Us, too. It is being quite a hit with my 7th-grader. So glad we heard about this one.

Thank you, Lewelma and Endofordinary! I am going to look up all of these. They look really promising!

I know this is an old thread, but I am wondering if anyone can help me with a book title or two. This morning I showed my origami- and math-obsessed 7th-grader the Vi Hart videos and the photos of interlocking tetrahedral frames some people posted here. Her eyes lit up and if she hadn't had a lot of other obligations today I think she would have spent all day on them. At one point she said, "I wish I could find books with this kind of thing." She far prefers paper books over internet sites. She already has several Lang books, several Tomoko Fuse books, and several other origami books, and has made all of the hardest shapes out of all of them (except she keeps hanging up in one place on Lang's bass player!). She has made an amazing spring, some gorgeous unit origami shapes, and some beautiful animals, among many other things. Her birthday is coming up, and I'd love to get her a book that helps her move forward with this passion. Can anyone recommend a book that has things like the hexaflexagon and the interlocking tetraheral frames? Even if they don't have those specific shapes, I'm sure there are lots of cool things out there for her to discover.

Ten years homeschooling two kids, and I never knew how indispensable most people found whiteboards! We have a small one for writing down the daily plan, but it never felt necessary, and for solving/brainstorming/writing/etc we have always just used paper. Never considered anything else and never felt something was lacking in that department. This thread has been an interesting view into an alternate reality!

That's amazing!! I checked, and I don't see anything like that here. What a wonderful program, and lucky you! :001_smile:

Thanks a lot, everyone! You've given me a lot of directions to look into. Much appreciated!

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here....and THANK YOU to all who replied with their experiences and with tales of real-life high school and university use of LotR. I am part-way into my third reading of LotR, and I kept feeling like this was really something I could get my analytical teeth into. If that's not a sign of decent literature, then perhaps my taste is off! :tongue_smilie: Harriet Vane, I agree with you about the emphasis on dark literature in public school--a darkness that I think some teens may feel ready to explore, but plenty of others (my daughter, and myself at her age) do not. This put me off of lots of good literature for a very long time. It is my goal to teach my kids that fascinating and beautiful and challenging literature need not be that way, and that the darker stuff will be there waiting (with its own rewards) when/if they feel ready.

I feel kind of silly asking this, but I'm feeling confused about it. Of course LotR is massively important to many people in our culture. It's a remarkable literary feat in more ways than one. I myself have read it twice and loved it and am happily rereading it again. But I never hear of it being studied in high school or college classes, and it seldom even comes up in these forums when we have "what should my kid read in high school" threads. My 9th-grader wants to read it, too, along with two of her friends. Great. But...should this be part of her high school literature work? As she is not a huge read-for-pleasure type, I set aside an hour each day in which she's expected to read. She loves that time--it's a lot cozier than most of her other academic work, and she does enjoy reading--but she's always engaged in other (very worthwhile) pursuits when she actually has free time. So: should LotR be read during her free time while she's being exposed to other excellent literature during her work time, or is it okay for her to spend what would probably be the next many months just reading LotR as part of her literature studies? Since she's not a voracious reader, her exposure to high-quality, time-tested literature/authors comes primarily from this time I set aside out of her work day. Should I be thrilled that she wants to tackle this large work of literature and welcome it as part of her English studies, or should I enthusiastically encourage her to pursue it on her own time while she reads other things for literature study? In case it's relevant: her reading level is fine. She read Pride and Prejudice last year without trouble and even enjoyed puzzling over some of the most difficult sentences. So it's not a matter of being thrilled that she'll read just anything at all. It's just that she does not read for hours every day on her own initiative. The way she sees it, there are just too many other great things to do! I'd appreciate any perspective anyone has.

(edited title for brevity) I'm not looking for a full online class. I'm looking for an on-demand tutor who will, for a fee, look at my daughter's proofs, tell her if she made any mistakes, help her understand how to do them correctly if she's unsure, and answer any other questions she has. I know I've read on these forums about people using writing tutors this way--they sign up, and the tutor is there as a resource in whatever way the family wants. Please tell me there's a way to find people who do this for geometry? We have a textbook, and she is working through it successfully in general. It's just...knowing how to correct the proofs! (and answering other misc questions)

This. I didn't start anything formal with my oldest until 7.5, except some sporadic math that she enjoyed. She is in 9th grade now, and at or above grade level in everything....and it's not that she's a genius or anything. (My younger started earlier because she insisted on being just like sister, but it was strictly at her pleasure until around 7-8.) Until then, lots of stories, play, snuggles, outside time, quiet time, worms, dirt, cookies, and just experiencing life as your family lives and values it. What a perfect foundation on which to build an intellect and a life!

I have an alcumus account of my own and I love doing math on it! My brain feels so good after an alcumus stint. Plus it's delightfully addicting. It's really nice because it quickly adjusts to your exact level of knowledge.

Foerster Alg rocked my daughter's world last year. And mine. It is an amazing text, imo. If you have it and like the look of it, why go searching for greener grass?

So sorry about this! When I found out about this a while ago and was fretting, elladarcy on these forums suggested RainbowReasource and CLB. I stocked up from RR, but it sounds like they are out now from what you say. I don't know what CLB stands for, but if you do perhaps you could try them?

My older daughter tried and ended up not liking Singapore's Discovering Mathematics a few years ago. I've never been sure whether that's because she just doesn't jive with DM, or because we were totally clueless at the time about how to use it and were trying to expect way too fast a pace. [ETA: My younger daughter loves it and plans to use the whole curriculum.] Since then she has done well with other texts. She completed Foerster's Algebra last year and loved it. However, she loved DM's geometry sections...loved, loved, loved, and ever since then has gone around saying how much she loves geometry. This year (9th grade) she is studying geometry. She just finished the first chapter of Chakerian's Geometry: A Guided Inquiry, and she likes it okay. However, she is way exasperated with the “Project Problems,†and the spark is going out of her about geometry. I hate to see this happening. That's why I'm considering pulling all the DM geometry sections and doing them this year with her. I have all the DM books, up through Additional Maths, since my younger daughter adores DM and there are being distribution issues right now with that curriculum...I bought everything in a panic at the beginning of the year. So that's not a problem. There are at least issues I can see: 1. I know that this would not be American-style geometry, with proofs. However, if I'm okay with that (I am, even though I know the benefits of learning proofs), is it a bigger problem? I have heard, for instance, that there are no proofs on the SAT/ACT. 2. I can see a possible issue with the geomtry sections in the post-Algebra-1 level DM books. She has only had math up through Alg. 1, so she couldn't do geometry that rests on knowledge above that level. On the other hand, American students usually can only do geometry to the Alg. 1 level, so maybe if there are more advanced geometry sections she wouldn't be missing out, at least compared to other American students, if she didn't do those? So then, would using DM geometry sections up through those that rest on Alg. 1 knowledge or lower consitute a fair, solid year of geometry that would stand her in good stead for standardized testing? If anyone has done this, or even if you haven't but you have some ideas or feedback from me, I'd love to hear from you!

MarkT and Midori, THANK YOU SO MUCH! This was absolutely amazing, because I actually had this edition right in my basement. I put it there when we ended up using the other edition. So now I am looking at Appendix F, and it is just as you both describe. I so appreciate the help. MarkT, thank you for putting me on the trail, and Midori, you seem to have a way lately of popping up with the perfect information just when I really need it. :001_smile:

Thanks! ....and sigh. It's so expensive, even used. Too bad the other editions don't have this.

Can anyone help me figure out where to find this section? I have CP, 10th edition, and CP for high school, 3rd ed. w/Expanded Technology. Neither one has a "Problem-Solving Practice" appendix. I also have the CP 10th ed. Practicing Physics book. It seems to have lots of good questions, but not so much algebra-type problem-solving. I would love to get my hands on these!

Not Mr. Suchocki, but it looks like the web site is still up: http://conceptualchemistry.com/ I'd just go there, register and enjoy!

I think we have been living parallel lives this summer, Connections! Both of these describe me exactly. And like you, I am so glad I did it. I was losing the courage of my convictions when I wrote that post, but now that you all have restored my courage, I think my work will be very useful. My kids are both super excited that they are starting the year with a better picture than ever before of what they will be doing. Like Llewelma anda Regentrude and you (and others?) described, I plan to scale back as needed. Like you describe, though, I think that at least my older kid is not going to let me do that!

I thank all of you very much for sharing your thoughts. It's amazing how helpful it is to hear someone say, "Here is our experience with that." It's also validating to hear other parents say that though they like the idea of "time on task," their kid needed something different. Yet again I am reminded that my kids know themselves best. If she is asking for concrete goals rather than time to explore freely, that's probably what's best for her right now, given that she works well and hard. Thank you also for talking about the different needs of different kinds of students. I can see perfectly why "time on task" worked so well for some kids (like your daughter, Regentrude). She's so lucky you were able to see that and give it to her! Mine is also a willing worker and loves research and intellectual inquiry. At the same time, though, she likes to know when she's done with something and likes to have a specific goal in front of her. The more I think of it, the more I am guessing I would have been the same way at her age. I was feeling out to sea about how to start our year, and now I feel a lot better. I have a good starting point, and of course as always we will adjust from there. Thanks again, everyone!

I just wanted to say that last year my daughter used John Suchocki's Conceptual Chemistry Alive! videos. I had to sign up and pay a (very reasonable) fee for access to the videos. They turned out to be an excellent addition to her chemistry studies. At the time we started she was also using his Conceptual Chemistry text. I think it is well written and does exactly what it says it will do: provides a good course in conceptual chemistry. She quickly realized that she wanted to go deeper, and wanted the math that goes with it, so she switched to Zumdahl (perfect choice for her), but for another student--or for her when she was younger--CC would have been perfect. What I'm really wanting to say, though, is that even once she switced to Zumdahl's text, she continued using John S.'s videos. She learned so much from them, and says she still remembers everything she learned because of they way he taught in them. She and I were especially impressed that he did not seem to feel the need to doctor the videos up with lots of fast-paced graphics, music, and other whiz-bang features. They just featured him, teaching a concept very well, and that's about it. We were both so grateful for that! We also found ourselves enjoying his humor, and humor is something that can be so easily done badly. He deploys it at just the right moments, and doesn't hit you over the head with it, and doesn't seem overly pleased with himself or anything. It's just little moments of delight where you can smile and then go on. Best of all, the humor does not talk down to the student like we see so often. I have not looked much at this web site, so I hope what I have just said still applies--otherwise I'm going to feel kind of silly! I think "conceptual academy" is a wonderful idea. If the Conceptual Chemistry Alive! videos are any indication, it will be done very well. I will explore it more when I have time, and am considering using it with my younger.

For those of you who schedule by designating the length of a school day but not specifying exactly what tasks should be finished (each day, week, year, whatever) or how much time should be spent on each task, how do you cover the amount of material you want to cover in a year? (I'm talking about high school years--mine is in 9th this year.) For instance, if we simply work for x hours in a day, and we're studying US history, what if we end up only making it to WWI by the end of the year? Do we take part of next year to study American history to now? Do we not do it at all? Same question for any other subject. Do we just not worry if we only make it through 2/3 of our physics text? I kind of like the idea of working by overall time and not micromanaging the individual subjects. However, I'm not sure how to work with the consequences at the end of the year of not having achieved preset goals. I know that any learning will always have big “gaps.†Do I just accept that the years between WWI and the present in US history will be one of those gaps (to continue my hypothetical example)? I think in some ways my kid would like this. In other ways, I see her rise with compentence to a preset challenge and feel immense pride when she meets the challenge. She also tends to go very deep very fast with her learning, which is awesome except that it means she could probably spend all year on 100 years of history, or on three chapters of science. She'd be working hard and learning a tremendous amount, but about a very narrow slice of the discipline. At the same time that she's a hard and willing worker, she also does get spacey and a bit inefficient at times if she doesn't have a concrete challenge. She has asked me to give her concrete goals to meet in each subject, and then help her break them down to spread them out over the year. I think this is because she likes that sense of accomplishment and completion that come with finishing predetermined things. Yet when I try to do this, I sometimes find myself at a loss: I have no idea how quickly she'll read through her history text (she has chosen Spielvogel), or how many science questions she can reasonably answer in order to keep moving through all the chapters we have decided to cover, or how much time it will take her to read literature selections. If she can move more quickly, there are other excellent supplemental things I can give her to do--I don't want her just quitting for the day after 3 hours because she's "done." If not, I don't want to overload her sothat she has no time for anything else. So then I start dreaming again about just requiring a certain amount of time spent on work each day and advising her to stop watching the clock so carefully with each subject, but then I remember how inefficient she can get without a concrete goal, and you can see the circles I start to run in. I have read people's posts in which they write that, for instance, there's no way they could schedule AoPS. However, math is the subject in which we have had the best luck with scheduling--I use a few syllabi I find or that people generously share, make up our own, and stick to it. (We don't use AoPS--last year it was Foerster.) She loves this! And math took a predictable enough amount of time last year that it worked nicely. That's what she wants for all subjects, but I don't know how to provide it. I would love to hear any wisdom any of you have about this. Have you tried one approach or the other, and how did you make it work (or did it not work?). I'm sure the answer is different for different students, but at the moment I'm having trouble coming up with options for us that seem like they might work well.

Glad it looks so interesting to you! We used it all last year in our US History studies, LOVED it, and are using it again this year in our World History studies. Best wishes, and enjoy!

Thank you so much, everyone! Sometimes I don't know what I'd do without these forums. I mean, this is crazy, realizing at this late date that I want to do algebra-based physics when I had conceptual all planned out and ready to go. It was a chance comment on a different thread that got me thinking, and I'm glad it did, and I'm also glad you all were here to help me with the turnaround. I'm going to make a final decision on which book by the end of today, and it should arrive not long after the beginning of our schoolyear.

I have our year all planned out (we will start after Labor Day), but am suddenly having eleveth-hour second thoughts about physics. I had planned to have my daughter do Hewitt's Conceptual Physics. However, now I am asking myself why in the world I didn't plan to have her do algebra-based physics. She will be in 9th grade. Last year she was very successful with Foerster's Algebra 1 and with Zumdahl's Introductory Chemistry. She is a strong student, not at all math- or science-phobic. So why did I not plan for algebra-based physics? I just did some research on these forums, but my head is swimming, and I am worried about changing directions so late. However, I think it might be a really good change to make. Can anyone out there help me understand my (secular) algebra-based physics options? Am I correct that the top options are Giancoli and Knight? My main questions about options are: 1. What is the title of the book we should be considering? When I look them up on Amazon, I get so many options! 2. Would there be good access to problem answers, and perhaps even to solution guides? This would be important for us. 3. If I am correct that Knight and Giancoli are the main contenders, does anyone have a sense of what differentiates the two? ETA: 4. What parts would I need? Just the textbook? Are there workbooks or other guides that would be good to have? Many thanks for any help anyone can give. I am feeling a bit panicked (and stupid) about this. I worked so hard all summer to have my plans well in place by this point, and now I'm having trouble figuring out why I didn't plan for alg-based from the beginning. But here I am, and I would be so grateful for any guidance.