Does anyone else feel that homeschool science curricula is just not meaty enough?

[Julie in MN]

Is it just me, or do you sometimes wonder if science is "dumbed down" for all of us homeschool parents who have trouble understanding it? I think homeschoolers have a reputation for being really bright in the English/literature area but severely lacking in the sciences. I bought RS4K Chemistry this year thinking it would be a great program. My husband took one look at the book and said, "I could teach this whole book to ds in about a week." Granted, I was only expecting it to last 1/2 a semester, but boy that was an expensive program to be so "meatless"!! Has anyone found a science program for the middle grade that you feel is competitve with what the public schools are using?

 

Dumbed down from what?

 

My ds's 1st grade public school teacher was geared up with a grant for great science, but never had time for it.

 

His 2nd grade public school teacher told me at November conferences that no one had told her to do science.

 

My older ds's 6th grade science teacher said he usually liked doing lots of experiments with the kids, but he had a difficult group of kids that year, so they couldn't...

 

My homeschooled 6th grader did science labs with a middle school teacher for a semester, and he had already done every experiment at home.

 

I'm not seeing "dumbed down." I might see "you could teach this in a week" -- but so could you teach most public school materials. Science is, after all, just a cycle of repeating things with more understanding (and more math) as they get older.

 

Julie

[Sahamamama]

I do think some homeschool curriculum is written in a way that's a bit too chatty.

 

:iagree:

[funschooler5]

So far, the only science program I've been satisfied with is The Elements by Ellen McHenry. We tried Singapore (too "workbooky"), REAL Science (too boring), Prentice Hall Science Explorer (too "textbooky"), WTM method (too much writing). I've found that the approach McHenry uses really works with us...it's easy for me to follow, doesn't have a lot of busywork, and has fun and easy activities. I also like that it focuses on one specific area of science...it's not so overwhelming.

 

I also bought a Ring of Fire unit about Igneous Rocks. It was a spur of the moment purchase, but it looked very interesting, and I was desperate for an interesting science course. I'm hoping that it's secular (it seems to be), does anyone know if it is?

Edited September 7, 2009 by funschooler5

[funschooler5]

nt

Edited September 7, 2009 by funschooler5
Duplicate posts, sorry!

[funschooler5]

nt

Edited September 7, 2009 by funschooler5
Duplicate posts, sorry!

[funschooler5]

nt

Edited September 7, 2009 by funschooler5
Duplicate posts, sorry!

[LNC]

Question for BJU families: Do you rent the science course dvds for the upper level courses?

 

The reason I'm leaning towards an accelerated pace of Apologia (Gen science in 5th or 6th and completing 2-3 advanced courses before graduation) is bc of the expense of renting the BJU dvds for each child. It just seems crazy expensive when you add up the dvds plus all of the lab equipment. Plus, we have a teacher who does lab courses for Apologia in our area. So, all of the lab equipment and accountability is provided through that class 2x/month.

[Rebecca VA]

Regarding BJU Life Science (with the DVDs) -- my 7th grade daughter is working through this now. She started it last winter, got derailed somewhat by our house remodeling and our trip to Greece, and then abandoned it altogether for ballet summer intensive. But now she's back on track and in Chapter 5. It really isn't that hard. She usually does it at the end of the day when she's most fried from her other schoolwork, and she hasn't found it difficult. She's made a 90 or better on every test. Granted, she had a pretty strong foundation from Science 5 and Science 6 (thank you, Mrs. Dunn and Mrs. Vick!), and so some of what she's doing is simply review on a harder level.

 

The hardest thing so far has been making her insect collection. Mrs. Vick expects the students to get 40? or 50? insects, and she's only gotten 10 or so. It's a never-ending project that she isn't eager to make progress on.

 

BTW, the DVDs use the earlier edition of Life Science. The most recent edition is so beautiful and looks more demanding, but the DVD teachers haven't caught up with that one yet.

[PeterPan]

Rebecca, that's good to know! That's why I'm making sure we do the BJU 5 and 6, even though I also want to diverge and do our other things. I want that foundation so it's a natural slide-in, not a jolt.

[fivetails]

I do think some homeschool curriculum is written in a way that's a bit too chatty.

:iagree:

 

Funny what people like and dislike eh? The 'chatty' tone that I've seen in a few books - like Apologia's Young Explorers series - is something that our family LIKES! :D

 

The kids like it because it feels like the author is 'talking to them' - know what I mean?

[Melissa in CA]

Rebecca, that's good to know! That's why I'm making sure we do the BJU 5 and 6, even though I also want to diverge and do our other things. I want that foundation so it's a natural slide-in, not a jolt.

 

Elizabeth, I think if you want dd to use BJU's Life Science you would be wise to have her complete 5 & 6 beforehand. I think a child can most definitely jump into BJU at any time, but BJU builds upon concepts each year and it is very helpful to have that previous years foundation under-belt. I am regretting not using the BJU 6th grade science last year (which I believe I sold to you didn't I? ;)). My ds had an easy time of it with Sonlight's Science 5 instead, and now jumping back into BJU for 7th (Life Science), it is tougher than it should be. Had we used BJU 6, I think he'd be transitioning into Life Science better. I really wanted him to learn the concepts that SL's science covered, and he had a fun year with it, but SL is so much LESS rigorous that he's going into this year a bit....hmmm....science lazy? :tongue_smilie: It will take him a few weeks to get back up to par, I think. ;)

[chaik76]

An expensive program that can be done in one semester or less is a legitimate complaint. I suppose you could recoup some of the cost by reselling it.

 

I don't agree with the broader speculation, that homeschool science curricula is dumbed down. As another poster mentioned, I presumably sat through science in grades 1-7 but can't remember a single thing. Convincing kids that science is boring and just one more hoop to jump through is the real 'dumbing down'.

 

To compare with our local schools, before we began homeschooling, I seem to recall my son's ps science classes were held once a week - barring field trips, special assemblies, pro-d days, stat holidays, rehearsals for the Christmas play and the Appreciation Tea. I'm sure RS4K would have taken them a whole semester. :)

 

 

The homeschooling science curricula we've used so far has met our goals. If parents have a child with a strong interest in science and the family is serious about this field, excellent! Homeschooling is not one-size-fits-all; one of its strongest benefits is that a family can play to their strengths and interests. In that case, more curricula will probably be used, whether purchased or designed, than average.

 

My .02.

RS4K is not meant to be a full-year program.

[Another Lynn]

what is required of teacher? student? What does this look like on day to day basis?

 

Thx!

[KathyBC]

RS4K is not meant to be a full-year program.

 

Agreed. OP's dh said he could teach it in a week. I think a semester is a reasonable time frame for the average user, including a hypothetical ps class. It does seem to carry a full-year price tag for a one-semester program, though.

[Blessedfamily]

... It does seem to carry a full-year price tag for a one-semester program, though.

 

I agree. The price of the components is a bit much for the number of lessons, but... science explained clearly at this level is hard to come by ...

[Jen500]

Speaking of RS4K. Why did the author not think to make it longer? I could get over it not being exactly 36 weeks, but it isn't even close to that. It isn't even close to being a half year program. It costs quite a bit for such a short program.

 

Isn't she writing more books? We enjoyed RS4K Chem 1, but I do think it is too expensive. I had to spend more time and money fleshing out the 10 chapters. It seems that all support for her products are fee-based also (the Club membership, for example).

[Blessedfamily]

Speaking of RS4K. Why did the author not think to make it longer? I could get over it not being exactly 36 weeks, but it isn't even close to that. It isn't even close to being a half year program. It costs quite a bit for such a short program.

 

I wonder if it's because the program is noted for taking high school level science and simplifying it for younger grades. Maybe these are the topics in say, Chemistry that she could simplify enough for a young middle schooler? IOW, maybe she didn't think she could expound on other Chemistry topics without going over theair heads?

 

I'm just taking a wild guess.

[Blessedfamily]

Well I notice she now offers a lot of supplements one can purchase. But that just means spending even more money.

 

I passed on the KOGS.

[LibrarianMom]

I haven't taken the time to read through the entirety of this thread. However, I just looked through the ps 2nd grade science book my dd's teacher let me borrow. It is very, very surface level and contains nothing that students couldn't learn themselves reading a few well-selected library books. The teacher said they hadn't started it yet (2nd week of school) and admitted they probably wouldn't get to all of it. So any science before 6th grade is better than ps. Beginning in 6th or 7th grade depending on the district, students will begin daily science class and typically do a life science, earth science, and physical or general science sequence. Even then, real science typically begins in high school. So for now, even though we are already a year behind the wtm sequence, we're just going to take our time and wander through the God's Design curriculum and read lots of good books.

[LibrarianMom]

I haven't taken the time to read through the entirety of this thread. However, I just looked through the ps 2nd grade science book my dd's teacher let me borrow. It is very, very surface level and contains nothing that students couldn't learn themselves reading a few well-selected library books. The teacher said they hadn't started it yet (2nd week of school) and admitted they probably wouldn't get to all of it. So any science before 6th grade is better than ps. Beginning in 6th or 7th grade depending on the district, students will begin daily science class and typically do a life science, earth science, and physical or general science sequence. Even then, real science typically begins in high school. So for now, even though we are already a year behind the wtm sequence, we're just going to take our time and wander through the God's Design curriculum and read lots of good books.

[Melissa in CA]

(BJU users 5th & 6th) what is required of teacher? student? What does this look like on day to day basis?

 

Thx!

 

Hopefully OhElizabeth will pipe in and comment. I used the Science DVDs for BJU's 5th so I can't really give you a good idea of what a day without them looks like. In fact, I haven't used any of BJU's science courses without the DVD teachers....they make science soooo much easier on me. ;)

[Robin in DFW]

I'm not sure where I read that, but if I recall correctly, each book should take about 10 weeks to complete for approximately a full year of science.

 

One book should not last all year.

 

hth,

Robin

[chaik76]

Agreed. OP's dh said he could teach it in a week. I think a semester is a reasonable time frame for the average user, including a hypothetical ps class. It does seem to carry a full-year price tag for a one-semester program, though.

I think each component is actually supposed to last around ten weeks...not even a full semester (I met the author once). So, yes, it's very expensive. We've used it, and it didn't take very long...not even the ten weeks.

 

ETA: I should have read the quote before me:

I'm not sure where I read that, but if I recall correctly, each book should take about 10 weeks to complete for approximately a full year of science.

 

One book should not last all year.

 

hth,

Robin

That is what the author told me.

Edited September 7, 2009 by chaik76

[Heather in WI]

Eeek!

 

My oldest (4th grade) is definitely science & math oriented ... very much an engineering type personality. He shocked me by scoring surprisingly high on the math & science portions of the Explore test earlier this year. Up to that point he studied Rod & Staff Science (Patterns of Nature & God's Protected World), Apologia Astronomy, and NOEO Chemistry.

 

I thought it would be helpful to move him over to a more in-depth program because of his test scores and after much searching chose Sonlight 4 for him. Now after reading this thread, I'm nervous about my decision to switch over to Sonlight Science. Is this not a meaty program? (I mean meaty by rigorous traditional standards in the sense used in this thread, not unschooling/Charlotte Mason/etc. standards.)

[PeterPan]

Heather in WI--He's 9. If he's enjoying it, he's fine. If he were in 7th, 8th, or 9th, the answer might be different. But for now, he's perfectly fine.

[PeterPan]

The BJU science for 5th and 6th? Well it's like the dvd's, so Melissa could so comment, lol. The teacher is expected to discuss the reading guided by the tm, add to interaction with the interesting trivia and tidbits included in the tm, and possibly do the hands-on options in the tm. Then there are pages in the student workbook to go with each and every lesson. Sometimes it's to guide a lab, but most of the time it's a study guide worksheet they fill in. This makes sure they know how to spell the words, read carefully, etc. etc. I've used it different ways at different times. Sometimes I just tell her to go read the book and do the worksheet, and I skip the discussion. Sometimes we go middle of the road. Sometimes we skip the worksheets. I try NOT to skip the worksheets, because they're useful. They do guilt-trip me when I'm trying to speed up and realize you can compact the CONTENT of multiple lessons in the BJU science but not necessarily all that written work. :(

 

The Science 5 tm is particularly nice, with added hands-on ideas for many of the lessons. And yes, I think I have Melissa's BJU6. I can't believe she didn't do it!! Oh well. I haven't used 6 yet, as we're plugging through 5. We got distracted from it this summer, enjoying the baby too much, and have more to go. :(

[melmichigan]

It just depends on what level he is learning science at... My nine year old is taking middle school science and it is extremely easy for her...she's an exception and science is her passion. So just to say he's nine isn't necessarily the whole story. You will know if it's not the right level, at this age I tend to let them lead. One year of scheduled science is never a 'year' for her no matter what the level if it's something she wants to learn. If it is something he really has an interest in you will have a hard enough time keeping up. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

It just depends on what level he is learning science at... My nine year old is taking middle school science and it is extremely easy for her...she's an exception and science is her passion. So just to say he's nine isn't necessarily the whole story. You will know if it's not the right level, at this age I tend to let them lead. One year of scheduled science is never a 'year' for her no matter what the level if it's something she wants to learn. If it is something he really has an interest in you will have a hard enough time keeping up. :)

Thus the "if he is enjoying it, then you are fine.":D

[Heather in WI]

Oh, he's enjoying it. He has three books he's rotating through so far, and each book, on the day it is assigned, is his favorite book! :-)

 

My concern wasn't that .... it's just that if this is "his thing", I'd like to be able to teach him to his fullest potential, and therefore was concerned that it might not be enough. I enjoy science, but I don't have enough of a science background to be comfortable enough to make that call.

 

Last year my focus for science was finding something I could use with both of the older boys. This year (and in the future), I'm trying to fit each one's abilities.

 

I'm not thinking of dropping what we have this year -- Yikes! I spent too much $$ on it AND we are really enjoying it. I guess my main concern would be whether or not to continue to Sonlight 5 for next year or anticipate switching to a new curriculum that might be more challenging for him.

 

I would say Sonlight 4 is perfectly at his level, but not challenging.

 

FWIW, this is the son that reads science text-y type books for fun. He's read (on his own) the Apologia Exploring Creation with Zoology 2, Wonders of Creation: The Ocean Book, and two public school textbooks I found at Half Price Books. I, on the other hand, find textbooks (at least the public school ones) too flashy and non-linear. There's a paragraph over here in a blue box, and one over there with a black outline, with a huge picture over here, and a sentence winding it's way around the border. They kill me! LOL!

[Lovedtodeath]

Maybe you could add the human body lessons from WP to SL science 5. :) There are two levels to choose from.

[melmichigan]

Heather in WI, I sent you a PM.

[petepie2]

I would like to contribute something about the big picture of teaching science to our kids--especially in regards to preparing them for college courses. Although I know nothing about the different science curricula available (my oldest is in K), I have a BS in biochemistry and a doctorate in physical chemistry. When I was in grad school, I helped teach chemistry to college students. The students that struggled couldn't do math (especially algebra). They couldn't think logically...in a mathematical sense. They couldn't look at an equation and say "if this variable increases, then this one must decrease". So, while I'm all for the best science curriculum we can find for our children (especially in high school), I believe much greater attention should be given to math, logic, and critical thinking.

 

I'm also reminded of a quote in Douglas Wilson's "Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning" that spoke of the benefits of knowing latin in preparation for learning the sciences (pg 89):

 

In 1911, Francis Kelsey reported on a conversation between a Professor Ramsey and the distinguished chemist Bauer. "I questioned him as to the relative capacities of students coming to his classes from the classical Gymnasien and the Real-Schulen respectively. I presumed that his best chemical students came to him from the Real-Schulen. 'Not at all,' he replied. 'My best students come from the Gymnasien. The students from the Real-Schulen do best at first. But after three months work here, they are, as a rule, left behind by those coming from the Gymnasien.' 'How do you account for that,' I asked; 'I understand that students in the Real-Schulen are specially instructed in chemistry.' 'Yes,' he replied; 'but the students from the Gymnasien have the best trained minds. Give me a student who has been taught his Latin grammar, and I'll answer for his chemistry.' "

[8filltheheart]

. When I was in grad school, I helped teach chemistry to college students. The students that struggled couldn't do math (especially algebra). They couldn't think logically...in a mathematical sense. They couldn't look at an equation and say "if this variable increases, then this one must decrease". So, while I'm all for the best science curriculum we can find for our children (especially in high school), I believe much greater attention should be given to math, logic, and critical thinking.

 

I'm also reminded of a quote in Douglas Wilson's "Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning" that spoke of the benefits of knowing latin in preparation for learning the sciences (pg 89):

 

In 1911, Francis Kelsey reported on a conversation between a Professor Ramsey and the distinguished chemist Bauer. "I questioned him as to the relative capacities of students coming to his classes from the classical Gymnasien and the Real-Schulen respectively. I presumed that his best chemical students came to him from the Real-Schulen. 'Not at all,' he replied. 'My best students come from the Gymnasien. The students from the Real-Schulen do best at first. But after three months work here, they are, as a rule, left behind by those coming from the Gymnasien.' 'How do you account for that,' I asked; 'I understand that students in the Real-Schulen are specially instructed in chemistry.' 'Yes,' he replied; 'but the students from the Gymnasien have the best trained minds. Give me a student who has been taught his Latin grammar, and I'll answer for his chemistry.' "

 

Excellent post, Amy. :iagree:

 

You conveyed what I know to be true from our own experience. While I can't say we focus on Latin grammar, our family is very much into math, strategy games and logical thinking (but not through formal logic programs though.) We play math games, complex card games, and games like Risk, Settlers of Catan, etc. Strategy is very much linked to logic.

 

How learning occurs and deepth of comprehension goes far beyond the ability to use correct terminology across multiple science disciplines when they are younger. Give a child pulleys, a rope, a bucket, lots of stuff to haul, and a fort and leave them to play and figure it out on their own and they will be able to tell you far more about effort, load, etc in a real sense, even if not using the correct vocabulary, than a young child that can repeat the definitions that they read about in a textbook.

 

My oldest ds never opened a textbook for science until physical science in 8th grade. He never took physics before cal based physics at the university. He spent his younger yrs reading whatever science books he wanted from the library (though it was scheduled into his day. He had to read science books for 30-45 mins/day every day).......then he used what he read about to explore ideas however he wanted.......building things like potato launchers using different propellants to see which caused better launches.......using electrical circuits, batteries, water, copper, vinegar, magnets, etc to see which combinations generated the most electricity.......

 

and yet, when he was younger, his terminology might not be completely accurate. His comprehension at the beginning of his self-directed projects might be flawed. However, he tinkered, went back to books like the old Popular Mechanics and read some more, and tried again.

 

He wasn't writing formal lab reports, but he was learning about hypothesis, experimentation, and whether or not he achieved his expected results. He learned that sometimes his hypothesis was wrong, or that his actual experiment was wrong, etc. He wouldn't use the correct terms and he certainly didn't think that he was following a "lab," but he discovered on his own about controls, needing to write down what different combinations he tried, etc. He viewed himself as an adventurer, a discoverer, an explorer.....(not a student doing science for a lab report) And most importantly, he learned it via his own experiences and forming his own conclusions.

 

Now he is involved in research projects at the request of professors; he is thriving in chemical engineering; he is being urged by professors to go to grad school and focus on research, etc. Right now he is co-oping in industry b/c he is unsure of what direction he wants to take. He is taking this co-op opportunity to help him focus and decide which direction he wants his career to go. He is blessed to be in a position to be able to decide to follow wherever his passions lead him.

 

All that is simply to share that we need to know the "what" behind our long-term educational goals and approaches. There is so much more to real understanding and learning than being able to use terminology and complete a textbook for subjects when they are young. It all goes back to the pyramid of learning and where the educational focus is......concrete knowledge based thinking or creative synthesis/evaluation.

 

I am not a Miss Frizzle by any means :tongue_smilie: b/c I don't do hands on stuff with my kids. However, I am a believer in Miss Frizzle's philosophy. I simply provide my kids the stuff that they need to explore where they want and they go on the adventures on their own. :D I am a die-hard believer that strategy games are a lot more than time for family fun. I think their value in promoting higher cognitive development is invaluable and I would give up "science or history text time" over playing games when they are young if I was in a position of having to choose one or the other! ;)

Edited September 8, 2009 by 8FillTheHeart

[PeterPan]

Momof7, that's great that the path you used with your eldest worked, and I see why. But my 10 yo dd is a totally different ball of wax. She WANTS the words for those things, and while she likes to build them in response and explore, she's much more likely to sculpt or sew or plan her dream house (a farmhouse with cows and goats!). She's not likely to study engineering or even take science in college unless by some fortuosity she pursues nursing (which I actually think would be a good major for her, since she takes such good care of me, lol). So there are different paths too. If my boy is like your oldest, absolutely I'd go that way. But left to herself, our science would only be researching snowflakes and collecting toads, not exactly balanced. But I do think the thing our kids have in common, despite gender and interests, is they want their questions answered and they want real depth and content. With the BJU elementary science you're forever butting up against walls. They start you into something good, explain it very well (for the age it's directed at), then leave them hanging, wanting more, lots more. So my engineer husband comes to the table, looks at her projects, and tells her what's really going on and does more variations with her. Then she's happy. But curriculum never accounts for this. Would she do it on her own, without the curriculum? No, frankly. Mercy, she wouldn't even know how to spell the words if she didn't have to write them in the study guides. So the curriculum actually does serve a good purpose as a framework. Take Snap Circuits. I got her Snap Circuits to go with the BJU4 science (which of course it doesn't call for), and she poo-pooed it at first. Got her into them and she LOVED them, worked on them for hours. Does she get them out on her own? No, because she's busy working on a quilt, ice skating, and re-enacting the Battle of Bunker Hill. But if the curriculum whets our appetite for the topic, we can take it farther and enjoy it. And really, I ended up with curriculum for one very pragmatic reason: I wanted the topics to be all in one place. I'd rather have a framework and bring it alive than constantly to be searching, trying to decide what to do next. Like I said, I think our science would be very light or scattered if it weren't for this framework and a little bit of "Oh, have you considered studying this?" That's a good thing, I think.

 

So not a disagreement, but just an observation that it might not work with a different kid, say a history-loving, artist, home-ec girl. :)

[creekmom]

Excellent post, Amy. :iagree:

 

You conveyed what I know to be true from our own experience. While I can't say we focus on Latin grammar, our family is very much into math, strategy games and logical thinking (but not through formal logic programs though.) We play math games, complex card games, and games like Risk, Settlers of Catan, etc. Strategy is very much linked to logic.

 

How learning occurs and deepth of comprehension goes far beyond the ability to use correct terminology across multiple science disciplines when they are younger. Give a child pulleys, a rope, a bucket, lots of stuff to haul, and a fort and leave them to play and figure it out on their own and they will be able to tell you far more about effort, load, etc in a real sense, even if not using the correct vocabulary, than a young child that can repeat the definitions that they read about in a textbook.

 

My oldest ds never opened a textbook for science until physical science in 8th grade. He never took physics before cal based physics at the university. He spent his younger yrs reading whatever science books he wanted from the library (though it was scheduled into his day. He had to read science books for 30-45 mins/day every day).......then he used what he read about to explore ideas however he wanted.......building things like potato launchers using different propellants to see which caused better launches.......using electrical circuits, batteries, water, copper, vinegar, magnets, etc to see which combinations generated the most electricity.......

 

and yet, when he was younger, his terminology might not be completely accurate. His comprehension at the beginning of his self-directed projects might be flawed. However, he tinkered, went back to books like the old Popular Mechanics and read some more, and tried again.

 

He wasn't writing formal lab reports, but he was learning about hypothesis, experimentation, and whether or not he achieved his expected results. He learned that sometimes his hypothesis was wrong, or that his actual experiment was wrong, etc. He wouldn't use the correct terms and he certainly didn't think that he was following a "lab," but he discovered on his own about controls, needing to write down what different combinations he tried, etc. He viewed himself as an adventurer, a discoverer, an explorer.....(not a student doing science for a lab report) And most importantly, he learned it via his own experiences and forming his own conclusions.

 

Now he is involved in research projects at the request of professors; he is thriving in chemical engineering; he is being urged by professors to go to grad school and focus on research, etc. Right now he is co-oping in industry b/c he is unsure of what direction he wants to take. He is taking this co-op opportunity to help him focus and decide which direction he wants his career to go. He is blessed to be in a position to be able to decide to follow wherever his passions lead him.

 

All that is simply to share that we need to know the "what" behind our long-term educational goals and approaches. There is so much more to real understanding and learning than being able to use terminology and complete a textbook for subjects when they are young. It all goes back to the pyramid of learning and where the educational focus is......concrete knowledge based thinking or creative synthesis/evaluation.

 

I am not a Miss Frizzle by any means :tongue_smilie: b/c I don't do hands on stuff with my kids. However, I am a believer in Miss Frizzle's philosophy. I simply provide my kids the stuff that they need to explore where they want and they go on the adventures on their own. :D I am a die-hard believer that strategy games are a lot more than time for family fun. I think their value in promoting higher cognitive development is invaluable and I would give up "science or history text time" over playing games when they are young if I was in a position of having to choose one or the other! ;)

 

 

Thank you so much for your post!! I think that's what I'm missing most in my life (until coming to the WTM forums) - the voice of experience. It's so hard when your oldest is 10 to know (hope) that you're not ruining their lives by homeschooling them! Please keep posting all the great advice! :001_smile:

[Pamela H in Texas]

Okay, y'all are making a gal's head spin.

 

The Science Logic looked like a good idea. I've only looked at R.E.A.L. at the grammar level.

 

But what secular program are people considering equal to (or better than) BJU for the middle grades?

 

I see people mentioning things but are we considering them EQUAL or better?

[PeterPan]

Petepie2--That's a seriously thought-provoking post, thanks!! I've gone around in my mind on whether I want to pick back up with latin. We were in LC2 through a co-op class when I got pregnant, at which point all I wanted was my feet UP and a nap, not to be driving to latin class! It's definitely not my first choice in curriculum, LC, and now that we have time and energy to get back to latin, the question is whether to pursue it through a new curriculum (say First Form) or dump entirely. The one curiousity to me is that she was so very good at it. Latin is of course very logical, and her brain seemed supple enough to work with it in a way that I haven't seen with the other languages I've tried with her. (They were fine, just no *click* like latin.) On the other hand, she was just entering the WHY stage and wanted to know WHY she should study latin. Frankly, I didn't have a good answer, other than the vanity factor, so I dropped. Well, I guess you could call it great or rewarding to read Roman creeps in the original (creeps is how I've always thought of them, maybe they aren't?), but I'm not sure that's a satisfying answer. Hmmm, I see the start of a thread coming on! In any case, I appreciated the time you took to type out all that, as it was definitely thought-provoking and compelling. It totally makes sense that a student who can think and has face challenges head-on with hard material, any material, is going to know how to learn.

[PeterPan]

It's so hard when your oldest is 10 to know (hope) that you're not ruining their lives by homeschooling them! Please keep posting all the great advice! :001_smile:

 

SWB said she *still* wonders if she's ruining her kids, and she's the guru, the author, the one with multiple kids from graduating age on down! I think wondering means you're concerned, not necessarily that you have a problem. :)

[Blessedfamily]

Petepie2--That's a seriously thought-provoking post, thanks!! ...

 

:iagree:

[kalanamak]

I would like to contribute something about the big picture of teaching science to our kids--especially in regards to preparing them for college courses. Although I know nothing about the different science curricula available (my oldest is in K), I have a BS in biochemistry and a doctorate in physical chemistry. When I was in grad school, I helped teach chemistry to college students. The students that struggled couldn't do math (especially algebra). They couldn't think logically...in a mathematical sense. They couldn't look at an equation and say "if this variable increases, then this one must decrease". So, while I'm all for the best science curriculum we can find for our children (especially in high school), I believe much greater attention should be given to math, logic, and critical thinking.

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I am doing science at this point (2nd grade) to delight, to broaden horizons, to increase powers of observation, and to help kiddo see the point to sitting down and labouring at math.

 

I have a favourite family picture. My mother snapped it at a park when I was 13. She had gone to the bathroom, and left my father, me, DB #2 (about 23) and DB#1 (32) on a bench. We were unaware she was taking a photo. All four of us, to kill time, were investigating something. I was up and reaching into a tree, a brother was leaning over the bench looking at how the back was attached, my father had a small rock he was peering at, etc. Had I had a family that all sat there like lumps, would I have been up and investigating? I doubt it.

[melmichigan]

Pamela,

The only 'good' secular materials I have found for middle school grades are not from homeschool publishers and wouldn't fit the WTM model. I use Glencoe and PLATO as mentioned in my signature for that reason. Maybe someone else will have suggestions but I have spend days looking at science curriculum and haven't found anything yet.

[Jen500]

Great posts, Amy and Momof7.

 

I'm considering using Singapore's Interactive Science for middle school. I haven't looked at a lot of middle school books though to compare.

[sagira]

Petepie2, that was an awesome post :iagree: I just finished reading Homeschooling for Excellence by Micki Colfax (the homeschooling mom with three out of four children that got accepted on full scholarships and went to Harvard) last night and she basically wrote the same thing: get the basics down -- reading, writing, math and learn how to think and the rest can wait until later. Just don't stress about it too much. She stated many times how hard it was for them (parents) to find good materials in her days where there weren't nearly as many options as nowadays in the homeschool market. She also said she likes using more traditional texts for the high school years.

 

I was a bit worried that my plan was too light. I'm teaching science and history, but more casually, to gain a foundation and to have fun. I was worried ds wouldn't remember much. But within those disciplines and others we're working on reading, writing and using math in calculations so he sees the usefulness of it all.

 

Ds is becoming more observant in our nature studies, seeing a hermit crab right in front of us (I didn't see it :tongue_smilie:) that I caught for him and brought home, catching bugs and being really interested in finding out about them.

 

I add to all that wisdom that being interested in the natural world and learning about the natural world (and being in the natural world) should precede (but with no huge gap) or be taught in conjunction with science as it's all interconnected. How can our kids care for our planet if they don't even know it? Knowing adds caring, adds dimension to all their future studies and it will all make sense.

[sagira]

Great posts, Amy and Momof7.

 

I'm considering using Singapore's Interactive Science for middle school. I haven't looked at a lot of middle school books though to compare.

 

I know I have a long way to go, but this is also my first choice for middle school. CPO and Rainbow combined are my second choice. Singapore has a good reputation for stimulating critical thinking, looks solid, and the pages look clean and uncluttered to me. As far as the labs, which I read are many times too difficult to use in your home, you could outsource either at the local public school or with at-home science kits. I like that it takes two years as well, as we're doing Nature Studies from 1st through 6th.

[angela in ohio]

So, while I'm all for the best science curriculum we can find for our children (especially in high school), I believe much greater attention should be given to math, logic, and critical thinking.

 

 

This is exactly why we don't focus on science (or history, gasp!) before junior high school here.

 

I teach math, communication (reading, writing, speaking,) and logical thinking above all else. With those skills, plus the proper attitude, I think you can learn anything and succeed at anything. Like the quote indicates, it may take my dc a bit to catch up the basic knowledge of a new subject area, but they will eventually surpass anyone without a solid foundation in basic skills and logical thought (this sounds a lot like my response to the computer skills thread, LOL.)

 

I have no idea what God has planned for my dc, but with His help, I will know that I have been faithful to prepare them for whatever it may be. :001_smile:

[sagira]

This is exactly why we don't focus on science (or history, gasp!) before junior high school here.

 

I teach math, communication (reading, writing, speaking,) and logical thinking above all else. With those skills, plus the proper attitude, I think you can learn anything and succeed at anything. Like the quote indicates, it may take my dc a bit to catch up the basic knowledge of a new subject area, but they will eventually surpass anyone without a solid foundation in basic skills and logical thought (this sounds a lot like my response to the computer skills thread, LOL.)

 

 

My plan is to teach critical and logical thinking within the context of history, natural science, literature. Not to highjack the thread, but Angela, how do you teach logical thinking, say, in First? And while we're at it, Speaking?

[Jane Elliot]

So, while I'm all for the best science curriculum we can find for our children (especially in high school), I believe much greater attention should be given to math, logic, and critical thinking.

 

I'm also reminded of a quote in Douglas Wilson's "Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning" that spoke of the benefits of knowing latin in preparation for learning the sciences (pg 89):

 

 

:iagree:And this was a brilliant post, Amy. Thanks.

[angela in ohio]

My plan is to teach critical and logical thinking within the context of history, natural science, literature. Not to highjack the thread, but Angela, how do you teach logical thinking, say, in First? And while we're at it, Speaking?

 

I don't teach logic in first grade. :D Well, not in the way that most people would think. I teach excellent reading and writing skills and work on vocabulary development, both in the way I speak to dc and in what they hear (books read aloud, field trips, speakers, etc.) This is a solid foundation for developing logical thinking when they are developmentally ready at a later age. I also model sound thinking by "talking out" decisions I make in front of dc.

 

Speaking for about first grade consists of vocabulary work as well, plus modeling correct speech patterns, correcting their speech patterns, and teaching them to read well (children who read quality literature speak in a more mature way imho.) They have some minor exposure to public speaking, as well, with groups or activities, but that is secondary.

[Melissa in CA]

Momof7, that's great that the path you used with your eldest worked, and I see why. But my 10 yo dd is a totally different ball of wax. She WANTS the words for those things, and while she likes to build them in response and explore, she's much more likely to sculpt or sew or plan her dream house (a farmhouse with cows and goats!). She's not likely to study engineering or even take science in college unless by some fortuosity she pursues nursing (which I actually think would be a good major for her, since she takes such good care of me, lol). So there are different paths too. If my boy is like your oldest, absolutely I'd go that way. But left to herself, our science would only be researching snowflakes and collecting toads, not exactly balanced. But I do think the thing our kids have in common, despite gender and interests, is they want their questions answered and they want real depth and content. With the BJU elementary science you're forever butting up against walls. They start you into something good, explain it very well (for the age it's directed at), then leave them hanging, wanting more, lots more. So my engineer husband comes to the table, looks at her projects, and tells her what's really going on and does more variations with her. Then she's happy. But curriculum never accounts for this. Would she do it on her own, without the curriculum? No, frankly. Mercy, she wouldn't even know how to spell the words if she didn't have to write them in the study guides. So the curriculum actually does serve a good purpose as a framework. Take Snap Circuits. I got her Snap Circuits to go with the BJU4 science (which of course it doesn't call for), and she poo-pooed it at first. Got her into them and she LOVED them, worked on them for hours. Does she get them out on her own? No, because she's busy working on a quilt, ice skating, and re-enacting the Battle of Bunker Hill. But if the curriculum whets our appetite for the topic, we can take it farther and enjoy it. And really, I ended up with curriculum for one very pragmatic reason: I wanted the topics to be all in one place. I'd rather have a framework and bring it alive than constantly to be searching, trying to decide what to do next. Like I said, I think our science would be very light or scattered if it weren't for this framework and a little bit of "Oh, have you considered studying this?" That's a good thing, I think.

 

So not a disagreement, but just an observation that it might not work with a different kid, say a history-loving, artist, home-ec girl. :)

 

Thanks for this post Elizabeth!! This is my youngest ds to a 'T'. Oh how I wish he were more like Momof7's ds, but even if I scheduled in a science book for 45 minutes a day....he would NOT investigate any further after his 45 minutes were over. No homemade potato launchers here, and I can so relate to your dd and the snap circuits! lol I can't tell you how many science kits I have bought thinking they would cause him to 'investigate' on his own. HA!

 

I think we, as parents, have to know how best to proceed with each of our children. Not everyone's idea of how to do things will work best in each and every home, with each and every child. Momof7's approached would have worked famously for my middle son...who also is engineer minded...but never for my oldest, or my youngest. When I read posts like hers I think, 'Yes, that sounds like the perfect way to do things and look at the results!' Ha! Yeah, perfect for her ds, but not with MY ds. ;) We must all KNOW our own children and then choose what is best for them and their personality.

 

Now, having said that, I truly wish I had read a post like hers back when I was schooling my middle son. He would have benefited from an approach like that. He is very inquisitive and would most definitely have gone out and made that potato launcher. We used mostly textbooks though (Abeka & BJU), except for one year when he used SL's Science 4, which he enjoyed, and one year when he used Apologia's Biology, which he very much DISliked. But regardless of his science path, he's doing just fine in college and still is able to think very scientifically and logically (never took one Logic course either ;)). So, both approaches can work...even if one doesn't use the best approach for a specific child. :D

[sagira]

We must all KNOW our own children and then choose what is best for them and their personality.

 

This is key. Know your child.

 

Thanks, Angela. Seems like I'm on the right track, except I have a lot of correcting to do :tongue_smilie: