Most of your edits are fine. Thank you for restoring previous edits in a non-POV way which I think is acceptable. Most of the article is fine. I will just question two points. First I am not sure what you have accomplished by suppressing the publishers' understanding of the Singapore Math method. You may disagree with them, but it is still valid in a Wikipedia article to report what the publisher believes about their own work. I actually agree with much of your evaluation, but in order to keep Wikipedia neutral, our opinions should not be used to decide what to report and what not to report. The publisher's own description of their books should be included in this article. Perhaps you could write it in a way that makes it more clear that this is the publisher's own (and perhaps biased) opinion?

Second, if you suppress the reason why the National Math Panel believes Singapore Math to be exemplary, you should delete the entire reference to this fact. You may disagree with the Math Panel's thinking, but the fact is that this (and Singapore's success on international tests) is the only reason Singapore Math was cited in their report. By deleting what the Math Panel said leaves the reader under the impression that the Math Panel reviewed Singapore Math (they did not) and are in agreement with all of the features of Singapore Math. Their precise statement was, "The Singapore standards (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2006) provide an established example of curriculum standards designed to develop proficiency in a relatively small number of important mathematics topics, as validated by a recent analysis (Ginsburg et al., 2005)."