Rigorous, but secular?

[ArteHaus]

I need to change our science curriculum to something more rigorous. I have two boys, ds11 and ds10, which do science at the same level. I was considering BJU because everything I have read, says it’s a good rigorous program.

However, I wouldn’t mind moving to something secular. We are believers in Scripture, but not organized religion. So, sometimes I get a weird feeling about supporting certain types of curricula. However, I can’t use that as a complete deterrent, especially if the curriculum is good.

Both of my boys love science. We have been using Apologia and Ellen Mchenry. I am looking for something challenging and engaging. 

Assuming one of your children wanted to go into medicine, or be required a high level of science in the future, what would you go with/what have you been using? Neither of my children have necessarily expressed an interest here, but both excel in this area, and I want to curate our science selections with an eye to rigor. 

[8filltheheart]

I wouldn't worry about high school science and just use whatever you want.  All high school science (and college introductory courses) start at the beginning and teach everything that needs to be learned.  Kids can take a challenging chemistry high school course with zero background in chemistry and do well.  Math is going to be more of a determining factor in success than previous science courses.

[Homeschoolz]

Elemental Science (Classical version). 

It is rigirous, engaging/hands on and not religious. Start the logic cycle, then you can move on to their high school program.

 

[ArteHaus]

11 hours ago, Homeschoolz said:

Elemental Science (Classical version). 

It is rigirous, engaging/hands on and not religious. Start the logic cycle, then you can move on to their high school program.

 

Thank you, I will certainly look into that one:)

[Farrar]

Oak Meadow's high school sciences are pretty strong for home use.

I would definitely do whatever you want in middle school though. You need those high school sciences to be on the transcript for high school in most cases and like stated above, they all start at square one. Having some background knowledge helps, of course, but it's not a sequence that builds. Middle school is freedom. Part of that freedom is being able to do anything that might interest the kids in science the most. You can take advantage of any local opportunities without worrying if it's "rigorous enough" or whether it's enough to make a credit. Anything that they enjoy and engage with. If that's a laid out program at home, that's fine too. It's just to say you can do whatever you want and still be ready for high school science.

[Green Bean]

BJU with the online videos are great. They are the only ones that get done here. We ignore the religious view. We’ve done 2-9 now. Young earth perspective. Considered honors level in many circles.

Real Science 4 Kids Building Blocks series is good if you can commit to that many activities a year. Start at Book 5. Intelligent design perspective. Covers advanced topics in understandable language.

Novare has a secular arm called Centripetal Press. Old earth view. Even their “regular” path is honors level, IMO. Math must be on level and better to be ahead to use these. Sold by Classical Academic Press.

Home Science Tools has kits for all these.

I agree with 8, as well. Math is more important than what you do for science pre-high school.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Green Bean

[ArteHaus]

@Farrar Thank you! I have heard of Oak Meadow but just haven’t looked into it really, I will certainly look into it:)

 

@Green Bean Thank you! We have used RS4K, but I was underwhelmed. However, I did look at Centripetal Press, and although I am not an “old earther” it seemed very comprehensive, so I probably will do some thinking on that one. Have you used those personally, or just BJU?

[8filltheheart]

If you really want a textbook series, you could look into Prentice Hall's Science Explorer series.  They are readable middle school texts.

[Farrar]

I wanted to like those Prentice Hall Science Explorer books, but gosh were they poorly written and dry. We actually dove in with adult popular nonfiction in middle school as read alouds and we liked that approach.

I don't understand Green Bean's suggestions at all. Every one of those is decidedly NOT secular. Like, at all. Since you're also open to religious materials, maybe they're also of interest, but they're really not what you asked for at all.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Farrar

[Green Bean]

Centripetal Press is secular. 🙂 She said she was open hence my other suggestions.

I have no experience with the RS4K Building Blocks series. It’s on my short list for my youngest, though.

Novare is difficult to teach at home. Dr. May never intended it to be used in a home settIng anyway. Not to say you couldn’t do it and be amazing, though!

My last idea is using k12 as an Independent. My second son (24 now) enjoyed the 6th-8th courses years ago.

HTH as you check things out and decide what is best for your family.

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Green Bean

[8filltheheart]

9 hours ago, Farrar said:

I wanted to like those Prentice Hall Science Explorer books, but gosh were they poorly written and dry. We actually dove in with adult popular nonfiction in middle school as read alouds and we liked that approach.

I don't understand Green Bean's suggestions at all. Every one of those is decidedly NOT secular. Like, at all. Since you're also open to religious materials, maybe they're also of interest, but they're really not what you asked for at all.

I agree with your PH assessment.  But, compared to other middle school science textbooks, they are definitely on par.  The OP doesn't seem at all interested in a nontraditional approach.  She has only mentioned looking into canned programs.  I personally don't think any of the mentioned programs are all that great and certainly not somehow "foundational requirements."  At minimum, PH is straightforward and easy to use.

OP, there are so many wonderful books out there that cover science in a far more interesting way and at a deeper level than canned programs. I have not found a single elementary or middle school science program I would use.  Instead, I have my kids read about a wide variety of topics and dig as deep as they want.  (I have adult kids who have majored in chemical engineering, physics, atmospheric science.....all of them were/are top science students, so it is a solid academic approach.)  Here are a few places to start if you are interested:

Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K–12 | NSTA

Best STEM Books K–12 | NSTA

nmoira's books | LibraryThing

High School Science (tripod.com)

 

[Farrar]

52 minutes ago, 8filltheheart said:

I agree with your PH assessment.  But, compared to other middle school science textbooks, they are definitely on par.  The OP doesn't seem at all interested in a nontraditional approach.  She has only mentioned looking into canned programs.  I personally don't think any of the mentioned programs are all that great and certainly not somehow "foundational requirements."  At minimum, PH is straightforward and easy to use.

OP, there are so many wonderful books out there that cover science in a far more interesting way and at a deeper level than canned programs. I have not found a single elementary or middle school science program I would use.  Instead, I have my kids read about a wide variety of topics and dig as deep as they want.  (I have adult kids who have majored in chemical engineering, physics, atmospheric science.....all of them were/are top science students, so it is a solid academic approach.)  Here are a few places to start if you are interested:

Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K–12 | NSTA

Best STEM Books K–12 | NSTA

nmoira's books | LibraryThing

High School Science (tripod.com)

 

Well, I do think the Oak Meadow high school science programs are actually really good. They're basically just a student worktext with some additional resources and laid out assignments that's based around a strong public school style textbook. They wouldn't be my top pick for a STEM leaning kid, but they're really not bad. I do think the labs are weak, but it's easy to supplement by getting a QSL kit. I don't know how to truly assess the Christian programs beyond the volume of work because from my perspective, it's not really covering certain core elements, especially in biology and earth science. The other secular ones mentioned like Elemental are weak sauce IMO.

Those NSTA lists are always an excellent resource, especially for middle school. I wish more people would just use those as a starting point.

[EKS]

Agreeing with the others about middle school science textbooks.

Sometimes textbooks marketed for non-majors college courses can be good for middle school (no, I'm not kidding).

[8filltheheart]

@Farrar Are you recommending OM's high school science courses for rising 6th and 7th graders?  I didn't pick up on that.  I thought you were recommending them for high school.  (I personally know nothing about OM at all, so that is why I am uncertain of your suggestion.)

Edited February 8, 2023 by 8filltheheart

[EKS]

55 minutes ago, 8filltheheart said:

@Farrar Are you recommending OM's high school science courses for rising 6th and 7th graders?  I didn't pick up on that.  I thought you were recommending them for high school.  (I personally know nothing about OM at all, so that is why I am uncertain of your suggestion.)

I could see this, actually.  I have a copy of the textbook that OM used to use (Holt, polar bear) and I think it could be a good choice for an interested middle schooler.  I don't know how the 2017 Holt text (which is what they use now) differs though.

OM in general tends to have interesting assignments and not an overwhelming number of them.  I haven't seen the biology course though, so I don't know about it specifically.

[ArteHaus]

3 hours ago, 8filltheheart said:

I agree with your PH assessment.  But, compared to other middle school science textbooks, they are definitely on par.  The OP doesn't seem at all interested in a nontraditional approach.  She has only mentioned looking into canned programs.  I personally don't think any of the mentioned programs are all that great and certainly not somehow "foundational requirements."  At minimum, PH is straightforward and easy to use.

OP, there are so many wonderful books out there that cover science in a far more interesting way and at a deeper level than canned programs. I have not found a single elementary or middle school science program I would use.  Instead, I have my kids read about a wide variety of topics and dig as deep as they want.  (I have adult kids who have majored in chemical engineering, physics, atmospheric science.....all of them were/are top science students, so it is a solid academic approach.)  Here are a few places to start if you are interested:

Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K–12 | NSTA

Best STEM Books K–12 | NSTA

nmoira's books | LibraryThing

High School Science (tripod.com)

 

Although, I was sort of put off my the first part of your post, I will definitely look into the links that you provided, and I appreciate that.

I didn’t specify whether or not I was interested in non-traditional vs. traditional, as I am open. My interest is in gathering information, specifically about secular science, but I have an open mind to any curricula that is “rigorous”, if you will. So I have appreciated all input, even the non secular. I also don’t think that a traditional approach is “canned”, or less valuable, yet perhaps is better suited for some learning styles. IMO, non secular also isn’t less than because it inherently acknowledges the Scripture.

We don’t use the word “god” (and find it offensive) in our home, but use the Hebrew “YAHUAH”. So, that is something that bothers me about non secular that really has nothing to do with the scientific substance, but it is a singular quirk (if you will) that is very specific to our family. Not a deal breaker with a specific curriculum, just another reason I would like to explore other options (along side being curious about the thoroughness of secular programs). I mean, the teaching of evolution, for example, doesn’t necessitate automatic rigor, nor does negating the existence of evolution. So I am open minded. I have to tweak all curricula anyway, as I am sure most do.

Perhaps you could expound upon why you don’t think the programs mentioned are good programs? Sometimes we discount the value of a program because it doesn’t suit the way we teach/learn. I would be curious as to what in the meat of the curricula is subpar to you? What makes one “deeper” than the other in your opinion?

Again, thank you for taking the time to link those. I will dive into them, and think on it.

 

[Malam]

I would look into highschool "living book" lists, you can find a lot of curricula with public lists of living books here: 

There are a lot more living books for biology than physics or chemistry, so it could be a good option, especially since they might not have the time in highschool. Specifically  Men, Microscopes, and Living Things is a pretty popular spine, and can be followed up with the more challenging Microbe Hunters. There are plenty of interesting books on nutrition, longevity, and health I can recommend as well

Edited February 9, 2023 by Malam

[8filltheheart]

1 hour ago, ArteHaus said:

Although, I was sort of put off my the first part of your post, I will definitely look into the links that you provided, and I appreciate that.

I didn’t specify whether or not I was interested in non-traditional vs. traditional, as I am open. My interest is in gathering information, specifically about secular science, but I have an open mind to any curricula that is “rigorous”, if you will. So I have appreciated all input, even the non secular. I also don’t think that a traditional approach is “canned”, or less valuable, yet perhaps is better suited for some learning styles. IMO, non secular also isn’t less than because it inherently acknowledges the Scripture.

We don’t use the word “god” (and find it offensive) in our home, but use the Hebrew “YAHUAH”. So, that is something that bothers me about non secular that really has nothing to do with the scientific substance, but it is a singular quirk (if you will) that is very specific to our family. Not a deal breaker with a specific curriculum, just another reason I would like to explore other options (along side being curious about the thoroughness of secular programs). I mean, the teaching of evolution, for example, doesn’t necessitate automatic rigor, nor does negating the existence of evolution. So I am open minded. I have to tweak all curricula anyway, as I am sure most do.

Perhaps you could expound upon why you don’t think the programs mentioned are good programs? Sometimes we discount the value of a program because it doesn’t suit the way we teach/learn. I would be curious as to what in the meat of the curricula is subpar to you? What makes one “deeper” than the other in your opinion?

Again, thank you for taking the time to link those. I will dive into them, and think on it.

 

I didn't mean for my post to be offensive.  I posted my observation based on the fact that the only comments you posted in this thread after your OP were that you were going to look into the named canned programs without acknowledgment of Farrar's recommendation of whole books or both our recommendations that it is absolutely fine to simply use whatever you want.  (I thought I had posted about whole books earlier in this thread, but looking back, I guess I actually didn't.  It must have been a different thread.)  

FWIW, I have offered no opinion on secular vs non-secular curriculum.  My comments are strictly reserved toward middle school science curricula options.  It is my opinion that none of them "prepare" students for high school level science.  All high school science is taught at an introductory level.  Courses are self-contained and the only prerequisites that exist are math based.  All that elementary and middle school sciences provide are exposure to ideas and terms.  I think the bigger goal should be to arouse curiosity of wanting to learn more and ask questions.  Most textbooks present science as facts in terms of know this abc then you know x.  There is so much we don't know and the fascinating reality of how we have discovered what we do know is lost in the "learn this" summarizations.

For example, this yr I have been studying electricity with my 7th grader and my 6th grade granddaughter (who I also homeschool).  We read a really old book for children that was published in the 1930s.  It was fascinating bc it presented the information in a way that acknowledged how much was still being discovered and how we use things we don't fully understand.  It then talked about how different lights, appliances, and even cars worked on electrical principles.  (I hadn't realized that there had been electric cars before.)   Anyway, it is much different approach than teaching simply how electricity is generated and simple electronic basics.  We have taken what we studied to understand more fully what is happening in Snap Circuits, etc.   My 7th grader found a summer engineering camp at our local U for rising 7th and 8th graders and asked if she could go this summer bc she is now so intrigued by electricity and wants to learn more about electrical engineering.  

FWIW, that is how all of my kids have spent elementary and middle school. (They never have a single science test until high school level science courses. It is all about reading, discussing, researching.)  My youngest son (who is an adult) became fascinated with physics in 8th grade.  (He had previously been fascinated more with nature/ecosystems and had not really studied physics before.)  By the time he graduated from high school he had 3 astronomy credits and something like 5 university cal+ physics courses in addition to chemistry, AP chem, and biology.  Physics truly became his passion (and it had nothing to do with building physics a foundation from elementary school.) He was an advanced math student, so that allowed him to be an advanced physics student.  The rest came from having the ability to explore interests and knowing how to learn without having a list of "learn these facts and then you know this subject."  

That is basically my summation of subpar vs deeper opinion.  🙂  

[Farrar]

I would say that OM's biology would be a good 8th grade bio for a kid who was planning to go higher in biology, honestly. It's not a hard course, but it's thorough. Not recommending the others. I got that the OP has middle schoolers, but my rec was more long term.

[ArteHaus]

@8filltheheart Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I absolutely agree with your approach to Science, there is no better way to learn than through various modes of exploration. We usually use the textbook as a spine, and dive deeper as we go along. And I love whole books, your suggestions were great. I just like to have a great textbook as an outline, or starting point, diverging when interest is piqued. So, we are open to both traditional and non traditional, and fall somewhere in the middle.

It is always enjoyable to read/hear other people’s insights:)

 

[ArteHaus]

5 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I would say that OM's biology would be a good 8th grade bio for a kid who was planning to go higher in biology, honestly. It's not a hard course, but it's thorough. Not recommending the others. I got that the OP has middle schoolers, but my rec was more long term.

Yes, I appreciate that because I am looking at the long term as well as I consider what to do next. 

[Green Bean]

OM has some decent middle school science, as well. My older kids used a few long ago. Very hands-on and easy to add to.

8- so cool about your kids!

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Green Bean

[Shoeless]

If you wanted a traditional textbook for middle school, you could look at the Conceptual Science texts.  The books with "Explorations" in the title are for 7th and 8th grade. The other books are for high school, but probably best for students that are not planning on STEM majors in college. The Explorations books are like the old "general science" courses I took in 7th and 8th grade.  There's an online "academy" for the courses, but you can also hunt the books down on ebay and teach it yourself.  

https://learnscience.academy/high-school-9-12/

 

CPO Science is also a middle school level textbook series, but it was too overwhelming for me to implement at home. I bought the books, said "Wow, this looks nice!", and then set them back on the shelf and never picked them back up.  The labs were a lot of work to set up at home from the look of it, and my kid wasn't super interested in doing labs anyway.   

[Homeschoolz]

17 hours ago, Farrar said:

Well, I do think the Oak Meadow high school science programs are actually really good. They're basically just a student worktext with some additional resources and laid out assignments that's based around a strong public school style textbook. They wouldn't be my top pick for a STEM leaning kid, but they're really not bad. I do think the labs are weak, but it's easy to supplement by getting a QSL kit. I don't know how to truly assess the Christian programs beyond the volume of work because from my perspective, it's not really covering certain core elements, especially in biology and earth science. The other secular ones mentioned like Elemental are weak sauce IMO.

Those NSTA lists are always an excellent resource, especially for middle school. I wish more people would just use those as a starting point.

Can I ask why you feel Elemental Science is weak? This is what we use and felt it was pretty solid, although we are only in the grammar stage.