My daughter worked through 5/4 as an afterschooler, and my third grade son will be using 5/4 in homeschool next year. It's a terrific book, IMO, but not at all fancy or flashy; in fact, it's really basic. You will need to buy: A student text, a solution manual, and the book of practice worksheets/tests. The problems are in student text and the text is written to the student, so the student works their answers on a separate piece of paper. the practice worksheets/tests are consumable and to be written on. If your son has a disability that you will need to do the writing, then maybe the adapted book would be bet. But if he's like my kid (your average, non-disabled 4th grader), it might be best to work with him and get him up to speed on working independently as soon as you can (meaning, he works out the problems on the paper). It'll make your life easier! :)

The Common Core standards have literature lists, which are fine and relatively benign and "optional" and teachers/schools are certainly not obligated to follow them. But Pearson also publishes textbooks that are CC aligned, as well as having a subsidiary on the CC committee and publishing tests aligned to CC and their textbooks. The textbooks I referred to are the new CC-aligned books, and the material I referenced in my million-word post (above) is what is printed in that specific textbook (the one labelled "LITERATURE"). Pearson and its subsidiaries, like Prentice Hall, are the major textbook publishers for CC-aligned materials. So these textbooks like the one I referenced above are shipped to schools and the material I referenced is in that specific book. Schools are not obligated to follow what is in the book, either (they are free to design their won materials). But they won't, because they teach slavishly to the CC tests and nothing more, and they wouldn't have purchased the book if they weren't going to teach the material in it. Not sure that was coherent....I have to rush off to work.

If it's grammar you want, get Grammar Island and Practice Island; Grammar Island is the story and "lessons" and Practice Island is the written practice. That should give you plenty of grammar practice without Sentence Island. Practice Island is $10, but you can save that by writing the grammar sentence of the day on a whiteboard or piece of paper and working it out. I found both the student and teacher manuals helpful, as there are suggestions and some answers to sentence problems in the teacher manual that aren't in the student manual, and part of the beauty of the program is reading side by side with your kid. But if you know grammar and don't mind sharing a book, the teacher manual and Practice /whiteboard would be enough. I haven't seen the old editions, so I can't comment on how they differ from the new ones. Yes, these books are perfectly appropriate for an older child to review from; I used them to teach myself grammar alongside by daughter.

I wouldn't have done a thing. Tasteless, rowdy teens are neither new or illegal.

Does anyone know what specific types of experiments are in the box? it just says STEM engineering, but I was hoping for more specifics.

Go for it; you'll probably have a good time and learn something to boot! I think most homeschoolers realize that there is a wide swath of America who homeschools. My daughter and I went to the HEAV convention in Virginia last year. It's a very religious crowd, right down to many in Mennonite dress and the stereotypical denim jumper crowd. And then there was my daughter, in her booty shorts, LOL! In my defense, if I had realized she had outgrown them that much, we wouldn't have thrown them in the luggage, but I didn't and we did and she wore them because we didn't pack a lot of clothes to change. So if we didn't get tossed out on our half-naked rears, you surely won't either!

OMG, I am in love with you after I read your referenced thread, LOL!

No, it is just not a scientific theory if it cannot be disproven, and no respectable scientist would ever claim such a thing. That is not up for debate. You can say some claim is a theory outside of the scientific realm, but do not call it science. A person cannot go and make up their own scientific definitions and parameters and justifiably call it science, no more than I can make up a law and expect to successfully defend my made-up law in court.

I've seen the old Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but not the new one with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. What science does he twist to fit his agenda?

Yes, Pearson stands to make a lot of money off our kids' failures. That's a scary thing because they are so big and have so much power. What struck me as I read through the ELA standards was how many of them sound alike at the upper levels, although there wasn't anything wrong with them as they stood alone (I mean, it's hard to be against a standard that requires a kid to read a text and interpret it, LOL).

I interpreted this from the Common Core standards directly. But I also consider points made in discussions/articles because occasionally they offer a different point of view that I hadn't considered. I understand that these are only my interpretations and others have other views on that. Item #4 about concern for the collective and not the individual comes from looking at what in the Common Core textbook is *not* offered for lessons, as well as well what is offered. The lessons present material that demeans families. An author is presented who glorifies and is happy about her husband's death and the freedom it provides to her, for example. This is a very subtle way of sending the message that the family and spousal commitment is not important. A more balanced view might present that text, along with Anne Bradford's beautiful poem written to her husband that does just the opposite. If it is freeing to dispose of your family, you have no loyalty to family and the only entity left for you to cleave to is your collective country As another example, Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, his "Way To Wealth", and his satire "Rules By Which A Great Empire May Be reduced To A Small One" are *not* included in the text. These works promote a can-do attitude and praise the highly independent and individualistic. By not including them, those qualities are dismissed as qualities not worth discussing or promoting. I can't realistically can't re-type numerous examples like I did above; I'd be here all day. But when books that emphasize strong families and independent people are conspicuously absent in favor of less-well-known and respected authors, the message to students is clear that these things are not worth discussing or reading, and that qualities like independence are not valued. In my interpretation, this promotes group thinking, rather than careful self-analysis, independence, and strengthening of family bonds. But you have to see the connection between the Common Core standards and the curriculum and interpret them as one and the same to have my point of view. It boils down to me thinking that the standards and the curriculum are the same thing, even though they are peddled as not the same thing.

It's the commingling of the standards with the Pearson textbooks that makes me see the standards as the curriculum. Because Pearson has such a wide monopoly on the textbook market, they are one of the few games in town for buying Common Core aligned curriculum (at least for public schools). In theory, another school district could present an unbalanced view from the opposite side of the political spectrum, but because schools teach to the test and only to the test, and Pearson subsidiaries also make the test, it is the rare district that would have the moxie to deviate from a Pearson curriculum. They are just too afraid of a kid getting a failing score and they won't risk it. So the material in the book winds up being the material taught, which is decidedly unbalanced toward one point of view. The example I gave is only one example out of some 900 pages of text; there are many examples like this, and when looked at in it's entirely, the book presents a very definite point of view and agenda.

I think the indoctrination accusations come because of the following types of assignments in the Pearson teacher manual for English Language Arts. Since schools teach slavishly to the test, and nothing more than what is suggested in the Common Core manuals, this becomes the curriculum. The ELA standards for 6-8th grades suggests reading the preamble and first amendment to the US constitution, so the Pearson teacher manual and student text includes the preamble and first amendment, as well as a commentary by Linda Monk which describes the racist nature of the founding fathers. That's all that is included. A better choice for neutrality on the issue would be to 1) include the entire constitution without commentary and let students discuss it without suggestion as to racism and be allowed to form their own conclusions, or 2) to include documents that provide a counterpoint to Monk that rebuts the thesis that the founding fathers were racist. For ELA standards for 11-12th grades, Pearson does something similar. Here, the Pearson manual and student text suggests reading the Bill of Rights. This is followed by a brief selection from Akhil Amar that decries the founding fathers' racism based on the three-fifths clause. But again, they do not provide the entire US constitution to read, nor do they offer a rebuttal. An ideal rebuttal to this would be Abraham Lincoln's points in the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, where Lincoln denies the founding fathers were racist. It's curious that Common Core authors and Pearson (the funding for these 2 organizations comes from the same places) would trust Bill of Rights commentary from Amar over Lincoln. These are kind of long-winded examples, but the fact that both sides of the coin are not presented when discussing the Constitution and Bill of Rights suggests an intentional bias and an agenda. This is where the indoctrination charge comes from. The fact that this example is from the ELA book is also curious because to discuss this in depth would really benefit from a history teacher, not an English teacher. But a history teacher might be able to rebut Pearson's agenda, and that wouldn't further the ends of Common Core. ETA: Above example is from Prentice Hall LITERATURE, Teacher's Edition, The American Experience, Volume 1, Common Core Edition

I think it is very hard to separate standards from curricula when the standards and associated textbooks from Pearson suggest materials for use in the classroom. The public schools I have experience with take that as what will be on the test. It becomes the curricula because schools teach slavishly to the test, and they do not teach anything more than what is on the test. That has been my experience with my kids' public schools, but you may have experience with better public schools than I have.

Inner Fish started out as a book. I had no idea it was also a PBS series!

Can anyone recommend some documentaries for the Middle Ages/Medieval Era?

Like PP said, don't hold your breath.

I like these for the evolution perspective: "Bang! How We Came To Be" and "Evolution" by Loxton at the elementary level, and for you or a high-schooler "Only A Theory" by Ken Miller. I'm sorry I have nothing to offer about creationism, except the respectful consideration and time Miller gives Michael Behe's creationism ideas in "Only A Theory". Just to clarify something: The word "theory" as used in science does not mean the same thing that it does in everyday life. In science, a theory is something that has grown out of a hypothesis that has been tested rigorously over a long period of time and has not been disproven. That doesn't mean it is 100% true; theories in the scientific sense never are. It means is has never been demonstrated to be false and that the likelihood it will be falsified is extraordinarily low. So for example: Creationism cannot be a scientific theory because it can't be disproven (because you cannot disprove the existence of God). This doesn't mean God doesn't exist; only that God cannot be disproven and is beyond the scope of scientific theory. Evolution grew out of the hypothesis that life forms evolved from simpler life forms, and while it is now a theory, it could still be disproven (by finding a complex fossil in a simple layer of sediment that was not put there intentionally or moved there through Earth's crustal movements, for example). Hope this helps.

I've ben reading quite a bit about Common Core over the past 2 years or so, and I've interpreted "social justice" in the context of Common Core to have elements of the following: 1. We will not acknowledge that there are differing abilities in children; everyone has the same intellectual capabilities. 2. Our schools will reflect Point #1 (minimal/no gifted and talented programs, no acknowledgement of the word "remedial" or the necessity of such classes). 3. Give equal weight/credence/time to all authors, regardless of merit or experience, in order to achieve gender/racial/ethnic equality. 4. Emphasis the welfare of the entire population over independent thinking and concern for ones self/family/religion/ethnic group. 5. Outcomes based education, rather than knowledge based. 6. All children will eventually be educated on the same level, even if that level is very low. Whether or not you see the above as worthwhile pursuits, this is a very different interpretation from the traditional meaning of social justice, which was promoted by many churches starting in the late 19th century.

Thanks for clarifying. I have a daughter who had horrific spelling when she came home this year from public schools. We had 2 different spelling curricula and she would always get an "A" on every spelling test, but her written initial drafts of essays contained so many silly spelling errors; it was like her brain fell out of her head as soon as the spelling test was over and she had her 100% in her back pocket. I finally figured the spelling was a waste of time and ditched the spelling curricula and just started having her re-write and re-edit and re-spell every time I saw mistakes on her essays. I have seen decent improvement, but still nothing like where she needs to be. I'm not sure if this is as good as it's going to get, or if learning to spell is just going to be a long, slow slog through middle school. I'm always on the prowl for spelling information in order to make this process speed up a bit, you know? I also have a son who will be homeschooled for next year (4th grade) and he has better spelling (his teachers did not tolerate the "inventive spelling" my daughter's teachers did). A spelling curriculum was so useless for my daughter I am considering skipping it with my son, but I don't know if that's a good idea for a 4th grader.Ah, I'm just rambling....

I have a niece that did this; left school in her junior year and 1 year from her degree because a semester of room-mate issues had gotten her down. There was, of course, a much bigger hidden problem, and that problem was that her mother had pushed her into a degree that was unsuited to her, at a college that was unsuited to her. She was in the wrong field for her talent and desires. I think it's important to find out why she is leaving; perhaps the location or major is really not for her. A mistake of that magnitude is hard to watch (it was hard for me to watch my niece go through it), but if that's case, maybe she is better off walking away. If this is not the situation, though, I agree with Regentrude about the possibility of an incomplete.

I might have missed it in one of the articles, but I wonder how they verify that the writing, editing, and proofreading are the work of the applicant?

Do you feel the MegaWords books are as useful for non-dyslexic students as well as dyslexic ones, or would you recommend something else for non-dyslexics? Is the method in another post where you use copywork and dictation solely from Pudewa or is it a combination of the MegaWords method and Pudewa?

My kid will be a 7th grader and is in the same boat, and I am wondering the same thing. She likely won't be a language or classics major (she's all about science). So I am all ears on this thread.

Thanks! She is not quite to pre-algebra yet, so those texts would be way above her head, but they look useful in the future and I'll have to get my hands on them in a year or so.