I, myself, have sometimes given the textbook to ds(nearly 10) and it has worked out fine. He was able to do the workbook problems independently afterward. I wouldn't do it every day, but it is a very clearly-written textbook. I think it could work well for those kids interested in "getting on with it." At least SOMEtimes.
Oh I agree that it
can work, but I wouldn't
depend on it working.. if that makes any sense! A good teacher can make either curriculum work very reliably, but a bad teacher (or an uninvolved teacher) could make it much more difficult for either curriculum to teach what it's meant to teach.
Singapore in particular assumes that there's some drill going on outside of the regular work. Some kids won't need much, and that's not a problem, but some kids will need quite a bit, and if it's not added in as needed then they're not getting it. kwim?
I'm mainly reacting to people who drop any curriculum (not just math) because it required the teacher to work with the books, to add in where something more was needed, and to understand the concepts well enough to explain. My point is only that if you have a teacher who is involved, who does know where to supplement, and who understands math, the curriculum is much less important (although I still have preferences). If you're trying to make up for an uninvolved teacher, or one that doesn't understand math, you end up relying on the curriculum to be near-perfect, and near-perfect for every kid in the class.... which is some pretty high standards!
