Why do we need more maths textbooks in the first place? I can't imagine there's new branches of maths that we need to teach school kids about. (and same goes for a lot of other subjects)
I've wondered why there isn't a set of national texts available for core math and science subjects. They're pretty stable subjects. So at one point I decided to find out what the mission of the Dept. of Education is, and the shocker (to me, at least) was the following little blurb from the ed.gov website.
"In creating the Department of Education, Congress specified that:
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88)"
So even if we wanted to have national standards for math textbooks, the Dept. of Education is prohibited by law from doing so.
The alternative is to specify the National Curriculum and then second guess the changes each time the government changes.
School maths is a socially determined thing. It has little to do with mathematics in University departments or the ways in which mathematical reasoning is used in other areas of life. Definitions vary.
PS the new textbooks by pearson, stanley thornes, longman &c are relatively error free.
I would imagine that school districts could co-operate among themselves to begin a project like this without Federal leadership. That they do not is telling.
At least in California, it's due to our state-mandated course curricula being a continuously moving target.
I was a software engineer at an educational software startup, and we were continually "course correcting" to meet these mandates (and yes, they did seem arbitrary and "change for change sake").
In my sophomore year of college, I discovered there were massive price disparities between old and new textbooks. Thermodynamics, 1'st edition (~1970) - $10, Thermodynamics, 7'th edition (~2000) - $120.
I used the old editions, and it didn't hurt me much (I lost a few points due to renumbering of homework problems). All they did was renumber the chapters and problems, no new material was added, most of the time the text was identical.
This is true for college textbooks. Not so for K-12 textbooks.
In this space, wholesale churn is rampant. Math series only have a several year shelf life, before old-and-broken is replaced with new-hotness. My wife and mother and sisters are all elementary school teachers, and they haven't ever stayed with a math series for more than 5 years. In our district, they are required to change them every 7.
K-12 level mathematics, compared to college level curricula, is much more "how" to teach than "what" to teach, and much more subjective. There were knock-down drag-out fights about the use of math manipulatives (which is the use of physical elements to show arithmetic operations).
Because the publishers could choose to be competent and reform their industry, but are instead eating their own seed corn. Outsourcing your technical expertise to lowest bidders in the third world is suicide in any business.
> there were massive price disparities between old and new textbooks
Yes, that's a good tip for students to be aware of.
Here is another. In college I discovered that I could buy used textbooks in the college bookstore if I got there early enough, and I could sell the same textbook for $1 under the bookstore price by showing up at the class the next semester and standing outside the door at the end of class. Using this method I spent on average less than $10 to use the latest versions of required college textbooks. (There were many I kept though.)
It's not a matter of the base material changing, it's a matter of how that material is presented and taught. When I keep hearing everyone claim that the way that math is taught is terrible, I'm willing to believe that someone can write a better textbook.
Granted this isn't actually being accomplished. The reason why new textbooks are needed is independent of why new textbooks are being bought. However, I feel that your argument "Subject X hasn't changed, so we shouldn't textbooks on X" is off target. Why are there new web frameworks keep coming out? Because this time, we're going to do it right.
One problem is that it is yet to be proven whether a better textbook is the solution to improving math education. It is not at all obvious that for the average student any textbook is the road to learning.
Why do we need more maths textbooks in the first place?
I agree with the comment by HN participant droithomme above that it would be perfectly possible for school systems in the United States simply to adopt the Primary Mathematics textbook series from Singapore (which already exists in two editions adapted to the United States in general and adapted to California curriculum standards in particular)
and thereby do much better than most United States schools do with any of the other existing textbook series.
Based on international textbook content analyses and other evidence, gathered and digested with the help of professional mathematicians aware of international K-12 teaching practice, the great majority of states in the United States have voluntarily adopted the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
and the next iteration of textbooks in the United States will CLAIM (with truthfulness of that claim yet to be verified) to follow that set of standards. I like what I have seen of those standards. I have yet to see any new textbook series that fully embody the best practice in mathematics teaching in other countries. The best elementary mathematics textbooks I have seen are in the Chinese language, published either in Taiwan or in China. Among English-language textbooks, the Singapore Primary Mathematics Series has been plainly superior for at least the last twenty years.
I can't imagine there's new branches of maths that we need to teach school kids about. (and same goes for a lot of other subjects)
I can more readily imagine new developments since my childhood in physics than in mathematics that would have to be reflected in elementary textbooks, to be sure. But textbooks would have to be updated in any country that does not yet have the best available textbooks, even if the subject of mathematics has not changed. There has been a growth in understanding during my lifetime about how to teach mathematics to elementary-age pupils. Content analysis of different textbooks used in differing countries has helped develop that growth in pedagogical understanding.
Moreover, at least two aspects of mathematics as encountered by most members of the public have changed in my lifetime:
1) today anyone in a developed country can buy an inexpensive calculating machine that is more generally useful than a dedicated office business machine of a generation ago, and
2) discrete mathematics plays a much bigger role in business and in industry than it did when the march to calculus was the main path in mathematics education for technical careers. Both of those changes would have to be reflected somehow in curriculum design for K-12 mathematics instruction.
