If anyone's feeling like boasting, feel free to share your actual scores, and make some public school families very happy!!!

Thanks Robert! Lots of helpful stuff there. I'm pretty new to biology myself. The protist lab I did came straight from a textbook, and it suggested letting tap water sit for 48 hours to vent off gases. That will work too, though boiling water will certainly get you there faster. Thanks for the tip to try different levels. Oh, if you do the dried leaves/grass cuttings, you don't need many leaves at all. At the school, we put a hefty amount in, and that "recipe" really started to stink after a few days. I repeated it at home with far less leaves, and it never got to the "hold your breath" stage.

I'm working with biology this year, and feel your pain. For the protist culture stuff, if possible, play around first with just drops of water (without slide covers). It's so much easier to see what is alive that way. Also, play around with a "clean" drop of water on the microscope first. I was amazed at what some of my "organisms" really were. For example, I now know what paper tail debris looks like magnified considerably. Once you see alive protists literally swimming across your view, it will be easier to identify them flattened into place. You won't be able to use the finest tuning on the microscope this way, but you can still see a lot with the first two settings. The protist lab we did started with leaf debris, grass cuttings and water. We had alive stuff in just a few days when the water came from a well. I think it took a week with tap water. Again, looking at untreated water helped rule out things that weren't alive. Once we did have live stuff, it was undeniably alive, as it was swimming all over the place. I'm having the same problems as you though, and working with unmotivated students (not my own, LOL!) I actually work in a small school, but am new to biology and learning this stuff with them. My supplies are also extremely limited, and I haven't been happy overall with our lab work. I did have an exciting few weeks myself though when I took the microscope and the protist lab home, ;) .

I like this post, a lot. Thanks! And I apologize for my comment suggesting you are 'off'. I suppose we all have our colorful moments and 'off' traits. :lol:

Ah, the debate of ages! LOL! Seriously, poll 20 schools, and you'll probably find 10 of each. Our local school actually does both, for two different groups of students (alg1/alg2/geometry for advanced, and alg1/geometry/alg2 for typical). I asked our math head, and he shared that a critical thought involved was when a student was likely to take big hitter tests, primarily the ACT or SAT. You really want a student to have both subjects (algebra and geometry) before such a test. Since typical kids are getting geometry later, this was why it came before alg2. No matter how you work the details, geometry is somewhat of a break from the more progressional math. A good geometry program would probably include at least some degree of algebraic manipulation and review during the year. The risk here is entering precalculus with limited recall of algebraic techniques. If you review algebra throughout geometry, I don't think you can go wrong. It's equally important to review and use basic geometric skills throughout the higher algebras and beyond.

For what it's worth Jen, most of the regulars over on the gifted issues board find that particular poster to be a little 'off'. Please don't judge the entire board by that particular thread.

I haven't posted on this site in a while, but this discussion sparked my interest, so I thought I'd briefly share our experience. My rising senior daughter took AP chemistry last year. I'll admit, she was in a bit over her head. I'm not sure why we even took the class, but part of our logic was lacking alternatives, as our high school is NOT the end all in what it has to offer. AP chem was one disaster after another. We had a heavy snow year, and her chemistry class was affected almost a dozen times by missed school and delays. And while the school makes up days, they do so long after the AP tests are over. She was also a junior, and because of this, lost another half dozen days taking the stupid state test (while the seniors in her class got some nice AP chem review). Mean mom, I made her take the AP test anyway. I have no idea how she did, but if she gets a 3, we'll cut our losses and move on. In June, I had her take the SAT subject test in chemistry. My thinking was as a sort of "back up plan" to say something like...well, she didn't do so great on the AP, but at least she's mastered the regular class. As others have pointed out, she'll also need subject tests for college admission. I figured chemistry was as good as any, as it would be nice and fresh in her head, :glare: . I'm not a huge fan of College Board myself these days. With three kids, who collectively will be taking 6 AP's next year, I feel like half of my money is either going to CB or Lifetouch.

Hillary, this is true of grade level tests, but keep in mind that the STAR claims to go up through 12th grade. So it does portray a sad average for 12th graders. I personally feel the material only goes up through about pre-algebra, or very early algebra (with some degree of geometry), but these are problems that do indeed challenge many high school students, :( . I think you are possibly confusing the ridiculous grade equivalents that are placed on truly grade level tests (ITBS, SAT-10, etc). Those merely mean that an average XXth grade student would have scored similarly on that particular (lower grade) test. The STAR though adapts, and again claims to have a ceiling at the upper 12th grade level. It's similar in this regard to a test such as the WIAT or the WJ. The same test that Ack's child was given are also used on high school students.

Ack, I have the same situation with slightly older children. Actually, I have three kids that recently took the STAR math. It was comical for one, because after getting the 12.9+, it said she was "ready for algebra". This is great, but she is a rising junior, and has completed algebra 1, algebra 2 and geometry, :001_huh: . But my younger two are similar to your younger two. My 7th grade daughter needs some nice grouping and grade level enrichment, but nothing extreme. My younger son needs some major changes to the status quo. All three kids had roughly the same score on the STAR math, but have very unique math needs at the moment. For your daughter, the STAR did seem to highlight her strengths, but she might also do well with some enrichment. She's obviously bright, and could probably handle more than your typical "grade level".

The STAR math test is mostly computational work. That's fantastic that both kids did so well, as those are truly impressive scores at both ages. However, from this test alone, you can't say they are "high school level". The test at best goes up to a pre-algebra level, with very little actual "algebra", let alone true high school math. There is a geometry component, but it would be in line with what an elementary student could master, rather than true high school geometry. Personally I'm most afraid of what this says about "average 12th graders", LOL! Another thing to keep in mind is that the test is performed without calculators. Say what you will about our calculator dependent society, but many bright kids don't necessarily nail these tests, because there is very little conceptual testing. A kid acing calculus, but not fast with long division might find that question timed out before he dusted off those cobwebs. Each question of the test is timed individually. Again, your children did FANTASTIC!!! No doubts about that! And I'm fairly certain they would need math acceleration, enrichment, or whatever. But I wouldn't sign them up for honors precalc just yet, ;) . As for the DRA, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that no kids top that level, because your school isn't testing beyond a certain cap. Our school only went one full year up, and that was it. All of our top readers in 1st had a "spring 2nd grade" level. The DRA tests more developmental skills too, such as indepth retelling and contextual insight. Most teachers will not give a younger child a near perfect score, and therefore justify not moving forward (even though said child would likely score just as well on material several years beyond where he tested). It's not as "reading only" as some would think. The STAR reading is very quick and dirty. I've seen ceiling kids have scores fluctuate in the 8th-12th+ range on subsequent testing.

Great thoughts Shay, I was writing very slowly while watching the video, and you snuck in on me there. Another thing we found was that our teachers realized early on that my kids were strong in math, and I think they got more grace in the methods as such. We had a teacher once tell my son (and his class) in 4th grade that calculus was "really hard math" and that she had failed. Aurgh! Don't they realize those notions stick? She was a really great teacher, but just not strong in math, :( . I love when 7th grade rolls around, and the math teachers have actually studied math in-depth!

Gandpsmommy, thanks for the link, I had missed that the first time I read this thread (I was probably busy posting!) That was very insightful, and I see his point. I think math is harder to teach because in many households, it's not truly lived, as well as learned in school (present company most likely excluded, ;) ). But truly, could kids really be fantastic readers and deep thinkers if they "learned to read" in school, but didn't do any reading/discussion at home? The schools are hard pressed to try to do it all. I agree also with your thoughts on elementary teaching. I am extremely fortunate to live in an area where a lot of really bright people choose teaching for the hours that fit with parenting. I know quite a lot of "second career" teachers. I think this helps our overall presentation of any curriculum to have high caliber teachers. Best wishes to you personally with your decision making. I think you are attentive enough that your children will thrive in any setting. Burleygirl, EM is especially difficult for dyslexic children. My daughter is somewhat dyslexic, and some of the homework sheets with multiple concepts at once were horrifying for her. I remember one particular sheet that had fractions placed on a number line, in a cryptogram form, that ultimately told a joke about Bob Hope and frogs (Bob Hop). Her little slow to process mind was overwhelmed. She does well with concepts, but not ones so varied at once. She's 2E, but kids that are just below level, struggle greatly when too many things are thrown at them at once. EM absolutely isn't best for every child.

I am now an EM graduate (from my own children) and I work at a private school that uses it for it's brighter elementary students (so I'm still in the throes). That said, the program itself does NOT use/teach traditional multiplication and division. And everyone is right to be a little concerned by this. When our public school adopted this in 2002, we had some growing pains. Over those first few years though, the district really learned its weak points. One others have already mentioned is the weak enforcement of math facts. Another truthfully is the lack of traditional algorithms. Our school, and hopefully many others using the curriculum will supplement with both of these aspects, rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you are meeting with school staff, those are the questions I would ask. Ask about a rigidness to any one method, and about how they might supplement. For example, our school teaches every way of multiplication...including traditional, and then on tests, the kids can do whatever method they are most comfortable with. A curriculum that tests saying "using THIS method...." doesn't embrace the benefits of learning more than one method. The idea really is to show kids in enough different ways, hoping they'll see the big picture AND retain at least one way. Overall my thoughts are a cautious thumbs up for Everyday Math....BUT, it really does depend on who is teaching it and how. In the hands of a clueless teacher who doesn't really get math, it could do more harm than good, :( . Our experience though has been fairly positive. If the school doesn't supplement....you can easily do that at home. Your biggest concern really though is probably rigidity. If they are insistent on using this method on this day, that's a warning sign. When we get kids back into public from private schools that don't use EM, they really are weaker in math than the public students. If they are bright, they catch on quickly, but the test scores do show this program as somewhat successful here locally, in a day when virtually every tested math problem is a word problem to some extent. HTH!

Thanks Ocelet, I really enjoyed reading your post and reflecting on your observations. I'm pretty OCD myself, and would probably after school to some extent no matter what curriculum my kids use. If there's a best curriculum out there for any large school setting, I've yet to see it. It's great that individually we can supplement with whatever is needed most. I think it's the best of both worlds.

Unfortunately the SCAT is not one of the accepted test scores for the DYS program. We first applied with IQ and SCAT, and were told that despite how high the SCAT was, it wasn't written in a way that could be interpreted as 99.9th. That was 4 years ago, and things may have changed. We ultimately persued WIAT testing, and DS was accepted. What you ultimately need for Explore testing, is a local testing center. It doesn't matter what talent search you go through, and if you find a center, you can test through C-MITES which starts testing as low as 3rd grade. Unfortunately though, most talent searches only offer the test in January and February. Sometimes you can get inexpensive achievement testing through a tutoring agency or an educational consultant, bypassing higher psychologist fees. If the kid is a strong candidate, and 10+, your best bet might be the ACT or SAT. While their official qualification requirements start in 7th grade, the cuts are not terribly high, and there is probably some degree of grace for a younger child.

Perry, I just meant that it's possible to work with less than ideal. We disagree about the merits, or lack there of for Everyday Math, but as a parent who read horror stories when our school first introduced it, and was TERRIFIED, I just hate to see that terror passed along without sharing some success stories. Math is my life, and in my opinion, Everyday Math is not "that bad".

No math program works well for advanced learners, if not done above level....but EM probably works better than most in that regard. The SAT I was referring to was not the Stanford...but the college board SAT, so he not only did better than 9th graders, but college bound seniors...at 9 years old...with just a few years of EM under his belt, and a little reinforcement of the areas not covered as well. Again, I'm not saying it's the end all...far from it. I'm only saying that kids can thrive in it. We had a good experience. It sounds like your school was not using it properly too, as the reason behind the multiple methods is that the kids have a variety to choose from. No one method should ever be mandated. I'm glad things worked out for your son. He sounds extremely gifted. My own son is well past the EM years now at 11, thanks to some school endorsed acceleration.

Just keep in mind that nothing is "that bad", and everything in moderation. My children all used EM at school, and while it is...how shall we say it...unusual...it does have a very strong application, problem solving aspect. Using EM at just a few years up, my son was able to outscore the average high school student on the SAT at just 9. The curriculum is most problematic for non-advanced students. But for average and above, with a little supplementation in its weaker areas, it can really broaden a child's conceptual understanding of math. I am not really a proponent of EM...I am finding that all math curriculums have weak areas, but there is a fair amount of good in EM, and it's been an asset to my three children. Compared to some of the more lock step curriculums, I found that EM had a better abilty to differentiate between kids of varying levels. My kids would have been bored to tears with a more straight forward curriculum.

I agree, it must just be about what looks/sounds good. My son tested extremely well on the multiple choice part at just 10 with virtually no "grammar" training to speak of. He is an avid reader though.

I'm guessing the "Peabody" you are questioning is not the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test that Karen describes, but rather the PIAT, Peabody Invididual Achievement Test. That one is similar at least in intent to tests like the WIAT and the WJ. In my opinion though it tests more rote skills than "thinking" skills. The ceiling is 12.9 (grade). The Wide Range Assessment Test (WRAT) is extremely similar, and shares those same cognitive shortcomings. Both the WIAT and the WJ are superior tests in my opinion. NONE of the above though is comparable to something like the ITBS, which is a more comprehensive grade level test. The ITBS (with an appropriate grade) trumps any of the above for a more indepth evaluation/testing session. Tests like the PIAT, WRAT, WIAT and WJ should only be done to get a basic feel for where a child lands grade-wise. What is your reason for testing? If it's standardized test exposure/practice, I probably wouldn't recommend the ones you've listed (PIAT/WRAT). They are more "tester is in charge", with minor actual hands on work from the student. They are much more interactive, and are typically given one-on-one. They are NOT "bubble tests".

That is our advanced public sequence, while the non-advanced take geometry in the middle. Melinda nailed the arguments, and when it was explained to me (where to put geometry), it did all point to PSAT/SAT testing. You really want at least some level of both before taking either test. In an ideal world (which homeschooling certainly can be), I'd probably do the alg1/alg2/geom sequence, with a mild review of algebra technigues throughout the geometry year. Geometry is the "odd" year no matter how you slice it. A really strong geometry course like Art of Problem Solving utilizes more algebra than most. Precalc does typically include a fast paced review of virtually all math learned to date (except geometry).

SET is for students who score 700 or greater in either verbal or math (not perfect 800's) prior to age 13. A score of 700 for math at least corresponds to about 7 wrong out of 54 math questions. You can still be admitted into SET past 13, for an additional 10 points per month. A perfect score (800) would be required for 13 years, 10 months (again, only needed in one subject), and then after that it's too late.

Not to mention that they (JHU/CTY) are specifically looking for kids that are beyond a 12th grade ITBS. They are looking for kids who are achieving well into the gifted range, not just "gifted kids" (in fact, the WISC test will fulfill the criteria that allows a child to be "invited"). Many kids who hit 130 on the WISC will not make it into their programs. And discerning beyond 130 on a WISC is difficult as well. And yes...the SAT is there, ready and waiting. Personally I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of its availability, especially since so many other students are utilizing the multiple testing option. Another reason the SAT is is the ideal option is that most schools speak that language. My son's early SAT results spoke louder than anything I had brought to the table prior to that time, and opened doors for him to take a more appropriate math class. The ITBS would not have impressed them nearly as much, and they already had IQ/etc. It's good to see the baby growing there KJB, she sure is a cutie!

P.S...just to be sure, you do know that each SAT is different, right? And that that hundreds...perhaps thousands of practice versions out there are all extremely similar to the actual test layout? I guess I'm still not really seeing the unfairness of it all.

Ooops, I wasn't clear, and it's too late to edit. Sorry! Let me reword the above though... "The benefits to bright kids (that have nothing to do with higher test scores from repeat testing) outweigh any cons in my book." I don't know...but if you take away the multiple testing option, I'm pretty sure the ones that will be the most distraught will be the ones that aren't scoring well to begin with. The bright ones will just find other ways to test their early abilities, and will continue to have that "unfair" advantage that comes with being smarter. I don't think we can regulate the bell curve. FWIW, I'm not responding to the affirmative action aspect of this thread, but am reading with great interest. My student is learning AP government at the moment, and we are right now in a chapter the deals with affirmative action, and I'm fascinated by all that brings to mind. I have no answers though.