why did this get moved!?! The reason I made a separate thread is because this monstrous one is unruly and ineffective for finding information :mad: I was hoping for an answer, but over here feels like being in a black hole. Hope someone can answer my question, which I will restate just in case you missed it on the previous page: Can anyone tell me why you would need both First Language Lessons and Writing With Ease for 1st grade when PHP's website even says "The only book you need to teach grammar and writing for first and second grade" about First Language Lessons?

Do you tithe on the tax rebate/stimulus check? No - but I tithe gross earnings. Do you tithe on money left to you after your mother's death? haven't had to think about this before, but I would say yes Do you tithe on money given by a church member to help with medical bills? Hmmm... don't know Is all of this "increase" or do you just count "paychecks"? Not just paychecks, tithes used to be paid in goats and sheaves and whatever else you increased in, so I consider other things part of our increase. Where do you turn for answers to these questions? Prayer. My philosophy is "what will it hurt if I DO pay tithes on this?" - nothing, since I'm promised my needs will be met if I do.

1) no - neither a a best boyfriends' house. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy 2) no way - hormones and rational thinking are too at of sync at this age. The longer time they spend together worse. It's like the frog in the pot of water analogy.

Was this the intent?

:confused1: I was thinking FLL might be enough as well. But if so, why develop WWE? bumping in hopes someone has a definitive answer

:confused1: I was thinking FLL might be enough as well. But if so, why develop WWE? bumping in hopes someone has a definitive answer

:iagree: Good point! There is definitely a place for demonstration, but the "wow" factor isn't an end in and of itself. When you want to teach a particular concept, especially in a classroom where you aren't always discussing phenomena that you see with your kids, there is something very useful about demonstrating something interesting. It sparks questions: Why does the potato shrivel? Will other things shrivel? Will sugar work the same way salt does? That reminds me of when my feet get "prune-y" in the bathtub - I wonder if it's for the same reason? If the natural scientists in the students have been cultivated then they are able to make observations, ask questions, possibly hypothesize, and hopefully experiment on their hypothesis (test it out). But unless the students are confident in science as a process (they've been taught, guided, and had a chance to develop these skills) then all they see is the shriveled potato. Osmosis is only a hard word to spell, that they had to memorize a definition for, but has no connection to the potato, the prune-y feet, or (later) cellular function, chemical reactions, medical technology, or anything else.

You know your kids best, and can tell better than any if she's burned out/what she needs. If you do decide to do intro this year, and chem in 10th grade, then you would still be able to do a year of physics and a year of earth science or advanced biology (if you are choosing between the two I recommend advanced biology or anatomy and physiology). That doesn't sound like the end of the world to me. Here's something to consider in making your decision. Chemistry is very different than Biology, especially at a high school level. There is a lot more mathematical and spatial reasoning and problem solving in chemistry, and a little less memorization. If your DD does really well with math (algebra in particular), then chemistry may be easier for her than biology was. I hope you come to a decision that will work best for your family. :001_smile:

I didn't ready EVERY post in the sticky thread above about WWE (too many, and it began to add to my confusion). Can anyone tell me why you would need both First Language Lessons and Writing With Ease for 1st grade when PHP's website even says "The only book you need to teach grammar and writing for first and second grade" about First Language Lessons?

We've only recently acquired Singapore and Miquon, so we're only a short way into 1A and Orange (so far they line up alright). But here is a link with the activities correlated between the two programs I was planning to use. http://www.singmath.com/SM_Miquon.htm HTH

I have always been able to find great books for my DD - or maybe she just likes everything. But I keep striking out with DS. He loves to look through books on his own, and sometimes likes to be read to - but the pictures are the story to him. He'll point at a picture and say "read this." He's a wiggler (jumper/bouncer, actually) and the only time I seem to get him to sit and listen for a fair amount of time is when he doesn't have a choice (strapped in car seat listening to audiobook). He likes typical boy things - cars, trains, planes, knights (princesses, too), and is starting to show interest in super heroes, dinosaurs, and sports. So I need to find books with engaging illustrations so he will sit for the read-alouds. With that in mind, does anyone have a book(s) they'd like to recommend? :001_unsure: TIA!

I agree that we are not learning enough science - but I think the reason is rather complex. One issue is the sheer volume of scientific knowledge (which is ever growing). One issue is pseudo-science and incorrect information that is disseminated in the media and even in classrooms. There is also a deficiency in teacher training (even at the college level). Another issue (and this is my big concern) is a lack of ability to understand science, the body knowledge, (and contribute to it) because we aren't fluent in science, the pursuit.

I haven't been able to see it, really. I saw the samples on his online, which interest me, but I would like to see more of it. I have seen online a couple of reviews on HSers blogs, plus the few on Amazon, and I wish there were more (I guess it really hasn't been around long enough for substantial reviews - 8 months). It's been in my Amazon shopping basket for weeks now. I should probably purchase it, seeing as it claims to be very much like what I am looking for. I think it is good science (accurate) because he also teaches at the college level and writes textbooks. I am particularly interested in his chapter about teaching according to how students learn - there are many models, and the widely-accepted Piaget model is generally refuted in science education professionals. I promise when (if) I get the book I will post a review.:thumbup1: Anyone out there used Nebel's book for a while? Can you give us a review?

I haven't heard of AIMS, I'll have to look into it. Here are some things I like, but nothing on its own, so I think I am going to patchwork a curriculum for us: The Private Eye - develops observation skills, creative thinking about those observations, and is cross-curricular (we already have this book and loupes, and I like it a lot, easily used k-12). Several Products from Critical Thinking Company - right now I know I want to use Mind Benders as warm-up questions to develop deductive reasoning. I wasn't impressed with Developing Critical Thinking Through Science (I looked through it at the HS convention). I did purchase Hands On Thinking Skills for my wiggly willy to use. Something similar is using attribute blocks to do analogies. I have a bunch of activity and experiment books that I can go to when I need a great way to explain or demonstrate a concept. And of course, there's always the internet. I am using some materials from a science teacher training course I assisted with one summer for middle level (logic) sciences which uses something called the Learning Cycle Model. This is for a classroom setting, but I can think of ways of adapting it. I will use some other things from when I was a science teacher as well, including Benchmarks for Science Literacy and a lot of things from NSTA (national science teachers association). These include books on integrating science, literature, math, and social studies as well as on prompting inquiry-based investigations with great picture books. One NSTA resource I find particularly useful in HSing (here's for all you CMers) is a listing of outstanding trade books (literature not meant as a text) in science. I am also planning on using a lot of games and toys to help develop thinking skills necessary for science. Some that I think are really good are SET, tangrams (any kind), marble runs/ramps (here's one I drool over), LEGOs, and some real traditional things (I want to look at this book) Here are some other links people may find of interest in developing their science curriculum, or even in just developing a style of science instruction and learning. The Exploratorium in San Fransisco has a nice page about what Inquiry-based science is (it isn't just doing lots of "labs" to learn, much more than that). I LOVE the Exploratorium - anyone in Northern California should visit it!!! Here's another decent page about science inquiry. Acron Naturalist is a great store. I haven't ordered from here yet, but is geared to HSers. Discovery Education has a databank of science lessons, I haven't been through them all, but it is nice to have a resource of them to use when teachable moments arise. And of course there is a myriad of educational shows and books I want the kids to have easy access/exposure to. Love the library (and Netflix)! Oh, and the zoos/aquaria, museums, and field trips... this is where I think I may have even more fun than the kids :willy_nilly: My problem is I haven't found any curriculum that does what I want. I have these resources, and I have a rough idea of what I picture a science curriculum for HS should really look like. I even have the background and training (a degree in Zoology and later a degree in Science Teaching, plus teaching experience in many different settings). But I don't know if I have the time to really invest in piecing it all together to become uesful curriculum for a busy HSing day (so that it is more "pick-up-and-go"). So if I can't find the curriculum I want, do I create my ideal science curriculum for grammar stage, or do I settle for something less than what I want (someone else's curriculum)???

Congratulations! It looks really thorough, and I like how you both combine tings and have independent curricula for your kids. I am looking into AAS, as well.

100 Easy Lessons may not be what you need then (though it works great, and we like it, it is a wee bit on the dry side). Headsprout is quite playful! I have only checked out the sample lessons, but there is a measure of instruction, then the child has a task to perform ("click on all the 'T's") which is how the game is advanced (for each correct click one of the characters gets closer to his goal). I am not sure if I am ready for my 3yo to be on the computer regularly, but he really likes the lessons.

Big, nice, san serif are all fine, but something about comic sans makes me gag. No, there were other things about the design, layout, even the printing and paper that bothered me. But that isn't the real reason I didn't like it - it just seemed to be the same old "read, recipe, report" - expecting that children will assimilate scientific process merely by copy-catting.

:iagree: This is what I mean about content being only a sampling that is really used to demonstrate/teach science process. They don't need to know a stamen from a stigma from a style. They need to know how to look closely at things to find greater meaning/understanding. They need to wonder and question and be encouraged to try to answer those questions in a scientific way (and be directed to reliable resources for definitive or complex answers) for similar reasons. I absolutely love science-based shows (everything from NOVA to Bill Nye) because they spark interest, deliver content, and are more accessible to young students who are still developing readers. And I love magazines like National Geographic Kids (I'll have to check out Kids Discover, talexand). We are "sciencey" - I have a degree in Zoology and another in Secondary Science Education and have taught science in various capacities, DH is a doctor, and the kids are real "little scientists." We love taking the opportunities that come serendipitously (like the caterpillar DD found on the driveway, which we ID-ed, built a habitat for, experimented with different leaves for food, and are anxiously awaiting for it to emerge from its chrysalis). But those moments don't come consistently, and I would rather be prepared with something to steadily develop my kids abilities to "do" science (to watch, wonder, think, reason, experiment, explore) so that they can take advantage of those moments when they come. Thanks everyone who is contributing to this conversation. It is helping to put my finger on exactly what I want. It may be that I have to put this together myself from a variety of sources.

What exactly do you like about this program? I looked at the online samples, and then thumbed through it at the convention. It seemed pretty, well um... boring. I must admit, I am immediately prejudiced against anything using Comic Sans font (silly, I know, but to me it speaks to a lack of professionalism and sense of aesthetic). The gist I got was "read this text, follow these directions, fill in this lab sheet." I know other people have liked it to, so what about it do you "love"?

Just a thought, but it sounds like what many "gifted" kids behave like because their needs aren't being met. Here's a neat article that explains what I mean by that. I'm not one for labeling kids, but perhaps he falls in the gifted category, which isn't uncommon with Aspergers kids. Here's a curriculum link that may interest you (and your ds). I hear what you mean about structure. My kids are the same way - if it comes from another source then you do it, if it comes from mom then you roll your eyes, complain, drag your feet, and maybe do it. I can't say I am up to planning homeschool for you - I get too muddled trying to do my own. Good luck! If you find someone who does this, let us know ;)

Wow - I completely forgot about GEMS!!! I was familiar with them when I taught school (and I'm sure that subconsciously has some influence on my criteria now), but I guess I've let too many cobwebs grow in the attic. Thanks!! :hurray:

I guess I better say what I am looking for. I am looking for something that trains the mind to think scientifically. Science is both a process and a body of knowledge, and we tend to get hung up on the body of knowledge aspect, which is equally important to science but, by large measure, is beyond the understanding of (and relevance to) a young child. Content in the grammar stage is flexible (as long as it is correct) - it does not matter if you learn about butterflies in first grade, volcanoes in second, etc. It is a modicum serving the purposes of teaching scientific process. For me, science curriculum for grammar stage should teach and encourage careful observation, questioning, simple inquiry design, data collection and presentation, and guide students to construct meaning of all of this (extrapolate, predict, transfer knowledge, etc NOT to reconstruct the body of science knowledge on their own). And these things should not be a strict "experiment" to follow from a book, but rather a natural extension of the inquiring mind of the student ("why, Mom?"). The content used must also be scientifically sound, of interest to the student (essential in driving inquiry), and explorable. Just as we offer tastes of great literature to grammar students (with the promise of a feast later), and use it primarily to 1)exemplify the nuts and bolts of language (proper usage, spelling, structure, literary device, etc.) and 2) fill their heads with beautiful language, in science we should use content to 1) exemplify nuts and bolts of science (how the body of scientific knowledge is created) and 2) fill their minds with meaningful concepts. I've not found this yet. Someone commented she read about the failure of inquiry-based instruction. Three major reasons I see inquiry-based instruction would fail 1) the instructor needs to have a breadth and depth of scientific knowledge to facilitate inquiry-based instruction; 2) inquiry has been slapped on so many things as a selling point (because it is the crux of the National Science Education standards) when really they are the same old recipe-style "experiments" with a few added questions/options, therefore it isn't really inquiry-based and still not producing scientific literacy; and 3) the constraints of a classroom (facilities) full of kids (not conducive to careful guidance, nor to individual inquiry). I liked the request that the curriculum come with a scientist in the box:thumbup:

I would not use rigorous, strict, and tough as synonyms either. To me rigorous is like a great work-out - cross-training that gets your heart rate up and produces results. Tough is something that is suited to a higher level, but expected of someone not at that level yet (going with my workout metaphor, this would like weight lifting, only trying to do repetitions at your max-out weight). And strict just means inflexible and unwilling to adapt to a situation. I believe schooling should be rigorous, but not tough (this is the point you are demanding/expecting/pushing too much) nor strict. Strict is like what public school is - generally there is one way to do things and if you don't do it that way you won't succeed. Back to the original question. I think it is difficult to know. The obvious thing to say would be something like "I know it is too tough when my student is very frustrated and unable to do the task" but that could also be because of the teaching method, the teacher-student relationship, and a number of other things. I do think a rigorous curriculum can be fun, and hopefully is. I think only you as the parent/teacher can tell when it is "rigorous enough to produce positive results."

...for grammar stage?? I'm curious. I'm a secondary science teacher (biology, earth, and environmental sciences) and I LOVE science. But even I have been turned off by most every curriculum I have browsed so far (either DRY, or disjointed, or authoritative). I diverge from WTM when it comes to science in that I don't believe the "grammar" of science is found in its content (survey of the phyla of the animal kingdom, memorize the rock cycle, etc.). I believe the grammar of science is in science process. But most curricula are content-based, and there is little focus on science as a pursuit. Most have "labs" or "experiments" that are really just demonstrations given in cook-book fashion for the kids to follow. There isn't much in the way of inquiry. I know there are HS parents out there who like their science curricula, so tell me, just what do you look for?? What makes a science curriculum a winner in your homeschool? Does it need to be pick-up and go (easy for the non science type)? rigorous? fun (lots of cool "experiments")? gentle (no textbooks, living books, etc)? cheap? a particular world-view (old earth, young earth, creationist, secular)? integrated into your history/literature cycle? child-led? ????

Carolina Biological and Flinn Scientific were what I used as a science teacher. I haven't looked into them for HSing (need hasn't arisen yet). Acorn Naturalist (for field and interpretation-type equipment) is great! Forestry Suppliers is also a great company, and they do have lab (as well as field) equipment. Another option would be to buy from the chem or biology stockroom at a nearby college or university. They purchase things in bulk (cheap) and make them available to student (I'm sure they mark up, but I have used several university stockrooms and they were all less expensive than buying single items from Carolina Biological). There is also a place I came across, but can't give you any recommendations, just thought it may interest you because it is geared to home schoolers. http://www.hometrainingtools.com/