I have a PR suggestion. I have ceoulagles who are avid naysayers for CCSS. They are asking why I would bother to post because, they believe, the CCSS committee is only pretending to listen to teachers and have no intention of making significant changes based on feedback. I suggest adding a category that lists revisions with notes (at least for Progressions) mentioning contributors and their backgrounds. For example, when Fred and Freida both make the same comment, I would think the committee would look at that seriously and, if valid, somehow show the comment is put in a revision. As much as possible, continue to give rationale for comments not taken into revision. With so much pretending going on in our Country, I think protecting the confidence CCSS has earned is worthwhile.

Thanks for this suggestion. If you are tlnikag about revisions to the standards, there is no process laid out for that yet. There is no CCSS committee : the work team that wrote the standards has finished its work. I had hoped that by now there would be a defined process for revision of the standards some years down the road, but there isn't.As for revisions to the progressions documents, we will use the comments on the blog when making the revisions, so it is well worth while participating. The comment trail on each posting of the progressions shows whatever information about the commenters that they wanted other people to see when they created their WordPress profile. We will do the revisions this summer. However, I'm afraid we don't had the resources to give a detailed explanation of where each change came from. People will just have to look at the revisions and see if their comments were taken into account. However, it's a good idea to acknowledge the posters to this blog, thanks for that idea.