Well, #14 is protected speech, likely immunity will be attached to testimony before a public body (if he believes it then this would be sufficient to active immunity ~ if its correct or not).

#16 is clearly opinion .. which appears to be protected speech...be interesting to see if/how his motion to dismiss which I expect tackles this.

#18 is likely fact, so he's OK there

#20 is likely an opinion .. we'll see

#22 .. stats, we all know we can prove whatever we want using stats .. so he's likely OK with this

#24 does not say that the defendant actually wrote the article, so no big win there..and the recantation? Not that meaningful. Seems like the teacher was pressured to say that. We'll see.

#26 Falsified improvements reported. No direct connection between the parties shown.

#29 is a killer for the plaintiff ... the whole thing is a legal conclusion .. and they'll have to plead actual and specific damages...vague claims is not sufficient.

#43 has conflicting allegations

Defendant has a couple of options... a) motion to strike part of complaint b) motion to revise parts of the complaint or c) motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts to support the plaintiff's claims

I would go with C first. Then b or c. At this stage of the game.

They may actually have been harmed but their complaint appears to be written by a guy fresh out of law school.

using groups to solve math problems, 46% of the funding was used to train math teachers, used instead of memorizing formulas. Sounds like bad math to me. Math is using a formula to solve a problem, that's it. It's been taught that was for over a century and used by scientist for far longer. I'd have a famous mathematician on my side to validate the teaching materials and if they are better than the old ways of learning math.

Well, I hope this provider hired a common-core lawyer!