If you graduated before they implemented this or aren’t American, the system they started to use to teach kids how to read is called three cuing. They teach kids to identify unknown words by guessing based on clues in pictures with the sentences, what word would ‘make sense’, and whether the answer they came up with looks right based on the first letter.
As you may have noticed, none of that is reading a word. These are strategies that borderline illiterate people will use to try to understand words, and for decades it’s been the method used by many schools across the country.
So that person you’re arguing with online who keeps going off on bizarre rants barely related to anything you said might not be a troll, they might just be functionally illiterate due to having never been taught to read. Yaaay!
I genuinely believe that this and the ‘common core’ math stuff are intentional measures to dumb down a population. Not really sure what to do about it though
Common core math is how high performers in math tend to already approach math concepts. The controversial examples focused on “number sense” do instill good habits and instincts for error correction (especially important in the age of calculators and computers), and don’t detract from the importance of the actual mathematical operations. Either way, common core math curriculum as a whole is good, and continues to be a good set of goals for learning math. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the argument that the math standards are too high and leave some kids behind, but that’s less a problem with the standard and more a problem with our ability to get kids up to that perfectly reasonable standard, of what we should hope that all adults should know.
The main criticisms of common core that I sympathize with are that they deemphasize the humanities too much, but that’s not exactly a problem with the math standards themselves.
My only real exposure is helping friends kids with their homework, and it really seemed like they were focused way more on shortcuts to correct answers for simple problems than how and why numbers interact. Which I guess is kinda what you’re saying! Imo those are great techniques for working at a higher level, but in no way a substitute for observing and understanding the processes that lead to those answers. You’ll get plenty of competent accountants that way, but you won’t inspire many mathematicians.