http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
I would encourage anyone who is really interested in this issue to spend some time reading, or even skimming just a few sections. I find the standard is generally quite readable (conceding that it's a non-trivial commitment to read more than 1 grade level, but then again, there's a lot to know about math...) and I also tend to agree with many of the ideas in it.
I've been disappointed, but in hindsight not very surprised by the anti-intellectualism in the public response to the common core. I'm more surprised to see similar anti-intellectualism here. I expect better from you, HN!
It's true that the common core places more emphasis on critical, analytical, and sometimes even abstract thinking than the "traditional" math curriculum (whatever that is...). But as people who read hacker news, doesn't that sound good to you?
It's also important to know that the Common Core standards are a set of expectations, and that's actually all they are. They are not worksheets or standardized tests. If you see a bad "Common Core" worksheet, it is a bad response to the Common Core, but it isn't actually the Common Core itself. If you want to criticize the Common Core itself, choose a part of the document above and criticize it. Or failing that, criticize the process that led to its creation and dissemination. But criticizing a few oddball problems is not a powerful argument.
My own criticism-in-hindsight is that the Common Core is trying to do two things at once. Maybe it would be succeeding better if it only tried to do one of them at a time.
The first is to provide a nationally standardized set of grade level expectations. Many people have an interest in this goal because it makes it easier to prepare teaching materials for a large group of students, and to compare education effectiveness across regions. In an alternate world, this could have been done descriptively instead of prescriptively. The standards could have simply described what was happening in the largest fraction of the country's classrooms.
The second goal is to improve math pedagogy in the U.S. and bring it up to the best international standards, including tying math more strongly to critical, analytical, and abstract thinking skills. This is a prescriptive goal.
If the standard was a process, we could have started with 1, and moved to 2 incrementally. But I suggest this only half-heartedly, because I think 2 is a great goal, and I think the Common Core (as a document) does a pretty good job of it.
Now to be clear about my own biases:
I don't have any children (school age or otherwise). If my first exposure to the Common Core was seeing my child assigned problems that looked unfamiliar, unimportant, or even that I didn't know how to do, I'll concede that I might have reacted negatively too.
I do have a physics Ph.D. (i.e. math background), I do think and care a lot about how people understand math, and I do work on a software tool that tries to help children think about (part of) math more powerfully.