For those wanting a science curriculum "like SOTW"

[EKS]

What exactly are you looking for?

[lmrich]

I would like a book with 34 chapters. Each chapter would start out with an experiment or a way to spark their interest. Then have information about the topic written over a two page spread with charts, graphs, quality pictures. I would also like it to have a more challenging experiment and links to further research.

 

it would totaly rock if it came with an option to purchase all materials!!!

[Five More Minutes]

There would be a core text with a story-like intro to the topics/points followed by questions and narrations in the activity guide. The activity guide would have related experiments and activities to choose from. There would be a coloring page and/or perhaps a related worksheet page (something like the map page). Then there would be a list of book titles on the topic for further reading.

 

I agree. I want a core text that is beautifully-written (without sacrificing accuracy) so that we can read it aloud (36 chapters would be ideal). Then I would like an activity guide that, for each chapter, gives me projects / experiments to choose from, lists of recommended books for further reading, and then a couple of reproducible worksheets / colouring pages for each unit.

 

Oh, and I'd like it by Christmas. :D

[matilda]

Can I have one book for each science discipline but have them organized so that I can either focus on one subject for the entire year or do the first 10 chapters or so of each book in one year and then go back again and pick up where we left off the next year?

[Jay3fer]

To make it as much as possible like SOTW, I'd like it to...

a) comprise four grammar-stage readalouds, one for each year in the WTM rotation (life science, earth science, chemistry, physics)

b) acknowledge God's hand in the world but with a light touch that allows parents to insert their own theology since it's rare to find 2 families here who think alike.

c) be reasonably well written

d) include some of the STORY of science and dramatic moments in the lives of scientists (ie if Life Science ties in with Ancients, make that connection clear with stories of ancient science)

e) include a few simple illustrations only; there are so many excellent photo-type books in the library, I don't think these are necessary in a spine.

f) have a high-quality audiobook version we can play in the car (Jim Weiss, please!)

g) come with an inexpensive parent-activity guide / notebooking supplement for narrations, lapbooking, etc.

 

Hmm... I think that would make me happy.

Right now, we're using Apologia, which offers c), e) and g), along with a BIT of a) and b)

I had initially chosen Elemental Science, which offered... well, maybe g), but not much else.

[Mrs Twain]

I am very happy with BFSU, but I would like to find a good resource for teaching the history of science. It is difficult to find kids' books that tell about various scientists and their discoveries. The only thing I have found close to that is the sections on scientists in the What Your _-Grader Needs to Know books.

[Rivka]

b) acknowledge God's hand in the world but with a light touch that allows parents to insert their own theology since it's rare to find 2 families here who think alike.

 

That would be a deal-breaker for me. But I'd love this:

 

d) include some of the STORY of science and dramatic moments in the lives of scientists (ie if Life Science ties in with Ancients, make that connection clear with stories of ancient science)

 

I would love to see a text that was really well-written, ideally along the lines of Millicent Selsam or Anna Botsford Comstock's nature writing. (I don't want much!) I don't want, for example, poems in forced rhyming couplets with no appreciable meter or poetic language. (I mention no particular curriculum here.)

 

Oh, and of course: NO COMIC SANS!

[pgr]

There would be a core text with a story-like intro to the topics/points followed by questions and narrations in the activity guide. The activity guide would have related experiments and activities to choose from. There would be a coloring page and/or perhaps a related worksheet page (something like the map page). Then there would be a list of book titles on the topic for further reading.

 

I agree. I want a core text that is beautifully-written (without sacrificing accuracy) so that we can read it aloud (36 chapters would be ideal). Then I would like an activity guide that, for each chapter, gives me projects / experiments to choose from, lists of recommended books for further reading, and then a couple of reproducible worksheets / colouring pages for each unit.

 

Oh, and I'd like it by Christmas. :D

 

In terms of how I'd want the information organized....I'd like something along the lines of a combination of the history of science (think Hakim or the Milestones in Science kit) and BFSU. I don't think I'd want just biology or just chemistry. I want it to make connections.

 

I want to love BFSU, but it requires too much work for me and I don't like many of the reading selections. I also find the organization of the book annoying. Plus there is no core text.

 

I want to love Hakim's science books, but the activity guide is just TOO much and it doesn't feel like enough science to me.

 

I'm looking for something in between.

 

:iagree:

 

Exactly this. Um, all of it. :D

 

Definitely something integrating the disciplines. Engaging, solid, and with good resources for further reading and experiments/demonstrations.

 

An option to buy a kit with all necessary materials.

 

And available by no later than this Christmas sounds good! :)

[MSNative]

I'd like it to be geared to logic stage kids with some options for bringing grammar kids along.

 

In dealing with hot topic issues, I'd like it to present major theories and detail the actual evidence for all the sides. Ideally, it would list strengths and weaknesses in each theory.

 

I'll be nice and give you til July to have all 4 levels ready to go. :)

[kitten18]

There would be a core text with a story-like intro to the topics/points followed by questions and narrations in the activity guide. The activity guide would have related experiments and activities to choose from. There would be a coloring page and/or perhaps a related worksheet page (something like the map page). Then there would be a list of book titles on the topic for further reading.

Exactly!

[Rivka]

I would want it to stick to the scientific mainstream. "Teaching the controversy" is okay with me when actual scientific controversy exists, but not when the controversy is primarily ideological or theological.

[Crimson Wife]

I would want it to stick to the scientific mainstream. "Teaching the controversy" is okay with me when actual scientific controversy exists, but not when the controversy is primarily ideological or theological.

 

Honestly, I'd rather the curriculum just be neutral when it comes to "hot button" issues for the grammar stage. There are plenty of other topics one can cover in biology for 1st and astronomy/earth science for 2nd. Primary grade students don't really need to get into the whole origins debate- that can be saved for the next time through the cycle. I like how SOTW starts with the first agricultural civilizations rather than taking a stand on when the first humans lived.

 

I personally lean towards a belief in theistic evolution and an age of the universe in the billions BTW.

[pgr]

Honestly, I'd rather the curriculum just be neutral when it comes to "hot button" issues for the grammar stage. There are plenty of other topics one can cover in biology for 1st and astronomy/earth science for 2nd. Primary grade students don't really need to get into the whole origins debate- that can be saved for the next time through the cycle. I like how SOTW starts with the first agricultural civilizations rather than taking a stand on when the first humans lived.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[zenjenn]

Oh, and of course: NO COMIC SANS!

 

Seriously, no joke. Also no replacing words with numbers.

 

That said, I've been satisfied with "Real Science 4 Kids", even if the graphic designer in me dies a little each time I open the book.

[Jay3fer]

Oh, and of course: NO COMIC SANS!

 

So funny! :lol:

I don't understand when "looking like a cartoonist wrote it" became a plus in the world of curriculum.

[Veritaserum]

I would like a book with 34 chapters. Each chapter would start out with an experiment or a way to spark their interest. Then have information about the topic written over a two page spread with charts, graphs, quality pictures. I would also like it to have a more challenging experiment and links to further research.

 

it would totaly rock if it came with an option to purchase all materials!!!

 

There would be a core text with a story-like intro to the topics/points followed by questions and narrations in the activity guide. The activity guide would have related experiments and activities to choose from. There would be a coloring page and/or perhaps a related worksheet page (something like the map page). Then there would be a list of book titles on the topic for further reading.

 

I agree. I want a core text that is beautifully-written (without sacrificing accuracy) so that we can read it aloud (36 chapters would be ideal). Then I would like an activity guide that, for each chapter, gives me projects / experiments to choose from, lists of recommended books for further reading, and then a couple of reproducible worksheets / colouring pages for each unit.

 

Oh, and I'd like it by Christmas. :D

 

:iagree: Sounds great!

 

I would, however, not consider purchasing such a program unless it were 100% secular. There are plenty of young earth homeschool science materials. "Neutral" would be a deal-breaker, too. I want real science sans any religion. :)

[5Wizards]

 

I would, however, not consider purchasing such a program unless it were 100% secular. There are plenty of young earth homeschool science materials. "Neutral" would be a deal-breaker, too. I want real science sans any religion. :)

 

:iagree:

 

I am also more interested in Logic Stage as I think there is plenty to choose from for younger kids.

[Crimson Wife]

"Neutral" would be a deal-breaker, too. I want real science sans any religion. :)

 

I want real science as well, but why wouldn't a truly "neutral" curriculum teach just that? All programs have to pick and choose which topics to cover since there's only so much room in the book. There is plenty of "real science" about which everyone can agree. The science of human anatomy & physiology, for example, isn't any different for YEC's, OEC's, ID'ers, theistic evolutionists, and materialist Darwinians despite the major disagreements about human origins. A "neutral" curriculum would simply teach what is not in dispute and sidestep the "hot button" issues. It's very easy to supplement a "neutral" curriculum with materials that reflect one's individual POV on those issues. I would just personally choose a very different supplement than someone who is a YEC :)

[Walking-Iris]

I want real science as well, but why wouldn't a truly "neutral" curriculum teach just that? All programs have to pick and choose which topics to cover since there's only so much room in the book. There is plenty of "real science" about which everyone can agree. The science of human anatomy & physiology, for example, isn't any different for YEC's, OEC's, ID'ers, theistic evolutionists, and materialist Darwinians despite the major disagreements about human origins. A "neutral" curriculum would simply teach what is not in dispute and sidestep the "hot button" issues. It's very easy to supplement a "neutral" curriculum with materials that reflect one's individual POV on those issues. I would just personally choose a very different supplement than someone who is a YEC :)

 

:iagree: I don't get the science wars at all---there's plenty of science out there that can be learned without bringing a "personal belief" into it. Cells are cells---electricity is electricity---chemistry is chemistry---anatomy is anatomy--biology is biology. I don't feel that any serious discussion of evolution/creation or any other "controversy" needs to happen necessarily---especially with young children. I like the term neutrality for that reason. There's a lot of arrogance on both extreme sides of this fence unfortunately.

[Veritaserum]

I want real science as well, but why wouldn't a truly "neutral" curriculum teach just that? All programs have to pick and choose which topics to cover since there's only so much room in the book. There is plenty of "real science" about which everyone can agree. The science of human anatomy & physiology, for example, isn't any different for YEC's, OEC's, ID'ers, theistic evolutionists, and materialist Darwinians despite the major disagreements about human origins. A "neutral" curriculum would simply teach what is not in dispute and sidestep the "hot button" issues. It's very easy to supplement a "neutral" curriculum with materials that reflect one's individual POV on those issues. I would just personally choose a very different supplement than someone who is a YEC :)

 

Real science would be based on current accepted scientific theories. An old earth and evolution are integral to studying geology or biology. Darwin was a HUGE step forward in our understanding of biological development over time. To leave him out would be a glaring omission.

 

A science program that deliberately expunges any reference to current theory in an attempt to be PC would be utterly useless to me. Either be secular and include mainstream scientific information or be religious and present information through that lens.

 

I would not trust a science program whose authors did not accept current Theories (the tested, lots of data kind). Neutrality would indicate that the authors do not hold a mainstream view.

 

We desperately need 100% secular homeschool science materials. There's a void.

[5Wizards]

The Op asked what we would like in a program. I personally want a complete program that I don't have to supplement with evolution materials. I want it to be included already in my science materials, but I would like something that is not a textbook. I am fine if someone else wants something different...I am offering my opinion of what "I" want.

 

""Real science would be based on current accepted scientific theories. An old earth and evolution are integral to studying geology or biology. Darwin was a HUGE step forward in our understanding of biological development over time. To leave him out would be a glaring omission.

 

A science program that deliberately expunges any reference to current theory in an attempt to be PC would be utterly useless to me. Either be secular and include mainstream scientific information or be religious and present information through that lens.""

 

Agree. (I don't know how to insert a quote when editing).

Edited November 14, 2011 by 5Wizards

[Crimson Wife]

I would not trust a science program whose authors did not accept current Theories (the tested, lots of data kind). Neutrality would indicate that the authors do not hold a mainstream view.

 

Why would you automatically assume that the author of a "neutral" program rejects evolution or an OE? Maybe they just want to have the widest possible audience for their curriculum. I know that if I were to write a science curriculum for the grammar stage, I would deliberately make it neutral simply because that would allow the most people to benefit from my program. Why kick up a hornet's nest unnecessarily? We're not talking jr. or senior high school here (where I would agree definitely Darwin's theory ought to be covered) but the primary grades.

 

In my homeschool, I do cover evolution in the grammar stage but I don't think it's "integral" to do so because biology in 1st grade is aimed at exposure.

[Dahliarw]

There would be a core text with a story-like intro to the topics/points followed by questions and narrations in the activity guide. The activity guide would have related experiments and activities to choose from. There would be a coloring page and/or perhaps a related worksheet page (something like the map page). Then there would be a list of book titles on the topic for further reading.

 

Yeah, that. And the information would be age appropriate (apologia is just overkill for my nearly 7yo ds). I also want it to be either creation based or neutral (or have an option to purchase the creation version or the evolution version or the neutral version). And, I want an experiment kit with all the supplies all organized so that it's grab adn go!

[Mrs Twain]

I have a doctorate in the science field. If you look at the evidence of the different origin theories, it takes more faith to believe in evolution. There is better evidence for the creation theory IMO.

 

I think it is a good idea to explain the different theories along with the evidence to children when they are old enough so that they can be educated about the background of the subject. This is helpful for them especially as they grow older when they may encounter teachers who espouse a certain theory exclusively. I teach my kids that when they hear "abc" from someone about this subject, that means the person adheres to "xyz" philosophy.

[Rivka]

Why would you automatically assume that the author of a "neutral" program rejects evolution or an OE? Maybe they just want to have the widest possible audience for their curriculum. I know that if I were to write a science curriculum for the grammar stage, I would deliberately make it neutral simply because that would allow the most people to benefit from my program. Why kick up a hornet's nest unnecessarily?

 

I assume that they either reject evolution/OE, or are pandering to people who do. Especially in earth science, you really have to twist yourself in knots to talk about geological processes without using the words "millions" or "billions."

 

And I do think that evolution is one of the most fundamental organizing principles of biology. I don't think a grammar stage curriculum needs to deal with theories of abiogenesis, but I think it's hard to talk usefully about organisms and ecosystems without using words like "adapted" and "fitness."

[Veritaserum]

I assume that they either reject evolution/OE, or are pandering to people who do. Especially in earth science, you really have to twist yourself in knots to talk about geological processes without using the words "millions" or "billions."

 

And I do think that evolution is one of the most fundamental organizing principles of biology. I don't think a grammar stage curriculum needs to deal with theories of abiogenesis, but I think it's hard to talk usefully about organisms and ecosystems without using words like "adapted" and "fitness."

 

:iagree: Exactly. :)

[zenjenn]

I would not trust a science program whose authors did not accept current Theories (the tested, lots of data kind). Neutrality would indicate that the authors do not hold a mainstream view.

 

At the beginning of the school year, our family watched an episode of Stephen Hawking's "Curiosity" that explored the question "Does God Exist?" from a scientific perspective. At the time it was apropo since we had discussed pre-history and had explored the "How did it all begin" question, including evolution, Biblical stories, and various creation myths.

 

The end of the episode culminated in a triumphant conclusion with grand fanfare that all but definitively concluded that there is no God. The premise on which this conclusion was based had glaring flaws, but it was presented as a sound scientific conclusion. From Hawking's statements in the show, it was clear he had a personal emotional bias and this "scientific documentary" was created to confirm that bias.

 

Frankly it was the biggest piece of manufactured self-righteous atheistic hubris I'd ever seen. (The conclusion, anyways. Up until that point, I didn't find it particularly problematic.)

 

It made me cringe just as much as the Creation textbooks do. (And they DO make me cringe.)

 

There are definitely biases in certain science texts. Outside of the homeschooling textbook world, I'd say there are actually MORE science texts that are written from an atheistic bias than those from a creationist bias.

 

A good book on the topic is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow, an areligious scientist who comments on the trend of atheist scientists concocting science to confirm their bias against the existence of God.

 

So I do think "neutral" means something, and it is not necessarily the default position held by scientists of repute. A neutral science author presents only the evidence and the facts and is undeterred from presenting evidence for or against God or any particular theology.

[kalanamak]

I think someone could come up with a RSO extras book: reinforcement on each topic, a read aloud, more living books to go with, ideas for expanding each topic for the various grammar stage ages, extra hands-on ideas, a topic by topic guide page ref to various early science encyclopedias and other common hands-on books, like Janice Van Cleave, Mandell, and Maybane/Rybolt.

[AdventureMoms]

I'm assuming we're talking about science for grammar-stage kids here. My kids aren't even that old, so I'm less sure what I want for older kids. :-D

 

I want science that blends the disciplines - I find the idea of "biology with the ancients, etc" to be somewhat contrived. For young students I think separating science into disciplines isn't necessary.

 

I'd love for it to be story based, and exciting! It's silly for science to be dull, there's a lot of excitement in the world of discovery! Lots of hands-on stuff, too. Experiments that can be done with kids of varying levels. Book suggestions for each topic would be awesome.

 

For it to work for me at all it would have to be secular. No creator/God talk, no creationism, etc. I'd maybe consider a curriculum that avoided the issue altogether, but I'm not sure how you could avoid the OE/YE or Evolution/Creation thing. I can't imagine how to discuss geology, dinosaurs, or biology coherently and with scientific accuracy without "taking a side" on those issues, but maybe someone can do it.

[OrganicAnn]

My DD likes the stories in SOTW. Also she likes humor like in LOF. So including those elements would be good.

[happy-hs]

1) A strong, nicely written text with color pictures and references for online resources and additional reading.

 

2) A a full-of-ideas activity guide, as long as the activity guide included real experiments in addition to projects, activities, and coloring pages. I'd really like a scientifically sound experiment that reinforces each chapter. Suggestions for additional experimentation would be great, ideas that would take another experiment "to the next level" for eager students.

 

3) A materials kit is always nice. ;)

 

Melissa :)

[TKDmom]

I think someone could come up with a RSO extras book: reinforcement on each topic, a read aloud, more living books to go with, ideas for expanding each topic for the various grammar stage ages, extra hands-on ideas, a topic by topic guide page ref to various early science encyclopedias and other common hands-on books, like Janice Van Cleave, Mandell, and Maybane/Rybolt.

 

That would be really nice.

[Five More Minutes]

 

Oh, and of course: NO COMIC SANS!

 

:iagree:

[Mommyfaithe]

I agree. I want a core text that is beautifully-written (without sacrificing accuracy) so that we can read it aloud (36 chapters would be ideal). Then I would like an activity guide that, for each chapter, gives me projects / experiments to choose from, lists of recommended books for further reading, and then a couple of reproducible worksheets / colouring pages for each unit.

 

Oh, and I'd like it by Christmas. :D

 

I would like this...written chronologically....following scientists...in a 4 volume set.

Faithe

[kalanamak]

 

I am also more interested in Logic Stage as I think there is plenty to choose from for younger kids.

 

Something I'm finding, looking ahead a few years, is that my sciencey kid is ready for the WORDS and theories of more science, but when I move up to his level of that, quantification and hand coordination and common sense demands are also up.

 

A program for bright 10-13 year old who aren't ready for 8th-12th grade science do to what I mention above would be lovely.

[Farrar]

Yes, NO COMIC SANS!!! :lol:

 

I agree with a lot of what's been said here (and have been saying it too for awhile!!!). The central, well-written text and the flexible AG with different options are the two pieces I see as essential.

 

The secular piece is also pretty essential to me. And I agree that there's no such thing as "neutral." You could probably teach elementary physics and possibly chemistry without getting much into it, but there's no way I'd buy a biology or earth science program that refused to discuss the age of the earth or evolution.

[kalanamak]

A "neutral" curriculum would simply teach what is not in dispute and sidestep the "hot button" issues. It's very easy to supplement a "neutral" curriculum with materials that reflect one's individual POV on those issues.

 

In regards homeschool material, I think there is enough out there for creationists. I would like a homeschool-friendly program that does not acknowledge there are "hot button" issues that need sidestepping. By not including OE/evolution, they get tainted with a different flavour, IMO. Similarly, I don't want an anatomy book that requires I pull in an extra resource to teach genitalia. It makes it more special or suspect than it should be.

 

Not that I'm going to hold my breath and turn blue waiting for this :)

[JennyD]

I would like a homeschool-friendly program that does not acknowledge there are "hot button" issues that need sidestepping.

 

Not that I'm going to hold my breath and turn blue waiting for this :)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Dahliarw]

I have a doctorate in the science field. If you look at the evidence of the different origin theories, it takes more faith to believe in evolution. There is better evidence for the creation theory IMO.

 

I think it is a good idea to explain the different theories along with the evidence to children when they are old enough so that they can be educated about the background of the subject. This is helpful for them especially as they grow older when they may encounter teachers who espouse a certain theory exclusively. I teach my kids that when they hear "abc" from someone about this subject, that means the person adheres to "xyz" philosophy.

 

I agree. But I hate it when curriculum assumes evolution, especially at the grammar level. At logic and rhetoric introducing both sides would be appropriate.

[Alte Veste Academy]

In regards homeschool material, I think there is enough out there for creationists. I would like a homeschool-friendly program that does not acknowledge there are "hot button" issues that need sidestepping. By not including OE/evolution, they get tainted with a different flavour, IMO. Similarly, I don't want an anatomy book that requires I pull in an extra resource to teach genitalia. It makes it more special or suspect than it should be.

 

Not that I'm going to hold my breath and turn blue waiting for this :)

 

:iagree:100%

[Alte Veste Academy]

Kai, did you see this thread about what people want in a perfect K-3 science curriculum? It might give some more ideas of what people want.

 

I'll cut and paste what I want here. :D

 

I would not make a main science program chronological. If you wanted to write a supplemental program to go along with SOTW, chronological would be great and I think it would probably be a hit. I don't think it would work as a main science program for most people though.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by farrarwilliams

I don't think that's the hallmark of what makes SOTW work. It's in chronological order because that's the best way to study history. But it's not the best way to study science (unless you want to study the history of science - an excellent topic, but a little different). I really think the central well-written spine plus the flexible, multiple activity and resourced activity guide is what makes SOTW SOTW.

 

Right. This is one place where the flow chart from BFSU would be useful. I would kill for a book that flows chapter by chapter through the disciplines as naturally as they occur in reality. I envision a spiraling science program which could easily and logically lead from the Big Bang and the formation of the universe (physical science, earth and space science) to evolution (life science) to a study of fossils (earth with some archaeology and anthropology on the side?), to a study of rocks (earth science), to the periodic table (chemistry), to states of matter (physical science), to the weather cycle (earth science), to seasons and the life cycle of plants (earth then life science) to the life cycle of people and animals to blah blah blah blah blah... One topic would lead to another, each laying a solid foundation of fundamental knowledge that would maximize understanding of subsequent lessons. In other words, it should feel like a logical progression through the topics, not fragmented bits of info.

 

Yes to secular. Oh, and add a goodly portion of inquiry, please. :D

 

Please, do get on that. :tongue_smilie:

[AdventureMoms]

I would like a homeschool-friendly program that does not acknowledge there are "hot button" issues that need sidestepping.

 

This makes the most sense of all to me.

 

However my requirements do not include "must be ready by Christmas" at least! My eldest is 3 - I can wait 2 or 3 years!

[Joyofsixreboot]

Hmmm, thinking for logic stage I'd love

1)secular~including Big Bang, evolution and other accepted scientific theories.

2)34 chapters with assessment questions

3)activities and experiments that work with common objects

4)links to videos of more advanced experiments or documentary choices

5)have each chapter start with a short biography or history of a scientist who advanced the topic to be discussed

 

I end up doing this but it takes time to add to resources. I'm stuck using HOD for easy experiments, match card for worksheet/assessments/projects and the library for biographies ( not always easy to find suitably short ones, but I want a little more than an encyclopedia blurb) and the Internet for video/documentaries.

[ChrissySC]

Hmmm, thinking for logic stage I'd love

1)secular~including Big Bang, evolution and other accepted scientific theories.

2)34 chapters with assessment questions

3)activities and experiments that work with common objects

4)links to videos of more advanced experiments or documentary choices

5)have each chapter start with a short biography or history of a scientist who advanced the topic to be discussed

 

I end up doing this but it takes time to add to resources. I'm stuck using HOD for easy experiments, match card for worksheet/assessments/projects and the library for biographies ( not always easy to find suitably short ones, but I want a little more than an encyclopedia blurb) and the Internet for video/documentaries.

 

 

This sounds very much like what the Biology for the Logic Stage plans. You have a free great scientist program for download now, but soon the book will be out. The only thing missing from the list is the videos, which are easy enough with Discovery or movie streaming. Now, evolution is not a topic approached. It is neutral for the most part.

 

Also, this is very similar to Classiquest for the logic stage.

 

Both are in development.

 

They are more WTM of the old and not SOTW-styled. Instead, they use a combination of encyclopedia resources.

[kiana]

In regards homeschool material, I think there is enough out there for creationists. I would like a homeschool-friendly program that does not acknowledge there are "hot button" issues that need sidestepping. By not including OE/evolution, they get tainted with a different flavour, IMO. Similarly, I don't want an anatomy book that requires I pull in an extra resource to teach genitalia. It makes it more special or suspect than it should be.

 

Not that I'm going to hold my breath and turn blue waiting for this :)

 

Yep.

[EKS]

I want to thank everyone for responding to this thread! You have given me many things to think about.

 

My thoughts if I were to do this:

 

It would be totally secular (not neutral).

 

It would be organized like BFSU to facilitate connections between related concepts.

 

It would have connections to the history of science but wouldn't be organized chronologically.

 

It would probably be written to a middle school audience with maybe three levels of supplemental books and output options so that younger kids could tag along and advanced kids would have something to sink their teeth into.

 

It would have activities that illustrate the concepts being discussed. It would not have activities for activities' sake.

 

It would have built in (but informal) review.

 

And most importantly, no Comic Sans!

[Veritaserum]

That sounds awesome, Kai! :)

 

I want to thank everyone for responding to this thread! You have given me many things to think about.

 

My thoughts if I were to do this:

 

It would be totally secular (not neutral).

 

It would be organized like BFSU to facilitate connections between related concepts.

 

It would have connections to the history of science but wouldn't be organized chronologically.

 

It would probably be written to a middle school audience with maybe three levels of supplemental books and output options so that younger kids could tag along and advanced kids would have something to sink their teeth into.

 

It would have activities that illustrate the concepts being discussed. It would not have activities for activities' sake.

 

It would have built in (but informal) review.

 

And most importantly, no Comic Sans!

[Tress]

I want to thank everyone for responding to this thread! You have given me many things to think about.

 

My thoughts if I were to do this:

 

It would be totally secular (not neutral).

 

It would be organized like BFSU to facilitate connections between related concepts.

 

It would have connections to the history of science but wouldn't be organized chronologically.

 

It would probably be written to a middle school audience with maybe three levels of supplemental books and output options so that younger kids could tag along and advanced kids would have something to sink their teeth into.

 

It would have activities that illustrate the concepts being discussed. It would not have activities for activities' sake.

 

It would have built in (but informal) review.

 

And most importantly, no Comic Sans!

 

And then, when you are finished, you are going to translate it into several languages, but most importantly Dutch :D! Because every classical homeschooler in the Netherlands (that is......me, myself and I :tongue_smilie:) are eagerly awaiting this!

[jar7709]

I want to thank everyone for responding to this thread! You have given me many things to think about.

 

My thoughts if I were to do this:

 

It would be totally secular (not neutral).

 

It would be organized like BFSU to facilitate connections between related concepts.

 

It would have connections to the history of science but wouldn't be organized chronologically.

 

It would probably be written to a middle school audience with maybe three levels of supplemental books and output options so that younger kids could tag along and advanced kids would have something to sink their teeth into.

 

It would have activities that illustrate the concepts being discussed. It would not have activities for activities' sake.

 

It would have built in (but informal) review.

 

And most importantly, no Comic Sans!

 

Yes, this is precisely what I want. I've stayed out of this thread because what I envisioned wasn't "like SOTW," it was like THIS! I've tossed around the idea of putting something like this together just for my kids. Let me know if you need any help-no joke. :)

[Beth in SW WA]

That sounds awesome, Kai! :)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: