What do you NOT like about Right Start Math?

[diaperjoys]

I'm considering it for my kiddos - I read lots of rave reviews, but I'd like to know the good, the bad, and the ugly before I make a decision....

 

 

We've spent the year with CLE Math, which I love. However, they aren't learning well with it, and both got very poor math scores on their standardized tests. I need something that forces me to teach pretty actively...

 

My concern: My 8yo is a very visual learner, with lots of focus issues, and is very non-auditory. He's bright, but if he doesn't have steady review he rapidly regresses. How does RS work with this kind of learner??? He is having a terrible time learning his upper math facts, so he'd place all the way back to RS level B.

[lorisuewho]

It is very teacher intensive. We used Rightstart A and B this year along with CLE 1. Rightstart requires the parent to do the entire lesson with the child (at least at the A & B levels). Rightstart does not have as much review built in as CLE, not even close. Some review is at the start of each lesson and you should constantly be playing the math games for review even though the manual doesn't specifically remind you to do this.

 

I like both programs.

[d.g.]

We're in RS C, having started with B in 1st (and never having used any other formal program.) DS "hit a wall" in B, and we paused in various places for a long time to be sure he understood the concepts before moving on. He'll finish C sometime this fall, depending on progress, and move into D at that time.

 

I LOVE that RS has allowed my language-oriented, non-mathy DS to understand math. He doesn't just follow the motions and/or guess, he actually GETS it. He's equal parts visual and hands-on, and this program suits him very well.

 

There aren't many things I dislike about RS. I have found that we occasionally need to do more practice than just the few worksheets and games, but starting in level C there are review lessons every 6 lessons or so. That helps a bit, so it's not a real negative.

 

Oh, here's a negative -- RS takes a LOT of time (for us.) We spend about 45 mins to 1 hour on math a day, if you count the games. I break that up a bit, but it's still time-intensive compared to some of our other subjects.

 

I'd still recommend trying it out, as it's a great program if you can accept the teacher- and time- intensive aspect of it.

[Crimson Wife]

My visual learner does well with the abacus, place value cards, and base 10 tiles used in RS.

 

I love, love, :001_wub: level B but don't care as much for C, and switched my oldest to Singapore 3A rather than continue on with D & E. I plan to take my DS through the first part of C and then switch to Singapore.

[Marie131]

I love RS. It is teacher intensive, but it's not too much to turn me off of it.

[adventumacademy]

We are using B this year .. not quite done with it yet though. This is our first experience with RS. I agree with the previous posters that it is very teacher intensive, but for us personally I don't mind that - my dd needs that at this age.

 

I like the way concepts are taught and I like that it teaches easy methods for mental math.

 

So far the only thing I do not like about it is that there is not enough review. Even with playing the games, I feel like there is not enough review. It seems to me like a concept is introduced, you do a couple lessons on it and then move on to the next concept.

 

I do plan on continuing with C next year, but I am adding in extra review with Math mammoth blue series as needed.

[mhaddon]

I love RS, but we aren't using it. It was way too much for me to do with him with three younger children climbing in the middle of the lesson. MUS worked better and he can do part of it independently.

[Tara Bara]

I used RS A this year for the first time. We only have a few more lessons and we will be done. It is definitely teacher intensive! However, I don't have to do any prep work before teaching a lesson. I can just skim through the lesson as I begin to teach it. I used horizons when my oldest was in K and I didn't feel like I had to teach at all. He could just do the workbook completely on his own. RS is not at all like that!

 

One thing about RS that my son did not like is the way they are told to count numbers. Twenty is called two ten, thirty is called three ten, and so on. He just wanted to say the numbers as we normally would. There were definitely some battles with that!

 

Also, while RS is visual in the sense of using an abacus and manipulatives, there are not many worksheets that correspond with the lessons. I think my son really needs to see what is being taught on paper. Because of this I have begun to work in some math mammoth worksheets along with the Singapore 1a workbook.

 

I have decided to continue on and give RS B a chance (I already own it), but I am not sure if I will stick it out. So far out of horizons, math mammoth, RS, and Singapore, I like Singapore the best!

[Micron4]

I have been using RSB this year with my DD6. I'll start out by saying that I am a college math professor. About 60-70% of my classes come in with a great fear and disdain for math, accompanied of course by deficient math skills. Most have not received a good foundation in basic math concepts, and at the college level things move so quickly that they are justified in being anxious.

 

That being said, I have a strong drive to make sure my children have a good foundation in math. Right Start has been a good fit for my very wiggly dd6. It does require intensive teaching time--this is not a "do your worksheet while I get other things done" type of curriculum. Many of the lessons are done orally. A lot is done through manipulatives and games. Math is a core competency, however, that can help every area of life. I feel like my time is well-invested.

 

Other things to consider:

 

--the sequence of things taught seems unusual. Place value is introduced very early. In other words, my dd6 was learning how to add 2346 + 5783 (with manipulatives) prior to learning 10+7. Geometry concepts are (randomly) interspersed throughout. The sequence does not make sense to me, so it is somewhat a leap of faith trusting in Dr. Cotter's sequence.

 

--some lessons have two seemingly unrelated topics grouped together. For instance, a geometry lesson about parallel lines might be taught the same day as basic addition facts. Easily overcome, but slightly annoying.

 

--there doesn't seem to be enough built-in practice. Easy to solve--if I feel my dd6 needs add'l practice, I just handwrite some extra problems. I thought about supplementing with another math program (and I still might one day), but for now this is working for us (and saves me the trouble of having to find corresponding problems in another curriculum.)

 

Overall, I am very pleased with Right Start. It was the right choice for my dd6's personality and learning style.

[Micron4]

My concern: My 8yo is a very visual learner, with lots of focus issues, and is very non-auditory. He's bright, but if he doesn't have steady review he rapidly regresses. How does RS work with this kind of learner??? He is having a terrible time learning his upper math facts, so he'd place all the way back to RS level B.

 

IMHO Right Start does not have much built-in review. You would have to make sure you schedule time for math games. You could make copies of the worksheets or easily create your own.

 

My dd6 is very visual and enjoys activities with a hands-on component. The abacus, place-value cards, and base ten cards have been great for helping her understand possibly difficult math concepts. She is normally very wiggly and has a hard time sitting still and focusing, but when we do RS math she is highly engaged and sometimes begs for more.

[BrettW]

I love RightStart. My dd10 used Levels A-E and is now in RS Geometry. My ds8 in in the middle of RS C. I believe RS is giving both kids a very strong foundation. I agreed with a previous poster that at many points in the program you have to have faith in Dr. Cotter and just "go with it", even though you don't always understand the sequencing of the program.

 

That being said, I do believe, having almost completed the program, that it has some drawbacks. These include insufficient practice in word problems

as well as fractions/decimals/percents. After we finished level E, we did a six week review of fractions and decimals on our own. We still have percents to work on. So I'm finding a need to supplement in some areas. Other than these issues, I really believe that RS has been the right choice for our family.

[stm4him]

I found that the method of teaching with the abacus was what I loved; not necessarily the program. If I was going to spend that much time teaching I wanted it to be a very thorough program and I didn't feel Right Start was. I am not a game loving person so that only got done when they said to do it. So our way of still using the abacus and getting a thorough math program is to teach Saxon during the school year and to use Activities for the AL Abacus during the summer. We do one or two math activities from it per day and then some math fact drill. The book is only $20 if I remember correctly and each child's workbook for this is $25, but it lasts them from PreK-4th grade I would say. It doesn't teach the geometry concepts but I would say most if not all of those are covered in Saxon. If my child is struggling with something in Saxon or needs a different way to learn it I can just pull out the abacus and show them that way. In a way it is adding the visual piece to what they are learning in Saxon so that they can see something is true and not just know it b/c I told them in the lesson. I'm hoping it will reinforce what they've already learned or in some cases perhaps introduce something in a new way. I think with my fourth child who will start preK with me in the fall I may work in the summer to introduce things with the abacus and then reinforce them in the school year with Saxon and see if that makes any difference. All I know is the abacus makes a lot of sense to me but my kids are thriving with Saxon and tested one grade level ahead of the book they are on. I can teach each one in 25 minutes or less (doesn't count their independent work) and that's all the time I have! I found this to be a cheap and easy way to have my cake and eat it too!

[ForeverFamily]

We are using B this year .. not quite done with it yet though. This is our first experience with RS. I agree with the previous posters that it is very teacher intensive, but for us personally I don't mind that - my dd needs that at this age.

 

I like the way concepts are taught and I like that it teaches easy methods for mental math.

 

So far the only thing I do not like about it is that there is not enough review. Even with playing the games, I feel like there is not enough review. It seems to me like a concept is introduced, you do a couple lessons on it and then move on to the next concept.

 

I do plan on continuing with C next year, but I am adding in extra review with Math mammoth blue series as needed.

 

:iagree: My Dd did all of Level A and she is now half way through Level B. I love RightStart math. The only thing I don't like is the fact that there is not enough review. I don't like the fact that you only spend a couple of lessons on a topic and then move on to the next thing. My Dd usually understands the concept well after those couple of lessons but she will often forget it if we don't review. Now that my Dd is encountering some newer concepts I plan on being better with playing games and adding additional worksheets with MM. For what it is worth most of RS Level A and about 1/2 of B has been review for my Dd. Before this year she completed another K level math book (Christian Liberty Press Math). My Dd didn't have a good grasp on why addition and subtraction work but now that we are doing RightStart she has a much better understanding of math. I am so glad that we went back and completed RS A and I think the review was very good for her and completely worth it. So it may not be a bad idea to let your son start with Level B and move quickly through the concepts that he already understands and slow down on the ones he needs more work with.

 

I also agree with the fact that RS requires more time than some other math programs. With the math that we were previously using I would quickly explain the new concept to my Dd and then assign her a worksheet. With RS I am teaching almost the entire time and assign a worksheet some of the time (when RS prompts me to). It is much more teacher intensive but I feel that it is completely worth it. My Dd is learning so much more than she was before.

 

My visual learner does well with the abacus, place value cards, and base 10 tiles used in RS.

 

I love, love, :001_wub: level B but don't care as much for C, and switched my oldest to Singapore 3A rather than continue on with D & E. I plan to take my DS through the first part of C and then switch to Singapore.

 

Sorry this is a bit off topic. Crimson Wife what level of Singapore do you plan on using after switching your son from RS C to Singapore? I am contemplating doing the same thing.

[KirstenH]

Too many !#$%^& pieces.

[Homemama2]

Level C lessons seem to take a long time and this level kind of dragged for us w/ my oldest (my youngest loves math and we haven't had the same issues). I think levels D and E are similar to level B in lesson length (and enjoyment!)

 

The 'built in review' is the games. If you do not plan on doing the games regularly (which ended up being the case for us), then you need to supplement in another way. We do Calculadders starting in level C about 3 times per week. Fast, simple and gives them lots of math facts practice. I also added in Math Mammoth but that was more just b/c I liked it a lot too...and I'm slightly OCD about buying curriculum (multiple programs for every subject.):tongue_smilie: RS and MM work well together, but not everything is taught in the same sequence. I know I was trying to find a percents page in MM for extra practice that matched what we were learning in RS E (4th grade) and I found it in MM 5b (last half of 5th). I'm sure there are things that MM taught before RS as well.

 

There have been a few times, particularly in level B, where we had to stop doing lessons and just play the games for a week or two but when we went back to the lessons, everything 'clicked'.

 

ETA: we also work through Challenging Word Problems by Singapore during the summer. I use it a grade behind though, mainly b/c CWP introduced multiplication and division before RS.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Homemama2

[FairProspects]

Other things to consider:

 

--the sequence of things taught seems unusual. Place value is introduced very early. In other words, my dd6 was learning how to add 2346 + 5783 (with manipulatives) prior to learning 10+7. Geometry concepts are (randomly) interspersed throughout. The sequence does not make sense to me, so it is somewhat a leap of faith trusting in Dr. Cotter's sequence.

 

--some lessons have two seemingly unrelated topics grouped together. For instance, a geometry lesson about parallel lines might be taught the same day as basic addition facts. Easily overcome, but slightly annoying.

 

--there doesn't seem to be enough built-in practice. Easy to solve--if I feel my dd6 needs add'l practice, I just handwrite some extra problems. I thought about supplementing with another math program (and I still might one day), but for now this is working for us (and saves me the trouble of having to find corresponding problems in another curriculum.)

 

:iagree:The scope and sequence drove me nuts. It is so scattered that I completely lost sight of the big picture of how to teach math. I didn't realize which concepts needed to be taught when because there didn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for how they went together. I do love the emphasis on place value though. And it really bugged me that subtraction isn't taught until Level C. That seems like a huge discrepancy with other programs and normal expectations for those of us who have to test.

 

Also, this is probably heresy, but I can't stand the abacus. It is not a good visual representation for me at all in terms of understanding what a numbers are and how they relate to each other. It wasn't until I went to teach it a 2nd time that I realized it doesn't matter how wonderfully touted a math program is, or what results it is reported to produce if you hate teaching it!!

[Kirch]

I've used levels A and B, and right now I'm doing B for the second time and about halfway through C. I love RS; it does have its issues and challenges, but it's been worth putting up with them. But you asked for some specific negatives:

 

I agree with the "not enough review" crowd. The games are great, but unless you know them very well already and are super-organized, knowing which games to play and how much and when to play them to ensure that previously taught concepts weren't getting lost in the shuffle?? It was (and is still) a bit amorphous to me.

 

I also found that sometimes the conceptual leaps it asked ds to make (thinking level B here) were sometimes just right and sometimes waaaay too ambitious, requiring much more hand-holding and guidance than I was "supposed" to give, especially with some word problems.

 

There's a bit of a learning curve in teaching RS. I feel like I understand what I'm doing this second time through B since I've done it before. It often felt random or scattered the first time through, but usually I could look back after a few lessons and see why she did it the way she did. Now it's much easier to follow since I have a better idea of where we're going and why. I often wished she would've written some kind of a guide or explanation for the teacher that first time through, though. C has been easier to follow since I have more experience with how the curriculum works.

[bluedarling]

I really like the games and the abacus, and the general scope. However, I usually drop it due to it being time intensive for the teacher, lack of drill, and my children's desire to work more independently. I'm currently using B with my advanced 6yo...she loves it, but I did MUS Alpha first and am using it as a break between alpha and beta. Its very enjoyable for her (but hard for me to find the time.) Around D my kids starting wanting to work more independently. If you use Rightstart, I suggest supplementing with Calculadder or a similar drill program. I do think it teaches mental math for kids who are able...one of my older kids is fabulous with mental math, and I credit Rightstart. The other two are dyslexic and have short term memory difficulty...they found Rightstarts mental math challenging, and didn't really retain it. Its a good program if you're teaching one younger child!! And its fun (most of the time).

--Deidre

[Crimson Wife]

Sorry this is a bit off topic. Crimson Wife what level of Singapore do you plan on using after switching your son from RS C to Singapore? I am contemplating doing the same thing.

 

He has actually been doing the Singapore textbook and Intensive Practice books along side Right Start. He started with Singapore 1A but after he had completed it, I didn't feel like he had as good a conceptual understanding as RS B had given his sister. So I started him in RS B and did Singapore 1B on days when I needed something a bit more independent for him to work on. He has finished Singapore 1B and I'm finishing up RS B with him while I wait on my order of Singapore 2A. Right now, I consider RS to be the "spine" since we're only doing part of Singapore.

 

My oldest placed into Singapore 3A after finishing RS C. Someone who switches after RS B would probably place into Singapore 2A.

[Crimson Wife]

Also, this is probably heresy, but I can't stand the abacus. It is not a good visual representation for me at all in terms of understanding what a numbers are and how they relate to each other.

 

But IIRC you love C-rods, no? For me personally, it's the other way around. I :001_wub: the RS abacus because it makes so much sense to me. C-rods, by contrast, make me :ack2:. Visualizing the number 8 as 5 yellow beads + 3 blue beads I understand. Visualizing the number 8 as a brown rod makes me :confused:

 

That's the great thing about HS, because as a teacher, I can go with the manipulatives that make logical sense to me.

[RoundAbout]

I love RightStart but to me the major drawback is that its time intensive. I also wish there was more prompting for the games within the lessons. My son is pretty mathy so I'm pretty lazy about pulling out the games unless the lesson says we should.

[blessedmom3]

I have a 7 1/2 yo son , non-auditory (VERY visual) , in the autism spectrum - Aspergers-. I loved the concepts in RS, but I hated how scripted it was. The concepts worked for him, but not for me as a teacher. So after selling RS, I just bought Activities for al abacus and worked through that, in combo with CLE math and Singapore. This was the best thing for him! He knows the facts to 20 very well and can do + and - up to 100 in his head very fast. So basically, I teach a la RS, including the RS abacus (which we still use almost everyday-LOVE it), but using a combo of CLE+Singapore. Activities for al abacus is also cheaper than the whole curriculum.

 

Best for non-auditory learners is to use lots of manips for every concept: abacus for facts,place value and coins, fraction tiles for fractions,base ten blocks for higher place value numbers. We don't use the RS abacus for higher numbers than 100,instead we use base ten blocks. My son needs the spiral and repetition in CLE , but used alone, I think it will be inefficient for him due to the lack of visual and manips.

[Joyful_Journey]

I used RS through level E with my oldest DD, but once I had 3 kiddos in RS I gave up and switched to Math Mammoth. It was taking me so long to get through 3 different levels of RS with 3 kids in one day. I liked how RS really taught understanding of math concepts, but there definitely was not enough review or word problems built in (I supplemented with a Daily Word Problems book). I also sometimes felt it was too narrow in the type of math concepts/problems covered. When we switched over to Math Mammoth, I definitely found gaps that I had to go back and cover since they were not previously covered in RS. I think it can be a very good program though if you can devote enough time to it each day and work in extra review either through greater use of the games and/or supplemental work sheets.

[angelmama1209]

I have an off the charts visual DD and we found that the tile work was SUPER distracting for her. She could. not. focus with the tiles. It is also SUPER teacher intensive and took the biggest chunk of our day. Finding the time to do it with littles underfoot is very frustrating.

[Porridge]

My visual learner does well with the abacus, place value cards, and base 10 tiles used in RS.

 

I love, love, :001_wub: level B but don't care as much for C, and switched my oldest to Singapore 3A rather than continue on with D & E. I plan to take my DS through the first part of C and then switch to Singapore.

what did you not liek about level C? We are trying to decide whether to buy level C (we are finishing B) or just switch to Singapore. I feel like singapore is "utilitarian math" and Right Start is the aesthetic side of math.  Straight singapore was a bit too dry for my daughter - she enjoyed mixing things up with Right Start, especially all the geometry that they introduce early on.

 

Does Level C still have the "fun" side of math?

[mothergooseof4]

My ds cried when we pulled it out.  There are tons of manipulatives, which he hated since he is a hands off kid.  He is also an independent worker.  He needs a quick explanation, then just wants to be left alone to work.  The lessons with me were long, and he would just keep asking me to give him a worksheet so he could move on.  To sum up his learning style, he needs a short direct instructional period with a teacher, then he wants to work independently.  He never enjoys anything hands on and sees it as a waste of his time.  He would prefer to learn by reading than doing.

 

He gets it honest....from me.  I, too, hated the RS lessons and felt we could learn the same way in a much more direct manner, and I have a degree in a math field.

[Jess4879]

We bought RS B with full intentions of using it.  Trouble is, I loved the *idea* more than the actual curriculum.  After going through the book and walking through some lessons, I knew it wasn't for us.  As others have said, the layout was just way too scattered for us and I didn't know what I could and couldn't skip.  I felt like a slave to the curriculum and I don't like that.  I am a tweaker. 

 

I read other people's comments about it being teacher intensive and I figured "hey, it's elementary math.  I'm ok with teacher intensive."  but....not so much.  RS is REALLY teacher intensive.  I didn't want to sit there every,single.lesson of every.single.day.  I prefer something where we can work through a lesson and a few samples together and then my kiddo has a chance to work through some problems solo. 

 

We moved on quickly.  That being said...I still have RS sitting on my shelf.  I have trouble letting go....lol

[Haiku]

We used it through C with my dd and through B with my son. 

 

Things I didn't like:

 

1) The cost

2) The lessons jumping around so much

3) The lack of long-view presented to the parent/teacher (Some of the stuff didn't make any sense until later in the program, and I would have liked the whys and wherefores explained as we went along)

4) The sloth-on-quaaludes pace (This was why we chucked it for dd; we got near the end of C, dd was chomping at the bit to do division, I looked ahead into D and saw that it didn't start division until over 100 lessons in, and we bailed.)

5) The geometric drawing lessons in C that required way more fine-motor dexterity than most kids that age possess

6) The idea that if you go at the pace that RS recommends (which is impossible because some of the levels are supposed to take more than a year but you are supposed to finish 5 levels by the end of 4th grade) you're supposedly ready for VideoText Algebra ... in 5th grade

 

There were things I liked about it, of course, and I think A and B gave my kids a solid base in mathematics, but it was not a good fit for us long-term.

[Haiku]

Oh, and I will say that when we switched to Math Mammoth, I felt like dd was accomplishing way more actual work in way less time than she did with RS. With RS she might do 10 problems in 40 minutes. With MM she probably did 25 or more problems in the same amount of time. I guess that is a perk or a drawback, depending on your viewpoint.

[waa510]

We love Rightstart, but I will agree with the pps in terms of its negatives. I will say, though, that many of those issues have been addressed in the second edition of the books. For instance, there are more lesson prompts to play the games, the lessons have been spread out more and shuffled so that C is not a behemoth and lessons that were to take 2-3 days now are scheduled for 1, there is more built in review, less non-developmentally appropriate conceptual stretches, actually using the manipulatives more than a scattered amount of times and their use being more meaningful and intentional, writing in teacher's notes of the long-term goals and objectives in the margins, etc.

 

The original series was written in 2000 (or was it 2001?) and she's used a lot of the con feedback to help structure and change her formatting in the second edition. I appreciate a curriculum provider who is willing to take a hard look at customer feedback to improve their product. I personally love the first edition but it's what I'm used to. ;) I work the RS booth at local conventions so you can pm me with further questions if you want, OP.

 

I think RS would work well for your son, as my youngest is more visual and not as auditory and she loves it more than big sis!

[GailV]

We've used all levels, in some cases (D, E, and Geometry -- we got the Geometry years ago when it was just being printed) more than once.

 

I dislike Level A -- I think it's useless.

 

I also strongly dislike that Yellow Is the Sun song, which I think is even more useless.

 

(The OP is past those 2 things.)

 

I disliked playing the card games with dd #2 because I felt like I'd been there, done that already with older dd ... but, aha, older dd knew all the card games from her time through it, and thought it was fun to take a break and play with her sister on a regular basis.

 

I would've chosen slightly different manipulatives -- RightStart's are based on Montessori, but they're not quite as cool as some of the Montessori stuff.  On a related note, I'm peeved that I never had an excuse to purchase a binomial cube http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomial-cube.htm or a trinomial cube http://www.infomontessori.com/sensorial/visual-sense-binomial-cube.htm.   I have a weakness for math manipulatives, by the way, and that's one reason RIghtStart was right up my alley. 

 

I loved the geometry scattered throughout (older dd has mentioned how easy high school geometry was for her because of RightStart).  

 

The sequence actually made sense to me, but that might be because I had considered pulling together my own Montessori-style program with some overtones of Liping Ma, which is sort of what RightStart is (this is also why I felt comfortable veering off-script -- I could see what the script was trying to accomplish, and decide it I wanted to do it a different way).

 

To this day I reflect on many of the things I learned about teaching math while using RightStart -- the idea that a few well-designed problems can be much more valuble than a page-full of drill, the idea that the child can choose the algorithm that makes sense for them, the idea that some people have an internal view of math problems that others do not (which is why she presents so many possible ways to solve problems), the idea that math should be something that people talk about.

 

Younger dd did not like the Geometry level -- she thought is was confusing.  I'm not sure it even exists anymore in the same form we have it in.

[Mom0012]

I haven't read all the replies, but I loved levels A and B and much of C.  We quit when we had about 10 or 15 lessons left in C.  At that point, I felt like my dd wasn't getting enough systematic written practice.  I know the worksheets are supposed to meet that need, but without having them scheduled in, I kind of felt lost about what I should use with her.  We switched to CLE at that point and her standardized scores skyrocketed.  I still don't regret using RS in the early years because it gave her a great foundation.

[blondchen]

--the sequence of things taught seems unusual. Place value is introduced very early. In other words, my dd6 was learning how to add 2346 + 5783 (with manipulatives) prior to learning 10+7. Geometry concepts are (randomly) interspersed throughout. The sequence does not make sense to me, so it is somewhat a leap of faith trusting in Dr. Cotter's sequence.

 

--some lessons have two seemingly unrelated topics grouped together. For instance, a geometry lesson about parallel lines might be taught the same day as basic addition facts. Easily overcome, but slightly annoying.

 

--there doesn't seem to be enough built-in practice. Easy to solve--if I feel my dd6 needs add'l practice, I just handwrite some extra problems. I thought about supplementing with another math program (and I still might one day), but for now this is working for us (and saves me the trouble of having to find corresponding problems in another curriculum.)

I agree with all of this. Except DD had learned to add 10+7 in Level A. Level B repeats everything from A, but not necessarily right at the beginning. And I have found myself wanting extra worksheets sometimes since DD loves to do worksheets and RS doesn't have very many.

 

In spite of any negatives (which are minor) both DD6 and I are LOVING Level B. The method for teaching place value is just fantastic, and DD is really "getting" numbers.

 

I dislike Level A -- I think it's useless.

LOL! I have found myself thinking the same thing about Level A. For others (besides the OP) wondering about RS, Level A is totally optional. Everything is done again in B. I can't say I'm sorry we did it, because it gave us something fun for K math (Level B would have been too much for DD at that age) and we were able to skip a bunch of Level B lessons at the beginning. But overall I thought Level A was waaaaaaay to spiral and the scope and sequence made no sense to me at all. Level B is soooo much better in that regard.