The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) have exerted enormous pressure on every participant in a child's education. Students are struggling to meet new standards for mathematics learning, and parents are struggling to understand how to help them. Teachers are growing in their capacity to develop new mathematical competencies, and administrators are growing in their capacity to support them. These standards have also exerted pressure on textbook publishers, who must provide curriculum that aligns with the CCSSM. A recent study of fourth-grade textbooks found that this alignment has been slippery, with many textbooks including content external to the CCSSM, failing to include critical CCSSM content or duplicating their previous unaligned editions to an inappropriate degree. This situation should concern us all given the large sums of money spent nationally on textbooks and the high degree to which teachers take their instructional cues from textbooks. What incentives do publishers have to undertake these costly alignments and developments? The CCSS issued a Publishers' Criteria, but these criteria are not binding in any sense. We--the people who buy textbooks or influence those who do--are publishers' only incentive. With that rationale in mind, this article provides Dan Meyer's analysis of how well textbooks fulfill the promise of one particular standard--mathematical modeling--as it is represented in the CCSSM.