Are you aware it's run by Greg Landry, founder of Landry Academy? https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/632899-x-post-landry-academy-financial-problems/ https://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/632893-landry-academy-financial-problems/ Many of us lost money (hundreds of dollars in my case, and many lost thousands) and had to scramble to find replacement courses mid-year due to Landry Academy's very abrupt closure. You can google for more info about his business practices, unpaid teachers, and fraudulent tax returns. After my experience seeing first-hand how he handled his business, I can't recommend him. Aside from that, I agree that 6 to 12 hours per week for a standard bio class seems high. As alternatives, I can personally recommend Debbie Stokes at Excelsior Classes if you want a live bio class, and Dr. Dana Underwood at FundaFunda Academy if you'd prefer an asynchronous bio class. (Mrs. Stokes previously taught through Landry Academy and landed at Excelsior Classes after the dust settled.) I've posted about Dr. Underwood before - DS thought her class was excellent. Feel free to ask if you'd like more info on either one.

@RootAnn I was hesitant to put it in my original post because the last couple of tests haven't been returned and grades are not final yet. 😉 I am willing to share it via PM for now, and I will come back and edit my post once the class is officially over. I know how much this community values this kind of info and I have benefited from it myself!

Our standout hit this year: Logical Communication with Mr. Roy Speed has been a big hit. It focuses on clear thinking, organizing ideas and arguments, backing up your ideas with evidence, logical flow, and rhetorical devices, all in conjunction with analyzing high-quality essays. The instructor has appropriately high standards and is enthusiastic, the live classroom is well-managed and has interactive discussions, the workload is just right (emphasis on quality, not quantity), and the feedback is individualized (appropriate for a range of abilities), prompt and constructive. DS has taken several composition courses before this, and this one is the best he's had by far. Mr. Speed is known here on the forum for his Shakespeare courses, and he's offering full-year writing courses online now too. He also teaches writing to corporate professionals. DS will be taking his Essay Writing and Appreciation course next year. Another hit: Derek Owens for math continues to be a hit for us. DS has done DO Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2, recently finished Honors Pre-Calc, and is looking forward to AP Calc next year. Misses: No real misses for us this year. However, I have been disappointed with the slow grading and little feedback in the German class at Big River Academy. Grading and feedback in foreign language seems significant since the work builds on itself every week. But overall the course is solid, the workload is appropriate for high school, and DS has enjoyed it.

I think your DD's job shadowing would make a fantastic elective credit. Esp. if you could formalize or document it somehow, like CityMouses's example. For more science credits, if that's what your DD wants, just throwing out some ideas here. My DS is in a similar situation, rising 12th grader, looking at medical or related health field, doesn't need or want AP science credit prior to starting at a university. (He needs to take his college science credits on the campus at four-year university, not transfer in credits or test out of them.) So we're going interest-led and also beyond the traditional high school science sequence. He's going to take DE chemistry in the spring, fully intending to take chem again once he gets to his four-year university. We're going to list the DE chem course Advanced Chemistry on his high school transcript, and he won't apply for or accept college credit for it from the university he eventually attends. We also looked into using Thinkwell and a textbook for chem. Thinkwell's basic chem class, not the AP version, is an intro-level college course. He's also going to take a one-semester class called Biomedical Science through Excelsior Classes. Regular high school bio is a prerequisite. It goes a step further than regular bio and is more interest-led, not a standard high school class. More appealing to DS than a plug and chug, teach-to-the-test AP Bio course would be. DS took two classes this year with Excelsior Classes and both were very good experiences. DS is really excited about taking this course: FundaFunda Academy offers a Biology 2 high school course in which the student gets to choose from different modules to basically create a course that interests them most, can be one semester or two, and they research topics and write about them with the instructor's guidance and mentoring. DS had this same teacher, Dr. Underwood, for Bio 1, and we thought she was great. She also posts here on the forum, I think as ClemsonDana, and she's extremely accessible and helpful. I wish DS had time to take this course with her next year. Here is the course description: One final idea, maybe your DD could pick some titles from The Great Courses and pair them with a spine or two to create her own interest-led science class(es)? We've done quite a few. They have courses on neuroscience, botany, marine biology (I know you mentioned that), physiology, genetics, infectious diseases, and so on.

I agree, and I would think that some (many?) of the WTM HSers here would already be following this model. DS learned to do these things well with Writing With Skill . . . in middle school. DS just got back his end-of-semester research position paper in his first-ever DE (humanities) course - he aced it, yay! So something about our relaxed approach seems to have worked. The preferred citation method may be important in certain courses, or at certain schools, but for DS's class, the prof just asked the students to pick a method and use it consistently. He didn't care if it was APA, MLA, or Chicago as long as it was consistently applied. This was an intro level course - a major level course would probably have different expectations.

All the Great Courses we've used had an outline or summary for each lecture followed by a couple of extension questions for the student to research/write about/discuss/think more deeply about the topic. We've used those as a springboard for discussion here. But, hey, I've never been a real teacher, so my experience has no validity and you probably shouldn't listen to me. 😁

We've done history in a pretty relaxed way. I read advice here on the boards at some point when DS was middle school age that resonated with me: history is one of those subjects where there is not a defined body of knowledge that one is expected to know and must know in order to advance (unlike math, for instance). We've focused on input - watched Great Courses lectures and read from a spine or two. Very little written output. As long as you're covering writing skills elsewhere (thesis-driven essays, research papers, short answer responses), I don't think writing specific to history is strictly necessary. I view end-of-chapter review questions as a form of busywork and we don't do them. If there's any doubt about comprehension or understanding of a topic, we just talk about it. I know for sure that DS has learned, retained and understands more about history than his dad or I ever did, as products of public school.

Amazon. I bought a blank key with an unprogrammed remote for our make of vehicle for $15. Then had a locksmith cut the key. He charged $22. Then programmed the remote myself using a Youtube video plus the original key/remote, which took less than 60 seconds. I was skeptical but it worked. Easy peasy!

I understand. You might want to email Mr. Speed and ask about it. Maybe your daughter could attend the live class once per week, whichever fit her schedule better, and then watch the recording for the other class session that week. After seeing what DS has experienced this year, I think that would be worth asking about.

I understand you're looking for a curriculum to use at home, but maybe you'd be interested in this or it will help someone else: a class that does exactly this is Roy Speed's Logical Communication, and the follow-up course, Essay Writing and Appreciation. (Mr. Speed is known here on the forum for his Shakespeare classes, but he offers year-long writing classes online now too. He also teaches writing to corporate professionals.) My son is taking it this year and the difference in his ability from last fall to now is astounding. I thought he might be too old or too far along, as an 11th grader, to benefit from it much, but that is not the case at all. DS is unlearning lots of bad habits and "skills" that he learned in previous writing classes from other providers. DS has asked to be in Mr. Speed's class again next year instead of knocking out his college English credits through DE - that's how much he believes in Mr. Speed's process and enjoys the class sessions with him. A quote from Mr. Speed: An excerpt of the Logical Communication course description: From the course description for Essay Writing and Appreciation:

This is awesome! Thank you for sharing this great news. I love seeing your updates.

Actually, there is a separate text for the DO precalc course. Some of the other DO courses don't have one, but precalc does. It is Sullivan, 4th edition. The assigned problems to be completed from the textbook are listed in the student workbook. The student checks their own answers for the textbook problems; they aren't submitted for grading. Then there are also separate HW sheets to be printed from DO's website that ARE submitted for grading. ETA: DO calls the textbook problems "practice problems". Perhaps some kids don't do them, but they are assigned as part of the course.

Not all open source texts can be altered. CK12 advertises the ones they use as being "flex-books" that can be customized by their end-users. The flex-book that has been customized by Guesthollow is (or was, at least) available on the Guesthollow website. That is NOT the same thing as the original flex-book available from CK12.

I haven't used either of those courses specifically, but I've researched CK12, and the texts they use are written by a variety of different authors (at the time I last looked, anyway). CK12 as an entity does not write the texts they use. Open source texts are licensed in such a way that allows their use by anyone online, for free. (I believe open source textbook authors are usually compensated for their work through grants and/or indirectly by various entities that use/promote their work.) And with CK12 it's the same as with any other provider - the quality varies widely depending on the individual course. I'd spend some time googling each textbook author's name and their qualifications, as a place to start.

I don't pretend to know anything about the ailings of California's education system or the UC system, but I live smack-dab in the middle of the Midwest, and when DS toured our state flagship public univ, we were told that students from California make up the largest "out of state" group in the undergrad student body. They didn't give the specific percentage, but said it was well into the double digits. I thought that was surprising considering how far we are from CA.

I can recommend Wasko Lit, taught by Brian Wasko of WriteAtHome.com. DS has taken Great Books courses with him for three years now, after trying a couple other online providers. These courses have a reasonable reading load and pace, but they cover a lot of ground and you can check the book lists at the link below. There is minimal required output: a short weekly online comprehension quiz to keep the kids on schedule and accountable, plus one paper or creative project (for example, a Powerpoint presentation about an author), per semester. The focus is really on the books, not composition. Lots of good discussion. Mr. Wasko is personable and enthusiastic and relates well to his students. No proselytizing. Classes meet live once per week. https://www.writeathome.com/wasko-lit

Yep, DO still does this. Once you've made 9 monthly payments, the course is considered paid for in full. DS started DO pre-calc at a slow pace last summer before his school year officially started, finishing up now, and we've reached our 9 payment max. And this is the second DO course we've done that with. 😃

Serious question for those of you who feed your dogs raw: What about e. coli, salmonella, parasites? I read previously, when thinking about going raw, that modern domesticated dogs have lost the ability to maintain the beneficial gut flora needed to counteract e. coli, etc. Thoughts?

Ah, I see your point. And I completely buy that the teens you're familiar with who waited until 18 for a driver’s license were the same kids who were getting themselves to most of their activities by walking, biking, or using public transportation by the time they were teens. But where I live, public transp is simply non-existent; we don't have Uber or Lyft either. We do have a taxi service in town, but it's famous for being late and unreliable if you call one. Things here are so spread out, it truly isn't feasible to walk or bike. So, yeah, lots of kids here get their licenses at 16 simply because their parents can't or won't drive them anymore. But I've only got one kid, so I recognize it's easier for us to keep driving alongside him. FWIW, I am aware that one doesn't need a license to drive supervised, only a permit. DS got his license at 16, instead of just remaining on a permit, to start the clock on "length of time licensed to drive" for insurance purposes, even though he still drives as though he's on a permit, i.e., with adult supervision, but he's driving all the time, everyday. I also don't buy the notion that kids must pay for their own cars in order to be responsible with them. DS did not pay 100% for his own wheels. From a young age, we told him we'd match what he saved toward his first car. He paid for 1/3 of it from years of birthday, Christmas, and odd job money. And we paid the other 2/3. We did this because both DH and I had the experience of owning first cars that were COMPLETELY unsafe. Our parents insisted we had to pay for our own and I can't believe the unreliable, unsafe clunkers they allowed us to drive. Safety features have changed a lot, especially since the 2012 model year. Of course it depends on the kid how well they take care of their car, no matter who paid for it, so to each their own, but for us it was important to get him in a car with modern safety features versus what he could have paid for on his own.

I'm the poster who shared the article and I'm the one you quoted. I'm not sure if you're commenting about what I posted or if you're just making a general comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'm one of those who firmly doesn't believe in infantalizing our teens; with mine at 17, I'm quite hands-off and about as non-helicopter as you can get. I actively disapprove of the trend of young adults delaying getting their driver's licenses. DS got his driver's license at 16, is now 17. He is driving all the time, but he's driving only with supervision by an adult. I definitely don't want to send him off to college with no or very little driving experience. According to the article I shared earlier, stats show teen driving is dangerous but longer supervised driving practice makes it less so.

I say this as the mom of a 17 year old beginner driver - and I feel for the OP, none of this is easy: IMO, OP’s son should not be allowed to drive unsupervised, period, due to his careless attitude towards her rule, the law, and others on the road. Rather than taking his keys away now temporarily, and giving them back, he could/should continue to drive but only with a parent in the car - as continuing supervised driver training. Consider this: An analysis of the risk teen drivers pose to themselves and others, as well as comparisons of driving and licensing patterns in comparable countries around the globe, suggests the age for independent driving and licensing shouldn’t be 16, but 18. Let’s take a closer look at why together. Teens are most likely to be involved in fatal collisions at 16 The numbers are clear: 16-year-olds are more likely to be involved in collisions, fatal or otherwise, than drivers of any other age. Specifically, the IIHS chart above notes the rate of fatal crash involvement per 100 million miles traveled was 9.1 at 16, compared to 6.6 at 17 and 3.8 at 18. From 18, the rate of fatal crash involvement remained virtually constant between 3.6 and 3.8 until drivers reached the 30-34 age bracket, at which point the rate of fatal crash involvement dropped again to 1.8. I’ve written about teen crash involvement before, and while the risks are primarily related to male teens, this is a problem we need to tackle with all teenagers and all parents. This chart alone explains why teenagers shouldn’t drive alone at 16. Simply waiting a year cuts the risk of death by 27%, and waiting another year until 18 before independent driving cuts the risk by 58% compared to the risk of death faced by a 16-year-old driver. To put it another way, if 100 16-year-olds were involved in fatal crashes in their first (and final) year of driving, it’s likely that 42 of them would have survived their first year of driving had that cohort of 100 drivers begun driving at age 18 instead of at age 16. If we simply delay our children’s independent driving by a couple of years, they effectively become as safe as drivers nearly a decade older. We need to give them the gift of time. But doesn’t this just mean that 18 year olds have 2 years more driving experience than 16 year olds? What about new 18 year olds vs new 16 year olds? It’s tempting to think that the only reason the driver death rates drop so dramatically between 16 and 18 is because all of the 18 year olds have the benefit of the 2 years of driving and hopefully not dying between 16 and 18. However, numerous studies have found this to be erroneous, whether in the US, Canada, or overseas. A Canadian study found in 1992 that novice 16 year olds were more likely to be injured while driving than novice 17 or 18 year olds, with novice drivers defined as those with under a year of experience. A meta analysis of 11 studies since 1990 found the same results: 16 year old new drivers were more likely to crash than new older drivers. It’s not about driving experience; it’s about cognitive development and life experience. Sixteen year olds simply aren’t as ready to drive as 18 year olds. Giving them lots of training before they turn 16 doesn’t change this, whether that training comes from parents or from driving instructors. This doesn’t mean that supervised driving time is meaningless for teenagers; it’s very valuable. However, it can’t overcome, statistically speaking, the increased risk of allowing unsupervised driving before 18. A 14-year old with 400 hours of supervised driving experience is still going to be a poorer driver than a 16-year old with 200 hours of supervised experience, because training time can’t overcome maturity when the maturity gap becomes too large. By the same measure, that 16-year old with 200 supervised hours will, statistically speaking, still be a much more dangerous driver than an 18-year old with 100 supervised hours. Delaying licensing until 18 gives parents more time to drive with their teens Besides the maturity that comes with having two additional years of life experience, a significant reason why teenagers are safer drivers at 18 than they are at 16 is because they have more experience behind the wheel. However, what we want is to give them supervised experience so they aren’t gaining experience while engaging in risky behavior (e.g., driving at night, driving with passengers, having minimal supervised hours, etc). To that end, when we require our teens to wait before obtaining their licenses, we can spend more time driving with them and modeling and monitoring safer driving tactics. We can take the time to choose safer vehicles for them rather than simply choosing the cheapest ones we can find because we feel pressured to reward them as soon as they turn 16. Remember: teenagers driving in and of itself isn’t the problem; most teens manage to drive responsibly enough while under their learners’ permits or while taking their drivers’ tests to obtain licenses. The problem is that when teenagers drive on their own, there is a strong tendency for them to leave behind responsible driving habits and engage in risky behavior. The more time we spend driving with them, the more likely they are to internalize safe driving habits that they’ll be more likely to use when we don’t drive with them. Sweden and Norway don’t license their teens until they turn 18 Finally, it’s worth considering the practices of countries with significantly safer driving cultures than those domestically. Sweden and Norway feature two of the lowest auto death rates on the planet per capita (at <3/100,000 people, compared to roughly 10-11/100,000 in the US), and both countries also feature the lowest rates of child auto fatalities on the globe. What do they do to keep their youngest drivers safe? You guessed it: both countries restrict the age of licensure for car driving to 18. Both countries allow supervised driving before 18, just as in the US, but neither country allows teenagers to get behind the wheel without adults until they turn 18, without exception. They have extensive driver preparation and training programs as well, and in Norway, in particular, it can cost up to $4,000 to obtain one’s license before all is said and done, due to the various safety classes one must take on the way to licensure. What can we take away from all of this? Driving is a serious responsibility, not only for the driver but for every other citizen who may be impacted by the driver’s competence. In Sweden and Norway, where citizens are less likely to die from auto traffic than in any other wealthy country on the planet, no one drives a car before s/he turns 18. There’s just too much at stake. On the way to driving at 18, teens get lots of supervised practice, take lots of classes, and need to prove their competence in a number of ways. They take driving seriously there. Here, we lose approximately 2,600 13-19-year-olds each year. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the driving culture. However, it starts with changing how we view driving, and how easily we’re willing to turn over the keys to our children. We can’t wait for the laws of 50 states to come together toward best practice; there isn’t a single state that’s following best practices yet. But as parents, we can take the first steps and make sure we aren’t putting our children in harm’s way any sooner than necessary, and not a minute before we’ve shared everything we know with them about safe driving. The stakes are too high to treat driving as a simple rite of passage. —https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/when-should-teenager-get-drivers-license-not-before-18/ (bolding mine)

Indeed. Beware.

Nope, no way. He killed out of cold-blooded revenge, not in the heat of passion. That’s worse, IMO. What if he has or develops a grudge towards your family? If your IL’s want your help, they get your help on YOUR terms, not theirs.

Thank you for this! We had been planning on using the Great Courses econ course, but to be honest I wasn't too excited about it. It seems dated and perhaps slightly biased. I showed my son the ACDC econ course, we watched a couple of videos, and DS likes the looks of it. So I think we're going to use this. I guess that makes us tasteless, LOL. ; )

Well, either that guy in Starbucks is an idiot, or the scenario was exaggerated. Hard to believe. Good grief.