All I know is, when DS holds a physics conversation with kids his age - and simplifies the language and concepts as far as he is able - he still gets blank stares. Even with interest, background is an essential part of comprehension.

Jergensen is a good text - I wouldn't fret that one!

Exactly. Bored kids with active minds need not apply in some districts. There are those where the target is the top 10% - leaving the top 1% to fend for themselves. We are thankful for a 1st grade GT teacher telling us to hightail it out of the system with younger DS. He would never have been served appropriately. If you are really concerned with intelligence, have a professional administer a comprehensive profile. It will give you something to work with, regardless of the GT program's opinion.

What age? What other workload? It's not crazy, but it may be unrealistic depending on other commitments. Or, if he's only doing 5 other courses, then the two could be relatively easy to fit in together.

I personally know of a kid with a 140+ IQ who was denied entry into a GT program. Sometimes, these things have less to do with intelligence than the schools let on. Sometimes, testing style, teacher reference, and learning style mean more than student ability...

Hoping I didn't derail the topic - my point was, "yes, use secular content for science." It will be essential to success in any higher scientific endeavor. No need to fear it for any reason.

I would always separate the two topics. Faith-based discussions and empirically-based discussions are inherently different. This may be a personal opinion, but some differences don't need to be reconciled. If your child can learn to operate in multiple mindsets, he/she will be far the better for it. There's no imperative in science to disavow your faith, but there is an imperative in the scientific process not to make leaps of faith. What is unknown to empirical observation remains unknown. Faith is free to stand strong on its own.

Thinking a bit more - I think the amount of acceleration is the obvious tell as to how the experience is likely to go. Our son was doing MIT-OCW in middle school - how could he expect freshman HS content to compare? If you can reasonably expect 50% new content, then you should be able to expect a more favorable experience. Also, if clubs and athletics are a draw, those will be abundant.

Are you working through the text with her? AoPS is not a great "independent learner" curriculum, imho. Some may use it this way, but I believe it needs coaching. If you are using it as an independent program, I would expect it to be difficult to jump in and help out here-and-there. It would be better to use it as a shared experience for the two of you. And, if you are already considering switching, it probably means there is still time to jump in and catch up. If you are already working the course together (end-to-end), then you might need to do something a bit more drastic. If you can afford a tutor, I'd recommend it. If not, then I'd look for a traditional algebra 1 textbook - the kind you can get at a local Half Price store. As a last resort, I might try Teaching Textbooks or Math-U-See - they are reasonably good, but a bit delayed in their content. Since there are likely some fundamentals missing, that delay may not be a bad thing.

A student scoring a perfect 800 in 7th grade may attend one course free (there could be additional requirements). Maybe that was what she meant?

West Coast? Probably very little benefit to do TIP. You could choose NUMATS and CTD in addition to CTY - they're closer, and serve essentially the same purpose. CTD actually has a decent slate of online courses available. TIP courses in the summer are generally good, but they're all expensive and in the South and East.

TTUISD is Texas Tech's online program. It's fully accredited, but not all that rigorous. However, for a 10yo, "rigorous" is relative. DS10 is actually taking Geography online this year, and it has been about perfect. He'll have 5 full HS credits by the end of the year, but is a year or so away from being ready for a HS English program.

Ugh. Not well. We shouldn't have tried it. Once AL, it's rough going to a B&M moving at a snail's pace. Other kids can't relate, either - his best friends are all graduating seniors. He'll have to start over next year, and it's not going to get any better over time. We are seriously flirting with early admission college, and finish out high school at home at the same time (not DE - early admission; can't use credits for HS, but he can test out through TTUISD or other). For younger DS, we won't do it. We may just use TTUISD and start doing HS courses now (at 10).

DS did it at 12 and loved it. There were definitely mature topics, but we never tried to shelter our kids from topics they felt ready to discuss. Ultimately, you'll have to take your best guess as to whether she is ready or not. I'm inclined to think that with her background, and the fact that she is ready for a college setting, she's probably more ready for the topics than you will be comfortable with.

Didn't really change things, or do anything in preparation for high school. Courses certainly got more rigorous content-wise (workload is not rigor, imho) - partly that was due to maturity, partly because it was the next level of content. They definitely help select their own path, and they are responsible for their own work. It's not black-and-white, but we try to work towards full independence. They won't have much help from us in college, if any. If I were to change anything for our older one, it would have been to go all-out with more rigorous content earlier. The grading difficulty could have been more lax than the content, but the fundamental concepts would have been well-placed for more advanced materials. It's just an approach that would work better for his style - he needs to see where he is going in order to master content. For the younger one, it's hard to say. I think it's just about right - so far.

That's a good one, and doesn't require significant advanced math. MIT-OCW uses it for one of their courses, so there may be some videos available on their site. DS has also used "A Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relarivity." It gets a big thumbs up from us, but it is a bit more challenging. One last thought would be to try a third-semester physics course. MIT had one of those online, too. Sometimes, though, there is a corequisite of intermediate mechanics.

Foerster precal then AoPS intemediate algebra would be a little out of order. Better to go straight to AoPS intermediate algebra, then AoPS precal. Either that, or stick with Foerster, if it's what works for you.

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that many freshmen in college write lab reports no better than a child would. They often don't know what a lab report is supposed to look like.

That was a great choice. Great choice. If I were to consider shorting precalculus or shorting calculus, I'd take precisely the route described here. I still might throw in the second precalc text in the middle of the two AoPS texts, because functional analysis is simply THAT important going forward, particularly for STEM degrees. Probably the worst choice would be to try to cram calculus in without a strong foundation. There's absolutely no need to take calculus in high school unless one was expecting to do something like earn three undergraduate degrees in four years. Even then, I'd say "take a summer course or two," and not skimp on the functional analysis.

We had older DS do advanced science courses in 7th and 8th in biology, chemistry, and physics. We graded him where we thought would reflect "normal" expectations for his age. It turns out we were WAY too rigorous. He signed up for honors biology for 9th, and hasn't learned a thing this year. If anything, he has regressed - his knowledge is such that it is distracting for the teacher. She handles it well, but the point is, he's wasting his time. So, I would suggest doing it right, as a proper honors course, or wait until she is ready. If she does honors science in 7-8-9, she can do AP-level sciences in 10-11-12. DE would be even better if possible, because the labs in a college setting are WAY better equipped than any high school lab. But, if she is ready now, there's absolutely no reason to make her sit through middle school science. You can fill in the "earth and space science" bits on the side, if you care to.

Not big fans of Foerster's approach here, either. Too many gimmicky techniques. I think you can go with just about any classic text - whatever is most available and has the most appealing style - and do just fine. Particularly so if you intend to do the AoPS book after. We've had good success with Swokowski's books, but also with some no-name books found at the local Half Price store. Precalculus hasn't changed much in the last 50 years. The AoPS text spends lots of additional time on functions not covered as thoroughly in most precalc texts, which is fantastic for students expecting to do anything more than business calculus.

Foerster to AoPS will be a tough jump. Because precalculus can be done very quickly, I might suggest doing a "regular" precalculus one semester, then doing the AoPS precalculus text in the second semester. There will not be that much overlap (believe it or not), and where it occurs, the extra depth will be very worthwhile.

Congrats! Twice in a row is a serious achievement. Wasn't it a tougher ordeal last time?

I wouldn't expect much independent anything from a K student. At this age, math needs to be guided and uncomfortably abstract.

For what it's worth, the middle school grade shouldn't appear on the high school transcript, anyway. Just "credit earned prior to high school."