The authors recommend The Fallacy Detective first (age 12 & up), followed by The Thinking Toolbox (age 13 & up). (You can see for yourself and find supplemental resources for both at: http://www.fallacydetective.com) We used them both in 6th grade. FWIW, my DS just commented that TFD teaches you what fallacies are, and TTT teaches you how to spot them. We have Art of Argument planned for 7th grade.

Murrayshire, thanks for coming back to share what you've learned so far. I'll be looking at using this class in a year or two, so am interested to see how this develops.

We literally just yesterday got How to Read Literature Like a Professor For Kids. I opened a box from Amazon, sat the books on the end table, and DS picked up that one, got absorbed in it, and read it for about an hour. I figure it was a good sign. I guess he liked it. Now I need to read it too. :lol: :laugh:

My son did Hake 5 and is now doing Hake 7. We use the grammar book only. We do not use the writing lessons. He spends about 30 minutes total on each grammar lesson. Note, he does about half of the review questions (evens or odds) and that is plenty of review for him. There are about 10 questions on new material, and 20 to 30 review questions in every lesson. He does a lesson split over two days. We also don't do grammar every day; we alternate grammar and vocab days. Easy Grammar was OK. DS didn't retain much from it, but he might have been too young (looking back, IMO, formal grammar instruction wasn't needed for him as a then-fourth grader). EG didn't have enough systematic/cumulative, frequent review for him. We could have added Daily Grams, their companion product designed to provide such review, but then we would have been doing over 30 minutes of grammar every day, and that just wasn't where I wanted to spend the time. EG also doesn't teach diagramming, if that's important to you. I did like EG's "mark out prepositions first" approach though. That makes things simpler when breaking down the parts of a sentence, and we still use that method ourselves. I let DS choose between continuing EG or trying Hake, after having him look at Hake samples. He chose Hake and hasn't wanted to switch since. HTH.

We use Hake Grammar (currently finishing our second year of it), and haven't found it to be especially difficult or overly challenging by grade level. Everybody is different, of course, but I just wanted to share our experience, so as not to scare you or anyone else off. There are grade level samples and S&S documents on Hake's website, so you can see for yourself. My DS is using Hake 7 grammar currently, and, by age, he's a young-ish 6th grader. He did Hake 5 prior to that, and one year of Easy Grammar (level 4, didn't finish the whole book). He's had no other formal grammar instruction. He's a good reader and decent writer for his age, but he also doesn't especially love or enjoy grammar, FWIW. I do believe that Hake (and other popular programs, for instance Analytical Grammar) covers everything a student needs to know about grammar by the end of middle school. That frees us up to focus on advanced writing skills, literature, and written literary analysis during high school, with specific grammar concepts being reviewed only as needed. Whether that means that Hake, AG, and other middle school grammar programs are "accelerated", and whether that is a new thing . . . that hasn't been my experience. I'm kinda old, and I didn't have grammar instruction during my high school years - it was all done before then. I like covering grammar well and thoroughly when the student is ready, rather than early and often. For us, that means middle school, not before and hopefully not after. I don't believe it needs to be taught every year or all year long either. I've heard good things about EIW as a writing curriculum but never got the chance to use it. It might be really good for your DD where she is right now. The DVD instruction makes it about as parent-friendly, and open and go, as you can get. BJU is expensive and oriented to a classroom, so not as parent-friendly. Hake can by dry and uninspiring (although the flip side is that its cut-and-dry and efficient LOL), so kids who crave more creativity probably wouldn't like it. Writing Tales is another one your DD might enjoy. We choose not to use the writing assignments in Hake. The writing component is not integrated into the grammar instruction; it is a separate, smaller workbook with around 30 writing lessons (depending on the level). Hake is first and foremost a grammar program, with some vocab built in, and some writing assignments tacked on. There are other writing programs out there that have better scaffolding for building writing skills and that provide more engaging assignments, IMO. We've liked WWE, WWS, IEW-SWI, and Jump In, for example. What works best for us is choosing a writing curriculum that is a good fit, and using that. And also choosing a grammar curriculum that is a good fit, and using that. It hasn't worked for us to combine writing and grammar in one curriculum. Obviously grammar skills support writing skills, but they don't necessarily develop at the same rate, and my kid is definitely asynchronous, so we mix and match. Just my rambling, offering another perspective. :001_cool:

I think you might be referring to Adventures with Atoms & Molecules. If so, its available at Amazon. Not sure why Noeo doesn't have it available currently. http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Atoms-Molecules-Chemistry-Experiments/dp/0766012247/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397748094&sr=1-1&keywords=adventures+with+atoms+and+molecules When I bought Noeo Chem 3, I bought most of the books through other sources like Amazon where they were less expensive, and just got the IG from Noeo. Even the Young Scientists Club kits are usually less expensive elsewhere, especially when you factor in shipping. The IGs are the only true Noeo product, the rest they are just reselling from other publishers. HTH.

OP, if your kids are currently 13 and 9 as indicated in your signature, you might want to consider Chem level 3, instead of level 2, for next year. The Usborne encyclopedia used in level 2 (the core of that level) is probably too simplistic for many 9 year olds (it was for my DS at that age) and will almost certainly bore your oldest one to tears. Same for the other books in level 2, actually. (Fizz, Bubble & Flash is pretty juvenile, IMO, and I wasn't impressed when I borrowed it.) Level 3 has books that are more age-appropriate and interesting, IMO, than the ones in level 2. The DK Eyewitness Chemistry might be too much for your 9 year old but the others in that level should be fine. FWIW, I bought level 3 for my DS when he was 11. If you can, I'd suggest checking your library for the books used in both levels and see what you think. Granted, I'm only HS'ing one kid, but when one has multiple ages working together, I'm a big believer in catering first to the needs of the oldest and then adjusting as needed for youngers who are tagging along. Especially when approaching high school. Just my humble opinion. :)

You might also consider this one: Conceptual Integrated Sciences - Explorations It's the high school version of Hewitt's Conceptual Integrated Sciences that you linked earlier, which is a college text. I bought the college version and find it too dense to use right now with my rising 7th grader even though he loves science.

Bumping. Are you familiar with the IEW program yourself? Since you mentioned that your son's school uses it, I just wondered. One of the IEW theme books that fits your DS's interests might be a good fill-in for the rest of this year, but I wouldn't recommend an IEW theme book unless you were already experienced with the IEW method (through TWSS or one of the SWIs). Or perhaps "writing across the curriculum" to keep in practice with the things he's already learned through WWS2? Jump In is an independent, self-directed writing program that might be good filler as well, but might be too easy for a kid who has completed WWS2 already. Time4Writing.com also has some short-term online classes.

This is the simplest and most effective thing we've done around here for geography: I bought a poster-size print of a world map, put it in a poster frame, and hung it on the wall. DS puts a map pin in each country as he learns about it, through his reading in history/lit, watching a documentary, etc. This has worked better for visualizing and retaining than any other method we've tried (workbooks, videos, chants/songs, apps, online games). Sounds too simple to work, but it works here . . .

I have both American Odyssey and concise Story of US here, and I also have HO1-3. Between AO and Story of US, I'd suggest Story of US for a 6th grader. The reading level of AO is advanced and dense, even compared to HO3. K12 uses AO in high school (10th+) and Story of US in 5th & 6th grade, and I can clearly see why when I compare them. ETA: Since your DS likes worksheets, you can get K12's student & teacher guides for Story of US. As far as I know, those don't exist for AO. I believe AO's related resources are online through K12 only.

Yep, we really like it here too. Highly recommended.

Having used CPO Earth this year, I can tell you that you could easily use the textbook without doing any of the CPO labs. The labs are good if you can/want to do some of them, but they aren't necessarily intertwined or assumed to have been completed in working through the text at all. We ended up using earth science kits from Home Science Tools and TOPS more than anything else. We also have and sometimes use the KF Science encyclopedia, but DS still likes the CPO textbook better, and just said he thinks CPO has more detail than KF. Since you have CPO downloaded, I'd just let your DD take a look and see what she thinks. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the resources you're considering. :)

Wow! Thank you!!!

Yes, this. Kingfisher was taken out of the logic stage recommendations in TWTM 3rd edition because it went out of print, but only temporarily, as it turned out. The white cover KF (copyright 1992 or 1993), IMO, is better than the later one with a red cover. White has a more narrative and flowing text than the red. The red is more like an Usborne: more juvenile, more choppy, bullet-points of info rather than narrative.

You can also get them for less than list price at Amazon and with free prime shipping . . .

Bumping. Thank you for sharing your work. BTW, when I had problems inserting links on this board (with IE), I switched to a new browser (Firefox) and now it works fine. :001_smile:

I understand your concern. Well, to be honest, I'm not sure, since my DS hasn't actually started it yet; like I said, it is what we'll be doing next. So feel free to ignore me since I have no real experience. :laugh: Here's a link to a page of algebra suggestions written by Maria Miller (creator of Math Mammoth). Here's part of what she says about Foerster algebra (and, having used Math Mammoth 4-6, I trust her opinions): "With Foerster, you can definitely "hear" a teacher speaking to you through the text. The book is written to the student, with excellent, sometimes even pedantic, explanations. The text often includes little tips like what a classroom teacher might say, such as "the vinculum is supposed to extend over here" or illustrations why something cannot be done. Foerster's algebra goes fairly deep into the usual topics of algebra 1. The book includes both basic and challenging exercises, including lots of word problems. It is an excellent textbook when it comes to explaining mathematics. Foerster's approach is very analytical and logical, relying on mathematical thinking—which can be very good for students who are going into sciences. The main difficulty I can see for homeschooling parents is that some of the exercises are quite challenging. Thus, Foerster's book may be too difficult for some students." So I hope those details might be helpful in deciding whether it could be a good fit for your DD. I don't see why one couldn't reduce and/or skip some of the most challenging word problems if they prove to be too difficult for a particular ("average") student, as referenced in the review above. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, esp. when the program has good, clear teaching. I mentioned Foerster with Math Without Borders since your DD has gone through TT Algebra already, so perhaps using a curriculum like Foerster might not be as daunting as it might be for a student with a different background. Plus the MWB videos, which cover several levels, so you'd be set for a good while or maybe all through high school. You can also buy the complete solutions manual and a test book if you want them. Foerster is visually clean and uncluttered, which is a plus for us but not for some folks, and is directed at a high school audience, not a remedial college text. Maybe you could elaborate on the specifics of why you want to do another year of algebra 1? What did you feel was lacking, or what features would help your DD more the second time? Hope you get more BTDT advice.

Have you considered Foerster? I decided on that next for my DS. Its straightforward and thorough. You can buy video instruction (DVDs, not online videos) made especially for Foerster, from Math Without Borders. They offer programs through Precalc. http://mathwithoutborders.com/?page_id=4 ETA: There's also Chalkdust, which has DVD instruction too. You can buy the generic version, which is the same product without the Chalkdust name, published by Houghton-Mifflin.

Thank you so much for the link! And thank you to Mandy for mentioning it!

Mandy, I'm intrigued by your first item. Googling didn't narrow it down for me. Would you mind sharing a link and/or more info about Plague! Problem Solving for One? TIA!

Haven't seen this mentioned yet: Discovering the World of Geography It's the best geo workbook I've seen. (We've tried Evan Moor, Teacher Created Materials, Memoria Press and others I can't remember.) You can preview on the Amazon link. Used in conjunction with a good atlas, I think it makes a really effective, non-tedious, middle school geo curriculum.

I have no experience with their online classes, but IEW has a fairly active Yahoo group where you might find more help and feedback.

I agree, "interesting" is a good word for their comparison to WWE. LOL. I think you're right, that document must be new, because I looked for a detailed S&S previously. The way it was written, especially the first couple of pages with the comparison, strikes me as a bit unprofessional. It also feels like they rushed to throw it together, because it could really use some grammar corrections, proofreading, and editing. Kind of ironic. :)

I have no personal experience with Challenge A, but this thread might be enlightening for you, if you haven't already seen it. Several posts in it discuss that Challenge A (and B ) do not really teach science as a subject, even though it is marketed that way. Rather, some science material is covered, but only in the context of teaching research skills and writing skills using some (limited) science content. I've seen/heard others say that for a student who really wants science as a separate and thoroughly covered subject, adding it at home to an already very full work load in Challenge A can be difficult. That may not be a deal-breaker for you, just wanted to mention it in case you're expecting science as a separate subject as you seem to be indicating above. I've also heard people mention IRL that for a student jumping into CC for the first time, Challenge A can be quite an adjustment, and much additional time could be required by that student playing catch-up in critical skills, especially for Latin. Their Latin in particular moves at a quick and demanding pace in Challenge A and B, and kids who've done the elementary level Latin with CC have a strong advantage in the group setting. Also, grammar isn't a separate subject, but is covered via Latin, and a very solid grammar background apparently is required. But you didn't say what kind of background in grammar and Latin your DD already has, so maybe this is totally a non-issue for you. :) Again, no personal experience, just passing along some food for thought. HTH.