Karen and Kevin, I had never heard the term "crosswalk" perhaps because my teaching is in independent schools, and we have few standards we must meet. We develop our own curriculum through discussion with our department (and cross-departments). We do keep an eye on the standards, though, to be sure we are meeting or surpassing.
It is the language of most standards that feels off-putting to me. I get what Kevin is saying--realistically will teachers wade into an entire set of state standards and cross reference with the CC, with all they have to do? If they must follow standards, the cross walk might be the way to get focused (even though I dislike the whole idea of prescriptive learning).
Virginia, my state, has developed this comparison, but it, too, is onerous. Virginia is so confident in its SOL's (which I dislike on so many levels) and they show quite a bit of arrogance it their comparison:
While both the CCSS and SOL address foundational reading principles, the SOL address reading foundations in a logical progression. Teachers can follow the SOL to easily develop lessons. For example, SOL 1.9 reading fictional texts offers a sequential process. The CCSS Reading Standards for Literature grade 1 impose an artificial structure, which although covering the essential foundations, does not follow a logical instructional progression.
One of the things I really like about the CC so far is the lack of script, the broad guidelines and cyclical writing process approach. I WANT to do things differently. I don't want a "logical progression" necessarily.
However, I am still in the early stages of learning about CCS, so I probably shouldn't say much more until I dig deeper! Enough rambling for a Saturday afternoon:)