State board adopts K-8 Common Core math textbooks


The state Board of Education will vote Wednesday whether to adopt new math textbooks and other materials aligned to the Common Core standards. Credit:

Updated Jan. 15 2014: With little discussion, the State Board of Education unanimously approved 31 new K-8 and Algebra 1 math textbooks and other teaching materials aligned to Common Core State Standards at its meeting Wednesday and agreed to consider additional online materials if the Instructional Quality Commission recommends them.

One plus one still equals two, but quite a bit else has changed in the new math textbooks and instructional materials under consideration for California classrooms.

Common Core State Standards are the driver in these math texts and other teaching materials that the State Board of Education is scheduled to vote to adopt on Wednesday. That means the books have less emphasis on pages of math exercises that are common in current textbooks and more focus on abstract reasoning and understanding mathematical practices.

Students will learn to recognize patterns and how to apply them in different situations; they’ll have to figure out answers without neat formulas to plug into, and engage in classroom discussions about problem solving methods.

These are skills that people will apply throughout their careers, said Tom Adams, director of curriculum frameworks and instructional resources at the California Department of Education. “They’re often described as the habits of the mind for mathematicians,” he explained.

Another key change this time is that school districts are not beholden to the list of texts and materials the State Board approves. In past years, if districts wanted to buy materials other than those approved by the board, they couldn’t use the state funds set aside for textbooks.

Without Common Core, California would not be adopting new instructional materials for math for at least another year. It’s an expensive process, and in 2009, when the state was in the midst of the recession, the Legislature approved a moratorium on the development of new curriculum frameworks and instructional materials until 2013. Another bill extended that moratorium through July 2015.

Common Core couldn’t wait that long, and in 2012 lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 1246, allowing the state to move ahead with frameworks and textbooks for math and English language arts in kindergarten through 8th grade.

Money was still tight at the time, and publishers had to pay $5,000 for each textbook and related materials submitted in every grade in order to cover the $1 million it cost the state for supplies, travel and staff to evaluate the materials. More than 100 teachers participated in the evaluation of the materials the board is scheduled to review Wednesday.

The Instructional Quality Commission, which reviews the materials, received 35 sets of math programs and recommended 31 to the State Board.

The items are “a good mix” of online materials and traditional texts, said Bill Honig, chair of the commission and former state schools superintendent.

“The feeling was that many of (the publishers) did a good job of trying to incorporate those ideas” within Common Core, he said.

Patricia Rucker, the State Board member who served as liaison to the commission, said evaluators understood the stakes involved in selecting top-quality materials.

“I’ve never seen a more intense conversation about the frameworks,” Rucker said. “You’d have thought they were talking about dividing up community property” the way they were talking and arguing.

Filed under: Common Core, Hot Topics, State Board

Tags: , ,


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

3 Responses to “State board adopts K-8 Common Core math textbooks”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Paul on Jan 15, 2014 at 7:45 pm01/15/2014 7:45 pm

    • 000

    Scott, this is an excellent point, and I think it’s very true of the work of the major publishers. Adding a few more color pictures, changing the names of the people in the word problems, and updating the fonts used on the worksheets won’t make for better books.

    CPM is one bright spot. It embodied the “Standards for Mathematical Practice” — the important and novel part of the Common Core math standards — years before the Common Core existed.

    Some tests that I use:

    1. On a worksheet, are students putting numbers in boxes, or are they themselves producing complete mathematical statements, including meaningful symbols such as equals?

    2. In a geometry chapter or book, is anything at all drawn to scale, that students might practice measuring angles, line segment lengths, and so on?

  2. Scott Farrand on Jan 15, 2014 at 7:24 am01/15/2014 7:24 am

    • 000

    The downside of this early adoption is that many of the publishers have not actually had the time or have not taken the time to write textbooks for Common Core. Instead, what the state will be buying in many cases is the same old textbooks, but with cosmetic changes to make them appear aligned to Common Core.

    The Framework Committee agreed on adoption criteria that would have allowed for more critical review of the submissions, but those criteria were not used. Now the onus will be on districts to be scrupulous in selecting materials, because the state was permissive.

    I was a member of the Content Review Panel for materials adoptions in 2008 and I was a member of the Academic Content Standards Commission that recommended the Common Core to the State Board of Education in 2010. It is my opinion that the demands of Common Core for rigor in the development of mathematical content are unlikely to be well-supported by materials that were written for the ’97 standards. Districts are potential buyers, so buyers beware.


    • Christi Cocks on Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 pm01/16/2014 2:33 pm

      • 000

      thank you…we are looking at these texts as a teacher group next Wednesday and your comments will help me voice careful opinions!

Template last modified: