Rightstart level C 2nd edition reviews? vs. 1st ed. or Singapore

[konglish]

I'm hoping to get some information about RS Level C 2nd edition, especially compared to the 1st edition and/or Singapore Standards 2A/B.  We are more than halfway through level B 2nd edition and I'm trying to decide whether to continue with C, or switch to Singapore.  I've been very happy with how Rightstart introduces and builds on a concept, and with my DD7's conceptual understanding and mental math skills.  She doesn't like using the abacus though (even though she finds it useful).  I am mostly a big fan of RS so far, but my biggest beef is that it is hard to accelerate.  I noticed that in the Singapore Standards ed. HIG, it will mention what was covered in previous levels or what will be covered in future levels.  With RS, I'm just not sure what will be covered in the next level, which makes me nervous about skipping or condensing material (especially since RS sometimes has a unique methodology).  People seemed to criticize the first edition of level C for having too much geometry and taking about 1.5 years to complete--is that still the case for the second edition?  So if anyone can share their experience with the 2nd ed. of level C, or even better, compare/contrast it to the 1st ed. or Singapore 2, I'd much appreciate it!

 

Warmly,  Konglish

 

p.s.  Did anyone bail on Rightstart and switch to Singapore and regret it?  Why?  Thanks!

 

 

[Kiara.I]

I have Level B 1st and 2nd, but only 2nd for Level C, so I can't exactly compare them--and I've never used Singapore at all.

But we *have* completed 2nd C, (all but the last 9 lessons now) so I can at least tell you about it.

 

It's designed to take a year, and we found that to be the case.  We could have completed it slightly quicker if I'd been a bit more scheduled.  It has 140 lessons though you won't likely need to do the first 6, because they're review/transition lessons.  The last 8 lessons are the same kind of review then assessment lessons you found in B.

 

I don't know what "too much geometry" is.  ;)  There is a geometry component in Level C, certainly.  There are some drawing lessons.  I think they're useful.  I'm sure some children will love them, some will dislike them, like most things.  I don't see how it's a problem including it, I guess.  I've always wondered why parents complained about having geometry included.  Do they think it takes time away from fact learning or something?  I don't know.  I see it teaching how to follow directions, what happens when directions aren't followed, as well as a lot of spatial math concepts and a ton of vocabulary.  I think it's a great section!

 

Not knowing what comes next:  Well, you can see the table of contents online I think.

I actually found it easy to accelerate when I knew that my child knew the topic well.  I'd just skim through the day and pick out a couple of review things or the one new concept, and a couple of times we did multiples lessons in one day, just by skimming through.  I didn't do that often though, as there's usually something new.

 

I'm not sure how much you're looking to accelerate it.  If you have a 7-year-old going into Level C that seems about on time.

[Jackie]

I can't compare, as I don't have the other things you're asking about. We are currently about 2/3 through RS 2nd Ed Level C.

 

I'm not loving it the way I did for level B. I actually found B pretty easy to accelerate, compacting 2-4 lessons into one at times. However, I've found C harder to compact. There is lots of geometry, but I think that's kind of awesome. Unfortunately, I'm using it with an accelerated child whose fine motor skills are behind her academic skills and we had to abandon a number of the geometry lessons due to the intensive, precise drawing involved. C heavily uses addition tables and subtraction tables, which my child finds less intuitive and less useful than the typical RS manipulatives.

 

I intend to switch to Beast Academy and therefore have no interest in switching to something else in between. We'll wrap up C and move on. We'll get through C in well under a year.

[kateingr]

I used RS halfway through level C (first edition) for my son, then switched to Singapore. RightStart B gave him such a good foundation in math that C felt too easy for him. Even though there was new material, he grasped it quickly and then was itching for more challenge. At that point, I wasn't looking to necessarily go faster through the math, but the spiral format made it hard to make the material more difficult or in-depth for him.  

 

So, I switched him to Singapore 2A. He used the textbook along with Intensive Practice and the Challenging Word Problems. This provided a better level of challenge and also allowed him to transition to working a little more independently than he did with RightStart. He did 2A and 2B and then went into Beast Academy 3A (which he was well-prepared for). So, no regrets here on switching. :) Jackie's plan on finishing C and then going to Beast makes a lot of sense, too. 

[konglish]

Thanks for everyone's replies!  After thinking about Kiara's post last night, I realized one of my main concerns about continuing with Rightstart is falling further and further behind a standard scope and sequence.  We switched to RS in the middle of first grade, so I already feel half a year "behind."  I try to finish a lesson in 30 min., and sometimes I have to split a lesson up over two days, especially if there are games.  So it feels like we are moving slowly.  I should probably figure out how to cut out some of the review or condense the material, but I'm not sure how.  Suggestions?  Also, is she supposed to have mastered the material before moving on, or was this just an introduction?  That is the part I like about the Singapore HIG's.  If I remember correctly, they might state when a student is supposed to have mastered their addition facts to 20, etc.  When I saw that the reviews of level C first edition said that it took a lot of people 1.5 years to get through it, I got nervous.  I don't want to be finishing up level D in 6th grade. :)  But I also don't want to trade good conceptual understanding for checking the box on material covered.  She gets it with Rightstart, and I don't know if I am able to teach Singapore to the same degree of understanding.

 

Thanks, Konglish

[athomeontheprairie]

I'll share my experience and thoughts. First, I've used A-E and my oldest just started G (not far enough yet to give it a review).

I'm hoping to get some information about RS Level C 2nd edition, especially compared to the 1st edition and/or Singapore Standards 2A/B.  We are more than halfway through level B 2nd edition and I'm trying to decide whether to continue with C, or switch to Singapore.  I've been very happy with how Rightstart introduces and builds on a concept, and with my DD7's conceptual understanding and mental math skills.  She doesn't like using the abacus though (even though she finds it useful). If she understands the concepts without the abacus, I wouldn't have her use it. I would go back to the abacus to introduce a new concept or if she was struggling with a current problem. But really, if she doesn't want it and can compute it correctly, then move on.  I am mostly a big fan of RS so far, but my biggest beef is that it is hard to accelerate. I don't have a manual in front of me, but I think this information is in the front of each book. Maybe not necessarily by the lesson, but by the quarter.  I noticed that in the Singapore Standards ed. HIG, it will mention what was covered in previous levels or what will be covered in future levels.  With RS, I'm just not sure what will be covered in the next level, which makes me nervous about skipping or condensing material (especially since RS sometimes has a unique methodology).  RS is unique in it's scope and sequence. If she's doing well, I wouldn't try and fix something that isn't broken.Dr Cotter has a well thought out program. The only thing that makes *me* nervous is that it ends and moving into something else. People seemed to criticize the first edition of level C for having too much geometry and taking about 1.5 years to complete--is that still the case for the second edition?  For us, it wasn't that there was too much, it was that it needed to be SO PRECISE. And that's fine, but for a young student, she couldn't be AS perfect as RS wanted her to be. What I dd was skim the entire section (from review to review) and determine what the purpose of the lesson was. I made special note of what skills were included in the reviews and warm-ups. Maybe a geometry unit lasted 8 days, we may have only done two days-condensed. THIS WAS FINE. If she knew HOW to make the shapes and understood the math, then we moved on. I likely only dropped a dozen lessons (or combined concepts with another lesson). The program only took us a year. So if anyone can share their experience with the 2nd ed. of level C, or even better, compare/contrast it to the 1st ed. or Singapore 2, I'd much appreciate it! I dont' have any experience with either, but maybe this helps?

 

Warmly,  Konglish

 

p.s.  Did anyone bail on Rightstart and switch to Singapore and regret it?  Why?  Thanks! I would love to know this also.

[Jackie]

Thanks for everyone's replies! After thinking about Kiara's post last night, I realized one of my main concerns about continuing with Rightstart is falling further and further behind a standard scope and sequence. We switched to RS in the middle of first grade, so I already feel half a year "behind." I try to finish a lesson in 30 min., and sometimes I have to split a lesson up over two days, especially if there are games. So it feels like we are moving slowly. I should probably figure out how to cut out some of the review or condense the material, but I'm not sure how. Suggestions? Also, is she supposed to have mastered the material before moving on, or was this just an introduction?

 

 

A few thoughts...

 

The most recent version of RS is aligned with Common Core, so while it does things differently from other programs, it is not behind. I actually find that Level C covers a good bit more multiplication and fractions than I would expect compared to many second grade programs. Also, version 2 is different from version 1 in the pacing. V1 is intended to have the parent stretch lessons out as long as needed to cover the concept. V2 is meant to have one lesson per day unless your child is struggling. Because of this, V1 was meant for some levels to take well over a year whereas V2 is meant for each level to take one school year (140 lessons would be 140 school days plus 40 extra school days for times you need to let an idea work into your child's brain.)

 

As for condensing and accelerating, we did that in several ways for my math-intuitive child. First off, we played games as a separate part of our day, so time spent on lessons was done in the morning and time spent on the games was part of our "fun time" in the afternoon.

 

My daughter didn't typically need the review at the beginning of each lesson and we skipped it entirely until about halfway through Level C, when she started needing it. (The exception in B coming when there were several worksheets with 4-digit addition as part of the review. We did those.) Same with the wrap-up questions at the end; I did them only when they seemed to add something.

 

If you look at the lessons in RightStart, there is something of a pattern. A topic will be just barely introduced in 1-3 lessons, then the book will move on to something else for a while, then come back to the previous topic for several more in depth lessons. During the first introduction, you just need to get the concept started and percolating in your child's brain. Then when it covers it fairly in depth over 6-12 lessons, there is more expectation of mastery. Again, often in the last couple lessons of the in depth section, it introduces a new concept but then moves on and will come back to that later.

 

For condensing lessons, I usually looked at those groups of consecutive lessons that are on the same topic. Sometimes one lesson's concept led so clearly to the next lesson's concept that it felt more natural to teach them together. Sometimes my daughter would make the leap herself and I would realize she already understood the next couple lessons so I would work on the details with her and move on.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't condense or accelerate it much unless a child was making intuitive leaps and grasping the concepts easily and naturally. I would be more inclined to do the program as written, with extra math games. I would especially use math games during any longer school break to minimize information loss and get facts down pat. You'll find that if your child understands Level B and doesn't forget it all, there are a bunch of lessons in C that you'll be able to skip - they're straight review and repeat of things learned in B.

[eternallytired]

I loved RS-B for both of my older two, but so far C hasn't been a good fit for either.

 

ODS is very intuitive about math.  I found C to have waaaay too much review for him.  He didn't need to be re-taught the algorithm for long addition problems step-by-step just like B had done; he already understood it.  He intuitively applied the addition algorithm to subtraction, so that didn't need to be taught.  For him I skipped everything that was review (a lot!) and ended up doing two or three lessons worth of material most days.  I was surprised that he was capable of doing the precise geometry on his own, and I found the geometry pretty ingenious.  We did those lessons one-a-day because they were so persnickety; we did ditch the last couple just because he was getting fatigued with all the precise drawing day after day.  Otherwise I'd look at what the next couple lessons were trying to teach, see how much he understood (often giving him a sample problem and seeing what he could do), and teach anything he didn't yet know, assigning just enough problems to ensure he understood each concept.  After finishing C in something like 2 months, he moved on to Beast Academy 3, which is perfect for him.

 

DD was a perfect fit for RS as far as pacing was concerned.  She didn't need all their review (I often skipped the start-of-lesson review and didn't do the games every time), but otherwise the way the topics built on each other was perfect for her.  Unfortunately, she was frustrated by the use of games in RS.  She enjoyed them in B, but by C she just really wanted to see exactly what she needed to accomplish and get 'er done...but so much of RS is the games.  Midway through C, she was prickly at the very thought of math, so I decided to stop her and switch to Singapore.  She loves the cutesy aspects of Singapore--the cartoony drawings, the fact that many worksheets are puzzles.  (I'm still using the RS manipulatives to teach her any new concepts, though!)  I backed up to 2A because I wanted math to feel easy initially so she'd rebuild her confidence and love of it.  (She really does like it, but she got convinced that she didn't and that she was terrible at it.)  I find Singapore to be way too repetitive and simple for her.  (We're nearly done with 2A after 2.5 mos of doing only a page or two--not a complete lesson, which is generally 3-4 pages--per day, skipping when it gets too repetitive.)  Unfortunately, the Intensive Practice books pretty much do away with the cutesy stuff that she likes, so I've decided just to keep going as we are.  I plan to have her do at least 2B and 3A before trying Beast.  She isn't a fan of struggling, but I'm hoping she'll have the maturity for a bit of struggle in another year or so. 

 

FWIW, RS's content isn't too far off Singapore's.  Singapore reviews place value and works on long addition and subtraction and multiplying by 2 and 3 in level 2A, as well as doing a bit with measurement and capacity.  2B has some more addition and subtraction, more multiplication and division, and money.  So I guess Singapore hits multiplication/division harder, but I think if the concept is already understood/established like RS does, then the facts won't be hard to pick up.

[konglish]

I can't tell you how helpful these replies have been.  Thank you!  I appreciated the specific tips on how to modify to find the best fit for my particular student, like previewing the material to see what skills are to be taught, seeing how much my kid already understands, skipping warm-up review/games if not needed, etc.  Jackie, I hadn't realized the pattern for the introduction of topics, so thank you for pointing that out!  My daughter will also be glad that I got "permission" not to use the abacus if she understands the concept and can do it without it. :)  It was interesting to see how different kids moved through the same material in different ways.  I'm going to pay more attention to how my DD is interacting with the material and try to make some modifications for the best fit.

 

Thanks for everyone's help!

 

Warmly,

 

Konglish