Disagree. If you read the common core standards, they are very sensible and make no curricular or pedagogical recommendations. "Calculate and interpret the average rate of change of a function (presented symbolically or as a table) over a specified interval. Estimate the rate of change from a graph." CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSF.IF.B.6.

The way people are teaching math in the US is baffling and weird, but Pearson's textbook design has little to do with the common core per se. Most common core-labelled material is from something else with a new shiny CC cover slapped on.

I think you misunderstand, "New Math"[1] was a thing from the 60's, he clearly took it as an adjective talking about common core, the current "new math", but not the same as the "New Math" bitwize was saying had been tried and was a failure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

I know New Math from the 1960s; the sibling comment to my post indicates that ghettoCoder is talking about Common Core today and I disagree with his characterization of Common Core. New Math as practiced in the 1960s is a fascinating and very different failure case, although it probably had similar problems in implementation (poor teacher training and shoddy repackaged curricula).

I know. I was replying to the comment and using the his/her terminology. It's actually a blended common core/discovery math hybrid.