Domenico Rosa posted Sep 11, 2013 5:23 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9256661):| > > The 7/20/2012 Report "K-8 Publishers' Criteria for > the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics" is > available at: > > http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Math_Publishers_Cr > iteria_K-8_Summer%202012_FINAL.pdf > > The following is on Page 19: > > "(For paper-based materials.) A textbook that is > focused is short. For example, by design Japanese > textbooks have less than one page per lesson. > Elementary textbooks should be less than 200 pages, > middle and secondary less than 500 pages." > > Does anyone know if any such books are being > produced? > > In my opinion, short, focused textbooks are > absolutely essential in order to stem the continuing > pseudo-education of American students. > After reading Domenico Rosa's entirely valid opinion that "short, focused textbooks are absolutely essential" (for genuine education of students - in math; in everything else), I read through, with some care, the Report "K-8 Publishers' Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics" (http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Math_Publishers_Criteria_K-8_Summer%202012_FINAL.pdf).
I did NOT *study* the Report in any depth. However, I was impelled to go to the 'Common Core' website: http://www.corestandards.org/ to read through a fair number of the documents put up there.
Many of the ideas and intentions of the 'Common Core Initiative' are, broadly, very sound indeed (IMHO, so far as I could make out). For instance, I don't believe there are reasonable objections to raise to the call for "Focus, Coherence and Rigor" in the "K-8 Publishers' Criteria..." or, broadly, in the ideas expressed in Table 1 at page 8 ("Progress to Algebra at Grades K-8"). [I do observe, however, that these do require much more careful *study* than I have been able to give them at this stage].
Offhand, few would basically disagree with ideas expressed in much of the 'Common Core', e.g. "Mathematics Grade 1", etc. (http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/introduction). [As noted, I HAVE *read through* various parts of the document at various grade levels; have NOT *studied* the CCSS in depth at all].
All said and done, I believe the CCSS is not about to be implemented effectively: there is simply no understanding of how they should go about accomplishing this. Alas.
Primarily because the developers of the CCSS have not yet understood how to develop and then implement (or get implemented) an effective system to accomplish the 'Mission' they have claimed for the CCSS.
This is not difficult to do: it will need some simple work in understanding and then applying 'systems science' to the systems in which CCSS is supposed to operate.
To conclude, I'd guess that the answer to Domenico Rosa's question "Does anyone know if any such books are being produced?" is likely to be no.
(I exclude from the above negative judgement the "Singapore Primary Series" [Singapore math.com] and the "Saxon Math" books. I've not seen either of these, but both do have Professor Wayne Bishop's enthusiastic recommendation. As he claims they are sound, they should be seriously investigated. I seem to recall that Michael Paul Goldenberg had at some point commented negatively on the "Saxon Math" books - so that judgement should be investigated as well: it really should not be impossible to arrive at an objective understanding of how to proceed on the matter).