DD finished algebra I in grade 7, but she appears to be on the 1.5 year plan for pre-calculus, finishing in the middle of grade 11. (I'm hoping it's not a full two years in pre-calculus.) I finally caught on that she feels more confident about math if she I let her move more slowly and do more problems. (We're using Foerster's Pre-Calc and we're not skipping any sections. I see steady progress and growing mathematical maturity, so I think we're on the right track.) Can I legitimately call this 1.5 or 2 credits, or would I be well-advised to just call it 1 credit, regardless of how long it takes? I do expect her to do calculus in high school--probably in a year and a half if she sticks to the current pace. Even if I only call it 1 credit, she will have 4 or 5 math credits (depending on whether we call algebra I a high school class). However, she's putting in more time than most 1 credit courses would require.

My grade 7 science enthusiast is having a great year with Conceptual Chemistry. I used Conceptual Physics (h.s. version) with his older sister in grade 8, so we'll do that next year. If you have an enthusiastic kid, I don't think these are beyond the grade 8/9 level. We have not had an issue with doing chemistry first. Both books assume some elementary algebra ability.

But not as a standard high school class--not enough math, as you've pointed out. I'm using CC with my grade 7 ds, to be followed in high school by an ap level class. It would also be a good choice for a high school course for a kid who clearly isn't headed towards maths/sciences--I really like the way it brings real-world issues into the course.

Jacobs does regularly use "real life" word problems.

AMDEC has some extras, like the opportunity to work on the school newspaper and be in clubs. Getting help from ILC teachers takes a long time--AMDEC is much quicker. Neither option is great, in my opinion.

but that means you really do need to do pre-algebra.

the more difficult parts of Foerster's algebra. Your son might find the switch to trig to be a welcome change. In our case, dd is young enough that she'll still have plenty of math if she doesn't get through a full math book each year. We've slowed down and the slower pace is increasing her confidence and I'm hearing much less about not liking math.

This is not suitable for a kid who is headed for further science study, but it would be great for a kid who needs to know enough chemistry to understand more about how the world works. It's math light, but the concepts are meaty. (We're actually using this at the junior high level to be followed by AP level later, but it is intended to be used at the university level.)

At 4 and almost 6, formal instruction should be fairly short. I think we might have done 1 hour max (1/2 learing to read, 1/2 math)--and not all at once stretch. I think you could use anything for math that seemed to work for both you and the student at this point. In our case it was MUS because it was easy to do and had lots of white space for writing. Had I been aware of Singapore when we started, I might have gone with that instead. Informal instruction can happen all day as you go about the rest of the stuff you need to do during the day. I used to try to try to bring up a particularly fascinating topic while standing in line at the grocery check-out so the kids would stick close to me. If you are uncertain about your math skills, that might be the place to focus at the moment. Once you are more comfortable, you'll find more opportunities to talk about math with your kids during the rest of life.

I actually switched away from MUS for my language-loving kids. We're using Jacobs/Foersters and they prefer all of the words involved. MUS is quite to the point--which could be a strength--or could make math seem rather dry.

The fact that there are 2 (actually 3 but very few take all 3) math courses in the "university prep" stream is probably the result of pushing the OAC material down into grade 12 when OAC was eliminated. However, if you look at science and math entrance requirements for Ontario universities, they show the equivalent to the calculus class for other provinces. See http://www.findoutmore.uwaterloo.ca/admissions/canadian.php for an example. All of the provinces do have a calculus math class as an option. Whether or not you need it depends on the program and university to which you are applying. Yes--Ontario students go to university after grade 12--but some of them do a "super senior year" or a "victory lap" to pick up a few more courses. Apparently the high schools don't tell them to leave when they've been there 4 years and have enough credits to graduate. That makes us feel a bit flexible about whether high school at our house lasts 4 years or 5. I'm a little fuzzy on the number of years for university programs. I think it's true some used to be 3 years. I don't know if that continues to be the case. I don't think 4 years is unusual. (I'm actually US educated--I've only been trying to figure all of this out for my kids.)

DD will have this too--although it will be earned over several years. Anytime she does something that is related to figuring out where she's going after high school, we record it in a notebook.

Kids headed into the sciences and maths from Ontario high schools do usually take a "calculus and vectors" course--and many Ontario universities require that course for science or math programs. Obviously they don't get very far into calculus, but they do start.

Sounds like one of the reasons she's moving slowly is that she's doing more of the problems. She does skip when she gets bored, and she doesn't do all of the application problems, but she's doing quite a few. That's ok, however. She's more confident when she doesn't move too quickly.

about using. For example, if I look at Foerster's Alg. II (first 12 chapters), it includes -functions and relations -linear functions -systems of linear equations and inequalities -quadratic functions and complex numbers -exponential and log functions -rational alg functions -irrational alg functions -quadratic relations and systems -higher degree functions and complex numbers -sequences and series --probability, data analysis and functions of a random variable The last two topics are also in Foerster's Pre-calculus, so those aren't essential. My guess is that an alg II book might be more appropriate than pre-calculus. Of course, it partially depends on how much your son is willing and able to back track if he needs to go back and fill in a gap. Many grade 11 students in the States would be studying alg II. Kids who've done very well in math (or are in school district that pushes math) would be in pre-calculus. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to correlate the Ontario sequence with the standard US sequence. They don't really match up until the grade 12 advanced functions course, which is kind of like pre-calculus. So--if your son is working on a grade 10 Canadian book this year, I'd be a bit surprised if he could move directly to pre-calculus. You asked about trig--that's typically done as part of "pre-calculus". Your son has done a little bit of it--but then so have the kids who have used a book like Jacobs geometry. And speaking of geometry--your son probably won't get as much geometry as a kids who uses something like Jacobs geometry--but, at least in Ontario, the kids in school won't get that either. There used to be a grade 12 course that included geometry proofs but that no longer exists. Another idea would be to use the homeschooler's free month of Aleks to sample algebra I and algebra II and see what most closely correlates with what he's currently doing. I think Aleks is easier than Jacobs/Foester, so it will be somewhat approximate. Aleks would be a good way to fill gaps too.

DD is doing most of the problems and moving very slowly. That's ok--she's gaining confidence and she has lots of time because she's younger than most. Still, I wonder what fraction of these problems an average teacher would assign.

It will identify what she does and doesn't know, and will drill her on what she doesn't know. I don't like Aleks as a primary way of learning the material, but I think it's a good way to review and plug gaps. My other caution is that it's not as difficult as Foerster, for example. We have used Aleks for review at both the alg I and the alg II levels.

We have not used CD's for theory/harmony--they've just used workbooks. It looks like Harris has a CD for a theory/ear training book, but I can't tell you anything about that.

See http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=howtoorderUS&section=USABOUT

Here's one: http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=catListProd&section=CARESOURCES'>http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=catListProd&section=CARESOURCES'>http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=catListProd&section=CARESOURCES'>http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=catListProd&section=CARESOURCES And here's the other: http://www.frederickharrismusic.com/FHMCsite/capricorn?para=showPage&docId=catListProd&section=CARESOURCES Both come in a variety of "levels"--the younger kids tend to use the books that step up in the smallest increments because there is more room on the page, the print is bigger, and there is more repetition. The older kids tend to use the more condensed books. (For example, in the Vandendool series, books A, B, C, D, and E are for the younger kids, the basic rudiments book covers the same material more quickly for older kids and adults.) Likewise, "The Complete Elementary Music Rudiments" by Sarnecki covers the material in 3 other books but more quickly and more densely. The "harmony" books come after the "rudiments" books--you don't want those yet. Answers are not in the back, so you'll either need the answer key or someone with a good music background to help with anything you don't understand. There's nothing special about these books--they are standard here because they are readily available and are keyed to the RCM exams. If you can find something locally, I wouldn't bother importing these. We have one good classic music store in our city and I know they help point people find out what products are available AND they have bulletin boards full of ads for teachers, classes, etc. If you can locate something similar, you might find the clerks very helpful. One other thought--where do the other kids learn their theory? As I said, here it's from their primary teachers, up to the harmony level. However, there are a few music schools that teach group theory lessons. The youth symphony, for example, holds Saturday morning classes for all levels of theory.

Most piano/violin/etc. teachers here will teach music theory along with lessons. They usually rely on the Royal Conservatory of Music books. (These are available in the States too, but under a different name, I think.) The kids tend to have slightly longer lessons to fit in both theory and the instrumental stuff. (My 12 year old has 45 minute lessons, my 15 year old has an hour long lesson.) I remember having 30 minute lessons as a kid. The kids have both practicing to do each week and several pages of theory to do--and the teacher corrects the theory at each lesson. Once a kid reaches a certain point, most teachers will recommend another teacher for advance lessons--so now dd has 1 hr of piano and 1 hr of harmony each week. It sounds like your child is still at the fundamental level, so I would expect her teacher to be helping with both ear training and theory. If there's not enough time, could 15 minutes be added to the lesson? Basic theory is not rocket science--if you are musically inclined, you may be able to help her given the right materials. If you have a good music store in the area, I would ask what they have available. At the more advanced level, I don't think there's any way around having an outside tutor.

This would be helpful for me to know, since we seem to be moving very slowly through what I understand is usually a 1 year class.

We have the student book and the solution manual and that seems to be enough for us. We do own a copy of Sketchpad but haven't used it. Getting up to speed on the graphing calculator has taken some time. The book usually has clues about what to google in order how to figure out what it is you want to do. The TI-83 manual is hopeless--we have the best luck with webpages put up by students and teachers. I understand there is a "Dummies" book for this calculator--that might have been a wise purchase. We're not zipping through this book, but that is intentional. DD was feeling discouraged by the end of Alg 2 & Trig (also Foerster) so I decided we'd spread pre-calculus over a year and a half if that's what she needed. This is working much better--she's becoming more confident and the whining is going down now that she can take things at her own pace. I have looked around for a list of assigned problems (for a typical 1 year class) but haven't found one. DS, coming up behind DD, will probably zip through much faster but that's because their brains seem to be wired differently. DD is 15 and is a good student but not particularly enthusiastic about math. She doesn't learn well from DVD's, so we don't bother with looking for those. Oh--we are finding errors in the solution manual. DH and I have enough math to confirm those (and DD is always pleased to identify them). If you are shaky on your math, you may want to line someone up to provide a 2nd look when your kid thinks the solutions manual is wrong.

DD started algebra I in grade 6. Had we waiting another year, I think she would have moved more easily through algebra I. Now that she's 15, she's really starting to cook--especially since we decided that taking a year and half to cover pre-calculus would be just fine. Every year I see more sophisticated thinking. DS has the advantage of being number 2--so we waited for grade 7 to start algebra. He has moved through it without a hitch--but he also clearly has a real gift for math. Different kids, different abilities. I think you are wise to wait until you think your kids can comfortably handle the material. Better to know less material well than lots of material poorly. I've never liked Saxon--and there are plenty in this camp. You might want to look around at the other options for high school math. We used MUS through pre-algebra/algebra, but I switched to Jacobs/Foerster because I thought they suited my kids' styles better.

"Conceptual Chemistry" and "Conceptual Physics" are both very interesting and only use a limited amount of math. These books are used for 1st year university non-major science courses. They won't provide the background for university-level science classes, but they go a long way towards providing the science background we all need to be responsible citizens. (Conceptual Physics comes in high school and university books. We used the high school version and I was very happy I had the teacher's manual. Conceptual Chemistry is currently only available in one version. The accompanying DVD is very good for an audio-visual learner.)