I get so depressed reading some posts on this board....

[lewelma]

My experience has been different. I have no idea what others feel. All average kids don't feel the same. All gifted kids don't feel the same. All struggling kids don't feel the same. I can only imagine what I would feel like in another person's situation, with the given genetics and life experiences. I can try to gauge feelings by words and reactions, but I can't actually know enough to compare feelings. Besides - what purpose would that serve? Does the struggle need to be the same for both to be valid?

Of course you are right that not all people feel the same. Struggle takes different forms, but in my experience all kids struggle if they are appropriately challenged. To think that superstar students have it easy is just false.

 

I tutor/mentor kids with dyslexia, dygraphia, ADD, mental illness, and physical illness. Kids who have been bullied and kids who are the bullies. I work with kids 2 hours per week for multiple years, and I have one kid who saw me last year 15 hours a week for two months. I know these kids. I know their struggles. And struggle is as same as it is different.

 

(I will add that clearly all bets are off if a kid does not have a safe or supportive home. But I don't that that is what we are talking about.)

 

What I am trying to convey is that people with superstar student perhaps don't discuss their kids struggles on the high school board as much as people with average kids. This is not true on the accelerated board, where you definitely hear how hard it is for very advanced kids. Perhaps splitting up the board into silos has reduced our exposure to the struggles of all types of kids, as most of us only frequent certain sections of the boards. 

 

The feelings of students in all situations are valid. They don't need to be equal to be valid. It is, however, important to remember that the struggle of one won't necessarily comfort the other.

Well, here is my question. Is the trouble with us as parents comparing our children? Or is it with the children comparing themselves? I think it is more the former. Sure, students compare grades, but their internal struggle is more bound up with that hard self-fight that most teens experience. If you give them appropriate level work, then the struggle is at an appropriate level, this is true for all children regardless of ability. But when parents come here and see what some kids are doing, they have self-doubt. I think it is so very easy to talk about successes without ever discussing the failures. So no, I don't think that the struggles of one kid would comfort another, but it might comfort the parents. Sometimes with my younger when there is a hint of jealousy, I ask "do you really want to be your brother? You will get not only his best traits but also his worst. You don't get to keep your best traits and gain his best traits. That is not how it would work." This he can understand. He only wants the good stuff, and when confronted with having to take on the less desirable traits of his brother, he would rather not.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by lewelma

[lewelma]

I will also add, that as an outsider, I see the process of applying to universities to be a very unfortunate cultural aspect of America that those of us in NZ don't share.  So clearly, I cannot understand the kind of pressure kids feel with the rat race they are facing. Here the bar is set pretty low to get into university but once you are there the standards are high.  You sink or swim on your own merits. A huge percentage fail and drop out in the first year.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Of course you are right that not all people feel the same. Struggle takes different forms, but in my experience all kids struggle if they are appropriately challenged. To think that superstar students have it easy is just false.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that superstar students have it easy. I envision it as being on a continuum. I do think that overall superstar students have it easier. They often choose to go above and beyond. To be challenged. If they wanted to, they could kick back, relax, and float through school and much of life. They might not get as far if they did that, but they would get by. Compare that to the child that has to fight tooth and nail just to scrape by. These students may well face a lifetime of fighting tooth and nail just to survive. The idea of kicking back and floating would result in sinking and drowning - guaranteed.

 

Not every parent of a superstar student feels the same way or has the same perspective. Not all superstar students perceive their lives as a challenge and a struggle comparable to those of truly struggling students.

 

There is the struggle of appropriate challenge and there is the struggle of academic survival.  It's a swim meet compared to swimming to save your life. 

 

Well, here is my question. Is the trouble with us as parents comparing our children? Or is it with the children comparing themselves? I think it is more the former. Sure, students compare grades, but their internal struggle is more bound up with that hard self-fight that most teens experience. If you give them appropriate level work, then the struggle is at an appropriate level, this is true for all children regardless of ability. But when parents come here and see what some kids are doing, they have self-doubt. I think it is so very easy to talk about successes without ever discussing the failures. So no, I don't think that the struggles of one kid would comfort another, but it might comfort the parents.

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but I have serious doubts about that. I can only say it would be of little comfort to me.

 

As always, YMMV.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I will also add, that as an outsider, I see the process of applying to universities to be a very unfortunate cultural aspect of America that those of us in NZ don't share.  So clearly, I cannot understand the kind of pressure kids feel with the rat race they are facing. Here the bar is set pretty low to get into university but once you are there the standards are high.  You sink or swim on your own merits. A huge percentage fail and drop out in the first year.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ah ha! Common ground! I wrote my response before I read this post. We both used a swimming analogy.   :cheers2:

[OnMyOwn]

Sorry :( I did't mean to do that. The point I was making was that based on reading here I had in the past categorized him as "struggling" and "average". When sharing his ACT score in our social circle it is in the context of "he only got a 31". And people go..."oh that is ok. Not everyone is a good test taker". It wasn't until we got deep into the college thing that I realized that what those high achievers are a small percentage and he really had done very well.

 

FYI- the ACT goes up to 36. Our state lottery scholarship kicks in at 21 and a 17-18 can get you into most colleges in our state.

 

I really am sorry I made you feel bad and I am sure others who are lurking. My point was just how skewed the high school board is. Did you see above where I said my dh who has a PhD started out with a score in the 1000s on the SAT coming out of high school?

Don't worry about it. He will be fine. I doubt he'll get a 32, but that's okay with me. I was kind of ribbing you.

[SunshineMom]

I don't have time for a lengthy response but I think, as others have mentioned, that if we consider our audience in our responses, it would be more unifying. If we are talking about struggles, there are several boards to turn to depending on your experiences and needs. The majority of homeschoolers on the high school forum are not superstars or gifted nor are they in general population. I also believe that not one curriculum or one method of teaching is the sole answer to educating a child because we are all diverse. Sharing what has worked is very much appreciated, we learn from each other. Our homeschool journeys are so close to our hearts, I just think we need to tread lightly with one another.

Edited February 24, 2016 by jewel

[GoodGrief]

It's much easier to talk about successes here because of the public nature of the forums, and concern for the privacy of our children. Of course, we all read these posts with our own shortcomings everpresent in our minds. it's easy to lose perspective, I think.

 

Also, after some 17-odd years of homeschooling (well, close to 21 if you are of the "homeschooling since birth" mindset ;-) ), I am of the opinion that homeschoolers, especially those that are still homeschooling in high school, do tend to the extreme in various areas. Some exceptionally "gifted", some with learning challenges, some with emotional challenges, some from families with atypical lifestyle choices, etc, etc (some with all of the above), but all with the common issue that the mainstream building-based education system doesn't serve them well. Chatting about dealing with these things makes sense. As I read the forums (and I am much more of a reader than a poster, as one can see from my post count...keeping in mind that I have been following WTM since the late 90s ;-) ), I see people talking about all of these things.

 

Also, keep in mind that people may be talking excessively about perceived successes because they are trying to feel better about other things that aren't going so well.

 

I talk about mental health issues quite a bit IRL, and as a result I get a lot of people coming to me to discuss struggles, their own or their kids' problems. Those "perfect" people? They are hurting too. You'd just never know it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Gr8lander

[regentrude]

I do think that overall superstar students have it easier. They often choose to go above and beyond. To be challenged. If they wanted to, they could kick back, relax, and float through school and much of life. They might not get as far if they did that, but they would get by.

 

Many such students simply cannot kick back, relax, and float. They do not choose to go above and beyond, they are compelled to do so... sometimes at the expense of their mental and physical health.

It is too easy to say "if they wanted, they could have it easy". It is part of their nature to be incapable of doing just that. Which creates unique challenges and problems for which outsiders have very little empathy.

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

ETA: And keep in mind that it's only college-bound students who bother taking the SAT/ACT exams.

 

Just a quick comment:

the above statement is incorrect. Sixteen states require all high school students to take the ACT or the SAT (which lowers the average compared to only college bound students)

Edited February 24, 2016 by regentrude

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Many such students simply cannot kick back, relax, and float. They do not choose to go above and beyond, they are compelled to do so... sometimes at the expense of their mental and physical health.

It is too easy to say "if they wanted, they could have it easy". It is part of their nature to be incapable of doing just that.

 

 

I get that. I have one of those students. I still think she has it easier than if things were different. So does she. Does she have it easy? No. Does she have it easier than many, many others? Yes. A thousand times yes.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Again, what I am saying is to consider context. I am not saying superstars all have idealic lives. Context, context, context. That is my main point.

[KathyBC]

I have done this for certain posts, and I will continue to do so. It all depends on the context of the discussion. If someone has a student struggling with high school math, I will recommend MUS. But if someone is asking for a math program for a student who wants to be an engineer, yep, I am going to chime in and discourage the use of MUS bc it is light. I'll equally assure parents whose kids are struggling with AoPS that while AoPS is the best math curriculum I have seen, kids do not have to complete math at that level to be successful in engineering.

 

Different curricula cover content at different levels. That is information.

Why not say it that way? It's not necessarily light, it's adequate to cover high school topics, but if STEM field is desired a more rigorous program is necessary, like AoPS.

[KathyBC]

What I am trying to convey is that people with superstar student perhaps don't discuss their kids struggles on the high school board as much as people with average kids. This is not true on the accelerated board, where you definitely hear how hard it is for very advanced kids. Perhaps splitting up the board into silos has reduced our exposure to the struggles of all types of kids, as most of us only frequent certain sections of the boards. 

Not at all. I think the Accelerated Board allows people to work through the legitimate problems of a five year-old doing Algebra, or whatever, with less fear of hurting others. The point of this thread is that people with average kids are NOT sharing their struggles on the high school board. I believe the high school board would benefit from more options, such as an accelerated or learning challenges sub forum.

[SunshineMom]

I agree, we need an accelerated high school board. There is already a high school forum for kids who have challenges.

[KathyBC]

I agree, we need an accelerated high school board. There is already a high school forum for kids who have challenges.

Okay, I don't know where that is, but I agree with you.

 

ETA: And having been here once before on this forum, I will say posters may be more likely to move their posts over to an accelerated forum. Inferring average kids have learning challenges if not they're not academic enough is problematic.

Edited February 24, 2016 by KathyBC

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Which creates unique challenges and problems for which outsiders have very little empathy.

 

This was added after I quoted, so I want to reiterate that I am not saying superstars have no challenges or problems. All students deserve empathy.

 

Again, context.

[SunshineMom]

Okay, I don't know where that is, but I agree with you.

 

ETA: And having been here once before on this forum, I will say posters may be more likely to move their posts over to an accelerated forum. Inferring average kids have learning challenges if not they're not academic enough is problematic.

 

There is a board (invite only) for families homeschooling high school students who have learning challenges.

 

It is really up to parents to choose which forum would best suit their needs, whether that is the general, learning challenges, or accelerated forums. I do believe those using the accelerated forum need more, such an accelerated high school board.  Often accelerated parents go to the high school forum for assistance because their children are doing high school level work.  It is a delicate balance to navigate in order for their needs to get met too.

Edited February 24, 2016 by jewel

[Corraleno]

Why not say it that way? It's not necessarily light, it's adequate to cover high school topics, but if STEM field is desired a more rigorous program is necessary, like AoPS.

 

Because that is simply not accurate. MUS is light, compared to pretty much every other high school math program I have ever seen. Will it disqualify a student from ever getting into a STEM program? Of course not. Is AoPS necessary for STEM majors? Absolutely not! But there is a continuum of mathematical challenge and rigor, with different programs falling in different places along that spectrum. MUS is at one end and AoPS is at the other — and there are many many other programs in between. That is a simple statement of fact, and not a judgement on any particular family's choices. 

 

I will never understand why it is so taboo on this board to admit that not all math programs are equal.  No one has an issue with people discussing the difference between "light" and rigorous programs in history or English or science. People will often specifically ask for a "light" program, for a whole host of reasons — struggling student, student with a heavy course load in other subjects, student with no interest in that topic who just wants to check the box, etc. No one would suggest that Exploring the Way Life Works is equal to Campbell & Reece, or that Lightning Literature = AP English Lit. But God forbid someone refer to MUS or TT as "light" compared to Foerster or Larson or whatever. I honestly don't get it.  :confused1:

 

There's nothing wrong with choosing a program at the "light" end of the spectrum if that's what works for the student! No one thinks that every kid should be doing every subject at AP level and using AoPS for math. Neither of my kids will do a single AP.  DS will have 2-3 years of Latin and 5 years of Greek, but no calculus and his lab sciences are quite light. I'm not sure DD will get further than College Algebra, because she struggles in math and has no interest in a career that would require more than that. She will have lots of art and music classes, though, because that's where her interests and talents lie.

 

Isn't that the point of homeschooling, to be able to tailor our students' education to their unique skills and talents? By definition, that will mean using the curriculum that works best in each subject, which — with the exception of a few extremely gifted students — is likely to be a mix of rigorous and light, depending on each student's needs. That's a good thing, not a bad thing!

[Arcadia]

Often accelerated parents go to the high school forum for assistance because their children are doing high school level work. It is a delicate balance to navigate in order for their needs to get met too.

I ended up reading college confidential :lol:

 

However I come from an academic crazy country so college confidential is tame. I won't recommend people reading college confidential because it can be anxiety inducing.

[...................]

Sorry :(  I did't mean to do that.  The point I was making was that based on reading here I had in the past categorized him as "struggling" and "average".  When sharing his ACT score in our social circle it is in the context of "he only got a 31". And people go..."oh that is ok.  Not everyone is a good test taker".  It wasn't until we got deep into the college thing that I realized that what those high achievers are a small percentage and he really had done very well.

 

FYI- the ACT goes up to 36.  Our state lottery scholarship kicks in at 21 and a 17-18 can get you into most colleges in our state.   

 

I really am sorry I made you feel bad and I am sure others who are lurking.  My point was just how skewed the high school board is.  Did you see above where I said my dh who has a PhD started out with a score in the 1000s on the SAT coming out of high school? 

I have no idea where you and KINSA are but here (on the 1600 scale), our state engineering schools require closer to a 1400!  You would qualify for only the very worst, overcrowded struggling state U's with a 1000.  Heck even they have an average score of 1100 or so on their website.

 

I am not trying to make OP feel worse, but I think it all comes down to your OWN kid and your OWN situation and even your own state. :o)  Every situation is different.  You can prod, you can push a little, you can make sure your student has EVERY advantage you can give them (including love!)....

 

But you cannot make them someone they aren't and also you shouldn't

[GoodGrief]

  

 

I really am sorry I made you feel bad and I am sure others who are lurking.  My point was just how skewed the high school board is.  Did you see above where I said my dh who has a PhD started out with a score in the 1000s on the SAT coming out of high school? 

 

If your husband graduated in the 80s-90s, an SAT in the 1000s was quite respectable :-) The test only went to 1600, and getting a 1600 was an amazing feat. Scores were re-centered in the 90s, and became higher for that reason. This doesn't invalidate your point, just wanted to make sure you understood that wasn't a particularly low score for the time. ;-)

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Gr8lander

[Haiku]

But there is a continuum of mathematical challenge and rigor, with different programs falling in different places along that spectrum. MUS is at one end and AoPS is at the other — and there are many many other programs in between. 

 

Imo, the problem is that it's not usually presented as you described it in this quoted snippet and the rest of your post. It's generally presented that x, y, and z are the good, rigorous programs that will get kids into good colleges and hard majors, and everything else is, well, substandard.

 

The math wars are alive and well on TWTM.

 

I was dissuaded for several years from using the math program I knew in my heart would benefit my son: Teaching Textbooks. I was dissuaded because so many people rag so hard on the program as such a poor curriculum. But now we use it, and my son is making steady progress in math and feels more confident about math. I would much rather that than continue to bang away at a "harder" program that resulted in nothing but lack of understanding and feelings of stupidity.

 

Plus, I know that the things some people on TWTM say about math aren't true, because my oldest child is doing quite well as a bio major/chem minor despite struggling with high school math. Not having super-mega-advanced math courses didn't keep her from doing what she wanted to do.

 

So it's very frustrating to see people continue to make proclamations about what is and isn't necessary for a proper math (or science, or whatever) education in order to get into a college or major, because there are tons of other people whose kids didn't have super-mega-advanced curricula, and they are doing fine. And when we point this stuff out, we are told we can't just pretend that these standards that we somehow didn't meet aren't real and won't hold students back.

 

I think it depends on a) where in the country you are and b) what type of university you feel is acceptable for your student, and, ime, it's the people who feel that State U is unacceptable for their student who make these pronouncements about what other students need to do to be successful.

 

My kid failed both a math and a science class in high school, yet she still managed to get into college and major in science, and she's getting all A's and B's. It's not the most prestigious school in the country, but that really doesn't matter. Most of us won't go on to have prestigious lives.

 

State schools routinely accept average students, and it is discouraging and frustrating to be constantly reminded that doing average work is unacceptable. It's also false. 

 

And I agree with others who have stated that the high school board here is very skewed toward the very high achievers. It's not representative of what most kids are doing, ime.

[Lilaclady]

Why not say it that way? It's not necessarily light, it's adequate to cover high school topics, but if STEM field is desired a more rigorous program is necessary, like AoPS.

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse but for those of us who have no clue about curriculum etc, someone offering advice on what is light for and engineering or not is very much appreciated.

 

I learnt about aops on this board and I am so very grateful for that. Most people I know IRL don't use it and most only use Saxon which my dd and I detested when i tried it in elementary.

I appreciate people sharing about different curriculum and always try to take it as someone's opinion and not always the gospel.

[teachermom2834]

I have no idea where you and KINSA are but here (on the 1600 scale), our state engineering schools require closer to a 1400! You would qualify for only the very worst, overcrowded struggling state U's with a 1000. Heck even they have an average score of 1100 or so on their website.

 

I am not trying to make OP feel worse, but I think it all comes down to your OWN kid and your OWN situation and even your own state. :o) Every situation is different. You can prod, you can push a little, you can make sure your student has EVERY advantage you can give them (including love!)....

 

But you cannot make them someone they aren't and also you shouldn't

U of Tennessee at Knoxville- admission to college of engineering requires 25 math ACT. Lots of top students go here. Some types of engineering UTK is supposedly better than Vanderbilt. I am unsure as I do not have engineers.

 

Tennessee Tech- admission to engineering requires 20 composite ACT and 22 math.

 

Sure those looking for top ranked schools will not be impressed by these schools. But, we are talking average kids here and I personally know many successful engineers that have come out of these schools.

[KathyBC]

Because that is simply not accurate. MUS is light, compared to pretty much every other high school math program I have ever seen. Will it disqualify a student from ever getting into a STEM program? Of course not. Is AoPS necessary for STEM majors? Absolutely not! But there is a continuum of mathematical challenge and rigor, with different programs falling in different places along that spectrum. MUS is at one end and AoPS is at the other — and there are many many other programs in between. That is a simple statement of fact, and not a judgement on any particular family's choices. 

 

I will never understand why it is so taboo on this board to admit that not all math programs are equal.  No one has an issue with people discussing the difference between "light" and rigorous programs in history or English or science. People will often specifically ask for a "light" program, for a whole host of reasons — struggling student, student with a heavy course load in other subjects, student with no interest in that topic who just wants to check the box, etc. No one would suggest that Exploring the Way Life Works is equal to Campbell & Reece, or that Lightning Literature = AP English Lit. But God forbid someone refer to MUS or TT as "light" compared to Foerster or Larson or whatever. I honestly don't get it.  :confused1:

 

There's nothing wrong with choosing a program at the "light" end of the spectrum if that's what works for the student! No one thinks that every kid should be doing every subject at AP level and using AoPS for math. Neither of my kids will do a single AP.  DS will have 2-3 years of Latin and 5 years of Greek, but no calculus and his lab sciences are quite light. I'm not sure DD will get further than College Algebra, because she struggles in math and has no interest in a career that would require more than that. She will have lots of art and music classes, though, because that's where her interests and talents lie.

 

Isn't that the point of homeschooling, to be able to tailor our students' education to their unique skills and talents? By definition, that will mean using the curriculum that works best in each subject, which — with the exception of a few extremely gifted students — is likely to be a mix of rigorous and light, depending on each student's needs. That's a good thing, not a bad thing!

If you don't get it, you don't get it. The nuance between MUS is light and MUS is lighter than AoPS is obvious to others, though.

[KathyBC]

Not trying to beat a dead horse but for those of us who have no clue about curriculum etc, someone offering advice on what is light for and engineering or not is very much appreciated.

 

I learnt about aops on this board and I am so very grateful for that. Most people I know IRL don't use it and most only use Saxon which my dd and I detested when i tried it in elementary.

I appreciate people sharing about different curriculum and always try to take it as someone's opinion and not always the gospel.

OF COURSE people can mention other curricula. And should. It's how you say it.

[Corraleno]

If you don't get it, you don't get it. The nuance between MUS is light and MUS is lighter than AoPS is obvious to others, though.

 

Actually I do get it. I own, and have compared, copies of the following Algebra 1 texts: MUS, Life of Fred, Teaching Textbooks, Lial, Larson, Foerster, Dolciani, Discovering Algebra (can't remember the author's name), Angel, K12, Kinetic Books, Thinkwell, and AoPS.

 

MUS is lighter than ALL of those, and in most cases it is much much lighter. Now, if a student looks at MUS and says "wow, I finally understand math — I never understood this before!" then MUS is the perfect program for that kid. 

 

But that doesn't mean it's not "light." Foerster covers the quadratic formula in chapter 6. In MUS it's in chapter 12 — of Algebra 2. There are very few problems in each set, and the problems are very very simple. I saw "Honors Level" problems in MUS Algebra that were comparable to problems we did in Math Mammoth 4. 

 

I have recommended TT to many people for many different reasons, and not just because a student is struggling. Sometimes mom needs a program that will just get done. When a relative pulled her kids out of PS on short notice and was panicking about math, I actually bought several levels of TT for the family, because I thought it was ideal for their situation. And it worked well for them.

 

However, I would not recommend MUS for high school math unless the student really needed that particular approach. And I don't think it serves anyone well to pretend that MUS is just as rigorous as every other math program except AoPS — it misleads both the parent who is looking for a strong math program and the one who is purposely looking for an extra light program for a struggling student.

[KathyBC]

You're entitled to your opinion... that it is extra light for the struggling student, that you would never recommend it for high school math except under those circumstances. I could care less about the reputation of MUS. I care because this information has been shown by other participants on this thread to be not always true. To even be misleading, by times.

 

I feel I'm wasting my breath to ask you all to tread more carefully and kindly, considering perhaps yours isn't the sum of all experience.

 

ETA: I value your opinion because other experience is vastly valuable, and mine is extremely limited.

^{Edited again to tone it down a bit.}

Edited February 25, 2016 by KathyBC

[lisabees]

Random thoughts on engineering:

 

The kids I know who are Engineering majors go to Penn State.  Middle 50% statistics of incoming freshman for Main Campus, not just engineering: GPA 3.55-3.97, SAT 1750-2000.  This is extremely accurate of all students I know who get into Penn State.

 

Engineering is competitive to get into at Penn State.

 

Engineering is even more difficult to stay in at Penn State.  

 

I would imagine that, across the board, Engineering departments have a huge freshman drop-out rate.  

 

Not sure if that has anything to do with math preparation in high school or not.  But if I had a kid interested in engineering (and I do, although she is only 12), I would do my best prepare her with (what I consider) a challenging math program.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by lisabees

[teachermom2834]

Random thoughts on engineering:

 

The kids I know who are Engineering majors go to Penn State. Middle 50% statistics of incoming freshman for Main Campus, not just engineering: GPA 3.55-3.97, SAT 1750-2000. This is extremely accurate of all students I know who get into Penn State.

 

Engineering is competitive to get into at Penn State.

 

Engineering is even more difficult to stay in at Penn State.

 

I would imagine that, across the board, Engineering departments have a huge freshman drop-out rate.

 

Not sure if that has anything to do with math preparation in high school or not. But if I had a kid interested in engineering (and I do, although she is only 12), I would do my best prepare her with (what I consider) a challenging math program.

I was not in anyway saying that a good high school math preparation is unnecessary for engineering. My point was that average kids are not doomed.

[regentrude]

I would imagine that, across the board, Engineering departments have a huge freshman drop-out rate.  

 

Not sure if that has anything to do with math preparation in high school or not. 

 

It has everything to do with math preparation in high school.

I have been teaching engineering physics at an engineering school for 15 years Most of the students who struggle with physics are lacking basic math skills at prealgebra and algebra level. No student fails calculus based physics because of lacking calculus skills - they fail because they spend so much mental energy on figuring out 9th grade algebra and 7th grade fractions that they cannot focus on the actual physics. They fail at manipulations that should be completely automatic and often lack conceptual understanding in math, because they have been taught rote algorithms (prime example: dividing by fractions. they remember they have to "flip something"...arrgh). They struggle with chemistry for the same reason: they cannot do stoichiometry, because they never truly understood ratios and proportions.

 

On that note, since we are discussing math and engineering: it does not matter whether your student had calculus in high school - but it matters that algebra 1 is absolutely rock-solid. Spend whatever time it takes with whatever curriculum works for your student to make that happen.

ETA: And for this it is important to make sure the curriculum does teach the conceptual understanding and not just rote procedures!

Edited February 25, 2016 by regentrude

[Arcadia]

I would imagine that, across the board, Engineering departments have a huge freshman drop-out rate.

 

Not sure if that has anything to do with math preparation in high school or not.

My alma mater is ranked in the top 10 worldwide for engineering. It requires the equivalent of AP Calc AB and AP Physics C to get in.

 

However once a student gets accepted into the school of engineering (direct admission), than it is the endurance/grit/resilience to survive all four years of engin with maybe lots of instant noodles. That is probable true not just for engin.

 

The math preparation in high school was being able to slog through, ask for help, and read your assigned readings and more before lectures. My lectures for 11-12 grade in public school has a ratio of one teacher to 450 students on average. Tutorial was 1 teacher to 25 students on average.

 

Most of us started prepping once we received our college acceptance letter and book lists. Revision a month before the first lecture of the year helps.

 

While a solid math foundation is good, being able to preserve is definitely required.

 

As someone who have life easy academically, I do agree with what WMA posted upthread that the struggles are different. My struggles were health issues and some level of boredom all through school life. I took fever reducers and had my inhaler on my exam table for all my college exams to cope with allergies induced asthma. My nephew is a scholar in engin with no health issues, his struggles are again different.

[GAPeachie]

I'd just like to point out that the national averages for SAT/ACT are 1000/20.

 

I know many people here would be appalled at such scores, but the reality is that if your child was around those scores, you're fine. Probably not Ivy League or full-ride scholarship, but your child will still be able to get into a decent college and become a productive member of society.

 

Let's keep things real.

 

ETA: And keep in mind that it's only college-bound students who bother taking the SAT/ACT exams. There are a lot of students who don't.

 

And then among that set of students, there is a subset of students that only take the test that is suited to their bent.  I graduated 7th in my high school class, took honors everything except math, was in the gifted program starting at age 8 or so, and took the ACT because I felt that was the right test for *me.*  I never attempted the SAT.  I looked at the SAT prep book and the ACT prep book and read the requirements very carefully for each university I applied to.  Some appeared that they only accepted the SAT but after a little digging I found that they all took the ACT.  I was *the only* student in the honors track at my school to NOT take the SAT.  

 

Sometimes half the battle is just knowing what a student DOES excel at and using that information to their advantage.  

[8filltheheart]

You're entitled to your opinion... that it is extra light for the struggling student, that you would never recommend it for high school math except under those circumstances. I could care less about the reputation of MUS. I care because this information has been shown by other participants on this thread to be not always true. To even be misleading, by times.

 

I feel I'm wasting my breath to ask you all to tread more carefully and kindly, considering perhaps yours isn't the sum of all experience.

 

ETA: I value your opinion because other experience is vastly valuable, and mine is extremely limited.

^{Edited again to tone it down a bit.}

No, individual posters don't have the sum of all experience, but it does help to keep real experience in context. Regentrude's posts, for example, contain her insights as a physics professor.

 

My experience is far more limited, but I do have an adult child who is a chemE and another who is a physics major....both math heavy majors. I know what they struggled with in college and what they didn't (don't). I have also heard about the kids they tutor, their study groups, etc.

 

Most people are not insincere when taking their time to post a response to a question. They are offering their sincere understanding of the topic at hand. It is a given that not all children are capable of completing certain curricula. That still does not change the content found within the texts themselves. Will not completing a certain curriculum doom a child to failure? Obviously not. But are kids who are able to complete a stronger curriculum more likely to have a stronger foundation? Yes.

 

(For a non-math example, consider a college freshman who had only ever read modern novels and had never been exposed to Shaekspeare. In their college lit class, they would probably be able to read Shakespeare's words. But how well will that student be able to comprehend the play compared to students who had been reading classical literature and been delving into Shakespeare during high school. Some students will be able to make the leap. Some students won't and they will struggle with that lit class. But what if those same students had had the exposure to Shakespeare in high school, especially if they were capable of reading Shakespeare then? Would they have a stronger foundation to build on? Should the recommendation be to try Shakespeare in high school if the student is capable or that Shakespeare doesn't really make any impact at all?

 

That is the essence of curriculum recommendations, is it not? How well does it prepare students to succeed long term in their desired objectives?

Edited February 25, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[Corraleno]

You're entitled to your opinion... that it is extra light for the struggling student, that you would never recommend it for high school math except under those circumstances. I could care less about the reputation of MUS. I care because this information has been shown by other participants on this thread to be not always true. To even be misleading, by times.

 

It's not "personal opinion" that MUS postpones standard Algebra 1 topics until halfway through Algebra 2, or that it has fewer problems than most texts, and those problems are at a lower level of difficulty and complexity. Those are facts, and that's useful information for someone who wants a "lighter" program that goes slower and has fewer, simpler problems than most texts. It's also important information for someone who wants to know if a student can jump straight into Alg 2 in PS or in another curriculum after MUS Alg 1 & Geometry. 

 

 

I feel I'm wasting my breath to ask you all to tread more carefully and kindly, considering perhaps yours isn't the sum of all experience.

 

 

I certainly don't think that my experience with MUS is "the sum of all experience." That's kind of insulting, actually. But some of us do have experience with it, and have compared it to many other programs. If it's not acceptable to use the word "light," or to say that it does not provide the depth and coverage of other, more standard high school math programs, then what are we allowed to say? Why is it "unkind" to say that it's a good program for some kids in some situations, but not for most students? 

 

"Light" is not an insult; it's a description of a program's depth and rigor relative to other programs. "Light" does not equal "bad," and "most difficult" does not equal "best." If MUS helps a student understand math in ways that other programs don't, then MUS is the best program for that student. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics is a terrific text and it might be the perfect choice for a given student, but that doesn't change the fact that the S&S and level of depth in Hewitt is not remotely the same as Giancoli. That's the whole point of having a wide variety of choices at different levels of depth and rigor — finding the one that's the right fit for each student. "Best" = "best fit," not "most difficult."

 

 

[Corraleno]

because I feel like either I am not expecting enough of my kids or my kids are't thriving like everybody else's kids are.  I mean, whenever I read threads about "what are you doing in x grade" and I compare our plans to many others, ours seems to always fall short.  Am I doing something wrong?  Are my kids hopelessly behind? What is not happening in our home school that is happening is so many others?

 

Is there anybody here that doesn't have super smart kids or kids that are so motivated to learn at any cost...or are we the only homeschooling family that has kids who struggle...who are not over achievers? 

 

sigh!!

 

To bring the thread back to the original topic....

 

OP, you're not doing anything wrong and there's nothing wrong with your kids! I have a 2E kid who excels in some areas and seriously struggles in others, and I have a perfectly average kid who does not excel in any area. (Well actually she excelled in music, but she gave that up in favor of gymnastics, where she is completely average — and that's fine by me.)

 

I don't usually post in the "what are you doing in X grade" threads, because we are pretty unschooly in elementary and middle school, and even in HS I'm fine with eclectic, interest-led learning. DS does some subjects (languages and linguistics, classical history and culture) at a high level, and he does others in a very "light" way. He will take some DE courses next year (12th), but will have no APs. He is gifted but also ADD and dyslexic and is not a good test taker. But he's an interesting kid who will have an interesting transcript and I have no worries at all about him getting into a good college.

 

DD (7th grade) is less academically inclined. She'll do what she needs to do, and then spend the rest of her time drawing, listening to music, making little videos, or hanging out with friends. If she were in PS, she would probably be getting Bs in subjects she likes and Cs in ones she dislikes, with an occasional D thrown in there when she flaked about an assignment. If she gets 1000 on the SAT, I will be very happy with that. She likes kids and animals and has no idea what she wants to be when she grows up. If she goes to college it will be either CC or a state uni. I don't care what she does as long as she's a happy and self-supporting adult.  Slapping a "My kid goes to Harvard" bumper sticker on my car would not make me feel like a better parent or more successful homeschooler. 

 

I guess I don't find the HS board intimidating or depressing, because I've always done my own thing and I don't wish my kids were any different than they are. (Well, I wish DS didn't struggle with LDs and anxiety, but that's because they make him unhappy, not because they prevent him from getting into an Ivy, kwim?) I've never felt any pressure to make sure they take a bunch of APs (or any APs for that matter) or do math and science competitions, or whatever. But I'm thrilled for the WTM kids who do those things and do well. I'm happy for kids who've worked hard to get into top schools and get their wish, and I'm equally thrilled for kids who are succeeding in CC or who have gone directly to work in a job they really enjoy. Yay for kids doing what they enjoy and finding their place in the world! 

[G5052]

It has everything to do with math preparation in high school.

I have been teaching engineering physics at an engineering school for 15 years Most of the students who struggle with physics are lacking basic math skills at prealgebra and algebra level. No student fails calculus based physics because of lacking calculus skills - they fail because they spend so much mental energy on figuring out 9th grade algebra and 7th grade fractions that they cannot focus on the actual physics. They fail at manipulations that should be completely automatic and often lack conceptual understanding in math, because they have been taught rote algorithms (prime example: dividing by fractions. they remember they have to "flip something"...arrgh). They struggle with chemistry for the same reason: they cannot do stoichiometry, because they never truly understood ratios and proportions.

 

On that note, since we are discussing math and engineering: it does not matter whether your student had calculus in high school - but it matters that algebra 1 is absolutely rock-solid. Spend whatever time it takes with whatever curriculum works for your student to make that happen.

ETA: And for this it is important to make sure the curriculum does teach the conceptual understanding and not just rote procedures!

 

I agree. Mine have struggled with math despite their STEM professor mom. I actually had my older one do Algebra I twice, and my younger one is going to repeat Algebra II. Neither has had any significant learning challenges, and IMHO they just need repetition and time. Some kids have other challenges of course that make algebra hard.

 

My older one is an accounting major, and even in his second semester, the business majors are dropping like flies in business calculus. He's struggling a little, but has a solid "A." He's thanked me over and over because his math struggles this semester are with calculus, not algebra. So many of the others are missing the algebra, so the calculus is a complete wash.

Edited February 25, 2016 by G5052

[Arcadia]

If it's not acceptable to use the word "light," or to say that it does not provide the depth and coverage of other, more standard high school math programs, then what are we allowed to say?

 

"Does not provide the depth and coverage of other, more standard high school math programs" sounds factual and objective while "light" seems a lot more subjective.

 

When people are stressed/demoralised and feelings run high, seeing their curriculum choice describe as "light" kind of stinks emotionally.

 

It is different from me asking for a light curriculum for my history loathing kids who just want to take the SAT history exams and be done with it because I am coming from a position of high morale.

[Haiku]

He's struggling a little, but has a solid "A."

It seems odd to me to describe a student with a solid A as "struggling."

 

I think that's the kind of thing this thread is getting at. If an A student in business calculus is a struggling student, what does that say about our kids who are having a hard time with a relatively easy program like TT7?

[regentrude]

It seems odd to me to describe a student with a solid A as "struggling."

 

I think that's the kind of thing this thread is getting at. If an A student in business calculus is a struggling student, what does that say about our kids who are having a hard time with a relatively easy program like TT7?

 

But the student may be genuinely struggling in that class and working his behind off to make it.

 

My extraordinarily gifted DD has classes in which she is definitely struggling. If you are spending 13 hours on a single weekly homework assignment, study for many hours for exams to receive a 60% on the test, worry about failing the class - that is struggling, even if it eventually results in an A.

 

As a college instructor, I see students struggle in engineering physics all the time. Some fail, some end up excelling - but it may have been through gruelling work and emotional turmoil. Just because it is a high level class and they end up with a good result does not mean their struggle is not real, or their process could have been described through a verb that implies an easier time.

 

Struggling has nothing to do with inherent ability or an absolute scale; it is always relative to the circumstance and goal.

Conversely, one can say that a student who is never given the gift of struggle has been short changed and not adequately challenged.

Edited February 25, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

I think most people would use the term "struggling" to describe a student who can barely keep their heads above water. Meaning, barely passing, or even failing.

 

Sorry, but working hard to attain A's is not the same as struggling.

 

That depends on how hard they make you fight for that A.

The student who claws his way way to the top through sleep deprivation and low blood sugar by sheer force of will... you bet he is struggling in every sense of the word... including the overwhelming sensation of drowning that "barely keeping head above water" implies

Edited February 25, 2016 by regentrude

[8filltheheart]

It seems odd to me to describe a student with a solid A as "struggling."

 

I think that's the kind of thing this thread is getting at. If an A student in business calculus is a struggling student, what does that say about our kids who are having a hard time with a relatively easy program like TT7?

 

Why does it have to say anything about your student?  Why is your perception of your student tied to her perception of her own?  Why should her perception of her child's struggles need to be tied to anyone else's?  Why can it not simply be her perception of her child and what he is dealing with?

[shawthorne44]

I don't have overachieving kids. There seems to be a broader spectrum on the K-8 board, but for some reason the High School board seems very academic.

It's not a huge issue for me as I'm no longer homeschooling, but wanted to let you know that you are not alone, doing something wrong, or necessarily hopelessly behind.

 

I suspect that the non-overachieving kids are more likely to end up in public school before high school.   If the kid is an eager learner who is ahead academically, it is pretty much a no-brainer to keep homeschooling, if at all possible.  Whereas if the kids whines or seems behind, it is a different story.   

[Corraleno]

I think most people would use the term "struggling" to describe a student who can barely keep their heads above water. Meaning, barely passing, or even failing.

 

Sorry, but working hard to attain A's is not the same as struggling.

 

If a kid with significant LDs works his butt off to earn an A, it doesn't count as struggling, but if he gets a C or D, then the struggle counts? That makes no sense to me.

 

My son is dyslexic and ADD, with slow processing speed and poor working memory. He sobbed all the way through Lukeion's Greek 1, spending up to 15 hours/wk feeling like he was waaaaay over his head and was going to fail. The fact that he ended up with an A does not in any way negate the fact that he struggled in that class. I am far prouder of the fact that he stuck with it and pushed through all the tears and frustration than I am of the letter grade he earned. Claiming that he must not have really been struggling, since he didn't fail, diminishes the true nature and value of his accomplishment.

[shawthorne44]

If a kid with significant LDs works his butt off to earn an A, it doesn't count as struggling, but if he gets a C or D, then the struggle counts? That makes no sense to me.

 

My son is dyslexic and ADD, with slow processing speed and poor working memory. He sobbed all the way through Lukeion's Greek 1, spending up to 15 hours/wk feeling like he was waaaaay over his head and was going to fail. The fact that he ended up with an A does not in any way negate the fact that he struggled in that class. I am far prouder of the fact that he stuck with it and pushed through all the tears and frustration than I am of the letter grade he earned. Claiming that he must not have really been struggling, since he didn't fail, diminishes the true nature and value of his accomplishment.

 

Serious kudos to your son.   

 

The autistic son of my work buddy just had almost all of his  ... I forget the term - where they change things in the public school because of his problems.   The reason given, because he was getting A's.   My response was, "They were working, so they took them away"

[Haiku]

Why does it have to say anything about your student? Why is your perception of your student tied to her perception of her own? Why should her perception of her child's struggles need to be tied to anyone else's? Why can it not simply be her perception of her child and what he is dealing with?

I didn't mean me in specific. I mean the idea that a student with an A is a struggling student is part of the climate here that makes it seem like it's normal to be a super high achiever.

[8filltheheart]

I think most people would use the term "struggling" to describe a student who can barely keep their heads above water. Meaning, barely passing, or even failing.

 

Sorry, but working hard to attain A's is not the same as struggling.

 

 

I didn't mean me in specific. I mean the idea that a student with an A is a struggling student is part of the climate here that makes it seem like it's normal to be a super high achiever.

 

These both severely diminish the amt of effort some kids have to exerted to get to the point where they are or are exerting to achieve.

 

 Just b/c a student has As does not mean they are immune to struggling or having experienced what it means to be significantly behind,  or having to put in 5x the effort.  Our son has top grades, but he is severely dyslexic.  He didn't read on grade level until late 4th/early 5th grade.  He has to spend hours longer reading assignments compared to other students.  If he spent the same amt of time, he would not have the grades that he does.

 

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that grades alone indicate "struggle."   

[Corraleno]

"Does not provide the depth and coverage of other, more standard high school math programs" sounds factual and objective while "light" seems a lot more subjective.

 

When people are stressed/demoralised and feelings run high, seeing their curriculum choice describe as "light" kind of stinks emotionally.

 

But why???

 

Do people really want to pretend that there is no difference between MUS and Foersters? Or between Hewitt and Giancoli, Visual Latin and Lukeion, or IEW and AP English Language and Lit? 

 

If someone is using a curriculum that is on the "lighter" end of the spectrum, and that curriculum is working well for their kids, then yay, they've found the right program for their kids. That's awesome! Why is it necessary to pretend that all curricula are the same level of depth and rigor? Why is it depressing and demoralizing to acknowledge "My kid struggles in math and will barely get through Algebra 2, but she's an excellent artist and is kind and compassionate and a hard worker"? Or "My dyslexic son hates to read, so we are going really light on literature and are focusing on practical writing tasks instead of literary analysis, but he loves tinkering with computers and is building one out of spare parts." What's wrong with those things? IMO, nothing. Not. One. Thing.

 

There's a reason that colleges provide very different courses for science majors and nonmajors — are the kids in the Physics of Everyday Life course supposed to be depressed and demoralized because they're not taking Calc-based Physics for Scientists and Engineers? Of course not. So why the angst over the same thing in high school?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Corraleno

[SunshineMom]

Communication is tricky in the written form, we often miss emotional nuances.

[Haiku]

Our son has top grades, but he is severely dyslexic. He didn't read on grade level until late 4th/early 5th grade.

And yet, my son is finishing seventh grade and still doesn't read on grade level despite tutoring and dyslexia-specific curricula. He has other learning issues in addition to dyslexia and may never be able to achieve the same grades as other students regardless of how long and how hard he works.

 

So the ability to achieve at a level comparable to peers without learning challenges is in itself an advantage the some kids don't have.

 

So when people say their kids are struggling and getting A's, well, yes, it may not come easily to them, but they can do it. They are not, imo, "struggling students" just because they have to work harder to get *top grades.*