, I probably should look more carefully.
Something like:
Explain how the criteria for triangle congruence (ASA, SAS, and SSS) follow from the definition of congruence in terms of rigid motions.
is more specific than something like:
locate, organize, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and ethically use information from a variety of sources (ISTE NETS)
Without taking sides on the CC standards issue, I think I could more easily make the case that I can find evidence of the second standard than the first.