I don't necessarily have a problem with switching from the inclusive to the exclusive definition (I think there are valid arguments for both), but I am very worried that changes of this type, i.e. impacting instruction across multiple grade levels, are not being clearly communicated to the people who need to implement them. Instead, they are buried in documents that many districts don't have staff available or qualified to interpret (especially in K-6), or aren't even aware of.
There are also the related issues (some already mentioned here by others) of: 1) Input by NYS teachers to PARCC decision-making 2) Transparency of PARCC decision-making 3) The possibility that NYS could reverse current course and choose NOT to align to PARCC once the assessments have actually been produced. 4) PARCC's consistency with OTHER assessment consortiums like Smarter, Balanced, etc. 5) "Remediation" for kids who have been taught something in one way (like definition of a trapezoid, or particular models for functions (i.e. y=mx+b vs. ax+by=c, or y=ax^2+bx+c vs. y=(x-a)^2+b)), but are expected to have learned it in a different way to comply with assessment requirements.
The fourth issue is of particular concern in my area of the state (Watertown, NY) because we have a lot of military dependents continually moving in and out, and national implementation of common core should (eventually) help kids transition better between different states with different standards... Unless we wind up with different groups of states interpreting the standards differently.
Holly Thomas Math Coach Indian River Central School District Philadelphia, NY