Tweet

() Comments

Report

All approved textbooks meet minimum requirements, and
principals and districts typically buy plenty of them. It
becomes an issue when supplementary materials and books are
used in place of textbooks. This is very common with ELA
teachers and desk set novels, very few of these are on the
approved textbook list.

Well there isnt a weekly presentation by your group lead that
addresses how to make mistakes, however Pearson could easily
improve editing and content creation by spending more money
to do so. There isnt a financial incentive to do that
however.

To use a programming analogy, in the past textbooks were
created (coded) specifically for California and Texas, that
is no longer the case, now materials are written for CC, and
we get an edition that has been "debugged". TEA doesnt sent
you a spec sheet saying 'Page 210, 2nd paragraph, remove this
line and substitute it with this". You get a text descriptor
file and its up to the project group to fix, amend, correct,
modify the base text.This process is more probe to errors
than creating material from the foundation.

On 9/01/14, muinteoir wrote:
> On 8/31/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>> Okay fair enough, a couple responses.
>>
>> 1) Pearsons text's do support the TEKS, they have to be
>> approved by TEA (unless they are supplementary
>> materials/texts). Likely what your issue is is that the
>> TEKS arent covered the way you would like them to be, but
>> while errors happen, Pearson texts do meet the minimal
>> requirements of the TEKS.
>
>
>
>
> True enough, As do Houghton Mifflen Harcourt, McGraw-Hill,
> Discovery Education and all other publishers and vendors
> with products on the approved list.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2) Pearson is a machine, whose job is to make money. You
>> only do that with new business and repeat business. Texas
>> is only one revenue stream, and if you make to perfect
> and
>> reliable a product you strangulate your other revenue
>> streams. Automakers cant make a car that lasts a lifetime
>> and stay in business and maintain jobs, and salaries, and
>> lobbyists, and consultants and ESCs, etc. People got to
>> get paid, and the way the paychecks and the profits
> happen
>> is if you create products and services and manufacture
> the
>> need for those products and services.
>
>
>
> Publishers are for-profit companies. And while they have
> to create new demand to remain viable, I don't think most
> mistakes are to keep the company in business. I think most
> are simple human error, poor editing and the like.
>
>
>
>>
>> 3) In the past Texas and California, used to drive the
>> sale of textbooks. Publishers wrote for those states and
>> everyone else got modified versions, now we have common
>> core and the demand from the other states drives
> editorial
>> content now. As a result there is a higher probability of
>> error.
>>
>
>
>
> I agree with you about CCSS driving the sale of texts, but
> I"m not getting the correlation with higher probability of
> errors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> If On 8/27/14, 1administrator wrote:
>>> PsyGuy- I have a question. I am not trying to start an
>>> argument, but on C-scope, Curriculum, and such but why
>>> can't Pearson or textbook publisher write a textbook
> that
>>> covers the TEKS required. We are purchasing textbooks,
>>> hardcopy or online
>> anyway.
>>> Just a random thought that crossed my mind. With the
>>> number of purchases, the publishers should be able to
>>> produce the needed books.(I only mentioned Pearson
>>> because they already own TEA!) Let me hear what you
>>> think!
>>>
>>> On 8/26/14, PsyGuy wrote:
>>>> Typical tea party rhetoric. If its not about god, guns,
>>>> taxes
>>> or
>>>> profits, its anti-american and anti-family.
>>>>
>>>> On 8/17/14, Hope wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/14, c-scope is being raised from the dead...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I heard that the Texas Resource System is c-scope
>>>>>> revised. Is this true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but supposedly without the controversial lessons
>>>>> that were anti-American, anti-family, etc. The region
>>>>> service centers are making a killing off this. They're
>>>>> not about to let it die. It's their cash cow. Forget
>>>>> about it being full of numerous errors. Teachers
> aren't
>>>>> supposed to be smart enough to see that, or stupid
>>>>> enough to point it out to anyone in authority.

Posts on this thread, including this one