I see what you are saying. However, not in any way endorsing the concept, I have to point out that any state could have always done this, regardless of how which standards they were using.
Massachusetts had state standards before Common Core. All that has been done with their adoption has been to make their standards the same as Connecticut, Rhode Island,... and most other states. I think 40 states have adopted Common Core.
AS you point out, and as I have pointed out, the standards themselves are not the problem, it's the texts and methodologies used to implement them. And those are left to state/district. In my case, it's an individual teacher decision, although the teachers in my district share ideas and resources sometimes.
Being in the middle of the transition, so far I haven't seen it as that big a deal. I will say that the teach-gnashing and hissy-fitting I've seen has been from teachers who aren't good at their craft anyway, and their main concern is how test scores will impact their evaluations. It's not a perfect system, but I believe in some accountability for teachers.
I do believe the standards themselves are a problem. It is an end run around a federal law not to have nationalized standards, and then the English requirement that half of all texts be nonliterary and informational and not considering of outside material is not only an unnecessary assault on students having exposure to good writing: it is a setup for propagandizing on a level that hasn’t existed previously.
That is a major problem IMO, but we can of course simply agree to disagree.
Here’s another article that skewers the Common Core as more federal dumbing down:
That is, no one in MA should want their schools lowered to the level of those in MS.