Real Science for Kids (RS4K) -- a Survey for those who either chose to use it, or did not.

[LisaKinVA]

I'm mulling over RS4K... and I thought I would post a brief survey asking why you decided to use (or not to use) this curriculum. Also, if you did NOT select RS4K, would you please let me know which science you chose (such as: Abeka, BJU, Apologia, Noeo, etc.) and why (apart from cost). Thank you so much!

[chepyl]

None of the poll options really worked for me. I have used and continue to use RS4K. I like that the books are shorter. The 10 chapters easily work as a 10 week unit study or can be expanded by breaking up the chapter and getting additional books. The flexibility is great. The labs are easy, inexpensive, and demonstrate the points of the chapters well. I like that with the different books I can give my kids good, thorough information (for their level) in a short lesson. I don't want to spend excessive time on science and history at the elementary level. I am more focused on math, spelling, grammar, and other basics. They will, however be familiar with the topics and will be able to give input into what they want to study more thoroughly later.

 

We have done PreLevel 1 Biology and Chemistry, we are about to start Physics (I threw in an extra study on the human body). That is 2 years worth of science. Next year, we will start round 2 with Level 1 and we will do Chemistry, Biology in a year, Physics and Astronomy the next, and then Geology/Earth Science. We may have to jump to level 2 for some. They are pricey so I looked around when I found that I liked them. I found one set at a garage sale! Then I purchased a bundle of 3 Level 1 books from the forums. I bought two sets new and may need to buy two more new. If you want to try them, see if you can find them used :)

[Crimson Wife]

Your poll made me answer each question even though #2 and #3 are contradictory (either someone has used RS4K or they haven't). So in #3 I voted what I liked about the curriculum even though I chose not to use it.

 

RS4K seems like a nice enough program but not quite as rigorous in terms of content compared to the options I decided to go with.

[Samiam]

Didn't vote as I've not actually used it. I'm considering it, saw it at convention this weekend, BUT I'm balking due to the fact that they are not whole year programs....kinda pricey for a 10-12 week curriculum. But then my logical brain says that it could be perfect for us, as I'm deeply considering Classical Conversations this year anyway, so a shorter program that we stretch out over the year might be a better option than a full program that I stress to get done. But I'm wanting to see their Geology program as that is the one I'd like to do....although the Chemistry program looked good too.

[NittanyJen]

It isn't a neutral curriculum... It's Intelligent Design.

 

See many, many threads on this topic.

 

 

[Alessandra]

It isn't a neutral curriculum... It's Intelligent Design.

 

See many, many threads on this topic.

 

Agree.

 

RS4K is "worldview neutral," according to their website. They may very well say that, but people who do secular science will not necessarily see it that way.

 

 

[zoo_keeper]

It isn't a neutral curriculum... It's Intelligent Design.

 

See many, many threads on this topic.

 

This (and the other threads) are full of over-blown drama. As a secular homeschooler with a STEM background and profession (more on the M than on the S, however), I want no mixture of religion and science, thank you very much. The core of the complaints centers around the use of the word "designed" in a particular book (can't even remember which book, I honestly never noticed it and we've done the 4 pre-level 1 books), the author's personal beliefs (um, hello, we're on a messageboard associated with curricula written by Christian authors, so the logic is sketchy), and a supposed conspiracy theory to brainwash our children by seeing the horrific word "designed" over and over again (which as stated, their brainwashing techniques must be top notch because they're not even registering on my radar).. IMO, the whole hoopla seems paranoid and silly.

[NittanyJen]

This (and the other threads) are full of over-blown drama. As a secular homeschooler with a STEM background and profession (more on the M than on the S, however), I want no mixture of religion and science, thank you very much. The core of the complaints centers around the use of the word "designed" in a particular book (can't even remember which book, I honestly never noticed it and we've done the 4 pre-level 1 books), the author's personal beliefs (um, hello, we're on a messageboard associated with curricula written by Christian authors, so the logic is sketchy), and a supposed conspiracy theory to brainwash our children by seeing the horrific word "designed" over and over again (which as stated, their brainwashing techniques must be top notch because they're not even registering on my radar).. IMO, the whole hoopla seems paranoid and silly.

 

Okay, first, take a deep breath. I think it's possible to all remain calm and friendly here :). None of this is personal, after all :) It's just a textbook series, not a child in danger or a matter of national security. However, because I do believe in fairness, I did post the author's own words in the most recent thread so that people could simply decide for themselves if they happen to disagree with me, based upon what the author herself has stated. I stand by my opinion, also based upon the author's words.

 

Second, no, there is no drama involved. I also (thank you very much) have an extensive science background, as a former bench scientist in genetics and not too shabby training in mathematics and a few other fields as well, and an extra degree in linguistics on the side, as do many, many others on these boards; such credentials are not exactly unique around here :). I'm glad that you enjoyed the books, because despite the ID slant to them, I agree that they are pretty well-written for their topics and intended audience level. I personally dislike the idea that the ID slant is not more openly explained on the website, as I feel that if a bias in the sciences is going to permeate the teaching, such ought to be stated openly at a point prior to purchase. That is my personal opinion, and it's perfectly okay with me if you disagree with me (see, no drama-- easy :) ).

 

Third, as to the rest of the paragraph, I think we'll agree to be polite and dismiss for the most part, as it makes very little sense, is rather histrionic, and is largely a non-sequitor; none of this has anything whatsoever to do with SWB. Pointing out that the program promotes ID is not a protest against Christianity, nor is it any indication that I (nor anyone else who agrees with my statement) has any kind of a problem with RWK's personal beliefs (another non-sequitor). The fact that we disagree does not make me illogical, and personal attacks are not appropriate on this message board. I will remind you that person to use the words "horrific" "brain washing" and "conspiracy theory" would be . . . you.

 

If you like it, and it works for you, it's a fine program to use.

[Crimson Wife]

It is "neutral" in the same way that Mr. Q. is, by avoiding controversial topics. It is very easy to add information pertaining to one's own beliefs to a neutral curriculum and personally I wish more HS science programs were neutral in their POV.

[Laura Corin]

I used Chemistry, Bio and Physics Level 1 with a bright 9yo. Chemistry was a joy - well designed and with pleasing depth. Biology was a strange beast: very simple stuff (life cycle of a butterfly, etc.) with fairly complex microscope work. Physics was rather dry and the experiments were hard to achieve.

 

Second time round, I used parts of bio at a young age, then planned on doing the rest of bio later, the whole of chemistry, and replacing physics with 'Physics With Toys'.

 

Laura

[zoo_keeper]

Jen,

I apologize if my words implied that I thought you were being illogical. Instead, I was addressing the specific complaints that often crop on these RS4K threads. FTR, I am (and was) perfectly calm and don't think I was leveling any unfriendly personal attacks. I just get annoyed when this particular complaint (which I consider a poorly-argued over-reaction to a silly little word that unfairly scares HSers from a particular curriculum) crops up. But again, I did not intend for you to feel attacked. I simply feel that there has been a bunch of drama (I am not saying you created it) about this non-issue.

[Targhee]

We use it because MPH was being re-vamped and our umbrella school offered middle school Chemistry as a replacement. I think it has a lot of advanced topics, but I DON'T think those topics are necessary for this age (or necessarily built on a strong foundation). It isn't that they are too hard, it is that a student at middle level still needs to work on HOW science is done and skills for accurate measurement and analysis. It isn't a bad program. It's just not a balanced program, kind of skewed to the content end of the content-process balance. I would rather trade discussion of reactions types (replacement, decomposition, etc.) for both a more solid concept of atoms and properties of elements, and a lot more observation and lab work (including lab procedure for accurate results, etc.).

[serendipitous journey]

I didn't use RS4K -- I looked at it seriously b/c of SWB's recommendation of it, but chose not to use it because of the "neutral" point of view. We are old earth, looking at earth science and astronomy, and for those subjects at the level A. is working we require materials that reference things older than 6,000 years. :)

 

We are currently using Intellego -- I wish I'd found it earlier! -- along with various nature study.

 

I have used and really liked Apologia; I re-wrote the materials for A. to include things that I wanted included, and leave out things I didn't wish to teach. With the Jr. Notebooks & Rainbow Resources kits it is open and go and A. really, really enjoyed the experiments. I hope to use Apologia with my younger son; I haven't the time at the moment to re-work things for the older child, and also I'd like to teach earth science which they don't have. (For other old-earthers, I supplemented Apologia's Astronomy with HA Rey & other constellation books, and the DVD series How the Universe Works.)

 

ETA: I must say that although it is a lot of work, I much prefer teaching from a Young Earth text than a "neutral" one. We want our children to understand why things are so, from the very beginning. This is not really the WTM style, and it requires active presentation of origin questions. Working with Apologia made it simple for me to find the places where causes are being taught, and to make sure I teach the causes we actually want to be teaching. "Neutral" curricula leave much of the "why" alone altogether.