Real Science 4 Kids Level 2

[DawnUK]

We have really enjoyed the level 1 Chemistry, but I saw that level 2 is for grades 7-9. I would like for science to be more of a priority at that age, and I'm curious if anyone has ever used it. Is it rigorous enough? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,
--Dawn

[Carol in Cal.]

It covered PART of chemistry, but it covers it extremely well.

It is by no means the equivalent of a high school chemistry year or even semester, but as an 8th grade text I believe that it is excellent. I like it so much that we will probably do even if we do all of Rainbow. (But I'm funny that way. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering, and so excellent chemistry presentations really appeal to me.)

I have not seen the other level 2 texts--I'm not sure that they have been published yet.

[DawnUK]

Carol,
Is rainbow what you use? Do you think that it's thorough? I haven't read anything about it.

Thanks,
--Dawn

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm not using Rainbow yet. I had planned to start it this summer, but I'm having second thoughts. However, in general, its coverage of junior high level chemistry and physics look pretty good to me. It's just that RS4K is SO GOOD at chemistry, that I'm going to force us to use it sometime even if it is partially redundant.

Rainbow seems a little unfocussed to me, and I'm concerned about that. DD is pretty distractable, and so I don't know if it will be as good a fit for her as I had hoped.

I'm still debating, and I'm hoping to borrow a copy from a friend and look it over thoroughly before deciding.

[Kate CA]

It covered PART of chemistry, but it covers it extremely well.

It is by no means the equivalent of a high school chemistry year or even semester, but as an 8th grade text I believe that it is excellent.

How can you tell if a curriculum covers all of chemistry? I know that is a stupid question, but humor me, please. :rolleyes: It is these kinds of things that leave me uncomfortable when I don't know a subject well. Why is it not a complete program? And by what standards? I am asking these honestly because I don't know.

Thanks, Carol~!
Warmly,
Kate

[Carol in Cal.]

I just remember what I learned in high school chemistry and I don't see even level 2 covering all of those areas. I don't expect it to cover them in depth or with all the math--that's not the idea. And I still think that what it covers it covers extremely well. I just remember looking through it (the only time I have seen it, which was almost a year ago) and finding great coverage of some areas and none of others. I don't remember the specifics.

It is not reasonable to cover high school chemistry thoroughly at this level, though, and so that's why I still like it so much. What it covers it does really well. Ex. shapes of orbitals--wow, in a junior high book??? Probability clouds and all? S vs. P vs. D? Impressive! I didn't run across that until AP Chemistry, IIRC. It's a great visual to give kids when they are young, even without the math!

The next time I see RS4K 2 I will study it in detail and summarize what I think it's strong, weak, and nonexistent parts are.

[Kate CA]

I just remember what I learned in high school chemistry and I don't see even level 2 covering all of those areas. I don't expect it to cover them in depth or with all the math--that's not the idea. And I still think that what it covers it covers extremely well. I just remember looking through it (the only time I have seen it, which was almost a year ago) and finding great coverage of some areas and none of others. I don't remember the specifics.

It is not reasonable to cover high school chemistry thoroughly at this level, though, and so that's why I still like it so much. What it covers it does really well. Ex. shapes of orbitals--wow, in a junior high book??? Probability clouds and all? S vs. P vs. D? Impressive! I didn't run across that until AP Chemistry, IIRC. It's a great visual to give kids when they are young, even without the math!

The next time I see RS4K 2 I will study it in detail and summarize what I think it's strong, weak, and nonexistent parts are.

Thanks so much, Carol. This was very helpful to me.

Warmly,
Kate