A complete 10th grade homeschool curriculum

1. Unit 1: Reading Closely, Reading SuspiciouslyThis unit isn't teaching brand-new stuff so much as checking what actually stuck from 9th grade and nailing it down with precise names: the difference between an inference and a guess, what makes a tone word justified, and a four-level way to rank how strong a piece of evidence is (explicit, strongly implied, inferred, speculative). Everything later in the year assumes this vocabulary is solid.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between explicit statement and non-explicit content in a short textGiven a short passage, students correctly sort five statements about it into 'explicitly stated' and 'not explicitly stated,' matching a teacher-provided answer key on at least 4 of 5.
   • The difference between inference and assumption as reader movesStudents distinguish an inference (conclusion built from textual detail plus reasoning) from an assumption (a belief imported from outside the text) when given six labeled reader-statements about a passage, explaining in one sentence what evidence or lack of evidence justifies each label.
   • The relationship between specific diction choices and the tone they createStudents identify the specific word or phrase that creates a given tone in a passage and explain, in a claim-evidence-explanation sentence, why that diction produces that effect rather than another.
   • The four-level textual evidence hierarchy and its application to competing evidence for one claimGiven two pieces of textual evidence for the same claim about a short passage, students rank them using the four-level evidence hierarchy (explicit > strongly implied > inferred > speculative) and justify the ranking in writing by naming what level each piece occupies and why.
   • Claim-evidence-explanation paragraph structure combined with justified evidence selection using the hierarchyStudents construct a full claim-evidence-explanation paragraph about an unfamiliar short passage in which they select the stronger of two available pieces of evidence and explicitly justify why the piece they rejected was weaker.
   • The divergence between intuitive/obvious readings and best-evidenced readings, tested via the evidence hierarchyWhen given a passage where the most immediately obvious reading and the best-evidenced reading diverge, students argue for the obvious reading first, then identify specifically which evidence-hierarchy level it relies on and why a competing reading outranks it.
   • Transfer of the evidence hierarchy to an untaught genre/contextGiven a brand-new genre the class has not analyzed this unit (e.g., a print advertisement or a short informational blurb), students apply the evidence hierarchy to rank two pieces of evidence for a claim about that text's implied message, without teacher-provided category cues.
   • The four ordered levels of the textual evidence hierarchyStudents recall the four-level names of the evidence hierarchy (explicit, strongly implied, inferred, speculative) in correct order from memory, without text support, at the start of Day 11.
2. Unit 2: The Narrator You Can't TrustNow the question gets specific: how much should you believe a first-person narrator? Using stories like 'The Tell-Tale Heart' and 'The Lottery,' your child builds a case — using the evidence-ranking skill from Unit 1 — for exactly how and how much a narrator can be trusted, rather than just slapping the label 'unreliable' on anyone who seems off.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four common types of unreliable narration (naive, deceptive, mad, self-deceived)Given a definition and one modeled example of each, students classify a narrator's unreliability as naive, deceptive, mad/disturbed, or self-deceived, citing the textual signal that indicates the type.
   • The gap between a narrator's claim and the story's corroborating or contradicting evidenceStudents explain how a specific gap between what a narrator claims and what the story's other evidence shows (a character's action, another character's reported speech, a physical detail) reveals that gap rather than merely locate a quotation.
   • Ranked evidence supporting a claim of narrator unreliabilityStudents rank three or more pieces of textual evidence for a claim about a narrator's reliability from strongest to weakest, justifying the order using the evidence-hierarchy criteria from Unit 1 (directness, corroboration, resistance to alternative explanation).
   • Narrative distance as it varies across two different unreliable-narrator textsStudents compare the narrative distance (how much the narrator's perspective is endorsed or undercut by the text) in two different short stories and explain what causes the difference in each case.
   • Authorial withholding of information as a structural choice distinct from narrator unreliabilityStudents infer the likely reason an author chose to withhold a key piece of information from the narrator's account (a structural choice) rather than state it directly, distinguishing structural withholding from narrator unreliability.
   • Unreliability classification, evidence ranking, and discrimination against a competing classification, applied to an unfamiliar textGiven a short unfamiliar first-person narrative excerpt never discussed in class, students determine the most defensible unreliability classification, produce two ranked pieces of supporting evidence, and explain why the evidence favors that classification over the strongest plausible alternative a peer might argue, within 20 minutes.
   • Techniques of unreliable narration transferred into original compositionStudents generate an original short first-person passage (150-250 words) in which the narrator's claims are subtly contradicted by details the writer plants, deliberately applying at least two techniques of unreliable narration studied in this unit.
   • A thesis-driven literary analysis essay on narrator unreliability with ranked evidenceStudents write a multi-paragraph literary analysis essay arguing a specific type and degree of a studied narrator's unreliability, organizing at least three ranked pieces of evidence to support a single defensible claim.
   • Peer claims about narrator reliability and their textual supportDuring a Socratic-style discussion, students build on a peer's claim about a narrator's reliability or respectfully challenge it with a counter-example from the text, rather than restating their own prepared point.
   • Unit 1 vocabulary: inference, tone, evidence hierarchyStudents recall the definitions of inference, tone, and the evidence-hierarchy criteria from Unit 1 with at least 80% accuracy on a short retrieval quiz, before applying them to new content this unit.
3. Unit 3: Sustaining a Judgment Across a NovelThis is the big jump: from short stories to a full novel (Frankenstein, The Great Gatsby, or Their Eyes Were Watching God — whichever you can get copies of). The real question is whether your child can hold a judgment about a character loosely enough to actually change it as new chapters complicate the picture, instead of just defending their first impression for 300 pages.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Revision of a reader's judgment of the protagonist across chaptersGiven two chapters read one week apart, students state their current judgment of the protagonist's central trait and identify the specific textual detail that changed or confirmed it since the last judgment.
   • Occurrences of an assigned recurring motifStudents identify each occurrence of an assigned motif (e.g., light/dark, cold/warmth) in an assigned chapter and record the surrounding context.
   • The author's structural choice to withhold or embed informationStudents explain how a specific structural choice (withheld information, embedded narration, an achronological chapter) shapes what the reader is permitted to know at that point in the novel.
   • The distinction between character development and character revelationStudents distinguish instances where the text shows a character genuinely changing (development) from instances where the text merely reveals a trait that was present all along (revelation).
   • Social determinism versus individual agency as competing explanations for a character's fateStudents compare social determinism and individual agency as two critical lenses and classify a given plot event as better explained by one, the other, or both.
   • A defensible claim about the cause of the protagonist's fate, supported by motif and structural evidenceStudents construct a claim about whether the protagonist's fate is primarily a product of choice or circumstance and support it with motif evidence and at least one structural observation, in a novel-length essay.
   • Peer claims about character motivation, supported or contested with textual evidenceIn a Socratic seminar, students build on a peer's claim about a character's motivation or challenge it with contrary textual evidence.
   • Sequence of plot and character events across the novelGiven a plot-sequence quiz item about an event from an earlier third of the novel, students recall the correct sequence of events without rereading, at least one week after finishing that section.
   • The choice-versus-circumstance framework applied to an unfamiliar characterStudents apply the choice-versus-circumstance framework to a character or scenario from a text not studied in this unit, using only the framework and no new instruction.
4. Unit 4: Watching Instead of Reading: Shakespeare and Dramatic IronyA full Shakespeare play (Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth are common choices), read and ideally watched or listened to performed. There's no narrator in a play — your child has to figure out what a character really thinks from soliloquies, asides, and how the verse is written, instead of being told what to believe.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Dramatic irony as an audience-character knowledge gapGiven a scene, state which character(s) know a key fact and which do not, and identify the resulting gap as dramatic irony.
   • The structural relationship between dramatic irony and unreliable narrationCompare dramatic irony (audience/character knowledge gap in performed drama) to narrative unreliability (reader/narrator credibility gap in prose), stating what structural feature makes each possible.
   • Soliloquy as a technique for representing interiority absent a narratorExplain how a specific soliloquy reveals a gap between a character's public speech (to other characters) and private thought (to the audience alone), citing diction and verse form as evidence.
   • Soliloquy as a technique for representing interiority, applied to new textual instancesGiven an unfamiliar soliloquy from the same play (a later act, not modeled in class), produce a written explanation of the public/private gap it reveals, using the same evidence categories (diction, verse form, direct address) taught earlier.
   • Motif recurrence across acts of a play, continuing Unit 3's chapter-based motif trackingTrack a chosen motif (e.g., light/dark, poison, blood) across three or more acts and explain how its recurrence marks a shift in a character's fate or society's judgment of them.
   • Blank verse vs. prose as a meaning-bearing formal choice in Elizabethan dramaDistinguish blank verse from prose passages in the assigned play and infer what the shift in form signals about a character's social status or emotional state at that moment.
   • Staging choices as arguments about a character's interiorityIn a small group, stage and justify one interpretive choice (blocking, delivery, aside timing) for a scene, explaining how that choice changes what the audience infers about a character's interiority relative to a different staging choice.
   • Dramatic irony and interiority techniques, transferred to an unstudied playGiven a scene from an unfamiliar Shakespeare play (not the one studied), identify at least one moment of dramatic irony and one aside or soliloquy, applying the definitions learned without teacher cueing.
   • The essay claim linking soliloquy evidence to a public/private-self argumentPlan and draft an essay arguing how one soliloquy reveals a gap between a character's public and private self, organizing evidence from diction, form, and staging into a single supported claim.
5. Unit 5: The Architecture of PersuasionA shift from stories and plays to real persuasive writing — a classic speech paired with a modern opinion piece on a related theme. Your child learns to ask who's speaking, to whom, why, and in what situation, and then to see ethos, logos, and pathos as deliberate choices a writer makes for that specific audience, not just decorations.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The rhetorical situation (speaker, audience, purpose, occasion)Given a short unfamiliar persuasive passage, identify the speaker, audience, purpose, and occasion and state how each constrains the rhetor's choices.
   • Ethos, logos, and pathos appealsClassify a given persuasive move in a text as primarily an ethos, logos, or pathos appeal and justify the classification using a textual detail.
   • The function of an appeal relative to a specific rhetorical situationExplain how a specific appeal functions for the stated audience of a classic speech: what work it is doing, not merely that it is present.
   • Appeal choices across two texts with a shared theme but different rhetorical situationsCompare how the classic speech and the contemporary op-ed each adapt ethos, logos, and pathos differently for their distinct audiences and occasions, on a shared theme.
   • Concession and rebuttal structureLocate the concession and rebuttal in an argumentative text and explain what the placement of the concession does for the rhetor's credibility with a skeptical audience.
   • The relative persuasive weight of competing appeals in a single textRank two or three appeals used in a text by how much persuasive work each does for the specific audience, and defend the ranking against a plausible alternative ranking.
   • Audience-appropriate appeal design in an unfamiliar rhetorical situationGiven a persuasive text and audience never discussed in class, identify which appeal is least effective for that specific audience and generate a revised version of that appeal that would work better for them.
   • The distinction between rhetorical effectiveness and truth/validity of a claimEvaluate whether a well-constructed argument in an unfamiliar text is nonetheless wrong, distinguishing rhetorical skill from soundness of the claim.
   • Unit vocabulary: ethos, logos, pathos, rhetorical situation, concession, rebuttalRecall the definitions of ethos, logos, pathos, rhetorical situation, concession, and rebuttal on demand.
6. Unit 6: Adjudicating Sources: The Research ArgumentYour child picks a genuinely contested question and builds a research paper using 6-8 sources — but the real work is judging those sources before citing any of them, and specifically hunting for disagreement between credible sources rather than collecting six that all say the same thing.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Rhetorical situation and appeals applied to a research sourceGiven a source (article, report, or website), identify its author's likely purpose, intended audience, and use of ethos/logos/pathos appeals before deciding whether or how to cite it.
   • The multi-source evidence hierarchyRank a set of five sources on a contested question from strongest to weakest evidence for a given claim, and justify the ranking in writing using named criteria (primary vs. secondary status, corroboration by other sources, authorial expertise, recency, appeal-to-evidence ratio).
   • MLA paraphrase, quotation, and in-text citation conventionsLocate the paraphrase-vs-quotation boundary in a research paragraph and correctly cite each in MLA in-text format.
   • Adjudication of contradictory source evidenceGiven two sources that directly contradict each other on a factual claim relevant to the research question, write a paragraph that states the contradiction, evaluates which source's evidence is stronger and why, and explains what a fair reader should conclude.
   • Disagreement among sources on the student's own contested questionIndependently find a genuine, source-level contradiction or point of live disagreement within their own self-chosen research topic's source set, without teacher identification of which sources conflict.
   • Counterargument/rebuttal paragraph structure with concessionConstruct a counterargument-and-rebuttal paragraph that concedes genuine strength in the opposing evidence before rebutting it, rather than restating a weakened version of the opposing view.
   • The distinction between rhetorical persuasiveness and evidentiary strengthExplain why a claim's persuasiveness and a claim's truth are not the same property, using a specific source from their own research where a strong rhetorical appeal is paired with weak or unstated evidence.
   • Research-based argumentative essay structure at the whole-essay levelTake a coherent, defensible position on a genuinely contested question that could reasonably be argued the other way, and organize a full essay draft so that the strongest available evidence for the counterclaim appears before it is rebutted, not omitted.
   • MLA Works Cited entry formatsRecall the MLA Works Cited entry format for the four source types most common in their bibliography (website, news article, book, journal article accessed via database).
7. Unit 7: Compression: Reading Poetry and VoiceShort, dense poems that force your child to do everything they've learned all year in miniature: track a device, compare a speaker's claim to what the poem actually supports, and figure out where two poems on the same topic actually disagree. Three new terms show up — extended metaphor, apostrophe, and volta (the 'turn' in a poem) — but most of the heavy lifting is reusing Unit 3's motif-tracking and Unit 4's soliloquy, now compared to a dramatic monologue.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Extended metaphor as a sustained structural device across a poem's lines/stanzasGiven an unfamiliar short poem, identify where an extended metaphor is introduced, sustained, and (if applicable) abandoned or revised across the poem.
   • Apostrophe as a device that licenses a particular kind of claim-making by the speakerExplain how a poem's use of apostrophe (direct address to an absent, dead, or non-human addressee) changes what the speaker is able to claim compared to a poem that does not use apostrophe.
   • The volta as the structural pivot point of a poem's argumentLocate the volta in a sonnet or other turn-structured poem and state what changes (in claim, tone, or address) on either side of it.
   • The listener-condition distinction between dramatic monologue and soliloquy as interiority techniquesCompare a dramatic monologue's implied listener to a soliloquy's absence of an on-stage listener, and explain how that difference constrains or frees what each speaker can admit.
   • Motif development compressed to poem-scale, as an application of Unit 3's chapter-scale motif trackingTrack how a single image or motif (e.g., a recurring object, color, or natural image) develops or accumulates meaning across a short poem, using the same tracking logic applied to novel-length motifs in Unit 3.
   • Claim-level divergence between two poems sharing a topic, as distinct from topic-level similarityGiven two thematically linked poems from distinct periods/traditions, generate a 'fork' statement identifying a specific point where the two poems' claims about the shared theme diverge, rather than a statement true of both.
   • Transfer of the full device-to-claim analytic toolkit to a wholly unseen poemGiven an unfamiliar third poem outside the taught set, on a shared or adjacent theme, determine independently which device(s) among extended metaphor, apostrophe, volta, or motif are present and argue what work they do in that poem's specific claim.
   • Transfer of the topic-vs-claim divergence logic to a non-poetic, non-previewed genre and contextGiven a short unseen prose passage (e.g., an op-ed excerpt or personal essay excerpt, never poetry) making a claim about a topic already explored in the unit's poetry (e.g., grief, love), decide whether the fork-sentence divergence logic developed for comparing two poems can be applied to compare this prose passage against one of the unit's poems, and justify the decision using the passage's actual argument structure rather than its genre.
   • The comparative analysis essay integrating device-based evidence, a stated divergence, and a prior-unit comparison pointConstruct a comparative analysis essay arguing where two poems diverge in their claim about a shared theme, using at least one poem-scale device as evidence for each poem and integrating the Unit 3/Unit 4 comparison point as part of the argument rather than as a separate closing note.
   • Factual recall of this unit's core figurative-language vocabularyRecall the definitions of extended metaphor, apostrophe, and volta from memory without the poetry set present, at least one week after instruction.
8. Unit 8: Capstone: Defending a Claim Across TextsNo new vocabulary here — this is the test of everything. Your child picks a big question, builds a claim that spans at least three texts from across the whole year, defends it in writing, and then defends it again live, answering questions from people who bring counter-evidence they didn't pick themselves.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Cross-text claim selection matched to available evidence across the year's textsGiven a course essential question, the student selects a claim and identifies three texts from the year (spanning at least two genres studied) capable of testing it, and states, before drafting, what evidence from each text would count for and against the claim.
   • The evidence hierarchy applied to the exact worked-example claim and quotations modeled in classUsing the same claim and the same two quotations the teacher ranked and explained aloud in the Day 3 worked example, the student reproduces that ranking (strongest to weakest) and states the specific criterion (specificity, or resistance to alternative explanation) the teacher used to justify it.
   • The evidence hierarchy applied to unfamiliar literary quotations rather than the modeled example or research sourcesThe student ranks a NEW set of textual evidence (not seen in the Day 3 worked example) for a given claim from strongest to weakest, explaining what makes evidence high-ranking in the hierarchy taught in Unit 6 (specificity, resistance to alternative explanation, source authority where applicable).
   • Adjudication of conflicting textual evidence within an argumentative essayThe student writes a cross-text argumentative essay that adjudicates between at least two pieces of conflicting or competing evidence across texts, explicitly stating why one interpretation is favored over another rather than presenting both as equally supportive.
   • Rhetorical self-analysis of one's own argumentative writing using the ethos/logos/pathos frameworkGiven their own completed argumentative essay, the student identifies which rhetorical appeal (ethos, logos, pathos) dominates their argument and evaluates whether that balance is well-suited to a skeptical academic audience, citing specific sentences as evidence.
   • Live claim defense against unrehearsed counter-evidence in discussionDuring the Socratic seminar, the student responds to a peer's counter-evidence by either revising the claim's scope, providing rebuttal evidence, or conceding a limitation, without abandoning the claim wholesale or ignoring the counter-evidence.
   • Units 2, 4, and 5 vocabulary (unreliable narration, narrative distance, dramatic irony, motif, rhetorical appeals)The student recalls the definitions of unreliable narration, narrative distance, dramatic irony, motif, and the rhetorical appeals without reference notes, when cued only by the term.
   • Discrimination among confusable prior-unit analytical lenses applied to short excerptsGiven a two-sentence excerpt from a text studied this year, the student classifies which of the five prior-unit analytical lenses (unreliable narration, motif, dramatic irony, rhetorical appeal, evidence-hierarchy ranking) is most relevant to analyzing it, and identifies one surface feature that could mislead a student into choosing the wrong lens.
   • Transfer of the evidence-hierarchy and adjudication procedure to a wholly unfamiliar text and essential question pairingGiven a claim about a course essential question applied to a text NOT studied this year (provided by the teacher, e.g., a short unfamiliar story), the student determines whether the year's evidence-hierarchy and adjudication procedures still apply and constructs a claim following that procedure.

Try a real English 10: Identity, Society, and the Stories We Tell lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Transformations and the Definition of Congruence/SimilarityThis unit sets the rule for the whole year: two shapes are congruent only if you can show a slide, flip, or turn maps one exactly onto the other — not because they look the same size. Similar works the same way but allows a resize. Your child will build coordinate rules for each move, then learn to tell them apart just by looking at what changed.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Coordinate rules for translation, reflection, and rotationGiven a figure and a stated translation vector or reflection line or rotation angle/center, execute the correct coordinate rule to plot the image.
   • Identification criteria distinguishing translation, reflection, and rotationGiven a preimage and image pair with a transformation not named, determine which single rigid motion (translation, reflection, or rotation) produced it by testing for a fixed point, distance preservation, and orientation.
   • The definition of congruence as existence of a rigid motionExplain why a rigid motion mapping a preimage onto an image is sufficient to prove the two figures are congruent, in contrast to citing matching measured angles and sides as proof.
   • The coordinate dilation rule (multiply coordinates relative to center by scale factor)Given a scale factor and center of dilation, execute the coordinate rule to produce the image of a polygon.
   • Preserved vs. non-preserved properties across rigid motions and dilationsCompare a rigid-motion mapping and a dilation mapping applied to the same figure and identify which measurable properties (distance, angle measure, orientation) each preserves or fails to preserve.
   • The definition of similarity as dilation composed with rigid motionGiven two figures where one is a scaled, reoriented, and repositioned version of the other, determine whether they are congruent, similar, or neither, and justify the determination by describing a composite mapping (dilation plus rigid motion, or rigid motion alone).
   • Application of the rigid-motion/dilation distinction outside a coordinate-grid contextGiven a real-world image (e.g., a floor tile pattern or a logo) with no coordinate grid and no stated transformation, determine whether a repeated design element is related by a rigid motion or a dilation, and justify the choice using the general preserved-property argument rather than any coordinate rule.
   • Generalization of the preserved-property testing strategy to an unnamed, untaught transformationGiven an entirely unfamiliar transformation-like rule described in words (e.g., a 'shear' or a non-uniform stretch that scales x and y by different factors) never named or taught in this unit, determine whether it preserves distance, preserves angle measure, or neither, by applying the same general reasoning strategy (test specific point-pairs, check ratios) used for rigid motions and dilations.
2. Unit 2: Triangle Congruence and the Logic of ProofThis is where 'same shape because of a mapping' turns into an actual system of rules — SSS, SAS, ASA, AAS — and where proof-writing itself gets taught as a skill: every line needs a reason, not just a claim. It ends with isosceles triangle theorems, which require chaining two proven facts together.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Correspondence of parts under a rigid motion mappingGiven a rigid-motion mapping between two triangles (translation + rotation + reflection composition described in words or coordinates), state which sides and angles are corresponding without being told directly.
   • The logical sufficiency of SSS/SAS/ASA for guaranteeing a congruence-producing rigid motionExplain why checking three corresponding parts (in an SSS, SAS, or ASA arrangement) is logically sufficient to guarantee a rigid motion exists mapping one triangle onto the other, using the construction argument (a unique triangle is determined by that information).
   • SSA and AAA as insufficient congruence criteriaConstruct a counterexample (two non-congruent triangles sharing an SSA or AAA correspondence) to demonstrate that SSA and AAA are not valid congruence criteria.
   • Triangle congruence criteria (SSS, SAS, ASA, AAS) applied to diagrams requiring an inferred partSelect the correct congruence criterion (SSS, SAS, ASA, or AAS) that applies to a given diagram with marked parts, including diagrams with shared sides, vertical angles, or parallel-line angle relationships requiring an inferred additional pair.
   • Two-column proof structure applied to vertical angles and alternate interior angles theoremsWrite a two-column proof of a stated theorem about lines and angles (vertical angles are congruent, or alternate interior angles are congruent given parallel lines) using only definitions and previously given facts as justifications.
   • Triangle congruence proof for overlapping-triangle diagrams, including a CPCTC-based conclusionConstruct a complete two-column or flowchart proof of triangle congruence for a diagram containing overlapping or shared triangles, choosing and justifying the correct criterion and applying CPCTC to draw a conclusion beyond the congruence itself.
   • The isosceles triangle theorem, proved via an auxiliary bisector and SAS/CPCTCProve the isosceles triangle theorem (base angles of an isosceles triangle are congruent) by constructing an auxiliary segment (the angle bisector from the apex) and chaining SAS congruence with CPCTC.
   • Selecting a minimal sufficient measurement set to certify congruence in an unfamiliar physical/design contextGiven a real-world stability or design context (e.g., a triangulated bridge truss or a bracing structure) with no diagram provided, determine what minimal set of measurements would need to be verified equal to certify two triangular sections are congruent, and justify the choice.
   • Diagnosing why a specific SSA claim fails, in a novel diagramGiven a diagram with a marked SSA correspondence and a claimed congruence, write an explanation of specifically why the SSA information fails to guarantee congruence in that diagram (not merely state that SSA is invalid), identifying the specific ambiguous configuration.
   • Planning a proof strategy for an untaught geometric claim by identifying which congruence criteria would applyGiven a novel geometric claim outside the taught theorem list (e.g., the diagonal of a kite bisects the angles it connects), decide which combination of congruence criteria and prior theorems would need to be chained to prove it, without executing the full proof.
3. Unit 3: Similarity and Proportional Reasoning in TrianglesThis unit builds the similarity version of Unit 2's rules — AA, SAS~, SSS~ — and makes clear these are not just the congruence rules with a symbol added. It also proves the Pythagorean theorem a new way (through similar triangles formed by an altitude) and ends with indirect measurement: shadows, mirrors, and scale drawings, where the whole trick is spotting a hidden similar triangle.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The AA similarity criterion for trianglesGiven the dilation/scale-factor definition of similarity from Unit 1, state and use the AA similarity criterion to determine whether two triangles are similar, without checking side lengths.
   • The AA, SAS~, and SSS~ similarity criteria as a decision setClassify a pair of triangles as similar by AA, SAS~, SSS~, or neither, given a diagram with a mix of marked angles and side lengths.
   • The asymmetry between minimum evidence needed for similarity versus congruenceExplain why one pair of congruent angles is sufficient evidence for triangle similarity (AA) while one pair of congruent sides is never sufficient evidence for triangle congruence.
   • The triangle proportionality theorem (a line parallel to one side divides the other two sides proportionally)Apply the triangle proportionality theorem to find an unknown segment length when a line is drawn parallel to one side of a triangle.
   • The triangle proportionality theorem and its converse, and their shared logical dependence on AA similarityProve that a line divides two sides of a triangle proportionally if and only if it is parallel to the third side, using the AA similarity criterion as the justification engine.
   • The geometric mean relationships produced by the altitude-to-the-hypotenuse configurationDerive the geometric-mean relationships in a right triangle with an altitude drawn to the hypotenuse, by identifying the three similar right triangles created.
   • A similarity-based proof of the Pythagorean theoremProve the Pythagorean theorem using the similar triangles formed by the altitude to the hypotenuse, without reference to an area-based proof.
   • The similar-triangle structure underlying shadow, mirror, and scale-drawing measurement methodsIdentify and justify the pair of similar triangles implicitly created by an indirect-measurement setup (shadow, mirror, or scale drawing) before computing an unknown length.
   • The combined decision space of congruence criteria (Unit 2) and similarity criteria (this unit)Given a mixed set of triangle pairs, decide whether the pair is congruent, similar-but-not-congruent, or neither, and name the specific criterion or counterexample that justifies the decision.
4. Unit 4: Coordinate Geometry: Proof and Measurement on the PlaneThis unit moves proof off the diagram and onto the coordinate plane, using slope and the distance formula — both from Algebra I — to prove facts about quadrilaterals. It includes a strong focus on placing figures strategically (like putting a vertex at the origin) to make the arithmetic easier without changing what's being proved.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distance formula as a Pythagorean-theorem applicationDerive the distance formula from the Pythagorean theorem applied to a right triangle formed by horizontal and vertical legs between two coordinate points, and use it to compute the length of a segment.
   • Slope criteria for parallel and perpendicular linesApply the slope criteria (equal slope for parallel, negative reciprocal slope for perpendicular) to determine the relationship between two lines given as coordinates or equations.
   • Midpoint formula and ratio-based segment partitionCompute the midpoint of a segment and the point that partitions a directed segment in a given non-1:1 ratio, connecting the ratio to a weighted average of coordinates.
   • The logical link between slope/distance evidence and the definition of a parallelogramExplain why establishing that opposite sides of a quadrilateral are both parallel (equal slope) and equal in length (distance formula) is sufficient to conclude the figure is a parallelogram, connecting the coordinate evidence to the definition of a parallelogram.
   • Coordinate proof of rectangle/rhombus propertiesConstruct a coordinate proof that a given quadrilateral is a rectangle or rhombus by selecting and sequencing the correct combination of slope and distance computations.
   • Strategic placement of a figure on coordinate axesJustify a strategic placement of a figure's vertices on the coordinate axes (e.g., a vertex at the origin, a side on an axis) that simplifies the arithmetic of an upcoming proof, without altering the shape or the property being proved.
   • Original coordinate proof construction from a verbal descriptionGiven only a verbal description of a quadrilateral (no diagram, no coordinates supplied), generate an original coordinate placement and complete proof of a stated property, without a template to match against.
   • The gap between visual appearance on a grid and a computed coordinate proofCritique a proposed coordinate argument that relies on the visual appearance of a figure on a grid (e.g., 'the sides look equal so it's a rhombus') rather than on computed slope/distance values, identifying exactly where the argument fails to establish the claim.
   • The relationship between synthetic proof and coordinate proof of the same geometric factCompare a synthetic (Unit 2 triangle-congruence-based) proof and a coordinate proof of the same parallelogram property, identifying what each method takes as given and what work each does to reach the same conclusion.
   • Distance formula, midpoint formula, slope criteria for parallel/perpendicularRecall the formulas for distance, midpoint, and slope criteria without reference materials.
5. Unit 5: Right Triangle TrigonometryThis unit takes the fixed similarity ratio from Unit 3 and gives it names: sine, cosine, tangent. Your child first confirms with actual measurement that the ratio doesn't change with triangle size, before any trig vocabulary appears. From there it's solving for missing sides, missing angles, and real angle-of-elevation/depression problems.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Invariance of the opposite/hypotenuse ratio across similar right trianglesGiven several right triangles with a shared acute angle but different side lengths, a student measures corresponding sides and computes the ratio opposite/hypotenuse for each, and states that the ratio is constant across triangle size because the triangles are similar.
   • Definitions of sine, cosine, and tangent as side ratiosStudent states the definitions of sine, cosine, and tangent as ratios of specific side pairs (opposite/hypotenuse, adjacent/hypotenuse, opposite/adjacent) relative to a named acute angle in a right triangle.
   • Solving for an unknown side using a selected trig ratioGiven an acute angle measure and one side length of a right triangle, student sets up and solves the correct trig equation to find a missing side length, selecting sine, cosine, or tangent based on which sides are known and unknown relative to the given angle.
   • Using inverse trigonometric functions to find an angle measureGiven two side lengths of a right triangle, student uses an inverse trig function to find the measure of an acute angle, and explains why the inverse operation undoes the ratio rather than treating it as an unrelated calculator button.
   • Diagramming angle of elevation and angle of depression problemsGiven a real-world description involving a line of sight to or from a horizontal, student draws and labels a right triangle diagram correctly distinguishing angle of elevation from angle of depression before selecting a trig ratio.
   • The complementary angle identity sin(theta) = cos(90-theta)Student proves that sin(theta) = cos(90 - theta) for any acute angle theta by relating the two acute angles of a right triangle as complements and showing that the side labeled 'opposite' for one angle is the side labeled 'adjacent' for the other.
   • Justifying ratio choice by naming the similar-triangle relationship in an indirect-measurement contextGiven an indirect-measurement scenario with no diagram provided and multiple plausible right-triangle setups (e.g., a shadow problem where the observer's own height matters or doesn't), student selects and justifies which right triangle and which trig ratio actually models the situation, stating the similarity relationship that licenses the ratio's use.
   • Extending right-triangle trig to a non-right-triangle context via an constructed altitudeGiven a novel context outside right triangles entirely (e.g., a non-right triangle broken into two right triangles by an altitude, or a problem set in an unfamiliar unit system requiring unit conversion mid-solution), student generalizes right-triangle trig methods to solve the new problem without being told to split the triangle or convert units first.
   • Equivalence of the similarity-proportion method and the trig-ratio method for indirect measurementStudent compares the similarity-proportion method (Unit 3) and the trig-ratio method (this unit) applied to the same indirect-measurement problem and explains why both produce the same answer.
6. Unit 6: Circles: Angles, Arcs, Segments, and EquationsEvery circle fact in this unit comes from one starting point: all radii of a circle are equal, so any triangle made of two radii is isosceles. From there come inscribed angles, tangent lines, and chord relationships — all proved with Unit 2's congruence or Unit 3's similarity, not new rules. The unit ends with the circle's equation, which turns out to just be the distance formula from Unit 4 wearing a disguise.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Congruence of radii within a single circle and the resulting isosceles triangleGiven a circle diagram with two radii drawn, students state that the two radii are congruent by definition and identify the resulting triangle as isosceles.
   • The inscribed angle theorem and its proof via isosceles triangles formed by radiiStudents derive that an inscribed angle measures half its intercepted arc, using the isosceles-triangle argument applied to two central-angle triangles formed by a radius to the inscribed angle's vertex.
   • Congruence of two tangent segments from an external point, proved via HL/SSS triangle congruenceStudents prove, citing the HL or SSS congruence criterion, that two tangent segments drawn from the same external point to a circle are congruent.
   • The chord-chord segment product relationship and its derivation from AA similarityGiven a diagram of two intersecting chords pre-partitioned into two triangles with angle markings, students derive the equal-products relationship without being shown the rule, citing AA similarity.
   • Discrimination among chord-chord, secant-secant, and secant-tangent segment relationshipsStudents distinguish, from an unlabeled diagram, whether a segment-intersection problem is the chord-chord, secant-secant, or secant-tangent case, and apply the correct product relationship.
   • Arc length and sector area as proportional fractions of circumference and circle areaStudents calculate arc length and sector area by setting up a proportion of the central angle to 360 degrees, in either direction (solve for arc/area given angle, or angle given arc/area).
   • The circle equation as an instance of the distance formula applied to a fixed center and radiusStudents derive the standard-form equation of a circle from a given center and radius using the distance formula, before being shown the general formula.
   • Completing the square to convert a circle equation from general to standard formStudents convert a circle's equation from general form to standard form by completing the square on both variables, and identify the resulting center and radius.
   • Discrimination among distance, slope, and circle-equation methods on the coordinate planeGiven an unlabeled coordinate-geometry problem, students identify whether the distance formula, slope, or circle-equation method applies and execute the correct procedure.
   • Composite area of a circle-and-inscribed-polygon figure, combining multiple unit strands in an untaught configurationGiven a novel composite figure (e.g., an inscribed regular hexagon and its circumscribed circle) never presented during instruction, students combine sector-area, triangle-area, and segment reasoning to find an unrequested region's area.
   • Validity of justification lines in a circle-theorem proof, distinguishing diagram-based claims from criterion-based claimsStudents critique a peer's (or provided sample) circle proof to identify whether each line is justified by a previously established criterion or merely restates the diagram's appearance.
7. Unit 7: Three-Dimensional MeasurementThis unit moves from flat shapes to solids. Surface area turns out to be flat-shape area applied to the faces of a net; volume is built by stacking up flat cross-sections (Cavalieri's principle). The unit's other big idea — that doubling every dimension of a solid multiplies its volume by 8, not 2 — deliberately fights a strong, wrong intuition most kids have.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Cavalieri's principle (equal cross-sectional area at every height implies equal volume)Given two solids with congruent bases and equal heights (one right, one oblique), state and apply Cavalieri's principle to conclude their volumes are equal without computing either volume.
   • Volume formulas for prisms, cylinders, pyramids, and conesExecute the volume formula for a prism, cylinder, pyramid, or cone given labeled dimensions, selecting the correct formula for the solid shown.
   • Surface area via net decompositionCompute the surface area of a prism, cylinder, cone, or pyramid by decomposing its net into 2D shapes with previously justified area formulas.
   • The sphere volume formula derived via Cavalieri's principle (hemisphere vs. cylinder-minus-cone)Derive the volume formula for a sphere by comparing a hemisphere's cross-sectional area at height h to the cross-sectional area of a cylinder-minus-cone at the same height, and explain why Cavalieri's principle guarantees equal volumes.
   • The effect of scale factor k on length (k), area (k^2), and volume (k^3)Given a linear scale factor k applied to a solid, predict the resulting factor by which surface area and volume change (k^2 and k^3 respectively), justifying the exponent from the number of linear dimensions each measure is built from.
   • Volume and surface area of composite solids modeling a real objectGiven a composite real-world object description with no formula provided, decompose it into known solids, identify the measurements needed, and compute total volume and surface area, correctly excluding internal seams from the surface area total.
   • Density as a conversion between volume and mass for real-world objectsConvert a computed volume into a real-world mass or vice versa using a given density value, and identify which unit conversions are required.
   • Matching real-world objects to appropriate solid models (including frustums and partial solids)Classify a given real-world object (e.g., a silo, a lampshade, a piece of furniture) by which basic and composite solids best model it, distinguishing cases where a frustum or hemisphere is a better model than a full cone or sphere.
8. Unit 8: Geometric Probability and Modeling with MeasurementThis closing unit reframes probability as a ratio of measurements — length, area, or volume — instead of counting outcomes. There's almost no new math technique here; it's entirely about the judgment calls: is this situation actually uniform (every point equally likely), and does the ratio you built actually match dimension to dimension.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between discrete (countable) and continuous (measurable) sample spacesGiven a scenario described in words (e.g., 'a bus arrives at a random time in a 20-minute window'), state whether the sample space is best modeled as discrete (countable) or continuous (measurable) and justify the choice in one sentence.
   • Length-based geometric probability ratio on a one-dimensional intervalConstruct the ratio P(event) = (favorable length)/(total length) for a point landing on a specified sub-segment of a number line interval, given the interval and sub-segment endpoints.
   • Single-region area-based geometric probability ratio, reproducing the exact worked-example structureConstruct the ratio P(event) = (favorable area)/(total area) for a single target region matching the exact structure of the Day 2 worked example (one shape inscribed in another, e.g., a circle inscribed in a square, target = land in the inscribed shape), reusing the area formulas established in Unit 6 (circles) and earlier units (polygons) without any added composite-subtraction step.
   • Area-based geometric probability ratio for composite and nested regions requiring subtraction before dividingConstruct the ratio P(event) = (favorable area)/(total area) for a target/dartboard-style region composed of shapes whose areas were established in Unit 6 (circles) and earlier units (polygons), including regions requiring subtraction of an inner region from an outer one.
   • Dimensional consistency requirement in geometric probability ratiosExplain, using the ratio-of-measures definition, why the numerator and denominator of a geometric probability must be measured in the same dimension (length/length, area/area, volume/volume), and identify the dimensional error in a flawed ratio (e.g., area over length).
   • The uniform-distribution assumption underlying geometric probability models and conditions under which it failsGiven a real or described random process, identify whether the uniform-distribution assumption underlying a geometric probability model plausibly holds, and state a specific reason the assumption could fail (e.g., a dart-thrower more likely to hit center, a bus more likely to arrive near the scheduled time).
   • A complete geometric probability model for an authentic scenario, including its ratio, computation, and stated assumptionDesign a geometric probability model for a self-selected or teacher-assigned real scenario: define the sample space geometrically, construct the correct measure ratio, compute the probability, and write a justification of the uniform-distribution assumption the model requires, including a stated limitation.
   • Density as a ratio of count to area/volume measure, and its use in estimating counts across regionsGiven a scenario about population or resource distribution (e.g., persons per square mile, trees per acre, bacteria per cubic centimeter), compute a density value as a ratio of a count to an area or volume measure, and use that density to estimate a count in a differently-sized region.
   • The structural distinction between geometric and classical probability models as applied to the same random processCompare a geometric (area/volume-based) probability model to a classical (counting-based) probability model for the same underlying random process, and explain what feature of the process determines which model is legitimate.

Try a real Geometry: Structure, Proof, and Measurement lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Describing Matter: Measurement, Properties, and ClassificationThis is where your child learns to describe stuff in the kitchen using numbers and evidence instead of just appearance — how heavy something is for its size (density), whether it's one substance or several mixed together, and whether a change is 'the same stuff rearranged' or 'now it's actually a different substance.' It also teaches that a measurement can only be as precise as the tool that made it — writing down more decimal places than your ruler can actually support is a false claim, not a nicety.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Significant figures as a claim about instrument precisionGiven a measuring instrument (graduated cylinder, balance, ruler), record a measurement to the correct number of significant figures and identify the uncertainty implied by that instrument.
   • Significant figure rules in calculated (derived) quantitiesApply the rules for significant figures in addition/subtraction versus multiplication/division to compute a derived quantity (e.g., density) from two measured values, rounding the answer to the correct number of sig figs.
   • The element/compound/mixture/pure-substance classification schemeClassify a given sample of matter as an element, compound, homogeneous mixture, or heterogeneous mixture by citing evidence of composition (uniformity, separability, particle representation) rather than appearance alone.
   • The distinction between physical and chemical change based on identity of substanceDistinguish physical from chemical change in a novel, previously unseen example by identifying whether the substance's chemical identity changed, not by matching the example to a memorized list of 'signs.'
   • The insufficiency of surface indicators as evidence for chemical changeExplain why color, texture, or the production of bubbles/gas/light/heat is not by itself sufficient evidence to classify a change as chemical, using the counter-cases of dissolving CO2 escaping soda (physical) and rusting (chemical, slow, no visible bubbles).
   • Density as an identifying physical propertyGiven density data (mass and volume, or mass and displaced volume) for an unknown material, calculate density and use it to identify the material from a reference table, justifying the identification as evidence rather than assumption.
   • Separation techniques matched to the physical property each exploitsPlan a two-step separation procedure (choosing from filtration, evaporation, and chromatography) for a novel kitchen mixture never used in class, justifying each step by the specific physical property it exploits (particle size, boiling point, solubility/polarity affinity).
   • Claim-evidence-reasoning structure applied to component identification via densityConstruct a claim-evidence-reasoning argument that identifies each recovered component of a separated mixture, using measured density data as evidence and the definition of a pure substance as the reasoning link.
   • Instrument-limited precision as a general principle of quantitative claimsGeneralize the principle that measurement precision must never exceed what the instrument can support to a context outside chemistry (e.g., a nutrition label, a news report of a poll percentage, a GPS coordinate) and explain why the reported precision is or is not justified.
2. Unit 2: Inside the Atom: Structure and the Periodic TableUp to now the periodic table has just been a chart to look things up on. This unit turns it into a record of what's actually inside an atom — protons, neutrons, electrons, and how electrons are arranged — and shows how that arrangement explains patterns like which elements are metals, which react similarly, and why atomic size changes as you move around the table. It also covers the historical detective work (cathode rays, the gold foil experiment) that changed what scientists thought atoms looked like.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Subatomic particle counts and their relationship to atomic number, mass number, and chargeGiven the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a neutral atom or ion, state the atomic number, mass number, and net charge.
   • Isotope notation and the neutron-count difference between isotopes of one elementGiven the standard notation for an isotope (mass number and atomic number), determine the number of neutrons and distinguish it from other isotopes of the same element.
   • Electron configuration of main-group atomsWrite the electron configuration for a given main-group element in periods 1-4 using energy-level filling rules.
   • The historical revision of atomic models in response to specific experimental evidence (gold foil scattering)Explain how the gold foil scattering evidence forced revision from the Thomson 'plum pudding' model to the Rutherford nuclear model.
   • The mechanism underlying periodic trends in atomic radius and ionization energyGiven unlabeled radius and ionization energy data for a set of elements not used in instruction, generate a rule connecting position on the periodic table to both trends and identify the underlying mechanism (nuclear charge and shielding).
   • Periodic trends (atomic radius, electronegativity, ionization energy) as a function of table positionPredict the relative atomic radius, electronegativity, and ionization energy of elements in an unfamiliar region of the periodic table (not drilled in class) and justify each prediction from position alone.
   • The relationship between atomic emission line spectra and quantized electron energy levelsGiven an atomic emission spectrum (a set of discrete line positions) for an element, construct an argument for what the pattern of discrete lines implies about electron energy levels within the atom.
   • The Bohr model versus the electron cloud model as different-purpose simplificationsCompare the Bohr model and the electron cloud (quantum) model of the atom in terms of what each model can and cannot correctly predict.
   • Classification of elements by table position (metal/nonmetal/metalloid, group family)Classify a given element as a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid, and as belonging to a specific group (alkali metal, halogen, noble gas, transition metal) based on its position on the periodic table.
   • The relationship between valence electron count and the charge of the ion an atom tends to formGiven the number of valence electrons for a main-group element, predict the ionic charge that element is most likely to form.
3. Unit 3: Chemical Bonding: Why and How Atoms ConnectThis is where the electron ideas from Unit 2 turn into an explanation for why atoms stick together at all. Your child will build ionic compounds (formula units) and covalent molecules (Lewis structures), figure out when a bond is polar versus nonpolar versus ionic, and learn to name and write chemical formulas as a skill, not a puzzle. A key move: comparing CO2 and H2O side by side to see that a molecule can have polar bonds but still be nonpolar overall, depending on shape.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Valence electron count and its relationship to group number and bonding tendencyGiven an element's group number, state its number of valence electrons and whether it tends to lose, gain, or share electrons to reach a noble-gas configuration.
   • Charge-balancing procedure for binary ionic formula unitsConstruct the formula unit for a binary ionic compound from two given main-group elements by balancing positive and negative charge to net zero.
   • Lewis structure construction procedure for simple covalent moleculesDraw a correct Lewis structure for a simple covalent molecule (up to 3 atoms, single bonds only) by distributing valence electrons to satisfy the octet rule.
   • Electrostatic stability as the causal mechanism for electron transfer/sharingExplain why an atom transfers or shares electrons in terms of relative electrostatic stability, without using goal-directed language ('wants', 'tries').
   • Electronegativity difference as the basis for bond-type classification along a continuumGiven electronegativity values or qualitative electronegativity trend position for two bonded atoms, classify the bond as nonpolar covalent, polar covalent, or ionic.
   • The distinction between individual bond polarity and overall molecular polarity as determined by shape/symmetryGiven contrasted molecular data (bond polarity vs. molecular symmetry) for two molecules such as CO2 and H2O, infer and justify whether each whole molecule is polar, distinguishing bond polarity from molecular polarity.
   • Polyatomic ion naming and formula-writing convention, including use of parentheses for multiple polyatomic unitsName and write the correct formula for an ionic compound containing a polyatomic ion, given the ion's name and charge from a reference table.
   • The causal link between bond/structure type and macroscopic properties (melting point, conductivity, solubility)Given melting point, conductivity, and solubility data for an unfamiliar substance never discussed in class, argue in writing whether the substance is ionic, covalent-polar, or covalent-nonpolar, citing specific data points as evidence for the structural claim.
   • Textual evidence in scientific explanatory text signaling the limits of a simplified bonding modelGiven a short excerpt from a chemistry reference text describing an exception to the octet rule (e.g., BF3 or SF6), determine what specific textual evidence signals the model's limitation and explain why the octet model fails in that case.
   • Relationship between ionic charge magnitude and lattice attraction strength (qualitative)Predict the relative melting point ranking of two ionic compounds never discussed in class, using only their ions' charge magnitudes as evidence, and justify the prediction in terms of electrostatic attraction strength.
4. Unit 4: Counting the Uncountable: The Mole and StoichiometryThis is the quantitative heart of the whole course: how you count particles too small to see, by weighing them instead. Your child learns the mole as a fixed count (like 'a dozen,' but for a huge number), separate from mass, then learns to balance chemical equations as conservation of atoms, and finally uses balanced equations to predict how much product a reaction will make. It ends with a real sealed-bag reaction where they predict a result mathematically and then test it.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Molar mass of a compound calculated from atomic massesGiven a chemical formula, calculate its molar mass by summing atomic masses from the periodic table.
   • Mole-mass-particle conversions using molar mass and Avogadro's numberConvert a given mass of a pure substance to number of moles and to number of particles using molar mass and Avogadro's number.
   • The distinction between a counting unit and a mass or volume unitExplain why the mole is defined as a fixed count of particles rather than a unit of mass or volume, using the dozen/golf-ball/bowling-ball comparison as evidence.
   • Balanced chemical equations with conserved atom countsBalance a chemical equation by adjusting coefficients so that the number of atoms of each element is equal on both sides, without altering subscripts.
   • Mole-ratio stoichiometric conversion from mass of reactant to mass of productGiven a balanced equation and a known mass of one reactant, calculate the mass of a specified product using mole ratios and molar mass conversions.
   • Limiting reactant identified through ratio comparisonIdentify the limiting reactant in a qualitative scenario (e.g., a recipe with a capped ingredient) by comparing the ratio of available reactants to the required ratio.
   • Conservation of mass applied to a novel open/closed reaction systemApply conservation of atoms to explain an observed change in measured mass during a reaction in an unfamiliar closed or open system not used in instruction.
   • Full stoichiometric solution path applied to a novel reactionGiven an unpracticed reaction and a mass of reactant, generate the complete solution path (balance, convert to moles, apply ratio, convert to mass of product) without being told which steps apply.
   • Discrepancy between theoretical yield and measured lab resultCompare predicted (theoretical) mass of product to measured mass from the sealed-bag lab and construct an evidence-based explanation for any discrepancy.
5. Unit 5: Gases and the Kinetic Molecular ModelIf gases are just countless tiny particles bouncing around, why do they behave so predictably? This unit builds that particle picture (kinetic molecular theory) and uses it to explain pressure, and to derive the classic gas laws (Boyle's and Charles's) from real data before naming them. It ends at the ideal gas law, which uses the mole conversion skill from Unit 4 directly, and finishes with your child designing their own gas experiment (a balloon in hot and cold water, or a syringe) and explaining any mismatch between prediction and result.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four assumptions of kinetic molecular theoryState the four core assumptions of kinetic molecular theory (particles in constant random motion, negligible particle volume relative to container, no intermolecular attraction, elastic collisions) and identify which assumption is violated in a given real-gas scenario.
   • The collision-based mechanism of gas pressure and its relationship to particle kinetic energyExplain why gas pressure results from the frequency and force of particle collisions with container walls, connecting an increase in temperature to an increase in average particle kinetic energy and collision force.
   • The inverse P-V relationship and the direct V-T relationship in a fixed quantity of gas (Boyle's and Charles's Laws)Given a pressure-volume or volume-temperature data set for a fixed amount of gas, classify the relationship as directly or inversely proportional and generalize it into a rule (Boyle's Law or Charles's Law) without being told the law's name in advance.
   • Algebraic solution of Boyle's, Charles's, and combined gas law equationsSolve for an unknown pressure, volume, or temperature using Boyle's Law, Charles's Law, or the combined gas law, correctly converting temperature to Kelvin before substitution.
   • Selection of the applicable gas law based on which variables are held constant or changing in a novel scenarioGiven an unfamiliar gas scenario description (no equation or law named), determine which variable is held constant and select and apply the correct gas law (Boyle's, Charles's, combined, or ideal gas law).
   • Molar volume at STP and its relationship to moles, mass, and identity of a gasCalculate moles, mass, or volume of a gas at STP using molar volume (22.4 L/mol) and the mole concept from Unit 4, distinguishing cases where mole count, mass, and volume diverge for different gases.
   • The ideal gas law equation PV=nRT combined with mole-mass conversionApply the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) to solve for an unknown quantity (P, V, n, or T) in a multi-step problem that first requires converting mass to moles using molar mass from Unit 4.
   • Conditions and mechanisms of real gas deviation from ideal gas behaviorExplain, using the kinetic molecular model, at least one specific condition (high pressure or low temperature) under which real gas behavior deviates measurably from ideal gas law predictions, citing particle volume or intermolecular attraction as the mechanism.
   • An original gas law prediction tested against experimental data from a kitchen-safe investigationDesign and carry out a kitchen-safe gas investigation (balloon in hot/cold water or syringe compression), collecting quantitative data and using it to test a specific gas law prediction, then reconciling any discrepancy between predicted and observed results using KMT rather than attributing it solely to measurement error.
   • The distinction between mechanistic (particle-collision) and goal-directed/substance-transfer explanations of gas behaviorCompare and critique a peer's or provided sample explanation of a gas behavior scenario, identifying whether the explanation relies on goal-directed or substance-transfer language (e.g., 'the gas wants to expand,' 'heat enters the balloon') versus correct particle-collision mechanism.
6. Unit 6: Solutions: Concentration and SolubilityThis unit answers why things dissolve (using the polarity ideas from Unit 3) and how to measure how much is dissolved (using the mole math from Unit 4). Your child will figure out 'like dissolves like' by testing solutes in water versus oil, then move into molarity and dilution calculations, and finally build and read a solubility curve from real data they collect by heating water and dissolving a solid in it to the saturation point.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The relationship between molecular polarity/shape and solubility ('like dissolves like')Given a solute and solvent pair not used in class demonstrations, students will classify whether it will dissolve using bond polarity and molecular shape reasoning.
   • The molarity formula and its use given moles or mass of solute and solution volumeStudents will calculate the molarity of a solution given moles or grams of solute and volume of solution, using M = mol/L.
   • The dilution formula M1V1 = M2V2 and solving for an unknown quantityStudents will calculate a new molarity or volume after dilution using M1V1 = M2V2, given three of the four quantities.
   • Conservation of moles of solute during dilutionStudents will explain why the total moles of solute remain constant during dilution even though the solution appears more dilute, in response to a claim that dilution destroys some of the solute.
   • Sequencing of mole conversion, molarity, and dilution formulas in an unfamiliar multi-step problemGiven a novel multi-step problem combining mole conversion, molarity, and dilution with numbers not matching any practiced problem, students will select and execute the correct sequence of formulas.
   • Dynamic equilibrium in a saturated solutionStudents will explain that a saturated solution at equilibrium continues to have particles dissolving and recrystallizing at equal rates, rather than describing dissolving as having stopped.
   • Factors affecting dissolving rate explained through particle collision frequencyStudents will predict the effect of temperature, agitation, and surface area on the RATE of dissolving, citing particle collision frequency from the kinetic-molecular model, for a scenario not explicitly demonstrated in class.
   • The solubility curve as a graphical representation of saturation point versus temperatureStudents will construct a solubility curve graph from experimentally collected temperature and mass-dissolved-at-saturation data, with correctly labeled axes and units.
   • Classification of solution states (unsaturated, saturated, supersaturated) relative to a solubility curveGiven an unfamiliar solubility curve for a solute not studied in class, students will classify a data point as unsaturated, saturated, or supersaturated and justify the classification using the curve's shape.
   • The limits of the 'like dissolves like' model for molecules with mixed polar and nonpolar regionsGiven a completely unfamiliar polar molecule with an unusual structure (e.g., an amino acid or surfactant not discussed in class) and asked whether 'like dissolves like' correctly predicts its solubility behavior, students will identify the specific structural feature that makes the simple rule an incomplete explanation and generalize a refined account.
7. Unit 7: Rates and Equilibrium: Reactions in MotionThis unit shifts the question from 'how much' to 'how fast, and does it ever actually stop.' Your child explains reaction speed using particle collisions (frequency and energy), and equilibrium as a state where forward and reverse reactions are happening at equal rates — not a state where reaction has stopped. It moves through rate factors and energy diagrams (fully explained with worked examples), then into equilibrium and Le Chatelier's principle (mostly figured out by observing a real reversible system), and ends with Keq expressions and a rate-investigation lab.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four factors affecting reaction rate (concentration, temperature, surface area, catalyst)Given a reaction scenario, state which of the four rate factors (concentration, temperature, surface area, catalyst) was changed and predict whether rate increases or decreases.
   • Collision theory as the mechanism linking temperature to reaction rateExplain, using a collision-frequency argument, why increasing temperature increases reaction rate through two distinct mechanisms: more frequent collisions and a greater fraction of particles with energy above the activation energy threshold.
   • Energy diagrams showing activation energy and overall energy changeInterpret an unfamiliar energy diagram (not used in instruction) to identify activation energy, whether the reaction is exothermic or endothermic, and the relative energy of reactants versus products.
   • Dynamic equilibrium as a state of equal forward and reverse ratesGiven observational data from a reversible color-change or dissolving/precipitating system over time, classify whether the system has reached dynamic equilibrium or is still net-shifting toward one side.
   • The distinction between dynamic equilibrium and a static or stopped stateExplain why a system at equilibrium is still undergoing reaction in both directions, using the rate-equality definition rather than describing it as stopped or balanced 50/50.
   • Le Chatelier's principle applied to concentration and temperature stressorsPredict the direction an equilibrium system will shift when a familiar type of stressor (concentration change or temperature change, both practiced in class) is applied, and justify the prediction using rate reasoning.
   • Le Chatelier's principle extended to an unpracticed stressor typePredict and justify the equilibrium shift for a stressor type not explicitly practiced in class (e.g., a volume/pressure change in a gas-phase system, or continuous removal of a product), using the same rate-based reasoning developed for familiar stressors.
   • The equilibrium constant expression and its relationship to balanced-equation mole ratiosWrite a correct equilibrium constant (Keq) expression for a given balanced chemical equation, using the coefficients as exponents.
   • The relationship between the magnitude of Keq and the relative amounts of products versus reactants at equilibriumGiven a Keq expression and its numeric value for an unfamiliar reaction, infer whether the reaction favors products or reactants at equilibrium and compare two such reactions' relative extent.
   • A controlled experimental design isolating one rate factor using tablet-dissolving reaction time as the dependent measurePlan and carry out a controlled investigation varying one factor (surface area or temperature) affecting the rate of a tablet-dissolving reaction, collecting time-based rate data with appropriate controls.
   • Experimental rate data from the tablet-dissolving investigationAnalyze a peer or provided data set from a rate investigation (time vs. amount reacted, under varied surface area/temperature) to determine which condition produced the fastest rate and identify a plausible source of experimental error.
8. Unit 8: Acids, Bases, and Electron Transfer: Chemistry in ActionThe year's final unit ties everything together: acid-base reactions and redox (electron-transfer) reactions are both explained as one particle moving from one substance to another — a proton in acid-base chemistry, an electron in redox. Your child moves from the simple Arrhenius definition to the more general Bronsted-Lowry one, tests household substances with homemade red cabbage indicator, runs a real titration to find an unknown concentration, and reframes rusting, combustion, and batteries as electron-transfer reactions.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Arrhenius vs. Bronsted-Lowry acid-base definitionsState the Arrhenius and Bronsted-Lowry definitions of acids and bases and identify which one applies to a given reaction.
   • Conjugate acid-base pairs in proton-transfer reactionsIdentify the conjugate acid-base pair in a Bronsted-Lowry proton-transfer reaction, including in reactions not shown during instruction.
   • PH scale as a measure of relative H+ concentration, and indicator color responsePredict the relative pH and color change of a red cabbage indicator solution for common household substances based on their particle-level proton concentration.
   • Titration stoichiometry (moles, volume, molarity relationships)Calculate the unknown molar concentration of an acid or base from titration volume and concentration data using mole ratios from a balanced neutralization equation.
   • Titration stoichiometry with non-1:1 mole ratiosDetermine an unknown solution's concentration from titration data when the acid or base is polyprotic or the mole ratio is not 1:1.
   • Oxidation number assignment rulesAssign oxidation numbers to atoms in a compound or ion using periodic-trend-based rules.
   • Oxidation and reduction identification via oxidation-number changeIdentify the species oxidized and the species reduced in an unfamiliar redox reaction by tracking change in oxidation number.
   • Redox reactions in everyday contexts (rusting, combustion, batteries)Explain rusting, combustion, and battery discharge as everyday examples of electron transfer between specific chemical species.
   • Argument from pH data to particle-level proton-transfer claimsConstruct a written, evidence-based argument connecting measured pH data to a particle-level claim about relative proton concentration and direction of proton transfer.
   • Titration lab design and executionDesign and carry out a titration procedure to determine the unknown concentration of a household acid or base, selecting appropriate indicator and calculation method.
   • Structural analogy between proton transfer and electron transfer reactionsCompare the particle transferred (proton vs. electron) across acid-base and redox reactions and explain why both are classified as transfer reactions.

Try a real Chemistry in the Kitchen and Beyond: Matter, Energy, and Change lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Land Empires and Exchange Networks, c. 1200-1450This opens the course by showing that the world was already tightly connected — through trade, religion, and conquest — centuries before Europeans crossed the Atlantic. Your child will trace the Silk Roads, Indian Ocean trade, and Trans-Saharan routes, look at the Mongol Empire as the era's biggest connector and disruptor, and study the Black Death as a disease that spread along the same roads merchants used.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The geographic routes and characteristic goods of the Silk Roads, Indian Ocean, and Trans-Saharan trade networksGiven a thematic map of Afro-Eurasia c. 1300, students will trace and label the three major trade networks (Silk Roads, Indian Ocean, Trans-Saharan) and identify at least two goods characteristic of each.
   • The tribute system as a mechanism of imperial controlStudents will explain how the tribute system functioned as a mechanism of imperial control, distinguishing it from direct territorial administration, using the Yuan or Mali empire as the case.
   • Differing contemporary accounts of Mongol governanceGiven two accounts of Mongol rule (one Persian, one Chinese chronicle excerpt), students will compare how each source characterizes Mongol governance and infer what each author's position explains about the difference.
   • Categories of diffusion (cultural, technological, pandemic) along the same trade infrastructureStudents will classify a list of historical developments (e.g., spread of gunpowder, spread of bubonic plague, spread of paper money, spread of a specific religious practice) as primarily cultural diffusion, technological diffusion, or pandemic diffusion, and justify borderline cases.
   • The causal link between trade-network density and pandemic spread rateStudents will infer, from mortality and trade-route data for the Black Death, why the disease spread faster along trade corridors than across regions without trade contact, without being told the mechanism directly.
   • The general principle that exchange networks produce unintended distributional effectsGiven a contemporary case of a global supply-chain disruption (e.g., a shipping-lane blockage or a modern pandemic) that was NOT discussed in class, students will generalize the unit's network-effects principle (connection produces unintended, unplanned winners and losers) and apply it to explain the new case.
   • The net destructive-versus-connective effect of Mongol conquest on Afro-Eurasian tradeStudents will evaluate a claim ('The Mongols were purely destructive') against a 5-6 source document set, determining which sources support, complicate, or contradict the claim, and produce a written argument that takes a defensible position using at least two source types.
   • The definition of empire and named examples from the periodStudents will recall the definition of empire and correctly identify three examples of land-based empires operating in Afro-Eurasia c. 1200-1450 (Mongol, Mali, Yuan/Ming or Delhi Sultanate).
2. Unit 2: Encounter and Exchange: The Atlantic World, 1450-1750This unit asks how sustained contact between the Americas and Europe/Africa after 1492 produced huge, unplanned consequences — mass death from disease, forced-labor economies, a trade system spanning three continents. Your child will work with conflicting accounts from European, Indigenous American, and West African points of view, and the unit deliberately does not resolve them into one clean story.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • The directional flow of the Columbian Exchange (specific crops, animals, pathogens moving between hemispheres)Given a map of Atlantic trade routes and a list of items (crops, animals, disease pathogens, people), students correctly sort each item into 'Old World to New World' or 'New World to Old World' as taught in the worked example. This is a factual recall/pattern-matching task, not evidence of understanding why direction is fixed. That reasoning is assessed separately by the companion objective below.
   • The biogeographic/domestication-history logic that fixes the direction of Columbian Exchange movementGiven an unfamiliar item (a crop, animal, or pathogen not used in any prior worked example or practice set) and a brief note on where it was domesticated or first endemic, students correctly determine its direction of exchange and justify the judgment using domestication/endemic-origin logic (e.g., 'this animal was domesticated in Eurasia thousands of years before 1492, so it could only have moved Old World to New World') rather than by resemblance to a memorized category.
   • The epidemiological mechanism of demographic collapse (lack of acquired immunity to Old World pathogens)Students explain why the demographic collapse of Indigenous American populations after 1492 resulted primarily from disease rather than from direct violence, citing epidemiological reasoning (lack of prior exposure/immunity) rather than only citing death totals.
   • Encomienda and chattel slavery as distinct forced-labor systemsStudents compare encomienda and chattel slavery as forced-labor systems, identifying at least two structural similarities (labor coercion, economic extraction for a colonial power) and at least two structural differences (legal status of the laborer, hereditability of status).
   • Mercantilism as an underlying economic logic distinguishable from its vocabulary labelGiven a primary source excerpt describing colonial trade policy, students infer whether the policy reflects mercantilist logic (colonies exist to enrich the mother country) even when the source never uses the word 'mercantilism.'
   • The triangular trade route and the economic function of each legStudents analyze a triangular trade diagram to explain how profit was generated at each leg of the voyage (Europe to West Africa, West Africa to Americas, Americas to Europe), attributing specific goods and their economic function to each leg.
   • Conflicting perspectives in primary sources on the same Atlantic World eventStudents construct a written comparison of how a European colonizer's account and a West African or Indigenous account describe the same historical event (e.g., an encounter, a labor arrangement, a trade transaction), identifying which details each author includes, omits, or emphasizes and explaining why the author's position might account for that difference.
   • Mercantilism as a transferable economic pattern applicable beyond the Atlantic World contextPresented with a case of economic exploitation from an entirely different historical period not covered in this course (e.g., a resource-extraction economy the student has not studied), students determine whether mercantilist logic is present, absent, or only partially present, and justify the judgment using the definitional features of mercantilism taught in this unit.
   • The generalizability of the contact-collapse-extraction pattern beyond the specific Atlantic World caseGiven a novel dataset or timeline (e.g., population estimates from a region/period not studied in this unit, such as a Pacific island contact scenario), students generalize whether the pattern of contact, demographic collapse, and forced-labor economy documented for the Atlantic World applies, and identify what additional evidence would be needed to decide.
   • The moral status of a system versus the moral status of individual participants within it (encomienda/chattel slavery)Students evaluate whether the claim 'individual actors in a forced-labor system can be morally blameless while the system itself is evil' is defensible, using specific evidence about how encomienda or chattel slavery operated (legal codification, institutional routine, intergenerational scale) rather than general statements about morality.
   • The core vocabulary terms of the Atlantic World unitStudents recall the definitions of Columbian Exchange, demographic collapse, mercantilism, encomienda, chattel slavery, and triangular trade well enough to use each term correctly in a written sentence about the Atlantic World.
3. Unit 3: Revolutions and the Language of Rights, 1750-1850This unit compares the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions on one shared question: who actually gained legal rights, and who didn't, once the speeches were over. It starts with direct teaching of unfamiliar words — natural rights, popular sovereignty, social contract — because none of that has come up yet in the course.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The definitions and originating thinkers of natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the social contractStudents state, from memory, the definitions of natural rights, popular sovereignty, and the social contract, and correctly attribute each to its associated Enlightenment thinker (Locke, Rousseau).
   • Clauses within the three founding documents and the political theory concepts they expressStudents classify specific clauses from the Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the Haitian Declaration of Independence as expressing natural-rights, popular-sovereignty, or neither idea.
   • The mismatch between founding-document rhetoric and contemporaneous legal status for a named groupGiven a founding-document excerpt and a contemporaneous legal document (a slave code or a property-qualification voting law) from the same society, students identify the specific point of contradiction between the document's rhetoric and the legal condition it describes.
   • The structural causes of differing outcomes for enslaved populations across the Haitian and U.S. RevolutionsStudents explain why the Haitian Revolution abolished slavery immediately while the U.S. Revolution did not, citing at least two specific structural factors (demographic ratio of enslaved to free population; economic dependence of planters on enslaved labor) rather than a general cultural explanation.
   • The general relationship between pre-existing economic/social structure and which groups gain legal rights after a revolutionStudents compare the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions along a single shared dimension, which specific group gained legal rights and which did not, and generate a general statement about the relationship between pre-revolutionary economic structure and post-revolutionary outcome that holds across all three cases.
   • Nationalism as an exclusionary, mobilizing political idea (as distinct from patriotism)Students differentiate nationalism as a mobilizing political idea from patriotism or general national pride, by identifying who a specific nationalist text explicitly excludes from the nation it defines.
   • The rhetoric-vs-structural-condition analytic frame, applied to an untaught revolutionary caseGiven a previously unseen founding or revolutionary document from a society and period not covered in this unit (e.g., a Latin American independence declaration), students apply the rhetoric-vs-structural-condition analytic frame developed in this unit to predict which groups likely did and did not gain rights, and identify what additional evidence would be needed to confirm the prediction.
   • The procedure for completing a three-column structural comparison chart from primary and secondary sourcesStudents execute the structural comparison chart procedure (who led, who was excluded before, who was excluded after) for a fourth revolution-era document set provided independently, without teacher modeling on that specific document set.
   • A comparative thesis statement addressing legal-rights outcomes across the three revolutionsStudents draft and revise a comparative thesis statement for the summative essay that names a specific group and states whether that group's legal status changed consistently with, or contrary to, the revolution's founding rhetoric, incorporating Unit 2 forced-labor vocabulary as evidentiary support.
4. Unit 4: Industrialization and Its Discontents, 1750-1900This unit holds two true things at once: industrialization created real new wealth, and it created new kinds of poverty that the old political language (rights, sovereignty) wasn't built to describe — until people bent that language to cover it. It opens with three days of direct teaching on capital, wage labor, and social class as one connected system, because everything else in the unit and two later units depends on that.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Capital and wage labor as a structural economic relationshipGiven a diagram of a factory owner's capital and a worker's labor, students correctly label which party owns the means of production and which sells labor for a wage.
   • Social class as an analytic category based on relationship to capital and laborStudents classify a set of six historical figures (factory owner, mill worker, small shopkeeper, sharecropper, land-owning aristocrat, factory foreman) into the social-class categories taught in Lesson 3, citing each person's relationship to capital as the basis for classification.
   • Variation in factory labor conditions across time and placeUsing two primary-source factory accounts from different decades or countries, students explain why a single generalization about 'factory conditions' is unsupported by the evidence, citing the specific dates and locations of each source.
   • Stages of industrialization inferred from underlying economic mechanismsGiven a new primary source describing labor conditions in a country not covered in class (e.g., Belgium or Japan), students infer whether the source is more consistent with early or late-stage industrialization based on the mechanisms taught (capital source, regulation level, urbanization rate) without being told which stage it represents.
   • Laissez-faire liberalism and socialism as competing causal/mechanistic arguments about industrial conditionsStudents compare Adam Smith's and Karl Marx/Engels's accounts of the same factory evidence, identifying the specific mechanism each theorist proposes to explain or resolve the condition described.
   • Reuse and repurposing of natural-rights vocabulary from political revolution to economic/labor reformStudents explain why reformers and radicals in this unit used the natural-rights vocabulary of Unit 3's revolutions to argue for labor protections, citing at least one specific rights claim and the specific labor condition it was applied to.
   • Multi-causal explanation for uneven timing of industrialization (geography, capital, markets)Given partial economic and geographic data (coal deposits, colonial capital inflows, existing textile trade volume) for three countries, students generate a ranked explanation of why Britain industrialized first, identifying which factor was necessary versus merely contributing.
   • Competing responses to industrialization (reform, revolution, unregulated growth) evaluated against primary-source evidenceStudents construct a source-based written argument taking a position on whether reform, revolution, or unregulated growth was the response the evidence best supports, integrating at least three primary/secondary sources they themselves select and sort from an unsorted summative packet, and one paragraph connecting the argument to Unit 3's natural-rights vocabulary.
   • Core vocabulary of industrial economic structureStudents recall the definitions of capital, wage labor, social class, and urbanization from memory on a closed-note check.
5. Unit 5: Empire and Its Costs: Global Imperialism, 1850-1914This treats imperialism as a system with actual moving parts, not a list of countries and colonies. The core claim: imperialism fuses Unit 3's nationalism with Unit 4's industrial competition, dressed up in the language of national greatness and, increasingly, racial hierarchy.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The three mechanisms of imperial control: concession, protectorate, direct ruleGiven a short case description of a territory (e.g., Egypt, the Congo, Korea), state whether the mechanism of control described is a concession, a protectorate, or direct rule, and identify the textual clue that signals which.
   • The rhetorical function of 'mutual benefit' framing in colonial justification versus extraction as an economic mechanismExplain why a colonial administrator's description of a policy as 'mutually beneficial' and a colonized author's description of the same policy as extractive can both be accurate accounts of what happened, by naming what each account foregrounds and omits.
   • Selective emphasis and omission in colonizer versus colonized accounts of the same eventGiven two primary sources on the same imperial policy (one colonizer, one colonized), identify at least two specific details that one source includes and the other omits, and state what including or omitting that detail does for the author's argument.
   • The Berlin Conference: stated purpose and actual effectRecall the sequence of the Berlin Conference (1884-85) and state its stated purpose versus its actual effect on African political boundaries.
   • The temporal and causal relationship between economic/political imperial expansion and social Darwinist justificationConstruct a causal argument for why social Darwinism emerged as a popular justification for empire AFTER most territorial seizures were already underway, using the timeline evidence and economic motive evidence studied in this unit, rather than treating racial ideology as the unit's sole or first cause.
   • Competing causal explanations for imperialism (economic, nationalist, ideological) and the distinction between necessary and contributing causesCompare the economic-motive explanation, the nationalist-competition explanation, and the racial-ideology explanation for imperial expansion, and produce a written argument stating which explanation the student weighs as most necessary (not merely contributing) for a specific case, with textual evidence.
   • Transfer of the concession/protectorate/direct-rule framework to an unstudied contemporary caseGiven a previously unseen 20th- or 21st-century case of a powerful state exercising indirect economic or political control over a weaker one (not covered in this unit), identify which imperial-era mechanism (concession-style resource extraction, protectorate-style political dependency, or direct administrative control) it most resembles, and justify the match with specific parallel features.
   • Categories of anti-imperial resistance strategy and their conditions for successGiven a resistance movement not studied in this unit's case examples (e.g., a movement from a region other than the ones covered in class), generate a plausible argument for why it succeeded, failed, or achieved partial goals, drawing on the categories of resistance strategy (armed conflict, diplomatic maneuvering, cultural preservation) studied in Lesson 8.
   • The economic or ideological mechanism underlying a specific paired colonial policy source set, expressed in Unit 4 vocabularyIn a paired-source DBQ response, integrate evidence from both a colonizer's official justification and a colonized author's account to name the underlying economic or ideological mechanism, using Unit 4's vocabulary of capital and wage labor accurately.
6. Unit 6: Total War and Its Ideologies, 1914-1945This traces how the rivalries and alliances from Unit 5 escalated into a war that pulled in entire societies, and how fascism and totalitarianism became most dangerous not as fanatical belief but as routine bureaucratic policy. The unit's main tool is a test for telling a necessary cause from a merely contributing one, and it gets applied three times: to WWI's outbreak, to the rise of fascist institutions, and to the mechanics of the Holocaust.12 skills ▸close ▾

   • The Triple Alliance/Triple Entente treaty-obligation chainStudents can trace the specific treaty-obligation mechanism by which one alliance commitment (e.g., Germany's backing of Austria-Hungary) obligated a second power to act.
   • Necessary vs. contributing causes of WWI's outbreakStudents can classify a given candidate cause of WWI's outbreak (e.g., militarism, colonial rivalry) as necessary or contributing by applying the counterfactual removal test.
   • Ranked causal argument for WWI's outbreakGiven a full set of five candidate causes and evidence cards, students can rank the causes by necessity and justify the ranking with the counterfactual test in connected prose.
   • Persuasive techniques in WWI/WWII propagandaStudents can name the specific persuasive technique (fear appeal, dehumanization, appeal to unity, bandwagon) used in an unfamiliar propaganda poster and cite the visual/textual evidence for it.
   • Transfer of propaganda technique across historical and contemporary contextsStudents can identify the same named propaganda technique operating in both a historical WWI/WWII poster and a self-selected contemporary media example, with matched evidence for each.
   • Bureaucratic administration of the HolocaustStudents can explain, using at least two cited pieces of primary-document evidence, how a specific ordinary bureaucratic role (e.g., railway scheduling, census registration) contributed to the mechanics of the Holocaust.
   • The limits of bureaucratic explanation for the HolocaustStudents can identify a specific instance of individual or institutional resistance to genocide policy and explain what it reveals about the limits of the bureaucracy-as-full-explanation account.
   • Continuity and change in total-war home-front mobilization, 1914-1945Students can compare WWI and WWII home-front mobilization using a shared comparison framework and state a specific claim about what was structurally new versus repeated.
   • Permanence of wartime government mobilization powersStudents can evaluate a post-war data set (labor participation, taxation, conscription policy) to determine whether wartime government powers persisted or reverted after 1945, citing specific data points.
   • The necessary-vs-contributing causal-ranking method applied beyond WWIGiven an unfamiliar historical conflict outside this unit's taught content, students can apply the necessary-vs-contributing counterfactual test to rank its causes, generalizing the method beyond WWI.
   • Unit-specific vocabulary: total war, propaganda, totalitarianism, fascism, genocide, bureaucracyStudents can recall the definitions of total war, propaganda, totalitarianism, fascism, genocide, and bureaucracy from memory without notes.
   • Causal argument essay on the origins of WWIStudents can write a five-paragraph causal argument essay that cites at least three causes of WWI, ranks them by necessity, and defends the ranking with textual evidence.
7. Unit 7: Cold War and Decolonization, 1945-1991This holds two big stories together: the US-USSR standoff, and the collapse of European empires across Africa and Asia. Neither one fully makes sense alone — superpowers competed for new states' loyalty, and new states used that competition as leverage even while it limited their choices.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Mechanisms of decolonization (imperial financial exhaustion; nationalist mobilization)Given a map and timeline of decolonization in Africa and Asia 1945-1975, students will explain at least two distinct mechanisms (financial exhaustion from WWII, rising nationalist movements using WWII-era rhetoric) that ended formal European empire in a given case.
   • The Non-Aligned Movement and the distinction between non-alignment and neutralityStudents will correctly define and give an original example of 'non-alignment' distinct from 'neutrality' as used in Cold War diplomacy.
   • Proxy war as a category of Cold War conflictStudents will classify a set of six Cold War conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, Congo, Nicaragua) as proxy wars or civil wars with external intervention, justifying the classification with at least one piece of textual evidence.
   • Named Cold War crises: dates and involved blocsStudents will recall the years and blocs involved in three named Cold War crises (Berlin Blockade, Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War).
   • Framing of Cold War events in aligned vs. non-aligned sourcesGiven primary source excerpts from a superpower-aligned newspaper and a non-aligned nation's leader (e.g., Nehru, Nkrumah), students will compare how each source frames the same Cold War event and infer the underlying interest driving the framing.
   • Post-colonial economic dependency as a legacy of forced-labor and industrial-capital systemsStudents will explain why economic dependency persisted after formal political independence in a decolonized nation, citing Unit 2's forced-labor/cash-crop economies and Unit 4's industrial-capital patterns as antecedent structures.
   • Competing explanatory patterns for post-independence trajectoriesGiven an unfamiliar decolonizing nation not covered in class (e.g., Guinea-Bissau, East Timor), students will construct an evidence-based argument for which explanatory pattern (forced-labor economy, industrial-capital extraction, ideological administration) best accounts for its post-independence trajectory, using only source packets provided.
   • Superpower interest as an explanatory factor in untaught proxy conflictsGiven a novel Cold War-era proxy conflict not studied in class (e.g., the Ogaden War), students will infer which superpower's interests were most served by intervention, using only the conflict's timeline and stated actors.
   • Agency in decolonization narratives (granted vs. won)Students will critique a textbook passage's claim that decolonization was 'granted' by European powers, identifying what evidence the claim omits.
   • Cross-unit evidence organization for the case-study argumentStudents will organize evidence from three non-adjacent units (2, 4, 6) into a coherent written argument supporting one explanatory pattern for their chosen case-study nation.
8. Unit 8: A Connected World: Globalization and Its Fault Lines, 1991-PresentThis last unit isn't new content — it's the payoff. The first two weeks are cumulative review, but organized as sorting practice: given a historical episode, which of four course patterns (exchange network, revolution-vs-reform, industrial extraction, ideology-as-administration) explains it, and where does it break down? The second half applies that toolkit to unfamiliar modern cases — the WTO, the EU, migration crises, online-era nationalism — that were never taught with an answer key.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four recurring course patterns (exchange network, revolution-vs-reform, industrial extraction, ideology-as-administration) and their diagnostic featuresGiven a short unfamiliar historical episode (pre-1991), correctly sort it into one of four course patterns (exchange network, revolution-vs-reform, industrial extraction, ideology-as-administration) and name the specific textual cue that signaled the match.
   • Definitions and mechanisms of exchange network, revolution-vs-reform, industrial extraction, and ideology-as-administrationRecall the defining vocabulary term and one diagnostic mechanism for each of the four course patterns without notes.
   • The four-question sorting protocol for pattern identificationExecute the four-question sorting protocol (What changed hands? Who decided? Who administered it? What broke down?) on a new case to generate a preliminary pattern hypothesis.
   • The limits of pattern-matching when applied to a genuinely contested contemporary caseExplain why a given post-1991 case (e.g., the WTO dispute system, an EU regulatory fight, or a migration crisis) resists clean sorting into a single course pattern, citing at least two competing patterns and the specific evidence that supports each.
   • Structural similarities and differences between Columbian Exchange-era demographic disruption and contemporary migration/displacementCompare the migration and displacement patterns of the contemporary period to the demographic collapse and forced-labor migration studied in Unit 2, identifying what is structurally similar and what is genuinely different (voluntary vs. coerced movement, disease vector vs. economic driver).
   • The structural limits of multinational institutions when national sovereignty conflicts with institutional authorityInfer which specific institution (WTO, IMF, EU, UN Security Council) is most limited by national sovereignty based on a short case description of that institution failing to enforce a decision, and justify the inference with a named mechanism of limitation.
   • Peer arguments about which course pattern best explains a contemporary caseCritique a classmate's pattern-identification argument by identifying one piece of evidence that better supports a different pattern than the one claimed, using the unit's evidence-based argument rubric.
   • An original evidence-based argument applying the course's cumulative pattern toolkit to a novel caseGenerate an original argument, using an unfamiliar post-1991 case never discussed in class, for which course pattern best explains it, citing specific evidence from at least three non-adjacent units and explicitly addressing where the chosen pattern's explanatory power breaks down.
   • The structure of a relational evidence-based historical argument (claim-evidence-linking explanation) as opposed to a multistructural listOrganize a written argument so that a claim about pattern-fit is followed by evidence drawn from named units and a linking explanation of how that evidence bears on the claim, distinguishing this structure from a list of facts about the case.

Try a real Patterns of Power: A World History Survey, c. 1200-Present lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Saying More Than You Did Last YearGetting back into Spanish, then breaking the one-sentence-answer habit: longer turns, joined-up sentences, real description, and asking questions that keep someone talking.7 skills ▸close ▾

   • Get back into Spanish after a breakGet back into Spanish after a break
   • Answer with more than one sentenceAnswer with more than one sentence
   • Link my sentences so they flowLink my sentences so they flow
   • Describe someone so well you'd recognize themDescribe someone so well you'd recognize them
   • Say what I'm into and defend itSay what I'm into and defend it
   • Ask questions that keep someone talkingAsk questions that keep someone talking
   • Talk for two minutes without stoppingTalk for two minutes without stopping
2. Unit 2: Telling and ExplainingStories that move around in time, explaining how things work and why they happened, giving instructions, and relaying what someone else said.7 skills ▸close ▾

   • Tell a story that jumps around in timeTell a story that jumps around in time
   • Explain how something worksExplain how something works
   • Explain why something happenedExplain why something happened
   • Describe a routine that changedDescribe a routine that changed
   • Give instructions and warningsGive instructions and warnings
   • Report what someone else saidReport what someone else said
   • Explain something complicated to someone who doesn't know itExplain something complicated to someone who doesn't know it
3. Unit 3: Opinions That Hold UpReasons, arguing both sides, polite disagreement, answering objections, hedging, complaining, and hypotheticals.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Give an opinion with a real reason behind itGive an opinion with a real reason behind it
   • Argue both sides of somethingArgue both sides of something
   • Disagree without being rudeDisagree without being rude
   • Answer an objection to my own argumentAnswer an objection to my own argument
   • Say something carefully when I'm not sureSay something carefully when I'm not sure
   • Complain or push back about a problemComplain or push back about a problem
   • Talk about what I would do if things were differentTalk about what I would do if things were different
   • Hold a position for a whole conversationHold a position for a whole conversation
4. Unit 4: Other People's WorldsRegional differences, speaking differently to a stranger than a friend, awkward requests, news, films, places, and following speech that isn't slowed down for them.7 skills ▸close ▾

   • Understand that Spanish isn't one thingUnderstand that Spanish isn't one thing
   • Speak differently to a stranger than to a friendSpeak differently to a stranger than to a friend
   • Ask for something awkward, politelyAsk for something awkward, politely
   • Talk about news or something happening in the worldTalk about news or something happening in the world
   • Discuss a film, show or song in SpanishDiscuss a film, show or song in Spanish
   • Talk about a place and the people who live thereTalk about a place and the people who live there
   • Follow a conversation that isn't aimed at meFollow a conversation that isn't aimed at me
5. Unit 5: Talking Like YourselfHumour, fixing your own mistakes mid-sentence, hopes and regrets, plans after school, explaining your own culture, and repairing a conversation that goes wrong.7 skills ▸close ▾

   • Say something funny on purposeSay something funny on purpose
   • Fix my own mistakes mid-sentenceFix my own mistakes mid-sentence
   • Say what I hope, fear and regretSay what I hope, fear and regret
   • Talk about my future — study, work, plansTalk about my future — study, work, plans
   • Explain my culture to someone who doesn't share itExplain my culture to someone who doesn't share it
   • Handle a conversation that goes wrongHandle a conversation that goes wrong
   • Talk for a long time about anything at allTalk for a long time about anything at all

Try a real Spanish II lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Looking Closely: The Vocabulary of Visual AnalysisThis is where your child learns the actual words for how art is built — line, shape, color, composition, medium, scale — before they're allowed to say what anything means. For the first two weeks they'll look at images with almost no context (no title, no artist, no date) and just describe what's physically there. The habit being installed is catching themselves the moment they slide from 'the arm makes a diagonal line' into 'the figure looks sad' — that slide is the single most common mistake in student art writing, and this unit exists to interrupt it before it becomes automatic.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The formal elements line, shape, form, space, and textureGiven an unfamiliar image, the student identifies and labels instances of line, shape, form, space, and texture using correct terminology.
   • The three independent color properties hue, value, and saturationThe student distinguishes hue, value, and saturation as three independent properties of color and correctly classifies a change in a given swatch or image detail as a change in one, two, or all three.
   • The relationship between compositional arrangement and visual balanceThe student explains how a specific compositional choice (placement, diagonal, framing, use of negative space) creates visual balance or imbalance in a given work.
   • The distinction between descriptive and interpretive statements about a visual workGiven a written description of a work, the student determines which statements are description (verifiable in the object) and which are interpretation (a claim about meaning, mood, or intent) by identifying the evidentiary basis of each claim.
   • The relationship between medium/scale constraints and formal choices in a workThe student compares two works of substantially different medium and scale (e.g., a fresco and a small bronze) and infers what constraints of that medium and scale plausibly shaped the visible formal choices.
   • Formal-analysis vocabulary applied in the description-then-interpretation structureGiven a museum-collection image never discussed in class, the student produces a written analysis that describes formal properties before advancing any interpretive claim, using at least eight vocabulary terms correctly and marking the boundary between description and interpretation explicitly.
   • The generalizability of the description/interpretation distinction beyond art objectsThe student generalizes the description-before-interpretation principle to a non-art domain (e.g., a photograph in a news article, an advertisement, a data visualization) and explains why the same discipline of separating observation from claim applies there.
   • The attribution/provenance vocabulary set (patron, provenance, attribution, iconography, workshop, commission)The student recalls the standard definitions of patron, provenance, attribution, iconography, workshop, and commission when given the term or a one-sentence description.
2. Unit 2: Solving the Same Problem: Ancient Mediterranean and West African SculptureYour child compares Greek and Roman sculpture with Nok and Ife sculpture from West Africa — two different traditions that solved the same problems (how do you carve a standing human body, how do you tell a sacred story in stone or bronze) in very different, equally deliberate ways. The point isn't which one is 'better' — the course actively fights that framing — it's what each solution reveals about the culture that chose it.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Contrapposto as a formal device in standing figural sculptureGiven an unlabeled photograph of a standing Greco-Roman figural sculpture, students identify whether contrapposto is present and point to the specific formal evidence (hip shift, weight distribution, S-curve of the spine) that supports the claim.
   • Idealization as a culturally motivated formal choice in Greek sculptureStudents explain why Classical Greek sculptors idealized the human body (proportion systems, civic/religious ideals of arete and divine perfection) rather than recording an individual's actual appearance, citing at least two functions the idealized body served in Greek civic or religious life.
   • Register composition versus continuous narrative in relief sculptureStudents classify an unfamiliar relief sculpture fragment as using register (banded/horizontal) composition or continuous narrative composition, based on how figures and ground lines are organized.
   • Ritual and civic function of Nok and Ife figural sculptureStudents summarize the documented ritual and civic functions of Nok and Ife terracotta and bronze figures (ancestor commemoration, shrine use, kingship/ritual authority) using at least three pieces of textual or archaeological evidence from assigned sources.
   • The comparative method applied to a novel Greco-Roman/West African pairGiven one Greco-Roman sculpture and one West African terracotta or bronze figure that neither addressed the same problem in class discussion, students infer what formal problem each artist/workshop was solving (representing weight-bearing stance, representing status, representing narrative sequence) by comparing the two side by side.
   • The assumption of a single developmental hierarchy underlying comparative rankings of ancient sculptural traditionsStudents critique the claim, found in some older museum labels and textbooks, that Greek sculpture is "more advanced" than West African sculpture of the same period, by identifying the unstated assumption about what counts as artistic progress that the claim relies on.
   • Transfer of the comparative method to sculptural traditions never covered in this unitGiven a completely new, previously unseen pair of ancient sculptural traditions from outside the Mediterranean/West Africa case studies (for example, Olmec and early Chinese Shang bronze figures), students generate a comparative argument about what formal problem each tradition solved, applying the same comparative method without being told to do so.
   • The assumption of a single developmental hierarchy, applied to a tradition and label-writing context never discussed in classGiven a museum wall label describing a work from a sculptural tradition never named in this course (for example, an Andean Moche stirrup-spout ceramic figure or an Aboriginal Australian carved memorial pole), students critique whether the label's language relies on a single-hierarchy assumption about artistic progress, without being told the label contains such language or being cued to look for it.
   • The structure of a paired-image comparative argumentStudents plan the structure of a paired-image comparative essay by selecting one Greco-Roman and one West African work, identifying the shared formal problem each solves, and outlining the evidence they will use for each of three required claims (formal description, cultural function, comparative insight).
   • Unit vocabulary: contrapposto, idealization, register composition, patron, workshopStudents recall the definitions of contrapposto, idealization, register composition, patron, and workshop when given the term in isolation.
3. Unit 3: Image as Argument: Patronage, Iconography, and Belief in Medieval EuropeYour child learns to read a stained-glass window, altarpiece, or manuscript page the way a historian reads a legal document — as evidence of who paid for it and what they wanted it to do — while also learning that this reading is different from (and doesn't replace) how a medieval worshipper actually experienced the same image.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Iconographic conventions in medieval Christian religious images (halos, attributes, color coding, hierarchical scale)Given an unfamiliar Gothic stained-glass or altarpiece image, students identify at least three iconographic conventions (e.g., halo, specific color coding, attribute objects, scale hierarchy) and state the standard meaning each convention carried for a medieval viewer.
   • Typology as a compositional argument linking Old and New Testament scenesStudents explain how a typological pairing (an Old Testament scene positioned to visually predict or comment on a New Testament scene, e.g., Jonah/Resurrection) creates an argument about Christian history that neither scene makes alone.
   • Patron intent as distinct from artist intent, inferred from commission evidence (donor portraits, inscriptions, placement)Given a commissioned work's donor portrait, inscription, or placement within a building, students infer what the patron most likely wanted communicated to the original audience, distinguishing patron intent from artist's personal expression.
   • The distinction between an image read as historical evidence and the same image experienced as a ritual objectStudents compare a historian's evidentiary reading of a reliquary or altarpiece with a devotional/ritual reading of the same object, articulating what each reading can and cannot claim about the object's meaning.
   • Function categories of medieval commissioned images: teaching, devotion, civic displayStudents classify a set of unfamiliar medieval commissioned objects (a psalter page, a civic tapestry, a reliquary, a rood screen) by primary function (teaching, devotion, civic display) using evidence from scale, placement, and imagery rather than object category alone.
   • Patron intent for a specific historical commission, argued from unfamiliar primary visual and textual evidenceGiven two commissioned medieval images and a short period text (e.g., a donor's will or church record) that the student has not seen before, students construct a written argument for what a specific patron wanted communicated to a specific original audience, citing specific visual evidence and the text.
   • Museum wall-label claims about attribution/patronage as arguments with omitted or overstated evidenceStudents critique a museum wall label's claim about a work's attribution or patron by identifying what evidence the label omits or overstates, given the same evidentiary standards taught in this unit.
   • Unit vocabulary: iconography, typology, patron, commission, workshop, provenanceStudents recall the definitions of iconography, typology, patron, commission, workshop, and provenance without reference to a specific image, using each correctly in a sentence about a medieval example from class.
4. Unit 4: Rules for Illusion: Perspective, Naturalism, and the Renaissance WorkshopYour child learns linear perspective and chiaroscuro as constructed technical systems — invented tools built inside a specific business of commissions and workshops — not as a neutral, automatic way of showing what the eye sees. They'll actually construct a one-point perspective drawing themselves, then move into attribution puzzles (whose hand painted this, really?) using real commission contracts.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • One-point linear perspective construction (vanishing point and orthogonals)Given an unlabeled Renaissance-era painting, identify the vanishing point and trace at least three orthogonal lines that converge on it.
   • One-point linear perspective construction techniqueConstruct an original one-point perspective drawing of a simple interior space using a ruler, a marked vanishing point, and at least four orthogonals.
   • The distinction between chiaroscuro and sfumato as technique categoriesDistinguish chiaroscuro from sfumato in an unfamiliar painting by identifying whether edge transitions are hard/high-contrast or soft/blended.
   • Patron demands embedded in a specific Renaissance commission contractExplain how a documented Renaissance commission contract's specific demands (size, materials, prominence of donor portrait) reveal patron interests beyond religious devotion.
   • Attribution evidence and argument structure for a workshop-produced paintingConstruct an attribution argument for a disputed workshop painting, citing specific physical/stylistic evidence to support a claim about master-hand versus workshop-hand passages.
   • Cross-cultural comparison of spatial representation systems solving the same representational problemCompare how Renaissance linear perspective and a contemporaneous non-European spatial tradition (e.g., Chinese scroll painting's shifting-viewpoint space, or Persian miniature's hierarchical/multi-perspectival space) each solve the problem of representing depth on a flat surface.
   • The discovery-versus-invention status of linear perspective as a representational systemEvaluate whether linear perspective should be characterized as a discovery of a true fact about vision or an invention of a persuasive convention, using evidence from at least two artists' varying uses of perspective.
   • The discovery-versus-invention argument structure applied to a representational convention outside the perspective caseGeneralize the 'discovery vs. invention' argument structure used for linear perspective to a different representational system encountered in a prior or future unit (e.g., contrapposto in Unit 2, or academic realism referenced in Unit 5's preview) that the student was not shown analyzed this way.
   • Unit 4 core vocabulary setRecall the definitions of vanishing point, orthogonal, chiaroscuro, sfumato, workshop, and attribution when shown the term in isolation.
   • Museum wall-label attribution language versus underlying scholarly argumentInterpret a museum wall label's attribution claim about a Renaissance workshop painting as a simplified summary of an ongoing scholarly argument rather than a settled fact.
5. Unit 5: Breaking the Rules I: Impressionism and the Rise of the Avant-GardeYour child sees Impressionism the way its first audiences did — as an insult to serious painting, not a pleasant decoration. This only works because they now know, from Unit 4, exactly what 'finished' and 'serious' meant to a Salon jury in 1860s Paris. The unit walks through the institutions that enforced the old rule (Academy, Salon, jury) and then the specific technical break (visible brushwork, optical color, painting outdoors) that provoked real outrage.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Academic conventions of perspective, chiaroscuro, and finish as established in Unit 4Given a Salon-era painting and an Impressionist painting of a comparable subject, identify which specific academic convention from Unit 4 (linear perspective, chiaroscuro modeling, or invisible finish) is absent or altered in the Impressionist work.
   • The Academy/Salon system and the Salon des RefusésRecall the institutional role of the Academy, the Salon jury, and the Salon des Refusés in controlling which paintings the French public could see as legitimate art.
   • Optical color theory versus academic glazing techniqueExplain why optical color theory (juxtaposed unmixed strokes read as blended color at a distance) produces a different visual and physiological effect than academic layered glazing.
   • The academic hierarchy of genres and its exclusion of modern everyday subjectsGiven an unfamiliar 1870s-1880s painting of modern leisure or labor, classify whether its subject matter would have been considered acceptable or transgressive by Salon hierarchy-of-genres standards, and justify using the genre hierarchy learned in class.
   • Period criticism of Impressionist exhibitions as evidence of receptionUsing a period review or critical response as a primary source, infer what specific formal choice provoked the critic's negative reaction and distinguish the critic's stated complaint from the critic's underlying assumption about what art should do.
   • Divergent critical accounts of the same Impressionist exhibitionCompare two critics' reviews of the same 1874 or 1877 Impressionist exhibition for which details each emphasizes and what that emphasis reveals about each critic's standard of judgment.
   • Convention-breaking argument linking formal evidence to reception evidenceGiven a painting and a critical excerpt neither seen in class, construct a written argument identifying the specific Unit 4 convention broken, the formal evidence for the break, and the reception evidence explaining contemporary outrage, without being told which convention applies.
   • Avant-garde as a historical/institutional category, generalized beyond 19th-century paintingGiven a 20th or 21st century avant-garde movement never discussed in class (e.g., Fluxus, Dogme 95 filmmaking), argue whether the historical logic of 'avant-garde as rejection of an institutional standard' developed in this unit applies, and identify what would have to be true of the institutional context for the label to fit.
6. Unit 6: Breaking the Rules II: Cubism, Abstraction, and the Question of Meaning Without a SubjectThis is the hardest unit in the course, and it's worth knowing that going in. Your child moves from Cubism fragmenting a still-recognizable subject to abstraction dropping a recognizable subject entirely, landing on the real question: can a painting mean something if there's nothing to look at except shapes and color? The unit deliberately lets them wrestle with a nonobjective work before giving them any theory to lean on, then turns to how dealers, critics, and markets shape reputation — directly against the assumption that fame just tracks quality.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Cubist fragmentation as a rejection of the single fixed viewpoint required by linear perspectiveGiven an unlabeled Cubist work, students identify at least three facets/planes that represent the same object from physically incompatible viewpoints and state which rule of linear perspective each violates.
   • The definitions and identifying visual features of collage, mixed media, and papier colléStudents recall the definition and one identifying visual feature each of collage, mixed media, and papier collé as introduced in this unit.
   • The surface-level features that distinguish Cubist fragmentation from linear perspective when applied to a new image using the four-step process taught on Day 3Given a Cubist work that has NOT been used as a worked example, and a distractor image containing modeled volume and a single vanishing point, students correctly classify whether the target image exhibits Cubist fragmentation or conventional linear perspective, and name the one visual feature that rules out the other category.
   • Collage materials as material argument (real-world referents pasted into a work as content, not decoration)Given a specific papier collé's pasted material (e.g., a dated newspaper fragment) and its real-world referent, students construct an argument connecting that specific material choice to a claim about the work's meaning.
   • Multiple viewpoints/simultaneity as a shared structural principle across different Cubist works and artistsStudents compare two Cubist works by different artists (e.g., Picasso and Braque, same period) and name the shared structural principle of multiple simultaneous viewpoints that both works embody, independent of their surface subject matter.
   • The relationship between formal composition and meaning-claims in nonobjective abstraction, applied to an unfamiliar workPresented with a nonobjective work never discussed in class, students produce a formal-evidence-based claim about whether the work communicates meaning, with no access to the artist's own statements or critical commentary about that specific work.
   • The causal sequence by which dealers, critics, and market activity construct an artwork's reputation and value, as distinct from a merit-only explanation, including cases where the sequence does not cGiven a documented case (e.g., Kahnweiler's contracts with Picasso and Braque, or a comparable dealer/critic case) plus at least one timeline where the causal story is genuinely ambiguous or where promotion did not clearly precede the price/reputation change, students sequence the events of a work's creation, critical promotion, market price change, and museum acquisition, and infer which causal relationships the sequence does and does not support, including recognizing when the evidence is insufficient to support either a merit-only or a market-only claim.
   • The distinction between factual/descriptive claims and evaluative claims within a piece of published art criticismStudents identify the specific claim, warrant, and evidence structure used in a short excerpt of published art criticism about a nonobjective work, distinguishing the critic's factual observations about the work from the critic's evaluative judgments.
   • A written, evidence-based argument for or against a specific nonobjective work's capacity to communicate meaningStudents select a nonobjective work from a provided museum-collection list never analyzed in class, take a position on whether it communicates meaning, and defend that position in a written position paper using formal evidence, at least one critical source, and an explicit rebuttal of the strongest counterargument.
7. Unit 7: The Camera's Argument: Photography, Framing, and the Claim to ObjectivityYour child turns the composition vocabulary from Unit 1 and the perspective vocabulary from Unit 4 onto photographs — something they look at constantly but have never formally picked apart. The unit exists to complicate one specific belief: that a photograph is more objective than a painting because a machine made it. They'll test that against everything a person actually controls — framing, cropping, staging, captions, what gets published or collected.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Indexicality as a sign relationship distinct from iconic resemblanceStudents will define indexicality as the physical/causal trace relationship between a photograph and the light reflected off its subject at the moment of exposure, and distinguish it from resemblance.
   • Framing and cropping choices in a specific photographGiven an unfamiliar photograph, students will identify the specific framing and cropping choices (what is included, excluded, and centered) using the composition vocabulary from Unit 1 (balance, scale, framing).
   • The evidentiary reliability of staged versus candid documentary photographs on a shared subjectStudents will compare a staged/posed documentary photograph and a candid documentary photograph on a related historical subject, explaining what each can and cannot reliably support as historical evidence.
   • The parallel between photography's early reception debate (art vs. mechanical record) and the academy/avant-garde reception debateStudents will explain why early photography's claim to status as fine art was contested by critics and academies in terms parallel to the avant-garde/academy debate studied in Unit 5.
   • The relationship and limits of the analogy between photographic pictorial space and Renaissance linear perspectiveStudents will analyze how a photograph organizes pictorial space (depth cues, vanishing point behavior, flattening) in comparison to a Renaissance linear-perspective painting studied in Unit 4, identifying where the analogy holds and where it breaks down.
   • The evidentiary scope and limits of two specific, previously unseen photographsGiven two never-before-seen museum-collection photographs on a related but unannounced subject, students will construct a written argument, with cited visual evidence, about what each photograph can and cannot reliably tell a historian.
   • Staged versus candid status of an unfamiliar photograph, inferred from internal visual evidenceStudents will infer, from internal photographic evidence alone (lighting consistency, pose rigidity, subject gaze, arrangement of background elements), whether an unfamiliar photograph is more likely staged or candid, and justify the inference.
   • The generalizability of the mechanical-production-does-not-equal-objectivity claim beyond photographyStudents will generalize the unit's central claim (mechanical production does not guarantee objectivity) to a self-selected non-photographic mechanical or digital medium (e.g., satellite imagery, an algorithmic recommendation feed, a security camera still) not studied in this course, identifying an analogous point of authored selection.
   • Definitions of documentary image and staged imageStudents will recall the definitions of documentary and staged image as used in this unit's case studies.
8. Unit 8: Capstone: Global Contemporary Practice and the Long Argument About ConventionThis is the last unit and it doesn't teach anything new — it makes your child use everything at once. They'll study contemporary artists from outside Western Europe who deliberately quote, borrow, or push back against conventions from earlier in the year (perspective, iconography, idealization, Cubist fragmentation, photographic truth-claims). Then each student picks one contemporary museum work, pairs it with any earlier work from the whole year, and argues the specific connection or break between them — in writing and out loud, answering real questions.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four-part cross-cultural comparative method (shared problem / distinct solution / contextual inference / limits of the comparison)Given two works separated by centuries or cultures, restate the four-part comparative method from Unit 2 (shared formal problem, each culture's/artist's solution, what the solution reveals about context, what the comparison cannot claim) and apply it to a new pair.
   • Citation, appropriation, and subversion of a named historical convention in a specific contemporary artworkExplain how a specific contemporary artist's use of a historical convention (e.g., citing devotional iconography, appropriating a readymade gesture, restaging a colonial-era photographic pose) functions as commentary on that convention rather than as ignorance or coincidence of it.
   • The museum as an institution that shapes meaning, in tension with contemporary institutional-critique artGiven a museum wall label and the museum's own acquisition/display history for a contemporary work that critiques museums (e.g., work addressing looted objects, colonial collecting, or exclusion of non-Western artists from historical canon), analyze the tension between the institution's stated position and its function as gatekeeper of meaning.
   • Unit 1 formal-analysis vocabulary (line, shape, form, space, color, texture, composition, balance, medium, scale)Identify the formal elements (line, shape, color, composition, medium, scale) present in an unfamiliar contemporary work using the Unit 1 vocabulary set without teacher prompting of which terms apply.
   • Provenance and attribution vocabulary applied to a contemporary museum acquisition recordRecall the definition of provenance and attribution as used across the year (Unit 1 vocabulary, Unit 3's patronage extension) when reading a museum object record for a contemporary acquisition.
   • A self-selected cross-unit comparative pairing argued as connection or ruptureSelect one contemporary museum-collection work and one work from any prior unit and construct a written argument, using the comparative method, that specifies a precise formal and historical connection or deliberate rupture between them, citing vocabulary from at least three prior units.
   • The distinction between evidenced and speculative claims within one's own comparative argumentDuring the oral defense, respond to a question that challenges a weak point in the written argument (e.g., 'you claim influence — what evidence would show it's coincidence instead?') by distinguishing which of the argument's claims are well-evidenced and which are speculative.
   • Matching an unfamiliar contemporary work to its correctly applicable historical-unit vocabulary setGiven two contemporary works new to the student, one that cites a Renaissance perspectival convention and one that cites a non-Western sculptural convention studied in Unit 2, determine which historical unit's vocabulary correctly applies to each without being told which unit is relevant.

Try a real Seeing and Meaning: A History of Visual Analysis lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Thinking Like a Computer: Algorithms Before SyntaxBefore any coding, your child learns the five ideas that the entire rest of the course keeps reusing: algorithm, sequence, selection, iteration, decomposition, and abstraction. They practice by hand-tracing simple step-by-step instructions (pseudocode and flowcharts), not by writing code.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The definitions of algorithm, sequence, selection, iteration, decomposition, and abstractionStudents correctly define, in their own words, the six core terms of this unit, algorithm, sequence, selection, iteration, decomposition, and abstraction, matching each term to a short example given during Day 1-8 instruction.
   • Sequential execution of a pseudocode algorithm and its effect on variable valuesGiven a short pseudocode algorithm using only sequence, students correctly complete a trace table showing the value of every variable after each line executes.
   • Selection and iteration control structures and their effect on variable state across multiple stepsGiven a pseudocode algorithm containing one selection (if/else) or one iteration (loop) structure, students correctly trace it through a trace table, correctly updating the counter or condition variable at each pass.
   • Sequence, selection, and iteration as structural categories of algorithmic control flowStudents correctly identify and label instances of sequence, selection, and iteration within an unfamiliar pseudocode or flowchart algorithm they have not seen before.
   • Off-by-one logic errors in loop boundary conditionsGiven a pseudocode algorithm with a deliberately inserted off-by-one loop-boundary error, students trace the algorithm to locate the exact line and value at which the actual output diverges from the intended output, and explain in one sentence why that line causes the divergence.
   • Decomposition of a problem into independently justifiable sub-stepsStudents decompose a stated real-world problem into an ordered set of named sub-steps at a level of detail sufficient for another student to diagram, and justify in writing why each boundary between sub-steps was drawn where it was.
   • Abstraction as deliberate concealment of implementation detail, and its tradeoffs for the userStudents explain, using a specific abstraction they did not encounter in class (e.g., a rideshare app's 'request ride' button, a thermostat's set-temperature dial, or a vending machine's item button), what detail is hidden from the user, why hiding that detail benefits the user, and one situation in which that hiding could put the user at a disadvantage.
   • Robustness of a decomposition's boundaries under changed problem constraintsGiven two different correct decompositions of the same original problem produced by classmates, students compare the two decompositions and identify which one would be more robust if the problem's constraints changed slightly (e.g., the input list could now be empty), stating the specific constraint change that breaks one decomposition and not the other.
   • Correspondence between flowchart and pseudocode representations of the same algorithmStudents translate a given flowchart into pseudocode (or a given pseudocode listing into a flowchart) such that every box/line in one notation corresponds to an identifiable line/box in the other, without changing the underlying logic.
2. Unit 2: Python as a Notation: Variables, Conditionals, and LoopsYour child starts actually writing Python: variables, if/elif/else, for loops, while loops. The point this unit hammers home is that most beginner mistakes are notation mistakes, not thinking mistakes — a correct flowchart can still produce a Python crash, and that's a spelling problem, not a logic problem.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Variable assignment using = as distinct from mathematical equalityGiven a short Python snippet using = for assignment, students predict the value stored in a named variable after each line executes, distinguishing assignment from mathematical equality.
   • Sequential state change across multiple assignment statementsStudents trace a Python program containing sequential variable reassignment (e.g. a running total updated across several lines) and correctly state the final printed value.
   • Deterministic branch selection in if/elif/elseGiven an unseen if/elif/else block and a specific input value, students trace execution to determine which single branch runs and justify why the earlier branches did not.
   • Python error types: IndentationError, NameError, TypeErrorStudents classify a Python runtime error message (IndentationError, NameError, or TypeError) by its type and identify the specific line and likely cause without being told which error category it is.
   • For-loop accumulator patternStudents write a for loop that iterates a specified number of times to accumulate a running total, given a new but structurally similar word problem not seen in class.
   • While-loop termination conditions and the infinite-loop errorGiven a while loop that never terminates, students identify why the boolean condition never becomes False and rewrite the loop so it terminates correctly.
   • Selecting the appropriate control structure (sequence/selection/iteration) for an unfamiliar problem specificationGiven a word-problem specification never seen in class, students decide unassisted whether the solution requires a conditional, a loop, both, or neither, and justify that choice before writing code.
   • An original program integrating conditionals and loops, checked against its own predicted traceStudents write and run an original Python program from a word-problem spec that combines at least one conditional and one loop, then compare their program's actual run output to their own hand-traced predicted output and explain any discrepancy.
   • The distinction between syntax errors and logic errors in a program with correct underlying algorithmic intentStudents explain, in their own words using a specific traced example, why a program with correct algorithmic logic can still crash, distinguishing a syntax error from a logic error.
3. Unit 3: Organizing Data: Lists, Strings, and Iteration PatternsYour child moves from one-variable-at-a-time to lists: storing many values together and writing one loop that processes all of them, using the index as the link between position and value. It closes with cleaning a genuinely messy dataset with no rulebook provided.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • 0-based list indexingGiven a list and a target position, retrieve the correct 0-based index needed to access the first, last, and nth element.
   • For-item-in-list iteration syntaxExecute a for-loop that iterates over every element of a list and prints each value, without using an explicit index variable.
   • Index-based vs. item-based iteration over the same listCompare the for-item-in-list pattern and the for-i-in-range(len(list))-with-list[i] pattern for the same task, and explain in writing when the index-based form is necessary rather than optional.
   • The relationship between list length and valid index rangeClassify a given code snippet that indexes into a list as either producing a valid access or triggering an IndexError, by comparing the index used to the list's valid index range.
   • Reading an IndexError traceback to locate the faulty index valueGiven a Python traceback showing an IndexError, infer the specific line and index value responsible for the failure and state what value would have been valid instead.
   • Accumulator-variable loop pattern for sum, count, or maxImplement an accumulation pattern (running total, running count, or running maximum) using a for-loop over a list, given only a problem statement and no skeleton code.
   • Data loss and mutation consequences of sort/filter operations on a listPredict, then verify by running code, whether the original order and removed values of a list survive after a sort() or filter operation, and state the general rule for when data is recoverable.
   • List cleaning, iteration, and accumulation applied to an unfamiliar composite data structureGiven a novel dataset structure never used in this course (e.g., a list of dictionaries representing sensor readings with timestamps), design and write a cleaning-and-summary program that removes invalid entries, preserves a record of what was removed, and reports at least three summary statistics.
   • Irrecoverable information loss caused by filtering decisions made without foresight of future useGiven a real-world scenario where a filtered dataset is later needed for a purpose the filtering did not anticipate (e.g., a school later wants to know how many students scored exactly 0, but 0 was treated as invalid and discarded), argue what information was permanently lost and what design change would have prevented the loss.
   • Strings as sequences of characters, compared to listsExemplify the difference between a list and a string as sequence types by identifying two operations (e.g., indexing, iteration) that work identically on both and one operation that does not.
   • The causal link between an error message's content and the code fix it impliesSummarize, in a written explanation accompanying the summative program, one specific bug encountered, quoting the exact error message and explaining how its wording pointed to the fix.
4. Unit 4: Abstraction in Code: Functions and Program DesignYour child learns to name a repeated block of code as a function — the same 'hide the detail, expose the name' move as Unit 1's abstraction and Unit 2's print()/input(). It ends with taking a messy 40-line program someone else 'wrote' and reorganizing it into functions.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The function signature (name, parameters, return type by inference) as a contract separate from implementationGiven a 5-8 line function definition with a docstring-free header, students state in one sentence what the function does (its contract) without reading its body line by line.
   • Parameter passing and return value flow across a function call boundaryStudents trace a program by hand, recording the value of each parameter and each variable at each function call and return, for a program with at least two nested function calls.
   • Local vs. global scope and the bugs caused by conflating themStudents explain why a function that modifies a global variable inside its body produces different output than a caller expects, using a specific mis-scoped code example.
   • Duplication in code as the signal that a function boundary belongs thereGiven a duplicated-logic program from Unit 3 (the same 4-line block appearing 3 times with different variables), students identify which lines are truly identical across all three copies versus which lines merely look similar but differ in a way that matters for correctness.
   • Function definition with parameters and a return value, as a direct replacement for duplicated codeStudents write a function with at least one parameter and a return statement that correctly replaces a specified block of duplicated code, verified by running it against the original program's output.
   • Decomposition of a program into functions along its 'natural' task boundariesGiven an unfamiliar 40-line program students have not seen before, students propose a decomposition into 3-5 functions, name each function, specify its parameters and return value, and justify why each boundary was drawn where it was rather than elsewhere.
   • Tradeoffs between alternative function decompositions of the same programStudents compare two different valid decompositions of the same program (one function-per-loop vs. one function-per-task) and explain what each version makes easier and harder to change later.
   • The four named function-related bug categories and their distinguishing symptomsStudents diagnose the specific cause of a broken program from among four seeded bug categories (missing return, mismatched argument order, mismatched argument count, scope confusion) by running it and reading the error or wrong output, without being told which category applies.
   • Transfer of function-decomposition reasoning to an unfamiliar problem domainGiven a program from a domain never used in this course (e.g., a recipe-scaling calculator or a simple grading-curve tool), students design a function-based decomposition from scratch and defend it in writing against a specific alternative decomposition a partner proposes.
   • Full refactor of an unstructured program into a function-based design, plus a feature extension that tests whether the design supports changeStudents refactor a given unstructured 40-line program into at least three functions with parameters and return values, extend it with one new feature using their new function structure, and write a rationale explaining why each function boundary was chosen over at least one plausible alternative.
5. Unit 5: Data Underneath: Bits, Encoding, and RepresentationYour child stops thinking of a file as 'a picture' or 'a song' and starts thinking of it as bits whose meaning depends entirely on which encoding rule is being used to read them. This covers binary place value, bytes, lossy versus lossless compression, and bias in how data gets collected in the first place.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Binary-decimal place value conversion for 8-bit valuesConvert a positive whole number up to 255 between binary and decimal representation using place value.
   • ASCII character encoding of byte valuesDecode a given sequence of 8-bit bytes into ASCII text using a provided ASCII lookup table.
   • The relationship between a bit pattern and the encoding convention applied to itExplain why the same 8-bit pattern can correctly represent a number, an ASCII character, or a component of a color, depending on which encoding the reading program assumes.
   • Lossy vs. lossless compression as different information-preservation guaranteesCompare a lossless and a lossy compression approach applied to the identical short artifact by identifying what information is discarded in the lossy version and what is preserved in the lossless version.
   • Data collection and encoding choices embedded in a specific real datasetGiven a small, unfamiliar real dataset (CSV), identify at least one specific choice made during data collection or encoding that constrains what conclusions can validly be drawn from it.
   • Design tradeoffs in creating a new binary encoding schemeDesign an original small-scale binary encoding scheme (fewer than 8 bits) for a novel, self-chosen symbol set, and justify whether the chosen bit length is sufficient.
   • The distinction between sampling bias and encoding bias in data collectionClassify a given real-world data collection scenario as an example of sampling bias, encoding bias, both, or neither, distinguishing it from a simple data-entry error.
   • The multi-step ASCII decoding procedure (bits to decimal to character)Summarize, in the student's own words, the sequence of decoding steps used to turn a raw byte sequence into readable ASCII text.
6. Unit 6: How the Internet Works: Networks and ProtocolsThis builds the layer picture of the internet: client and server, packets, IP addresses, DNS, routing, TCP/IP, HTTP/HTTPS, and the tradeoffs between bandwidth, latency, and fault tolerance. It closes by using free browser developer tools to trace what actually happens when a real web page loads.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The client-server-DNS-routing-packet layer model of a network requestGiven a diagram of a network request, students correctly label each layer (client, DNS, IP routing, packet, server) using the standard term for each.
   • The distinction between a protocol (a rule set) and physical network infrastructureStudents explain why a protocol is a set of agreed-upon rules rather than a physical device, using the turn-taking/etiquette analogy taught in class.
   • Packet reassembly using sequence numbers despite out-of-order arrivalGiven a scrambled set of index-tagged packet fragments (some delayed, none lost), students reconstruct the original message and explain why packet order at arrival does not need to match send order.
   • TCP's retransmission/reliability guarantee as the cause of differing outcomes between two contrasted network scenariosStudents compare a network scenario with TCP's reliability guarantees against an otherwise identical scenario without them, and identify which specific behavior (retransmission of lost packets) accounts for the difference in outcome.
   • Bandwidth, latency, and fault tolerance as distinct causes of network performance problemsStudents classify a set of short network scenarios by whether the described problem is best explained by bandwidth, latency, or fault tolerance, distinguishing cases that superficially resemble each other.
   • The real end-to-end sequence of network layers for a specific, novel URLUsing only free browser developer tools, students trace and annotate the actual sequence of steps (DNS lookup, IP routing, packet exchange, server response) that occurs when a real, previously-unexamined URL is requested.
   • Application of the layer model (client, DNS, routing, packet, server) to an unfamiliar, real-world infrastructure failure scenarioGiven a novel scenario describing a network failure that does not match any case discussed in class (e.g., a submarine cable cut affecting one region's routing), students predict which named layers are affected and which continue functioning, and justify the prediction using the layer model.
   • Accountability for harm in a decentralized network, applied to a specific real incident not covered in classGiven a scenario about responsibility when something on the internet causes harm, students construct an argument identifying which specific actor(s) in the layer chain (ISP, DNS provider, server owner, platform, or none uniquely) bore responsibility in a real, previously undiscussed incident, and defend the argument against the objection that decentralization means no one is responsible.
   • The function of DNS as name-to-address translationStudents recall the definition of DNS as the system that translates human-readable domain names into IP addresses.
   • Packet-switching's fault-tolerance advantage over single-stream transmission, as an integrated explanationStudents summarize, in their own words, why breaking a message into packets sent independently is more fault-tolerant than sending the entire message as one continuous stream, integrating the routing, packet-reassembly, and fault-tolerance concepts taught across the unit.
7. Unit 7: Attack Surface: Cybersecurity and PrivacyThis unit asks whether any system can be fully secure and argues no — anything that stores or moves data creates something attackable. It covers encryption (explicitly reframed as encoding with a secret key), human-layer attacks like phishing and social engineering, network-layer attacks like packet sniffing and man-in-the-middle, and the tradeoffs behind personal data collection and targeted ads.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Symmetric-key encryption as a two-way encoding/decoding procedure using a shared keyGiven a stored piece of plaintext and a simple substitution/XOR-style key example, students execute the encoding and decoding steps by hand to produce ciphertext and recover the original plaintext.
   • The five named attack-vector terms and their mechanismsStudents correctly recall the definitions of phishing, malware, social engineering, packet sniffing, and man-in-the-middle attack, matching each term to its one-sentence mechanism.
   • The three-way classification of attack vectors by layerGiven a short, previously unseen incident description, students classify which single attack category (human/social-engineering, network-layer, or encryption/key-compromise) it represents, citing the specific textual evidence that rules out the other two.
   • The checkable tells that distinguish legitimate communication from phishingStudents compare a genuine and a fabricated (phishing) message side by side and explain which specific, checkable features (sender domain, link destination, urgency framing) distinguish them, rather than relying on surface polish.
   • The distinction between breaking encryption and compromising a different point in the encrypted pipelineStudents explain why a fully encrypted communication channel can still be compromised, by identifying the specific point in the data pipeline (key storage, key transmission, or an unencrypted endpoint) where a described breach actually occurred.
   • The usability-cost-risk tradeoff underlying data-collection decisionsBefore receiving the formal usability-cost-risk framework, students examine two contrasting real-world data-collection scenarios and generate their own criterion for what makes one collection practice more or less concerning than the other.
   • The reasonableness of a specific organization's security tradeoff, evaluated against evidence in an incident reportGiven a completely novel data-breach report not discussed in class, students argue in writing whether the affected organization's security tradeoff was reasonable, using specific evidence from the report about cost, usability, and risk rather than asserting a general judgment of competence.
   • The relationship between an app's stated functionality/permissions and the personal data it is likely collectingStudents infer which specific personal data an unfamiliar app or service is likely collecting and why, based only on the app's stated functionality and permission requests, without being told the answer.
   • The distinction between a vector-specific mitigation and a generic security recommendationStudents differentiate between a mitigation that closes a specific named vulnerability and a generic security recommendation that does not name what it blocks, when evaluating sample mitigation proposals.
8. Unit 8: Capstone: Computing and Its ConsequencesThe last 16 days pull everything together into one Python program and one written argument about a real computing system's effect on people. The central skill is telling apart three things: a bug, an unequal outcome with no evidence of intent (disparate impact), and an unequal outcome with evidence of intent (disparate treatment) — and separately, realizing that a system 'working as specified' doesn't settle whether it should exist that way.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between disparate impact (outcome evidence) and disparate treatment (intent evidence) as two different classes of claim requiring two different kinds of evidenceGiven a real-world computing system's design description and de-identified outcome data disaggregated by group, the student correctly labels each of five provided claims about the system as supported by outcome evidence, supported by intent evidence, or unsupported by the given evidence.
   • The three-way evidentiary test (bug vs. disparate impact vs. disparate treatment) applied to an unfamiliar caseGiven a new, previously undiscussed case of an algorithmic system with both design rationale and outcome data, the student determines whether the available evidence supports a claim of bug, disparate impact, or disparate treatment, and identifies what additional evidence (if any) would be needed to support a stronger claim.
   • A function-based data-processing pipeline that computes a disaggregated summary statistic from a list of recordsThe student writes a function that takes a list of records (dictionaries or tuples) loaded from a real dataset and a group-membership key, and returns a per-group summary statistic (e.g., selection rate, average value) using iteration and conditionals from Units 2-3.
   • Adaptation of a taught function-based aggregation pattern to a structurally similar but surface-different datasetGiven a dataset with a different shape or grouping variable than the one used in the worked example (e.g., three groups instead of two, or a numeric threshold instead of a category), the student adapts their disaggregation function to compute the correct per-group statistic without re-deriving the loop structure from scratch.
   • The relationship between unequal computing/network access (digital divide) and sampling bias in who is represented in a datasetThe student explains, in a labeled two-column comparison, one specific way the digital divide (unequal access to devices, bandwidth, or skills) could bias which population is represented in a given real-world dataset, using vocabulary from Unit 5 (data representation) and Unit 6 (network access).
   • Obligations imposed by specific open-source software licenses on reuse and redistributionGiven two real open-source license summaries (e.g., MIT and a copyleft license), the student identifies at least one obligation each license imposes on someone who reuses or redistributes the code, and states which license would apply if the student redistributed a modified version commercially.
   • The distinction between spec-conformance ('does it work') and social-impact justification ('should it exist this way') as applied to one specific, named real-world systemThe student writes a structured argumentative paragraph evaluating whether a named real-world computing system 'should' exist in its current form, distinguishing this claim explicitly from whether the system 'works as specified,' and supporting the should-exist claim with cited evidence rather than stated opinion.
   • Cumulative course vocabulary applied in context to a novel case rather than recited in definition formThe student correctly uses at least four distinct pieces of vocabulary from four different prior units (e.g., iteration from Unit 3, function/parameter from Unit 4, encoding from Unit 5, protocol/packet or attack surface from Unit 6-7) in context within the written report, applying each term to the specific case rather than defining it generically.
   • The digital-divide-to-sampling-bias mechanism applied to a domain, dataset shape, and framing not used anywhere in instructionGiven a description of a data-collection system from a domain never discussed in class or offered on the report's case list (e.g., a municipal smart-traffic sensor network or a university wearable-fitness research study), with NO causal-chain diagram, worksheet, or framing question supplied, the student identifies whether and how unequal access to devices, connectivity, or digital skill could bias which people or places are represented in the resulting dataset, and names the specific access factor responsible using Unit 5/6 vocabulary without being told which prior concept applies.

Try a real Computer Science Principles: Computation, Data, and Society lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Listening Critically, Reading an AudienceYour child spends most of this unit listening to other people's recorded speeches, not making their own. The goal is to build a shared vocabulary — claim versus support, organizational pattern, bias, audience profile — that every later unit in the course reuses. Think of it as sharpening the ear before asking the mouth to do anything.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Claim vs. support in a spoken argumentGiven a short transcript or recording, students state the speaker's central claim in one sentence, distinguishing it from the supporting reasons offered for it.
   • The four organizational patterns (problem-solution, chronological, cause-effect, comparison), applied via the taught signal-phrase testGiven a recorded excerpt following a previously modeled organizational pattern (problem-solution, chronological, cause-effect, or comparison), students name the pattern and point to the specific signal phrase the speaker used to indicate it, using the same signal-phrase test demonstrated in the worked example.
   • The four organizational patterns (problem-solution, chronological, cause-effect, comparison)Students classify a short speech excerpt as following a problem-solution, chronological, cause-effect, or comparison organizational pattern, and identify the specific phrase or transition that signals the pattern.
   • Bias and unsupported assertion in spoken argumentStudents identify at least one instance of bias or unsupported assertion in a recorded speech and explain, in writing, what specific evidence is missing that would be needed to support the claim.
   • Point of view as expressed through organizational pattern and evidence choice, across two contrasting speakersGiven two recordings of speakers arguing opposite sides of a similar issue, students compare how each speaker's choice of organizational pattern and use of evidence serves their differing points of view.
   • Audience profile: prior knowledge, values, disposition, likely objectionsStudents construct a written audience profile for a real, named individual (e.g., a parent, grandparent, sibling), specifying that person's likely prior knowledge, values, disposition toward a given topic, and at least two specific likely objections, with a one-paragraph justification for each prediction grounded in evidence about that person rather than a stereotype of 'people like them'.
   • Criteria-based evaluation vs. general impression of a spoken performanceStudents distinguish between a self-rated impression of how well a speech communicated ('it went well') and a criteria-based evaluation of the same speech using a named rubric, and explain at least one instance where the two would disagree.
   • Integrated application of claim/support, organizational pattern, and bias detection to novel spoken argumentsGiven two never-before-heard recorded speeches on unfamiliar topics, students independently complete a structured listening guide identifying claim, organizational pattern, and at least one instance of bias or unsupported assertion for each, without teacher prompting during listening.
   • The difference between demographic stereotyping and individualized audience analysisStudents explain why predicting an audience's likely objections by assuming shared characteristics of a demographic group (e.g., 'grandparents don't like technology') produces a less accurate profile than gathering specific evidence about the named individual.
2. Unit 2: Building the Spoken CaseNow your child builds their own argument — for delivery, not for reading. The core idea: a listener only gets one pass, in real time, they can't re-read a sentence, so everything about how support is chosen, ordered, and phrased has to be built around that. This unit uses the real audience profile from Unit 1 as its foundation.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Criteria for selecting supporting evidence for a spoken argument aimed at a specific audienceGiven a spoken claim and three candidate pieces of evidence, select the two strongest for a specific named audience and state why the third is weaker for that listener.
   • The three organizational patterns for spoken argument taught in this unitRecall the three organizational patterns for spoken argument taught in this unit (problem-solution, comparative/point-by-point, cause-effect) and state one defining feature of each.
   • The match between organizational pattern and a specific audience profile and purposeGiven their own Unit 1 audience profile and a set of three supports, justify in writing which of the three organizational patterns best fits this specific listener and purpose, connecting a named feature of the audience profile to a named feature of the pattern.
   • Structural differences between a written essay outline and a spoken-argument outlineDistinguish a written essay outline from a spoken-argument outline by identifying which features of a sample written outline would fail if delivered aloud without modification (e.g., dense subordinate clauses, absent verbal signposts, citation-page dependence).
   • Verbal signposting phrases that substitute for print-only structural cuesCompose two verbal signpost phrases (a preview and a transition) for a given point in a spoken argument that a reader's paragraph break or header would otherwise signal in print.
   • The convention of citing a source aloud in running speech without a visible citation pageCite a source aloud within a spoken sentence (naming who, what, and why-credible in under two seconds of speech) rather than reading a citation as a reader would see it on a slide or page.
   • The fit (or mismatch) between a stated organizational pattern and a stated audience profile in a peer's outlineCritique a peer's draft spoken outline by identifying one place where the chosen organizational pattern does not actually match the stated audience profile, citing a specific mismatch rather than a general impression.
   • The divergence between an outline's intended structure and the structure actually audible in a recorded delivery of itGiven a 3-minute recording of their own draft delivery and their written outline, identify at least two specific points where the structure audible in the recording diverges from the structure written in the outline.
   • Transfer of pattern-to-audience matching reasoning to a genuinely new audience typeGiven an unfamiliar persuasive scenario and an audience profile the class has never analyzed (e.g., a workplace, civic, or cross-cultural listener), select and justify an organizational pattern for that new context using the same reasoning taught for known audiences.
   • The boundary between legitimate audience adaptation and misrepresenting one's own argumentEvaluate a claim about how far an argument can be adapted to an audience before it stops being 'the same argument,' using a specific case (e.g., the same claim reshaped for two audiences with opposing values) not discussed in class, and take a defensible position with reasons.
3. Unit 3: Controlling and Evaluating DeliveryThis is the unit about how something is said, not what's said. The big idea your child needs to actually believe, not just agree with on paper, is that feeling confident while speaking is not the same as communicating clearly — a recording will show filler words, lost eye contact, or a pace nobody could follow, even when it felt smooth in the moment.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Organizational pattern as a structural feature that delivery can obscure or revealGiven a short recorded speech excerpt, identify the organizational pattern used (e.g., problem-solution, chronological) and state whether delivery choices obscured a structural transition.
   • The nine named delivery criteria used in the course rubricDefine and correctly label each of the nine delivery criteria (rate, volume, articulation, vocal variety, filler words, pause, gesture, posture, eye contact) when shown an isolated example of each in a short video clip.
   • The definitions of the six vocal-delivery criteria as fixed labels applied to pre-selected descriptionsGiven the definition and a labeled worked example of each of the six vocal-delivery criteria on the reference card, match a new one-line audio description to the correct criterion name using the taught definitions, without needing to detect the behavior in a full unscripted clip.
   • Vocal delivery criteria applied to contrasted recorded examplesGiven a paired set of clips of the same script delivered with strong vocal delivery versus weak vocal delivery, rate each clip against the vocal-delivery portion of the rubric (rate, volume, articulation, vocal variety, filler, pause) and cite the specific moment supporting each rating.
   • The independence of delivery quality from organizational structure as separate evaluative dimensionsExplain why a clip with confident, fluent-sounding vocal delivery and a clip with hesitant vocal delivery can receive the SAME organizational-pattern score, using specific evidence from both clips.
   • Conflict between verbal claims and nonverbal physical delivery signals (gesture, posture, eye contact) and its effect on audience interpretationGiven a video clip where a speaker's verbal claim (e.g., confident assertion) and physical delivery (e.g., avoided eye contact, closed posture) conflict, predict what a listening audience would most likely believe and justify the prediction using named physical-delivery criteria.
   • One's own recorded delivery performance evaluated against the complete delivery rubricUsing the full course delivery rubric, self-evaluate a recording of one's own delivery of the Unit 2 spoken argument, citing a specific timestamp as evidence for each of the six required criteria ratings.
   • A targeted, evidence-based revision plan for one's own delivery behaviorsGiven one's own self-evaluation results, name the two lowest-scoring, most fixable delivery behaviors and generate a concrete rehearsal plan (specific practice actions, not general intentions) targeting those two behaviors.
   • Change over time in one's own targeted delivery behaviors, evidenced across two recordingsAfter a delayed re-recording at least one week later, compare the new self-evaluation ratings on the two previously targeted behaviors to the original ratings and determine, citing timestamp evidence from both recordings, whether the targeted behaviors changed.
4. Unit 4: Argument Under Pressure: The Defended AddressEverything comes together here — audience profile, structure, delivery — plus one brand-new skill: answering a real objection out loud, inside a live-feeling speech, without falling apart or restarting the argument. The final task is delivered to an actual family member and then checked against what that person actually thought.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Cumulative Units 1-3 vocabulary set (audience profile, claim/support, organizational pattern, delivery criteria)Given a mixed-unit warm-up quiz covering audience profile, claim/support, organizational pattern, and delivery-criteria vocabulary from Units 1-3, students correctly define and apply each term to a short example.
   • Vulnerability of a specific claim or evidence choice to counterargumentGiven a recorded speech excerpt, students identify which specific piece of evidence or claim in it is most vulnerable to counterargument.
   • The difference between a straw objection and the strongest real objectionStudents distinguish a straw-man objection from the strongest real objection an audience is likely to raise, when given three candidate objections to a sample argument.
   • The difference between a rebuttal that restates the claim and one that engages the objection's specific contentGiven a new claim/objection pair structurally identical to the Day 6 worked example (one candidate rebuttal that merely restates the claim, one that directly engages the specific content of the objection), students correctly identify which rebuttal actually answers the objection.
   • The strongest likely objection of a specific real audience member to a specific claimStudents generate the single strongest likely objection a specific, named real audience member (not a generic audience) would raise against their own draft claim, using that audience member's profile.
   • Rebuttal segment integrated into an existing organizational patternStudents write a rebuttal segment that answers the identified objection without abandoning or restarting their argument's existing organizational pattern.
   • The cumulative four-part evaluation rubric (audience, structure, delivery, rebuttal)Students apply the cumulative Units 1-3 rubric (audience adaptation, argument structure, delivery criteria) plus the new rebuttal criterion to score a peer's rehearsal recording, citing timestamped evidence for each score.
   • The distinction between structural argument-strengthening and delivery polishStudents explain why anticipating a counterargument is a structural addition to an argument's case rather than a delivery-polish technique.
   • Self-evaluation of one's own recorded address against a named-criteria rubricStudents self-evaluate their own delivered address against the cumulative rubric using timestamped evidence from their own recording, before seeing the listener's response.
   • Discrepancy between self-evaluation and audience response to the same delivered argumentGiven their own self-evaluation and their real listener's recorded or written response to the same address, students identify specific points of discrepancy and generate a plausible explanation for each.
   • A general decision principle for resolving self-evaluation/audience disagreement across stakes levelsStudents propose a general principle for deciding whether self-evaluation or audience response should govern revision when the two disagree, and test that principle against a hypothetical higher-stakes scenario (e.g., a job interview or public testimony) not covered in class.

Try a real Speech and Communication: Composing, Delivering, and Evaluating Spoken Argument lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Train With a PlanNine weeks learning to train rather than just exercise: rating effort honestly, adding a little each week, balancing push and pull, and taking a deliberately easy week before re-testing.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Re-test and set this year's numbersComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on re-test and set this year's numbers.
   • Learn what 'hard enough' feels likeComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on learn what 'hard enough' feels like.
   • Add a little, on purposeComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on add a little, on purpose.
   • Push and pullComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on push and pull.
   • Legs that hold upComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on legs that hold up.
   • Midsection that does its jobComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on midsection that does its job.
   • A harder weekComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on a harder week.
   • An easier week, deliberatelyComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on an easier week, deliberately.
   • Re-testComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on re-test.
2. Unit 2: Sport and SkillNine weeks on one sport or skill of their choosing — deliberate practice of single elements, practicing under pressure, getting fit for that sport specifically, and filming themselves.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Choose a sport and find out where you areComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on choose a sport and find out where you are.
   • Practise one thing at a timeComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on practice one thing at a time.
   • Practise under a bit of pressureComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on practice under a bit of pressure.
   • Add a second elementComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on add a second element.
   • Get fit for your sport specificallyComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on get fit for your sport specifically.
   • Play it properlyComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on play it properly.
   • Learn from someone betterComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on learn from someone better.
   • A harder week in your sportComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on a harder week in your sport.
   • Show what you can doComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on show what you can do.
3. Unit 3: Capacity and ResilienceBuilding an aerobic base slowly, mobility that targets an actual restriction, warm-ups, training around niggles, sleep, and eating to fuel training.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Build a bigger aerobic baseComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on build a bigger aerobic base.
   • Mobility that actually changes somethingComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on mobility that actually changes something.
   • Warm up and cool down properlyComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on warm up and cool down properly.
   • Look after the parts that complainComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on look after the parts that complain.
   • Sleep and recoveryComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on sleep and recovery.
   • Eating to trainComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on eating to train.
   • Train when you don't want toComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on train when you don't want to.
   • A harder weekComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on a harder week.
   • Deload and re-testComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on deload and re-test.
4. Unit 4: Your Own ProgramChoosing one measurable goal, writing an eight-week plan for it, running it, deloading, revising it from their own data, tapering, and testing.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Decide what you're training forComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on decide what you're training for.
   • Write the planComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on write the plan.
   • Run it, week twoComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on run it, week two.
   • Run it, week threeComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on run it, week three.
   • Deload — your ownComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on deload — your own.
   • Run the revised planComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on run the revised plan.
   • Push the goalComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on push the goal.
   • TaperComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on taper.
   • Test, and plan what's nextComplete about 150 minutes of activity this week, focused on test, and plan what's next.

Try a real Physical Education II: Training, Sport and Self-Coaching lesson, no account needed →