Let the “occupy” move against math textbook publishers begin!

I’m speechless. How are these companies not getting crushed by something more innovative?

I can’t say that I’m surprised. This is why we all appreciate the work that you do…you give people an alternative to poorly designed textbooks and curriculum. You have written previously about the textbook trying to serve as reference text and instructional material. I still don’t understand why we, as teachers, don’t simply rely LESS (if not altogether) on using the textbook to “teach.” As far as I know, there isn’t anything stopping us from still crafting an engaging, thoughtful lesson that stands alone from any textbook.

Maybe people need resources for this? If so, here are a few that might help (and appeal to a variety of philosophies):

1. http://www.amazon.com/Fostering-Algebraic-Thinking-Teachers-Grades/dp/0325001545/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330485072&sr=8-1

2. http://www.amazon.com/More-Good-Questions-Differentiate-Mathematics/dp/0807750883/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330485105&sr=1-1

3. http://illuminations.nctm.org/

If the publishers were to incorporate the CCSS (for content) into their books this year, they would not be usable. Achieving the ambitious content standards in the upper grades is dependent upon the succesfull implementation of the equally ambitious content standards in the lower grades. The content standards (and texts will need to be phased in).

To me the practice standards seem open to considerable interpretation. In the past, textbook publishers did an abysmal job of interpreting similar sounding NCTM standards.

I don’t see the CCSS alone being a strong force for change. It all depends on what the assessments look like.

As a K-12 Mathematics Consultant, I am not waiting on anybody for “the answer”…especially not the big textbook companies. I’m learning as much as I can via Blogs such as Bill McCallum’s “Tools for the Common Core” and creating my own materials. When I come across new materials stamped with the Common Core, I peruse it with jaundiced eye. In my experience, they get some things right, but many things continue to be same old, same old. I have never trusted a textbook to provide everything that I need to be a good math educator. That is only accomplished through experience, thoughtful reflection, and putting it all together in a way that those not as “math nerdy” as I am can understand.

Where’s the pre-CCCS on Greg’s? (or are you showing the post-CCCS?)

And wow, the “why” part of the picture is mind-blowing. Of course! Polynomials are used all the time for skateboard participation! Silly me!

I agree with Elaine’s timely comment. I am a first year teacher, and I ask my students to use their books mainly as a door stop this year. It has taken a ton of work, but I believe I have given them better problems, better modeling and a better foundation this year.
The problem is (and I can relate to this as a student) that some students prefer to read and figure this stuff out on their own. My style has missed the mark for these students who need a text to fall back on. Of course I think “well, they have the book”, but many students won’t crack it open unless we require and grade whatever they are cracking it open for, possibly for good reason- they don’t know how to use a text, they can’t access it, I don’t reference it.

@Bowen: Actually, my work computer (my entire work site, actually) blocks animation in GIFs.

I watched it from home.

Are any of you applying for the opportunity to be part of the drafting of California’s math framework in regard to the common core math standards?

This example from Dan is of course NOT a good example of what the Common Core Math Standards are about. We cannot believe that it is. We must reject this. It will be HARD work to make the changes and provide the quality professional development to truly embrace the changes that are possible for us. The work to implement the common core must be grass roots, and the teacher voice MUST be heard about what we want.

And we don’t want our current standards repackaged by textbook companies who (in my opinion) are not concerned with the actual teaching and learning that they greatly impact. We, as professional, high quality teachers, understand that the Common Core will not be an easy implementation and we will have to grow and learn. We want to do this.

States may be afraid to do the hard work that will be necessary. It won’t involve just matching current standards with the new. It is unclear if California will have the courage to work on this and make significant changes (which we could). We have an opportunity to teach math the way we want to teach it through the Common Core… let’s not allow this to pass us by.

In response to David Wearley, I think that we will see good resources, such as the book you mentioned on proportionality developed, being developed gradually over time.

I follow the Bill McCallum’s blog “Tools for the Common Core”. Bill was one of the writers of the CCSS math standards. He and his colleagues are working hard to develop good resources.

In the Tools bar at the top of his blog, there are several great resources. Check out the “progressions” documents, which take a specific topic and discuss how the CCSS sees that topic unfold over the grades. If teachers understand the progressions, then differentiation follows easily. If you know that a topic progresses A -> B -> C ->D and a some of your students don’t understand B, then trying to teach them D will not be fruitful. As a former high school math teacher who had no idea how to teach fractions to students who came in with no understanding, this resource would have been very helpful to me.

Another promising resource that can be found under the Tools on this blog is the “Illustrated Math” project. In this resource, you can find tasks that “illustrate” specific standards. The project is underway with some of the standards filled in, but like anything that is of quality, there is not a rush to get them all filled in, although that is the eventual goal. The invitation is open for anyone to submit tasks, with the prize of $200 for tasks that are published. However, the tasks are carefully juried, which ensures that the illustrations that you do see have been well thought out and revised when necessary for a quality final product.

This careful development is not the way book companies are doing it. They are in business to sell books and their goal is to be the first to get “Common Core” stamped books into the hands of teachers.

As a K-12 math consultant, I am continually perusing and personally jurying every resource that I can find, with the goal of best serving my clients. I see a lot out there that is not good, but I also see some good stuff…most of it free and on the internet.

I don’t agree that the Mathematical Practices are already being used much in most current textbooks. The MPs are supposed to be themes that run throughout entire textbooks, growing year-to-year. If those things are happening, they need to be brought to the forefront. Having taught from some of these books and having read many others, my opinion is that this is not generally happening.

What I have seen is mostly a “throw the switch” mentality. In one well-known series, the “problem solving” label has been replaced by the “mathematical practices” label. Phil Daro (one of the lead authors of math CCSS) says that seeing specific problems labeled as the “mathematical practices problems” is an instant red flag that the curriculum does not properly value the MPs: it suggests the other problems don’t require any thinking!

I think that a lot of these textbooks will have to start from scratch to really build a program that honors the mathematical practices. It took our group (CME Project) five years to write a high school series with mathematical habits of mind as the organizing principle. We’ve been thrilled to see the increased focus nationally on mathematical thinking skills, and a large number of school systems have chosen to adopt our books this year because of our philosophical alignment with the mathematical practices.

Based on how long it took us, shouldn’t it take even longer to write a coherent, tested K-12 curriculum around Common Core? Instead we see these curricula “ready for Common Core” pushed out the door within six months. That’s just not possible.

In the long term, I hope more high-quality new curricula are written. It is possible, students deserve it, but it’s not going to happen overnight.

@Dan: That’s not only a contrived way to get a picture of a skateboarder in your book, but statistically dishonest.

Alas, the more honest applications I know of are less photogenic things, like the bending strength of wood.

That skateboarding example always cracks me up. Later in the same chapter a seventh-degree polynomial is used to fit the speed of a swimmer.

The issue around the implementation of the practice standards is a tough one. I don’t know how to resolve it well, and it can definitely lead to some standoffs. Reading through a traditional text’s new Common Core version at a conference, I asked them to show me any example or problem where MP #8 (“generalize from repeated reasoning) was emphasized. They couldn’t, and only pointed to a statement in the prologue that said all eight practices were “woven into every lesson”. All eight practices in every lesson, it’s a miracle… Or not.

Your word “spirit” is well chosen. I think the authors of CCSS were generally careful to avoid prescribing specific teaching methods, but the overall philosophy comes through. If you have ideas about how to make it clear who is and isn’t actually aligned to the practices, I’d like to know because I’d like to be able to shout it louder than these “new” books!

I would like to second Shari’s endorsement of the CME curriculum. Nice work Bowen!

I stand corrected. I thought the EDC had a middle school math program, too, but now I’m not finding it. I see they have some projects in the works and some professional development pieces, but not a full middle s hook program.