“how could they be convinced that the NCCS materials referenced on their web site aren’t “A” game materials? ”
From their main website they promote the book NCCS published: “The 5000 year leap” Here some principles behind that book from:
“http://www.nccsstore.com/The-5000-Year-Leap-A-Miracle-that-Changed-the-World/productinfo/5000YL/:

Principle 1 – The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .
The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Not hard to see the strong religious link in what they promote. That is a huge red flag.
Another red flag is what is not on their site, who are the people who designed these courses of study? What are their backgrounds in the study/teaching of history?
Now neither of these things mean that NCCS can’t produce a worthwhile constitutional course, but it does mean you should take a much closer look at this group and their materials before you start suggesting their guides should be used in public schools.
“Where is the critique of the actual materials likely used in classrooms? ”
From what I can tell most of NCCS’ educational materials are based off of “The 5000 year leap”, which I pointed out the problems with it above.

Eric says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:33 am
“Did the ACLU reference the most alarming material on their site?”
I don’t really care what the ACLU referenced, I was responding to your question comparing NCCS and NCHS. I looked at the NCCS web site and would question the use of such an organization for teaching in public schools.
“But in some sense they are “exceeding expectations” ”
How is NCCS “exceeding expectations”?
“Ohio’s constitution in particular compels stakeholders to bring forward their “A” games. ”
Do you think the program the Springboro School board tried to introduce represents the boards “A game” ?
“But what we get is obfuscation, sandbagging, and sabotage.”
Again can you give me some exampes of this “obfuscation, sandbagging, and sabotage” you are referring too and who is doing it?

Eric – As ken says, there is a world of difference between NCH and NCCS. Regarding Grove City College, please contact me and we can discuss how GCC’s history and poly science dept can help.

Hi, Ken.
just looking at the NCCS web site sets off quite a few alarm bells as well.
I’m not entirely sure the materials NCCS promotes for Constitution Day (a focus for Springboro) are even authored by NCCS. Did the ACLU reference the most alarming material on their site? I don’t care to defend NCCS. But in some sense they are “exceeding expectations” while the ACLU “fails to meet” expectations. Of course, expectations are higher for a group with a larger budget and many prosperous members.
I did not suggest the ACLU promotes “false” and “colossally bad” material. My point was church-state jurisprudence can’t address that problem, but state constitutions theoretically can. Ohio’s constitution in particular compels stakeholders to bring forward their “A” games. But what we get is obfuscation, sandbagging, and sabotage.
Our nation has failed repeatedly to meet educational goals–whether from Nation at Risk, the Bicentennial of the Constitution, or Goals 2000. There are important problems to address extending well beyond some guy in Idaho.

Fair enough. When I advise those to my right not to over-reach on the founding documents agenda, I’ve said that Barton may best NCSS and IotC, but even with Barton you’ll run into the “liars for Jesus” critique. Now that these groups are getting such negative attention, perhaps “Getting Jefferson Right” can prevail. I see it’s on sale!