Quite a bit, actually. My first grader is reading at the fourth grade level. And after reviewing the Common Core approach to math I'm all on board.
Now I'll grant you we moved to a specific area to access the highest rated public schools we could find, but after her seeing how "sight words" jump started her ability to actually "read," as opposed to fumbling over older methods, I have to conclude "you can't argue with performance."
The only downside I've seen with teaching sight words is her tendency to conflate similar words and choosing words that are "close" instead of paying enough attention to really distinguish the differences.
Also, getting the teacher to explain how they're taught math is a bit of a challenge, but YouTube videos make excellent primers.
I’ve looked at the Common Core math approach. It is hard to explain in a few words how it differs from original math...estimating, rounding, assessing reasonableness of an answer, and breaking down the problem into smaller pieces...but as an example, adding 46+37 would be done by adding 40+30 and then 6+7, instead of the traditional addition bar, carry the 1, etc etc...using this method, you can easily solve the problem in your head.
This way of breaking the problem into pieces instead of slogging through the numbers is how I’ve done math my entire life. I prefer it, and it has worked very well for me - my profession is engineering.
So I like this method...and think its superior.
However - I have seen that for most kids, this method throws them into dizzied confusion. They would much rather have the boundaries of the ‘slog through the numbers’ method. So, my opinion is that 1st graders should be taught traditional math. And, if a student excels, around the 5th grade they can go to the common core style of estimating, rounding, assessing reasonableness of an answer, and breaking down the problem into smaller pieces.
Just my opinion.
“Now I’ll grant you we moved to a specific area to access the highest rated public schools we could find...”
Well, there you have it. You exercised your (white? I’m assuming here, sorry) privilege to seek out schools with more qualified and competent teachers. Kudos to you for doing so.
But as Don Corleone has pointed out, many public school teachers are themselves functionally illiterate. Again, kudos for sparing your kids that.
My son’s original third grade teacher could neither write a coherent sentence, nor perform long multiplication, and she was teaching her ignorance to the class. When I brought this to the principal’s attention, she -—with a sigh—pointed out that any formal complaint would result in a racial uproar, so I’d best seek another school. I did.
I’ll also assume that your children’s more competent teachers are simply **incorporating** the sight words and common core methods alongside the traditional, old school methods, only because they’re being **required** to incorporate these new methods.
So a point could be made that the new, common core stuff which you are “on board with” might be actually incidental, mere examples when removed entirely from the foundational basics and presented alone, thus too complex for children who have not been provided with prior references to the rote basics. IMO this is so.
I have 2 award winning teachers in my family. Both will tell you that their success is based trying different approaches. If the student doesn’t “get it” try another angle, but basic building blocks such as the alphabet and the addition and multiplication tables **must** come first, because these building blocks are foundation of the ability to reason, ie to think.
The lefties are advocating altogether abandoning teaching the alphabet and basic arithmetic altogether, to push a political agenda that says everything old must be swept away, regardless whether it works, and replaced with what’s new and “revolutionary” and made up, even when it defies all logic and doesn’t work.
“only downside I’ve seen with teaching sight words is her tendency to conflate similar words.”
Only?
This is just in the first grade when the students only know 100 sight words. Wait a few years when she is supposed to know hundreds. The confusion will grow exponentially. You are praising this method but actually revealing how destructive it is