I am adding a comments policy to this blog. I expect to continue writing about controversial topics, and I encourage people to share their thoughts through comments. That said, I want to make sure that we keep things on the up-and-up. Moving forward:
* Comments need to have to real names. At least, they have to sound enough like real names to fool me.
* Comments need to be on-topic. Some digression is ok.
* Comments need to be constructive. Hostile language is inappropriate. Watch the tone, too.
* Comments can’t be spam. Including a relevant link or two is fine, but advertising is frowned upon.
Any comments that don’t comply with these rules won’t be approved and won’t appear on the blog.
I apologize if it takes me a day or two to approve comments. I will try to stay on top of them, but sometimes life gets in the way.
If you post a comment and want to know why it hasn’t appeared after a day or two, email me at ken.schwaber@verizon.net.
Ken Schwaber's Blog: Telling It Like It Is 
Thank you for sharing the details with us on the recent changes that we’ve seen with the Scrum Alliance and creation of scrum.org. I was expecting for this to be more controversial. I have to say that I agree with the value of formalizing Scrum through the Scrum Guide and providing an assessment that allows learners to evaluate their understanding. As you know, when we’re transitioning to Scrum, not all of the pieces fall into place as beautifully as we would like. We are very likely doing something that is Scrum-like while transitioning. The key is making sure that we all understand what the basics are, how they work, WHY they work and the problems that you’ll encounter or suboptimal results you’ll achieve as a result of not using Scrum as prescribed. The Scrum Guide sets the bar and provides the standard that, when followed, delivers an expected set of positive results. It sets the goal for the transition.
And, I agree on the value of a Scrum Developer program. TDD and emerging architecture (as well as test automation and continuous integration) require instructors with strong development backgrounds to ensure the courses are delivering value.
I also have to say that I agree with your approach to improving quality and consistency of training. When people come away with a certification, I expect that they have in some way demonstrated some level of competence and mastery of a consistent, common set of criteria. In order to reach that consistency, we need a common set of course materials and demonstration that instructors have mastered and are able to teach that common set of course materials. Instructors contribute to a class by complementing the standard course materials their own “real world” stories, experiences and examples to the course. But there are core learning objectives and outcomes that should be consistent. Having students evaluate instructors is standard practice. Before and after measures provide a way of evaluating whether a student was able to achieve the expected objectives by taking the course. I don’t see anything controversial in these statements.
Cost of courses seems high given economic conditions, but from what I’ve read now, the intent seems quite reasonable!
Thank you for posting