Hmmm I've read this whole thread and I missed the post where anybody said that; I certainly didn't. Oh well, it's been a long thread :). There is no "one size fits all" in math any more than in reading or any other subject, really. My objection is this race for all kids to think they have to get to X years of calc or think they won't get in to college. College admissions officers are not stupid. They are well aware of how many kids are in these classes who don't belong in them, and that yes, plenty of kids are testing well despite not knowing the subject material very well. It may help make the first cut, but in subsequent rounds of shuffling, there are other things that are looked at, and you'd be surprised at how many kids who don't push for all that stuff also make the first cut. Someone sounded panicked because she knew a kid with 10AP courses who didn't make it into Stanford or somewhere. It just might be because of the 10AP courses-- the college may well have been looking for something else in their selection process.

There is nothing wrong with using the IP (Intensive Practice) books with the Standards Edition, but they were designed for the US Edition, so the topics will line up with the US Edition. That is not a big deal if you are not using them "in line" with the program-- ie chapter by chapter. Many parents don't; they use them a semester or even a year behind, either as review, or because they find the IP books to be more of a challenge. I *only* mention it because there are some parents who are very compulsive about being "checkbox checkers" in terms of really wanting to do everything the way they perceive to be "right" in terms of design, and it would be upsetting to them to not be able to have the topics line up directly with the books. I personally use the IP books "in line" with the text, because sometimes we find the workbook too easy, and use the IP book problems instead, but I do not think that is the norm (and it is not the case for every chapter by a long shot, either-- sometimes I use it "in line" because my learner remembers better when he sees a topic multiple ways, and the IP book sometimes presents things just a shade differently, and that helps him retain it better). But many parents and kids successfully and happily use the IP books a semester, a chapter, or a year behind the regular text and workbook, and do well with that approach, without worrying about the topics lining up at all. For me, it is a benefit, but unless it bothers you for some reason, it does not need to be a dealbreaker; it is just information that the IP book topics do not line up with the Standards Edition in terms of order of presentation, and some topics in Standards will likely not be presented in the IP books at all.

:iagree: this is one reason why I love Singapore, Life of Fred (the first elementary book introduces basic algebraic concepts), and games such as Dragonbox. I also do not think a kid who is ready should be held back. But we are advancing into this "Lake Woebegone effect" where every kid is now treated as above average. Too many kids are being forced into fake college level work they ate not yet prepared for because the underlying skills are not yet solid.

Interesting. After graduating with a pair of Baccalaureates (equivilant of a BS) from Penn State, my husband scored a full ride to his PhD program- two, in fact; he gave one back so someone else could also win one-- that allowed him five years of PhD study without even needing to grade or be a TA. His undergrad work was completed at a state university. Upon completion of his PhD, he won another full ride ticket that allowed him to do a post-doc anywhere he chose, and he went... To another state university. Now at yet another state U as a full professor (a place where he had his puck of jobs in 2000, and has stayed despite being recruited more than a few times) the state U where he teaches, in a state most people forget even exists, his department is ranked as one of the top grad programs in the field in the country. His only Ivy experience was heading to Cornell for his PhD, and they were glad to have him, on their dime, after his 'no name state U' undergrad degrees. People care a lot more about what you know than about the name branding. There are a few holdouts and a few professions that stand as exceptions to this, but I stand by my earlier post. My husband and his colleagues get very frustrated by seeing bright kids get discouraged, GPA's drop, extra semesters incurred to complete high school level work, or kids even drop out of college because someone thought it was an awesome idea to give a kid an impressive-looking non-education. As a tutor to all too many, I have mopped up many of their tears as we visited all the way back as far as fractions or percentages or graphing with a kid who was supposed to be in calc 3. The kid had been done no favors, and the kid den the hall who had math solidly through trig on his transcript also got in. And the kids at this U (who do well, because they were prepared well) get into any grad school they want to, and work for duPont, Merck, the government, go to law school, PT school, med school, or anywhere else they wish to go.

I have my son use GoodReads as micro-writing practice as well... He has to post 2-3 reviews per week, too.

I'll be the voice in the wilderness :) We love the US Edition :). *Going to single-color illustrations by the 3rd level books has definitely helped-- DS is very easily distracted by multi-color books and pictures, but the monochromatic pics in the US Edition are fine. *People say there is *more* review in the Standards Edition. The US EDition is absolutely LOADED With continuous review every few pages. Any more review and DS would go stark.raving.mad. *The IP books match up with the US Ed. Since we use them in line with the books rather than later, as a review, it's nice to have them match up :) *I think there is no "right answer" to this question. YOu can use either edition and be quite happy. I just wanted to toss out some specific reasons why we like the US Edition, in case any of them also applied to your situation. If they don't, but the reasons why people like Standards appeal more to you, I don't see any reason why you should not pick Standards.

In the long run, I would be more concerned if you took the same test in a SECOND year and saw little to no improvement. If you take the same test next year and have excellent improvement year to year, you may be fine. Not every kid is going to score in the 90th centile, or it wouldn't be the 90th centile. Did you get information on what specific types of questions were perhaps clustered as being answered incorrectly? That would let you know if there was specific remediation to do somewhere (including, as some have suggested, just more familiarity with the wonky way some tests ask the questions). You grade their work, I assume. How do you feel, on a daily basis, that they understand the material?

The Happy Scientist has unit studies on Rocks and Minerals available. You can subscribe to his entire site for $20 for the year. His videos are a ton of fun-- my kids love them.

I picked up some flax oil today at BJ's. Maybe we'll give it a whirl.

My husband is a math professor, and after 12+ years as a professor and additional years prior as a post doc, I can tell you that he, and the overwhelming majority of his colleagues in the math department are far more impressed with kids who take their time in math and learn math through trigonometry very solidly than they are with kids who have 1-2 years of calc and other fancy-pants credentials in high school, get to college, and more often than not have not nearly the clue they think they do, because they weren't really ready to wrap their heads around the material yet, had poor advanced courses, or rushed too fast through the earlier coursework without becoming truly, completely proficient in it before moving on. The number of kids (even kids who score 4's and 5's on the AP test) who need remedial placement in "college algebra" or other courses or to retake calc, but struggle even there because the foundational courses they should have mastered in high school are simply not there is staggering. If in doubt, don't rush. Being truly solid is far better in the long run than an impressive, but ultimately shallow transcript. I know parents are anxious to impress admissions committees, but ask yourself-- at what cost? When in doubt, let mastery, and not what others are doing be your guide.

My kids are 9 and 11. I used to work as a bench scientist (research assistant) and my husband is an applied mathematician. 1) Why? *To increase interest in science *To illustrate the concepts they are learning (I have a learner who "gets" things instantly, but needs to see a concept several different ways before it will stick) *To learn some introductory lab technique and vocabulary, familiarity with basic equipment *To introduce the basics of scientific technique and inquiry-- collecting background information, making a hypothesis, designing an experiment with proper controls, documenting what is done, documenting data and results, discussing results, "publishing" your findings, expected or not, for the benefit of others, having others review your work or even try to replicate your experiment. *Understanding that replicating known experiments is excellent science; real scientists do this all the time as part of the scientific process of peer review, and to challenge old ideas as we develop new ideas and new technologies, and real scientists generally do consider these processes to be experiments. *Some experiments are used as "discovery method" learning to lead up to a concept I feel is particularly important. Long term retention of information can sometimes be augmented when the student has an emotional buy-in to the information. I try not to overdo this approach, however. I think it can also be very inefficient if relied upon too heavily. Do you have goals? *My answers to this question kind of overlap the previous question. It varies with the experiment. I think it is an excellent idea to ask oneself, "WHY am I doing this experiment??" One should ask that whether creating a curriculum or using a boxed curriculum. "Because it's fun!" is an okay answer. Problematic is the answer, "I have no idea." That experiment should probably be skipped, or the experiment studied more closely before being assigned. Generally, I am aiming for learning a lab technique, developing a new concept, extending and/or cementing a concept learned earlier in the week as my primary goals for most experiments (one of the above, not generally all for each experiment) with secondary goals of generating enthusiasm for science, learning the scientific method, and/or improving the ability to ask questions. One goal that isn't mentioned often, and most canned labs avoid it like the plague, is that I try to make my labs quantitative whenever possible. I cannot for the life of my figure out why so many labs avoid numbers and mathematics, but it is not a trend I feel is a good one. Generally speaking, data needs to be carefully analyzed, not petted and admired. Teaching kids that science is not quantitative is the most bizarre thing I can think of. *Do the labs meet your goals? Yes, pretty much. It doesn't phase me a bit if labs don't bear out the expected results on the first try-- that happens sometimes in a real lab, too. That's life. The learning experience is in what you do about that. The labs we choose have done a nice job of extending our learning experience, creating curiosity, and encouraging the kids to form and test hypothesis, think about how to set up controls and collect consistent data, and record everything so that what they do can be replicated by someone else. They are learning how real scientists work, and doing so in a way that enhances what they are currently learning. *How do you know? It's not that hard to know. Our science program builds sequentially through the week: lecture/discussion section on Monday, reading and notes/outlining as assigned on Tuesday, lab on Wednesday, Additional background reading on Thursday; plus start reading about a topic you discovered during the week that you found fascinating. Finish your personal topic on Friday, and present it to the rest of us orally, with or without visual aids. Through the write-ups, particularly in the discussion and conclusions, I can tell what they got from the lab that is different from our Monday discussion and Tuesday's reading. I can see how they did in devising controls, which generally requires some understanding of what is going on-- and is a step often missing from most canned experiments, so it is something they have to add in. I can tell whether it generated enthusiasm, because they are 9 and 11. They will talk Dad's ear off about it when he gets home if it excited them :) ***I do think there is plenty of room in the grammar stage and logic stage for simple exploration and demonstration science (and even "gee whiz!"). Reading about cells is so much more cool when you look at your own cheek cells under the microscope, even if you aren't a tissue culture person and don't know what to do with them besides maybe stain them and draw a picture and label the parts. Looking at a sheep's brain or a cow's eyeball will not break any new ground, but it will certainly bring things to life (so to speak) far more than just reading about a lens or the frontal cortex in a book in the abstract. We go to great lengths these days to make mathematics concrete; there is no need to make biology entirely abstract, or to worry too much over whether we are calling it a demonstration or a lab. I have my name on published papers in three different fields of study in peer reviewed journals, and I'm perfectly unoffended by calling a dissection a lab :). And if blowing up a bar of Ivory Soap in the microwave and asking them to figure out why it turned into a soap souffle makes them ask when we get to study science again, I'm happy. They know we don't do that stuff every day. But you just never know what Mom is going to toss into that microwave next . . . (I am blessed with children who don't go copying my behavior ;D )

My kids are constantly stealing my iPad. Dragon box, Shakespeare in Bits, Hands on Equations, Google, geography Bee by National Geographic, Ticket to Ride, reading their PDF textbooks... I cannot wait for the iPad mini to arrive, if it ever does.

Good luck!

Love it!

NOEO Chem 1 has lots of hands-on; one of the books is all experiments, and there are more in the other books as well, plus the YSC kits. You can always add in the outstanding Science Wiz kits (Chem, Chem+, DNA) for under $20 each (they have wonderful components, directions, easy to read explanations, and your supplies. You might need to supply a 9V battery, or 70% alcohol for the DNA kit, but they supply even things like squares of aluminum foil and feathers).

Again as a self-defense instructor, I would have to agree with this statement. Any type of smile or cutesy statement would be inappropriate. There is no need to try to laugh this off or be apologetic about the situation-- it is inappropriate, and it should be dealt with in a professional, no-nonsense manner. There is no way to be both flirty and unequivocally say "no" at the same time. Just say no.

It's good to know what you have on your hands with a gifted kid. Not for the sake of a label or bragging rights, but for 1) the sake of understanding, 2) glimpses into potential planning as you get to know her better as she grows and 3) if any life upheavals happen that result in school placement, documentation that can assist with placement in the gifted program with as little delay as possible is a good thing. 1) understanding. Gifted kids are not just regular kids who learn things earlier. They generally learn and process information differently, so particularly as an experienced parent, you may find that you might, or might not, get to recycle all of the curriculum you have used. Don't toss it yet, just be ready to have an open mind and really pay attention to her cues. Also, gifted intellectually can sometimes lead to faster maturity, but does not mean "all grown up," even when they talk like it. They can still sometimes enjoy the little kid cartoons, the fun little kid board games and the little kid rides at the amusement park. It can be easy to get sucked into forgetting how little they are if they are discussing Kirkegaard at age 5 or programming C++ games on the PC, but they are still little and like Elmo bandaids, sometimes. Keep your ears open. It's double jeopardy for you since it's a youngest, who will already want to keep up with what the older ones are doing. 2) Planning. Kind of doubles up with one a little. But there are other opportunities to consider. If you don't have passports, you might consider a passport or the card ID you can get instead. There are programs like the John's Hopkins CTY and the Davidson program, and many of these require kids to take bizarre tests like the SAT at an unusually young age-- and you then need some type of ID. Great if they're in public school and you can produce a class photo with names printed on it; more difficult if you homeschool. Passports are convenient. Many states will also issue a state ID card. Be flexible when planning curriculum. She may sail through math at the speed of light, then suddenly plateau out. This is pretty normal for a young kid working well above grade level. Think carefully about a young reader reading well above grade level-- content matters, though again, some gifted kids are also mentally more mature than their years-- but you should still choose carefully. If you try to hold back by providing unsatisfying reading material, she will find her own, which may be more eye-opening than you intended. Trust me, I was that kid. 3) There are good reasons why in some states, gifted kids qualify for an IEP, as special needs kids. They don't thrive in a normal classroom. What worked for your first two may not work for her. Or, as a homeschooler, and an experienced one, you may have the routine of figuring out how to meet her where she is down pretty well. But document everything and keep some records and samples, even if porfolios are not required in your state. If something unthinkable should happen and you were forced or chose to put her in school for any reason, you want backup for any academic choices you wish to make for her, whether that be grade skipping, entrance to advanced classes, or the gifted program, without any undue delay. A bored kid is a frustrated kid is a kid who really dislikes school and gets turned off to learning, even though she might have tremendous potential. At two, just about all kids crave learning; we are wired for it. Put a kid in a stultifying environment, and a kid as young as 9 or 10 will start to dislike learning and tune out. It sounds romantic and enlightened to eschew the label, but the label is there for a good reason. I have a son who is 2E-- he has learning disabilities AND he is gifted. If I did not respect both aspects of who he is and how he learns, he'd be frustrated even in a homeschool environment, guaranteed. Good luck :D. All of your kids have the potential to wow you. This one will just have her own unique way of keeping you on your toes!

You can find links to many of those places in that blog post I made. I try to make it easy for folks to find the stuff I am talking about.

If she misses, is it worse than before, or just like never having been on it? As in, do you think there is some kind of withdrawal effect? I ask, because I had always avoided fish oil/flax oil for DS, because although he is in a category of kids who could benefit from it, but one doc he has worked with hinted at "not yet published, but coming soon" studies she was privvy to that showed profoundly bad effects of fish oil on kids with seizure disorders, and she warned me not to give him any, and I had listened. Well . . . several years have gone by, and I have yet to see any such study actually reach publication, so my suspicious radar on the truth of that statement is kind of pinging, and I'm considering giving it a try after talking to his neurologist soon to check on interactions with his other issues/meds first (the neuro was not the doc who warned off of it). But I would want to know first if it's something that you can't leave once you start it.

If you have a Mac, you can try Olly. They will have an iPad app out soon, too.

The German worksheets line up really well with the program. The grammar has been in the program, but it is subtle, rather than explicit. For example, correctly using pronouns happens throughout the dialogues and in the examples, but the kids may not realize they are using pronouns and gender markers in the correct case, because they aren't directly thinking about it. They are just speaking it in response to hearing it over and over, and internalizing it (kind of the way native English speakers often don't have a clue about why something is "me" or "I" until they study it in a grammar class. As the kids will say, "You just know it sounds right." I have told my kids to go back and listen to several units a second time to try to deliberately spot patterns before attempting the worksheets (they are 8 and 11) and they can see that the grammar is, in fact, there; they just aren't being directly instructed in it. Instead, they are being steeped in it.

I used NOEO for my kids for chem last year, and we had an absolute blast (levels 1 and 2, for boys ages 7/8 and 10/11). About 1/4 or fewer of the experiments were in the Young Scientist Club kits, and they worked pretty well. The bulk of the experiments were in the recommended books, and they generally worked extremely well, and only involved very basic, easy to get items-- baking soda, vinegar, paper cups, soda, that kind of thing. You can see ahead of time what you will need for any given week and plan ahead; the schedule is very organized and well-laid out. I love the flexibility in the notebooking sheets-- you can write, draw, write and draw, copy definitions, or any combination of the above, and for labs, there are lab sheets for writing or drawing as well. You can mix & match as you wish. (and yes, some days I did let them just read and not fill out sheets). I did augment the program a little bit, but you can do just fine without feeling that you must do that. I added in the $20 Science WIz kits-- several experiments per kit, and very well put together, with very clear instructions (Chem, Chem+, DNA) and a few extra books, and another chemistry set, just because we are major science geeks. But like I said, it doesn't actually need the supplementation. We do also love the Happy Scientist website-- $20 for an annual subscription is well worth the price of admission. Or if you have an ipod or ipad, $6/month gets you full access to the entire library of BrainPop videos, which are pretty entertaining for the kids (and have post-video quizzes). The Happy Scientist has a couple of great unit studies on Rocks and Minerals that we had a ball with, as well as a great unit study on thinking like a scientist. I don't have experience with the Bio or Physics units, but I can definitely vouch for chem levels 1 & 2. As a former bench scientist who essentially did biochemistry for a living (as a research assistant doing human genetics, tissue culture, and other cool stuff) I was pleased with it. You can see photos of the kids working on some of the experiments by poking around in my blog.

Very well stated, Mathwonk. The only person who knows what the best choice of program for your child is, would be . . . you, and your children. I've watched too many people on these boards ditch programs that they and their kids were enjoying and doing well with just because something else became popular, new, and shiny. One should never switch curricula because of what "everyone else is doing." However, it does make sense to evaluate things side by side, to know what it is that you want out of a program, and see which program accomplishes your goals. Do you want to see more examples? Do you need something scripted? Do you want endless repetition because of a child's learning style (keeping in mind that there are plenty of free worksheet generators and online programs for that available as well)? Do you want programs that explain why things relate to one another? Do you want a program that shows things graphically, ore more abstractly? Do you want a program that is written to the student, or to the teacher? A homeschool specific program or a traditional school program? Do you want an applied focus (lots of applications for the type of math you are studying) or a program that just focuses on the math itself? Once you know more about what you want and what your child needs, figuring out the appropriate program for your family is much easier. I have a 9YO who is gifted in mathematical ability, but cannot process busy pages and colorful pictures and text mixed together very easily-- Beast Academy would be a complete nightmare for him. The two-color US-Edition Singpore, however, works very well, as does the black and white Life of Fred. Both programs focus on conceptual understanding, graphical manipulation, and abstract reasoning, but in a carefully constructed manner, which is perfect for him. DS11 likes to work independently in math, but check in with me now and then for a conversation. So he works primarily in Life of Fred, and for "conversation," I pull out an old copy of Dolciani and have him "teach" it to me. Those approaches would not work at all for another family. There is no "this one is best" answer for a math program. There are a handful that are known to be really good. There are kids who have done really well in some programs that get some bad press around here. The key is to match up your kids with the program that works well for them. But I still wouldn't put a super bright math enthusiast through Saxon-- as I said before, I read those books, and I just see mechanics; I don't feel the love for math coming through at all.

There is a history book out that claims the Native American children were quite pleased to be forced off to boarding schools, forced to give up their tribal cultures and forced to never speak their own languages in favor of English, and that they were, in fact, very grateful for being treated so well and taught to be "productive." I would call that 'revisionist history.' It bears little resemblance to what actually took place in the minds of the people involved (except for the conquering people) and is a rather sickening whitewashing (literally) of what really took place. That kind of re-writing of history to suit your own agenda, comfort, world view, etc, is precisely "revisionist history." (and no, I won't name the history program in question. I refuse to give it any publicity).

I refuse to answer, but I am just waiting for someone to start tabulating results of responses and correlating yea/nay according to number of children in the signature line :lol::lol::lol::lol: