A complete 11th grade homeschool curriculum

1. Unit 1: Origins: Puritan Rhetoric and the American ErrandThis is where the year's vocabulary gets planted: covenant, typology, jeremiad, plain style, the 'errand into the wilderness.' Your child reads Bradford, Winthrop, and Edwards and learns that these writers weren't just describing their faith, they were making an argument for why the community existed and what it owed. The metaphors here (city on a hill, errand) outlive the religious argument and get reused by every later unit.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Archaic and theological vocabulary in 'A Model of Christian Charity'Given a glossed excerpt of Winthrop's 'A Model of Christian Charity,' state the literal meaning of at least 8 of 10 archaic or theological terms (e.g., 'providence,' 'covenant,' 'affections') using context and provided glosses.
   • The three-part structure of the jeremiad formIdentify the three structural components of a jeremiad (diagnosis of decline, warning of consequence, call to covenant renewal) in a teacher-provided excerpt of Edwards's 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,' using a structure map.
   • The argumentative function of the 'city upon a hill' metaphor in 'A Model of Christian Charity'Explain how Winthrop's use of the 'city upon a hill' image functions as an argumentative device (creating public accountability and communal stakes) rather than as decorative language, citing specific textual evidence.
   • The relationship between plain style and Puritan theological belief about ornamentation and truthCompare Bradford's plain style prose to a contrasting ornate 17th-century English prose excerpt, inferring the theological belief that motivates the stylistic choice in each.
   • The jeremiad form applied to a non-Puritan, contemporary rhetorical textApply the jeremiad's three-part structure to identify whether a contemporary political speech excerpt (not Puritan, not previously seen) follows, partially follows, or departs from the form, and justify the classification with textual evidence.
   • The relationship between a specific rhetorical structure and the persuasive purpose it serves for a named historical audienceConstruct a written analysis explaining how a chosen Puritan text's rhetorical structure (typology, plain style, or jeremiad form) serves its specific persuasive purpose for its original audience, using at least two pieces of textual evidence.
   • The reuse and transformation of the 'city on a hill' / 'errand into the wilderness' metaphor beyond its original Puritan argumentative contextGiven a never-before-seen short passage using founding-myth language (e.g., a modern political speech invoking 'city on a hill' or 'errand'), infer whether the writer is extending, ironizing, or rejecting the original Puritan argument, and justify the inference using knowledge of the metaphor's original rhetorical function.
   • The distinction between content summary and rhetorical purposeDistinguish between summarizing what a Puritan text is about and identifying what the text's rhetorical purpose is trying to do to its audience, when given a text excerpt and two sample responses (one summary, one purpose-statement).
2. Unit 2: Founding Arguments: Revolution and the Rhetoric of IndependenceJefferson and Paine take the covenant language and plain style from Unit 1 and repurpose them for a political argument instead of a religious one. This unit also introduces ethos, pathos, and logos by name, these three words become the standard toolkit for analyzing every nonfiction text for the rest of the year.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Ethos, pathos, and logos as categories of rhetorical appealGiven a short excerpt, correctly label a specific appeal as ethos, pathos, or logos and identify the textual feature (word choice, claimed credential, statistic, emotional image) that signals it.
   • The Declaration of Independence's construction of shared ethos with its intended 18th-century audienceExplain how a specific phrase in the Declaration of Independence (e.g., 'we hold these truths to be self-evident') functions to establish shared ethos between the writers and the reading public of 1776.
   • The logos structure of the Declaration of Independence's list of grievancesDiagram the logical structure of the Declaration's grievance list, showing how individual grievances function as premises supporting the concluding claim of a right to separate.
   • Concession-and-rebuttal structure in Paine's Common SenseIdentify where Paine anticipates a specific counterargument in Common Sense and evaluate whether his rebuttal actually addresses the counterargument's strongest form or a weaker version of it.
   • The relationship between intended audience and the balance of rhetorical appeals across two Revolutionary textsCompare the rhetorical strategies of the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense, explaining why a document aimed at international/elite audiences (Declaration) and one aimed at ordinary undecided colonists (Common Sense) differ in their balance of ethos, pathos, and logos.
   • Rhetorical appeals and concession-rebuttal structure in an unfamiliar Revolutionary-era primary sourceAnalyze an unfamiliar Revolutionary-era primary source (not covered in class) to identify its dominant rhetorical appeals and evaluate how effectively it anticipates and rebuts likely counterclaims, in a timed essay.
   • Repurposing of Puritan covenant language and typology for political argument in Revolutionary-era rhetoricRecall the definitions of typology and the jeremiad from Unit 1 and identify an instance of covenant language being repurposed for a political rather than religious argument in a Revolutionary text.
   • The general principle that appeal selection is a function of audience persuadability across historical contextsGiven two unfamiliar short persuasive texts from different eras (e.g., a Revolutionary pamphlet and a modern op-ed), generalize a claim about how the same three appeals can be deployed differently depending on the persuadability and prior belief of the target audience.
3. Unit 3: Contested Selves: Individualism, Slavery, and the Unreliable NarratorThis unit puts Emerson and Thoreau's self-reliance arguments next to Douglass's and Jacobs's narratives, and asks a pointed question: who was actually allowed to claim authority over their own life story? It uses the ethos/pathos/logos tools from Unit 2 on first-person testimony instead of speeches.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Emerson's central claim in 'Self-Reliance' about individual authority versus social conformityGiven a passage from Emerson's 'Self-Reliance,' state its central claim about the individual's relationship to society in one sentence.
   • Ethos/pathos/logos as applied to short excerpts of Douglass's NarrativeIdentify which rhetorical appeal (ethos, pathos, or logos) dominates in a given short excerpt from Douglass's Narrative, using the definitions established in Unit 2.
   • The difference between testimonial ethos (Douglass) and assertive/philosophical ethos (Emerson)Explain how Douglass's narrative voice constructs credibility (ethos) differently than Emerson's essayistic voice, given that one writes as embodied testimony and the other as philosophical assertion.
   • Jacobs's rhetorical purpose and audience-specific disclosure choices in Incidents in the Life of a Slave GirlExplain why Jacobs frames her narrative as an appeal to Northern white women readers specifically, connecting her stated purpose to her choices about what to disclose and withhold.
   • Constrained narration as evidence of the narrator's social/legal situation, using slave narrative conventionsAnalyze how an unnamed or constrained first-person narrator's limitations on what they can safely say function as evidence of their situation rather than as a flaw in the text.
   • Points of convergence and divergence between Emerson's and Thoreau's arguments about self-reliance and social withdrawalCompare Emerson's and Thoreau's versions of self-reliance to determine where they diverge on whether withdrawal from society is necessary for individual authority.
   • Inferring unstated meaning from a constrained narrator's silences in a genuinely new textGiven an unfamiliar 19th-century first-person narrative excerpt (not read in class) written by a narrator whose social position constrains their speech, infer what the narrator cannot say directly and what rhetorical purpose that silence serves.
   • The interdependence of self-reliant authority and enslaved/constrained labor across two independently-argued textsConstruct an original argument, using two paired 19th-century texts never explicitly paired in class instruction, about whether the rhetorical authority one writer claims depends on the labor or constraint of a figure like the other writer's narrator.
   • Essay planning: evidence selection and organization for a comparative authority-construction argumentPlan a comparative essay that draws specific textual evidence from one slave narrative and one Transcendentalist text to support a thesis about constructed authority, before drafting.
   • Evidence-claim alignment in a comparative rhetorical-analysis paragraphCheck a peer's draft paragraph for whether cited evidence actually supports the claim made about that writer's rhetorical authority, or merely appears in the same paragraph.
4. Unit 4: Reading Argument Closely: Rhetorical Analysis of NonfictionThis unit slows down and teaches a full method for taking apart one nonfiction piece: who it's for, why, when, how it's arranged, what its word choices are doing, and what unstated assumption (the 'warrant') has to be true for its evidence to actually support its claim. It leans hard on ethos/pathos/logos from Unit 2, brought back after about a month away on purpose.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Audience, purpose, and context as analytic categories applied to a nonfiction passageGiven a short nonfiction passage, identify the specific audience, purpose, and occasion the text was written for, using textual evidence rather than the topic alone.
   • The claim-evidence-warrant relationship, using a provided sentence frame on a previously modeled passageGiven the sentence frame 'The writer assumes that ___, which is why ___ counts as evidence for ___,' state the warrant of a passage that was directly modeled in class, filling the frame accurately without needing to locate claim/evidence/warrant unassisted.
   • The functional effect of a rhetorical appeal on a specified audienceExplain how a writer's use of ethos, pathos, or logos functions to move a specific named audience toward the writer's claim, not merely label which appeal is present.
   • Rhetorical arrangement as a structural choice with argumentative consequencesAnalyze how a writer's structural arrangement (order of ideas, placement of concession, sequencing of evidence) shapes how an audience receives the argument.
   • Diction and syntax as argumentative choices, not decorationExplain how specific diction and syntax choices in a passage advance or intensify the writer's argument, citing the exact words or sentence structures responsible.
   • The distinction between claim, evidence, and warrantDistinguish a text's claim from its warrant by identifying the unstated assumption that must be true for the cited evidence to support the claim.
   • Comparison of warrants across two texts addressing the same issueGiven two passages arguing the same issue with different warrants, compare how each writer's unstated assumption leads to a different claim from similar evidence.
   • Integrated rhetorical analysis of a nonfiction passageWrite a full rhetorical analysis paragraph integrating audience, arrangement, diction/syntax, and warrant into a single coherent account of how a passage persuades, without a sentence frame.
   • Independent rhetorical analysis of an unseen nonfiction textGiven a nonfiction speech or essay never encountered in class, on an unfamiliar occasion and issue, produce a complete rhetorical analysis identifying claim, warrant, and at least two rhetorical choices that function to persuade a specified audience.
   • The soundness of a warrant, independent of whether the procedure for locating a warrant was executed correctlyEvaluate whether a passage's stated or implied warrant is actually plausible, rather than merely present, by testing whether the cited evidence would still support the claim if the assumption were false, including for passages where the 'obvious' warrant does not actually hold.
   • The relationship between rhetorical skill and factual soundness of a claimEvaluate whether a text can be simultaneously rhetorically skillful and factually misleading, using a specific passage as the test case for that distinction.
5. Unit 5: Arguing With Sources: Synthesis Across Multiple TextsHere the move shifts from analyzing one text carefully to building an original claim out of three to five texts that agree, disagree, or simply aren't talking about the same thing. It reuses the Emerson/Douglass/Jacobs material from Unit 3 as the actual sources students synthesize.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Conflicting claims about individual authority in Transcendentalist and slave-narrative textsGiven two source excerpts that make conflicting claims about individual authority (one Transcendentalist, one slave-narrative), state in one sentence what each source would say to the other.
   • The definition of synthesis as claim-construction versus summary as sequential restatementDefine synthesis, distinguishing it in writing from summary, by naming what a synthesis must DO that a sequence of summaries does not.
   • A source-conflict map showing agreement, disagreement, and talking-past among two sources, using the modeled pair and structureGiven the exact source pair and column structure demonstrated in the Day 3 worked example, reproduce a completed source-conflict map for that same pair, correctly locating one agreement, one disagreement, and one talking-past entry in the text.
   • A source-conflict map showing agreement, disagreement, and talking-past among three sourcesGiven a set of 3 sources on a shared contested question, complete a source-conflict map identifying each source's position, one point of agreement, one point of disagreement, and one place where sources address different sub-questions entirely (talk past each other).
   • The concession-without-surrender move in argumentative paragraphsWrite a paragraph that concedes the validity of a conflicting source's evidence while explaining why the writer's own claim still stands.
   • The evidentiary status of a chart or social-media post used within a written argumentGiven a claim supported by a chart or social-media-style post presented as a fourth source, evaluate whether the visual is being offered as evidence or as illustration, and justify the distinction.
   • An original synthesis claim built from four previously unseen but topically related sourcesGiven four sources on a contested question none of which the student has synthesized before, generate an original claim that accounts for points of agreement and disagreement among all four, unprompted as to which sources conflict.
   • The difference between describing source conflict and resolving it into an original claimExplain why a synthesis essay that only describes source conflict, without resolving it into a claim, fails to meet the assignment's demand.
   • Argument-based (versus source-based) organizational structure for a multi-source essayOrganize a five-paragraph synthesis essay outline that groups sources by point of argument rather than by source-by-source sequence.
   • Collaborative extension and challenge of peer claims about source conflictsParticipate in a Socratic-style discussion building on peers' claims about a source conflict, citing specific textual evidence to extend or challenge another student's point.
6. Unit 6: Twentieth-Century Voices: Fiction, Drama, and the Argument Over IdentityThis is the unit where a novel or play gets treated as an argument, not just a story, and where the specific way it's built (whose voice you get, what's staged versus said, what's left unresolved) is treated as making a claim in itself. It calls back Unit 1's founding-mythology language and Unit 3's questions about who gets individual authority, now applied to modern, multi-voiced texts.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between a character's/narrator's stated claim and the text's structural treatment of that claimGiven a short excerpt, students correctly identify whether the narrator explicitly states a claim about identity/authority and distinguish that stated claim from what the surrounding plot confirms or undercuts.
   • Form (narrative structure or dramatic staging) as a vehicle for an implicit argument about individual authorityStudents explain how a specific formal choice (narrative structure, withheld information, or dramatic staging convention) in the core text makes a claim about who is allowed individual authority, using textual evidence.
   • The differential function of mythology-invocation (strengthening belonging vs. exposing exclusion) across contrasting textual momentsStudents compare two moments (within or across texts) that both invoke founding mythology (American Dream or self-reliance) and determine whether each invocation strengthens a character's claim to belonging or exposes a limit in the mythology.
   • Deliberate authorial irresolution between competing narrators as a structural argument about whose authority the reader can trustGiven two conflicting first-person accounts of the same scene from a multi-narrator text, students identify what each account requires the reader to overlook and argue why the author leaves the conflict structurally unresolved.
   • The terms persona, dramatic irony, and mythology revision/inversionStudents recall the definitions of persona, dramatic irony, and revision/inversion of mythology as introduced in this unit.
   • The core text's formal architecture as the vehicle for its claim about American identityStudents construct an original thesis arguing how a specific formal choice in the core text (not merely its content or a character's statement) makes a claim about American identity, and defend it with textual evidence in an extended essay.
   • Transfer of the form-as-argument analytic move to unseen prose and dramatic excerptsGiven a novel excerpt and a play excerpt neither read in class, students determine which formal device (narrative interiority vs. staging/silence) each uses to make an implicit claim about identity, without being told which device to look for.
   • Ambiguous or mixed authorial stance toward founding mythology invocationStudents classify a given passage as primarily invoking founding mythology to affirm belonging versus primarily invoking it to expose exclusion, when the passage's stance is ambiguous or mixed.
7. Unit 7: Compressed Arguments: Contemporary American Poetry and VoicePoetry gets treated the same way the play and novel did, as argument, just compressed into line breaks, white space, and what's left unsaid. It builds straight off Unit 6's persona and voice ideas, now applied to much shorter texts where every choice carries more weight.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Line break as a meaning-bearing choice, not a formatting artifactGiven a single sentence lineated three different ways, students identify which line-break placement best supports a stated interpretive claim and name the specific word placed at the line's end that creates that effect.
   • The gap between persona voice and poet identity in dramatic monologueStudents distinguish the persona's stated position from the poet's biographically plausible position in a dramatic monologue, citing at least one specific line where the two diverge.
   • Persona as a device that varies argumentative distance between speaker and readerGiven two persona poems addressing a related theme (e.g., inherited identity, displacement), students compare how each poem's persona choice changes the argument's rhetorical distance from the reader, and generalize this into a stated principle about persona as an argumentative tool.
   • Omission as a rhetorical choice that implies an unstated claimStudents state, as an original sentence the poem itself never states, the implicit claim created by a poem's deliberate omission of a specific detail (e.g., an unnamed cause, an absent apology, an unstated cause of loss).
   • Allusion as a compressed argumentative borrowing of another text's authority or meaningGiven an unfamiliar contemporary poem never discussed in class, students identify at least one allusion and explain what claim the poem borrows or argues against by invoking that referenced text or event.
   • Form-to-argument connection in contemporary poetry, applied through discussionStudents plan and deliver at least two evidence-based contributions in a Socratic seminar on assigned poems, each contribution citing a specific line and stating how a form choice (persona, line break, cadence, or omission) supports or complicates a claim about identity.
   • Comparative argument construction across two unfamiliar contemporary poems using form-based evidenceGiven two contemporary poems, one persona-driven, that neither poem was discussed in class, students construct a written comparative claim about how each poem's form choices argue a position on identity, and defend that claim using cited textual evidence from both poems.
   • Unit vocabulary: persona, dramatic monologue, cadence, enjambmentStudents recall the definitions of persona, dramatic monologue, cadence, and enjambment introduced or reintroduced in this unit when given the term without context.
8. Unit 8: The Research Argument: Building an Original ClaimThe year's final project: your child picks a research question, finds and evaluates at least six sources spanning two or more units from this year, and writes a documented argument that actually synthesizes across periods rather than cherry-picking whatever agrees with them. No new literary content, this is Unit 2/4's appeals vocabulary and Unit 5's synthesis definition, scaled up with real citations.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between a fact question, a yes/no question, and an arguable research questionGiven a course-EQ-adjacent topic, formulate a research question that is arguable, not a yes/no fact question, and narrow it to a scope answerable in 6-8 pages.
   • Criteria for source credibility (authorship, purpose, corroboration) as distinct from surface professionalismEvaluate a given source's credibility by checking who is behind it, its purpose, and corroboration elsewhere, rather than judging it by appearance or professionalism.
   • MLA in-text citation and works-cited entry formatRecall the MLA in-text citation format and works-cited entry structure for common source types (book, article, website).
   • MLA citation mechanics applied to a specific sourceExecute correct MLA in-text citations and a correctly formatted works-cited entry for a source provided by the teacher.
   • Points of agreement, disagreement, and non-overlap among sources spanning different historical periodsCompare two or more sources from different units/periods on the same research question to identify where they agree, disagree, or address different aspects of the question -- applying Unit 5's synthesis definition at research scale.
   • A thesis statement that synthesizes rather than summarizes sourced positionsGenerate an original claim (thesis) that accounts for the tension among sources rather than merely averaging or picking a side already agreed upon by one source.
   • Organizational structure of a synthesis-based argument (claim-driven vs. source-driven organization)Plan the organizational structure of a multi-source research argument, sequencing evidence and counterargument rather than summarizing sources one after another.
   • A documented, multi-source research argument draftProduce a full draft of the research argument integrating evidence from at least six sources across at least two units' texts, with correct in-text citation.
   • The writer's own source-selection and counterargument reasoningExplain and defend, in response to unscripted questions, why particular sources were selected and how a counterargument was addressed in the paper.
   • The multistructural-to-relational boundary in a peer's draft paragraphs (listing sources vs. synthesizing them)Critique a peer's draft by identifying where a paragraph lists source claims without connecting them versus where it constructs a synthesized point.
   • Source-credibility and synthesis criteria transferred to a non-course topicGiven an unfamiliar controversial topic outside the course's American-literature content, apply the source-credibility and synthesis criteria learned in this unit to evaluate a new set of sources.

Try a real American Voices, American Arguments: Literature and Rhetoric in Context lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Quadratic Functions Revisited: Structure and Complex NumbersThis unit takes quadratics, which your child can already factor and graph from Algebra I, and gives them three ways to write the same equation (standard, factored, vertex), a way to predict how many solutions an equation has before solving it (the discriminant), and a brand-new kind of number for when the answer to a square root is negative. The big idea is that completing the square isn't a random trick, it's the one procedure that generates vertex form AND the quadratic formula, so understanding it once explains both.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Completing the square as a rewriting procedure on x^2+bx+cGiven a quadratic in standard form with a leading coefficient of 1, complete the square to rewrite it in vertex form.
   • The discriminant as a predictor of root typeUse the discriminant b^2-4ac to predict whether a quadratic has two real roots, one repeated real root, or two complex roots, before solving the equation.
   • The derivation of the quadratic formula from completing the squareExplain why completing the square on ax^2+bx+c derives the quadratic formula, connecting each step of the general derivation to the corresponding step in a numeric example.
   • Representation choice among standard, factored, and vertex form of a quadraticGiven a real-world scenario modeled by a quadratic (projectile height, rectangular area, revenue), decide which algebraic form of the quadratic (standard, factored, or vertex) to write before solving, and justify the choice by naming the graph feature the question asks for.
   • Arithmetic of complex numbers in a+bi formSimplify arithmetic expressions involving i, including powers of i and multiplication of complex numbers in a+bi form, using i^2=-1.
   • Complex numbers as a closure extension of the real number systemExplain why the complex numbers were invented as a closure of the real numbers under square roots of negative numbers, comparing this invention to the earlier extension of the number system by negative numbers or irrational numbers.
   • Quadratics disguised in non-standard form (substitution-reducible or literal-coefficient equations)Given an unfamiliar equation that is quadratic in form but disguised (e.g., a quartic reducible by substitution, or a quadratic with irrational or literal coefficients not resembling any worked example), determine an appropriate solution method and solve it.
   • Reconstructing multiple equivalent forms of a quadratic from a graph, including the ambiguity of scaleGiven a graph of a parabola with no visible equation, generate all three algebraic forms (standard, factored where real roots exist, vertex) consistent with the graph, and identify which piece of information the graph does not uniquely determine (the leading coefficient's exact value versus its sign) without an additional point.
   • The definition of the imaginary unit iRecall the definition of i and state that i^2 = -1.
   • The three algebraic forms of a quadratic and their visible featuresClassify a set of given quadratic expressions by which form (standard, factored, vertex) they are already written in, and identify what information is immediately visible in each.
2. Unit 2: Polynomial Functions: Zeros, Behavior, and the Structure of Degree nSame factoring skills from Unit 1, now applied to polynomials with more than two factors, cubics, quartics, and beyond. Your child learns that a factored equation and a graph's x-intercepts are the same information in two different outfits, that a repeated factor changes the shape of the graph at that point, and that you can predict which way the far left and right ends of a graph point without plotting a single value.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Multiplicity of a zero as the exponent on its linear factorGiven a factored polynomial, identify each zero and state its multiplicity by counting repeated linear factors.
   • Polynomial long division algorithmDivide a polynomial by a linear binomial using long division and state the quotient and remainder.
   • The logical equivalence between a zero of p and (x-a) being a factor (Remainder/Factor Theorem)Explain why the Remainder Theorem guarantees that p(a) = 0 if and only if (x - a) is a factor, connecting the division algorithm to the factor-zero relationship.
   • The Rational Root Theorem as a search-space-narrowing toolUse the Rational Root Theorem to generate a finite list of candidate zeros for a degree 3-4 polynomial with integer coefficients, and test candidates using synthetic division.
   • Factoring by grouping for higher-degree polynomialsFactor a degree-3 or degree-4 polynomial by grouping when four or more terms share a groupable structure.
   • The graphical signature of even vs. odd multiplicityPredict whether a zero's graph crosses or touches (flattens against) the x-axis based on whether its multiplicity is odd or even.
   • End behavior as a function of degree parity and leading coefficient signDetermine end behavior of a polynomial from the parity of its degree and the sign of its leading coefficient, without evaluating any points.
   • A polynomial's graph as the joint product of zeros-with-multiplicity and end behaviorSketch a rough graph of a polynomial given its factored form, using zeros, multiplicities, and end behavior together, without plotting intermediate points.
   • Reverse-construction of a polynomial equation from graphical/verbal constraintsConstruct a polynomial's equation in factored form given a verbal description of its zeros with multiplicities, its end behavior, and one additional point to fix the leading coefficient.
   • Expansion as a check on a factored-form constructionVerify a constructed polynomial equation by expanding it and checking that the given point satisfies the expanded form.
   • Factored form vs. standard form as different windows onto the same polynomialCompare a polynomial's factored form and its expanded (standard) form and identify what each form makes visible or hides (zeros vs. sum/leading behavior).
3. Unit 3: Rational Expressions and Functions: When Division Doesn't FinishThis unit is about fractions where the top and bottom are polynomials. The core idea is that these functions behave normally almost everywhere, except at a few specific breakdown points, and whether a breakdown point is a harmless hole or an actual asymptote (a line the graph can't touch) is something you can tell from the factored equation alone, without even seeing the graph.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Domain restrictions of a rational expression, found before simplifyingGiven a rational expression in factored or factorable form, state its domain by identifying every value that makes the ORIGINAL (unsimplified) denominator equal to zero.
   • The distinction between a hole (removable discontinuity) and a vertical asymptote in a rational functionClassify a given break in a rational function's graph as a hole or a vertical asymptote by determining whether the corresponding factor cancels between numerator and denominator, and explain why cancellation produces a removable point rather than unbounded behavior.
   • Multiplication and division of rational expressionsMultiply and divide two rational expressions with polynomial numerators/denominators by factoring first, then canceling common factors before multiplying out.
   • Addition and subtraction of rational expressions with unlike denominatorsAdd and subtract rational expressions with unlike polynomial denominators by constructing a correct least common denominator built from the factored form of each denominator.
   • The relationship between algebraic equivalence of two rational expressions and their domainsGiven two rational expressions that appear different, determine whether they represent the same function everywhere or differ at specific excluded points, by comparing their domains after full factoring.
   • Solving rational equations and identifying extraneous solutionsSolve a rational equation by clearing denominators using the LCD, then determine which resulting solutions are valid by checking each one against the original equation's restrictions.
   • Horizontal asymptote behavior as a ratio of leading-term end behaviorsPredict the horizontal asymptote (or absence of one) for a rational function by comparing the degrees of its numerator and denominator, extending end-behavior reasoning about dominant terms from polynomial functions to ratios of polynomials.
   • Structural justification of hole versus asymptote using factored form, independent of graphical appearanceGiven two visually similar graphs of rational functions, one with a hole and one with a vertical asymptote at the same apparent location, justify the structural difference using only the factored equations, without relying on visual features of the graph.
   • Construction of a rational function from specified structural featuresConstruct a rational function equation that satisfies a specified combination of features (e.g., exactly one hole, one vertical asymptote, and a given horizontal asymptote), working backward from graphical structure to symbolic form.
4. Unit 4: Radical Functions, Rational Exponents, and Inverse FunctionsTwo things happen here that connect at the end. First, exponent rules your child already trusts (like x^2 * x^3 = x^5) get extended to fractional exponents, so square roots and cube roots turn out to be the same thing as exponents in disguise. Second, 'inverse' gets a real definition, not every function can be undone, and the horizontal line test tells you which ones can.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The definition of a rational exponent as an extension of integer exponent rulesGiven the integer exponent product rule, derive the value that a rational exponent like x^(1/2) or x^(1/3) must represent, and state the general rule x^(m/n) = (n-th root of x)^m.
   • Simplification of radical/rational-exponent expressions and denominator rationalizationSimplify radical and rational-exponent expressions (including products, quotients, and powers of powers) by applying integer exponent rules, and rationalize a denominator containing a single radical term.
   • Radical equations and the extraneous-solution checkSolve a radical equation by isolating the radical, raising both sides to the appropriate power, solving the resulting equation, and checking every candidate solution in the ORIGINAL equation to identify extraneous solutions.
   • The non-reversibility of squaring as the mechanism producing extraneous solutionsExplain why squaring both sides of a radical equation can introduce a solution that does not satisfy the original equation, in terms of which values of x make the squared equation true versus the original equation true.
   • The horizontal line test and the formal definition of a one-to-one functionGiven a function's graph or equation, determine whether it is one-to-one using the horizontal line test (from a graph) or by reasoning about repeated outputs (from an equation), and state whether an inverse function exists.
   • The structural distinction between one-to-one and many-to-one functions as it determines invertibilityCompare a one-to-one function's graph against a many-to-one function's graph (contrasting cases) to identify what structural feature of the many-to-one graph makes the swap-coordinates procedure fail to produce a function, and generalize this into the horizontal line test rule.
   • The algebraic procedure for finding and verifying an inverse function by compositionFind the algebraic inverse of a one-to-one function by swapping x and y and solving for y, and verify the result is correct by showing f(g(x)) = x and g(f(x)) = x.
   • Domain restriction as the method for creating an invertible piece of a non-one-to-one functionGiven a squaring-type function that fails the horizontal line test, restrict its domain to the smallest piece that both contains a given reference point and makes the function one-to-one, then find and verify the inverse of that restricted function.
   • Invertibility determined from algebraic structure alone, generalized beyond graphed function familiesDetermine, without graphing, whether an inverse function exists for a given algebraic rule from an unfamiliar function family, and justify the determination using only algebraic reasoning about repeated outputs.
   • Discriminant interpretation and rational-equation extraneous solutions, as long-retention targetsRecall the meaning of the discriminant (from Unit 1) in a new context and identify an extraneous solution in a rational equation (from Unit 3) on an un-cued delayed check.
5. Unit 5: Exponential and Logarithmic Functions: Two Kinds of ChangeThis unit explains why money in a savings account, a shrinking population of bacteria, and radioactive decay all follow the same kind of math, and why a logarithm isn't some separate weird topic, but just the question 'what power do I need?' asked formally. The single most important skill in this unit is telling from a table of numbers whether something is growing by the same AMOUNT each time (linear) or the same PERCENT each time (exponential), mixing these up is the most common real-world math mistake there is.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinguishing tests for linear, quadratic, and exponential tables (constant difference, constant second difference, constant ratio)Given a table of values, determine whether it shows constant absolute change, accelerating change, or constant relative (percent) change, and name the family (linear, quadratic, exponential).
   • Exponential growth/decay models built from a stated percent rateWrite an exponential function of the form y = a(1+r)^t or y = a(1-r)^t directly from a verbal description of a percent increase or decrease situation.
   • The logarithm as the inverse function of an exponentialExplain why log_b(x) is defined as the inverse of b^x, using the inverse-function schema (swap x and y, undo the operation) established in Unit 4.
   • Logarithm properties (product, quotient, power) as restatements of exponent rulesDerive the product, quotient, and power properties of logarithms from the corresponding exponent rules rather than recalling them as separate rules.
   • Exponential equations solved via logarithmsSolve exponential equations of the form ab^(ct) = d by rewriting as a logarithm and evaluating with technology.
   • Logarithmic equations and their domain restrictionsSolve logarithmic equations, including checking for extraneous solutions created by the restricted domain of the logarithm.
   • Model selection and construction among linear, quadratic, and exponential families for an unfamiliar contextGiven a real-world scenario (investment, population, decay, or a table framed as a mystery context) not previously seen in class, select the correct function family and construct a model that fits, defending the choice using the appropriate test.
   • The long-run divergence of linear versus exponential processes despite short-run similarityCompare a constant-percent-change process to a constant-absolute-change process that produce similar values over a short early interval, and explain why they diverge over a longer time frame.
6. Unit 6: Trigonometric Functions: Modeling Periodic BehaviorSine and cosine get rebuilt from the ground up using the unit circle, instead of leftover right-triangle ratios from geometry. The new ideas are radians (an angle measure connected to actual arc length, not an arbitrary unit), sine and cosine as coordinates that repeat forever, and treating things like daylight hours or a Ferris wheel as transformation problems, using the same shift/stretch/reflection vocabulary from Units 1, 2, and 5.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Radian measure as arc length on the unit circleGiven an angle measured as a rotation, state the radian measure as the length of the corresponding arc on a unit circle, and convert between degree and radian measure.
   • Unit circle definition of sine and cosine as coordinatesGiven any angle in standard position (including angles beyond 360 degrees or negative angles), identify the coordinates of the corresponding point on the unit circle as (cos theta, sin theta) and state the sign of each in each quadrant.
   • Periodicity as a structural property, contrasted against monotonic exponential behaviorExplain why sine and cosine are periodic functions with period 2pi by reasoning from repeated full rotations around the unit circle, and contrast this explicitly with the monotonic long-run behavior of exponential functions from Unit 5.
   • Amplitude, midline, and period as vertical stretch, vertical shift, and horizontal stretch of sine/cosineGiven a sine or cosine function in the form y = A sin(B(x - C)) + D, identify amplitude, midline, period, and horizontal shift, and graph the function by applying vertical stretch, vertical shift, and horizontal stretch to the parent function.
   • Fitting a sine/cosine model to features of periodic dataGiven a real periodic data set (e.g., daylight hours by day of year) presented as a table or scatterplot, determine amplitude, midline, and period directly from the data features and write a sine or cosine equation that models it.
   • Extrapolation from a periodic model versus a monotonic modelUse a constructed sine/cosine model to predict a value at an input outside the range of the original data set, and justify why the periodic structure supports extrapolation differently than a polynomial or exponential model would.
   • The Pythagorean identity derived from the unit circleProve that sin^2(theta) + cos^2(theta) = 1 follows from the Pythagorean theorem applied to the unit circle, and use the identity to find one trig value given another and the quadrant.
   • Recognizing and modeling an unfamiliar periodic context using the unit-circle-derived sine/cosine schemaGiven a novel periodic phenomenon described only in words and numbers (not sine/cosine language), such as a Ferris wheel or a pendulum, decide whether a sine/cosine model applies and construct one, generalizing the daylight-hours procedure to a structurally different but analogous situation without being told which family fits.
7. Unit 7: Sequences and Series: Discrete Growth as a Special CaseNo new kind of growth here, this unit shows that arithmetic sequences are just linear functions and geometric sequences are just exponential functions, both restricted to whole-number inputs (1st term, 2nd term, 3rd term...), wearing new vocabulary. The unit closes with adding up a finite list of geometric terms (genuinely new), and a first honest look at adding infinitely many numbers and getting a finite answer.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The structural distinction between arithmetic (constant additive difference) and geometric (constant multiplicative ratio) sequencesGiven a sequence presented as a list of terms, a table, or a context, identify whether it is generated by repeated addition or repeated multiplication and state which.
   • The explicit formula for arithmetic and geometric sequencesGiven the first term and common difference (or ratio) of a sequence, generate the explicit formula a(n) = a1 + (n-1)d [or a(n) = a1 * r^(n-1)] and use it to compute a specified term.
   • The correspondence between sequence formulas and their parent continuous functions (linear and exponential)Explain why the explicit formula for an arithmetic sequence has the same algebraic structure as a linear function's slope-intercept form, and why the geometric explicit formula mirrors exponential y = a*b^x, by identifying which part of each formula plays the role of rate/ratio and which plays the role of starting value.
   • The conversion between recursive and explicit representations of arithmetic and geometric sequencesGiven a recursive formula for a sequence, produce the equivalent explicit formula, and given an explicit formula, produce the equivalent recursive formula.
   • The finite geometric series sum formula and the multiply-and-subtract structure that produces itDerive the formula for the sum of a finite geometric series by examining the structure of S - rS for a specific numeric series, then generalize the pattern to symbolic a, r, n.
   • Arithmetic vs. geometric sequence models applied to unfamiliar real-world contextsGiven a real-world context (loan payments, medication decay, bouncing ball height, population with constant migration), determine whether an arithmetic model, a geometric model, or neither fits, and justify the choice using the pattern of successive differences or ratios in the data.
   • Convergence of an infinite geometric series when |r| < 1 and the sum formula S = a/(1-r)Given an infinite geometric series with |r| < 1 presented visually (e.g., a square repeatedly divided in half) and numerically, explain informally why the partial sums approach a finite limit and compute that limit using S = a/(1-r).
   • Discrimination between arithmetic and geometric sequence structure under confusable surface conditionsGiven two unfamiliar sequences side by side, one arithmetic and one geometric, with surface features deliberately similar (same first term, similarly sized second term), select the correct classification and formula type for each and explain what distinguishes them, without being told in advance which is which.
8. Unit 8: Statistics: Modeling and Trusting DataThis is the last unit, and it's where all seven prior function families get put to work on real, messy data. The first half is about picking the right kind of curve to fit data and checking how well it actually fits (using leftover errors called residuals). The second half switches gears entirely, from fitting models to trusting them, sampling bias, correlation versus causation, and reading conditional probability from a table, so your child can push back on a sloppy headline instead of just believing it.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The empirical (68-95-99.7) rule for normal distributionsGiven a data set's mean and standard deviation, estimate the percentage of values within 1, 2, or 3 standard deviations using the empirical rule.
   • Appropriateness conditions for the normal-distribution modelJudge, from a histogram or dot plot, whether a normal-distribution model is an appropriate fit for a given data set, citing skew, bimodality, or outliers as disqualifying features.
   • The constant-difference/constant-ratio diagnostic for choosing a regression familyClassify a scatter plot's pattern of first differences, ratios, or curvature to select linear, quadratic, or exponential as the candidate regression family, applying Unit 5's constant-difference/constant-ratio test.
   • Residuals and residual plots as evidence of model fitCompute residuals for a fitted regression model and interpret a residual plot's pattern as evidence for or against the chosen function family.
   • Function-family selection and extrapolation risk for a novel data setGiven an unfamiliar real data set with no family cue in the prompt, select, fit, and justify a function family using residual evidence, then state an explicit limitation on extrapolation.
   • Sampling method and its relationship to biasDistinguish a random sample from a convenience or self-selected sample in a described study, and identify how that sampling method could bias reported results.
   • The distinction between correlation and causationExplain why a strong correlation between two variables in a study does not by itself establish that one causes the other, using a specific plausible confound.
   • Conditional probability from two-way tablesCalculate a conditional probability from a two-way frequency table and use it to evaluate whether a reported study result depends on an unstated condition.
   • Evaluation criteria for reports based on dataCritique a real published or simulated news report of a study by identifying at least two of: sampling flaw, correlation/causation overreach, margin-of-error omission, or extrapolation beyond the data range.
   • Structural discrimination between quadratic and exponential fit given similar-looking scatter dataCompare two data sets with visually similar scatter plots but different residual patterns to determine which one exponential and which one is quadratic, using structural features rather than surface curve shape alone.

Try a real Algebra II: Functions, Structure, and Modeling lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Describing Motion: Kinematics in One and Two DimensionsThis unit is about building a precise way to talk about motion, position, velocity, acceleration, and vectors, using graphs and real rolling objects, before ever asking why something moves. Think of it as vocabulary-building: every later unit's diagrams and graphs assume your child can read this language fluently.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Relative motion and reference framesGiven a described scenario (e.g., a person walking on a moving train observed from the platform and from inside the train), state the velocity of the object in each named reference frame and explain why both are correct.
   • Scalar vs. vector quantitiesClassify given quantities (e.g., 5 m, 5 m north, 30 mph, 30 mph east, -9.8 m/s^2) as scalar or vector based on whether direction is specified.
   • The relationship between slope of a position-time graph and velocityGiven a position-time graph, determine the sign and relative magnitude of velocity across different segments by computing slope.
   • The correspondence between position-time and velocity-time graph featuresGiven a position-time graph with curvature, construct the corresponding velocity-time graph, and explain what feature of each graph (slope vs. height) represents velocity in the other.
   • Average vs. instantaneous velocityDistinguish average velocity from instantaneous velocity by computing both from a data table and explaining when they differ.
   • Constant-acceleration kinematics equationsExecute the constant-acceleration (kinematics) equations to solve for an unknown quantity (position, velocity, acceleration, or time) given the other three, in one-dimensional motion problems.
   • Selection among constant-acceleration kinematics equations based on known/unknown quantitiesGiven a real-world one-dimensional motion word problem with no explicit labeling of which kinematics equation applies, select and apply the correct equation and justify the choice based on which quantities are known and unknown.
   • Independence of horizontal and vertical components of projectile motionDecompose a projectile's initial velocity vector into independent horizontal and vertical components using right-triangle trigonometry, and explain why horizontal and vertical motion can be analyzed independently.
   • Physical plausibility of graphed motionGiven a set of graphed motions (position-time or velocity-time) not seen during instruction, identify which represent physically impossible motion and justify the judgment using vector and rate reasoning rather than formula-matching.
   • Prediction of future motion from experimentally derived velocity-time dataUsing position-time data collected from a rolling-ball lab, generate a velocity-time graph and use it to predict the ball's position at a future time beyond the collected data, then evaluate the accuracy of that prediction against a real re-run one week later.
2. Unit 2: Forces and Newton's LawsThis is where 'how something moves' turns into 'why it moves that way.' Your child will spend real time on free-body diagrams, simple sketches of every force acting on an object, and use Newton's three laws to explain motion instead of just describing it. Most of this unit's difficulty is not the math; it's unlearning a very natural but wrong idea that moving things need a constant push to keep going.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Free-body diagrams representing forces acting on a single objectGiven a labeled scenario (object at rest, constant velocity, or accelerating), draw a correct free-body diagram showing all forces acting on the object as vectors with appropriate relative lengths and directions.
   • Newton's first law (inertia) as it applies to motion without a sustaining forceExplain, using Newton's first law, why an object in motion with no net force continues at constant velocity rather than slowing down on its own.
   • Newton's first law applied to scenarios engineered to trigger impetus misconceptionsPredict the outcome of a force scenario that conflicts with impetus reasoning (e.g., a ball leaving a curved tube) and justify the prediction using Newton's first law rather than surface features of the scenario.
   • The F = ma relationship as a proportional statement linking net force, mass, and accelerationCalculate the acceleration, net force, or mass of an object given the other two quantities using F = ma, including cases with multiple forces that must first be combined into a net force.
   • The proportional (not merely computational) relationship between force, mass, and accelerationExplain why doubling the net force on an object doubles its acceleration but doubling its mass at constant force halves its acceleration, using the proportional structure of F = ma rather than only computing numbers.
   • Newton's third law interaction pairs versus balanced forces acting on one objectIdentify the Newton's-third-law interaction pair for a given force (e.g., table pushing up on book) and distinguish it from a same-object balanced-force pair that happens to look similar.
   • Static and kinetic friction and the transition between them, evidenced by measured force and acceleration dataGiven measured data on force applied and acceleration produced while dragging a household object across an untaught surface, determine the coefficient of kinetic friction and evaluate whether the object's behavior is consistent with the static-then-kinetic friction model.
   • The distinction between mass (invariant) and weight (dependent on local gravitational field)Distinguish weight from mass by explaining what would happen to each quantity for the same object on the Moon, and generalize the relationship W = mg to a hypothetical planet with a stated gravitational field strength never discussed in class.
   • Argumentation defending a Newtonian prediction against an explicitly stated impetus-theory counterclaimConstruct a written argument, citing specific evidence from a force scenario, defending a prediction that conflicts with a stated impetus-theory justification offered by a hypothetical student.
3. Unit 3: Momentum and CollisionsThis unit is about a rule that holds no matter how violent or gentle a collision is: total momentum before equals total momentum after, as long as nothing outside the system interferes. Your child will derive this themselves from Newton's third law, then test it against real, messy collision data, learning to tell the difference between 'the law failed' and 'my measurement was off.'8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Momentum as the product of mass and velocityGiven an object's mass and velocity vector, calculate its momentum and state its direction.
   • Impulse-momentum theorem (J = FΔt = Δp)Given force-vs-time data for an interaction, calculate impulse as the area under the curve and relate it to the resulting change in momentum using the impulse-momentum theorem.
   • Derivation of momentum conservation from Newton's third lawExplain why total momentum is conserved in an isolated two-object collision by reasoning from Newton's third law applied over the same time interval.
   • Conservation of momentum applied to real, imperfect experimental dataGiven before-and-after velocity data for a two-object collision, determine whether total momentum was conserved within reasonable measurement error and identify plausible sources of any discrepancy.
   • The qualitative distinction between elastic and inelastic collisionsDistinguish elastic from inelastic collisions by comparing whether total kinetic energy, as well as total momentum, is conserved across the same before/after data set.
   • The isolated-system criterion for conservation of momentumPredict, without calculating, whether momentum will be conserved in a described everyday collision scenario the class has not analyzed (e.g., a shopping cart bumping a wall, a meteor striking a planet, a person jumping off a stationary skateboard), and justify the prediction using the definition of an isolated system.
   • Impulse-momentum reasoning applied to injury-reduction engineering (crumple zones, airbags)Construct a written argument, using impulse-momentum reasoning and no new numerical calculation, for why increasing the time of a collision (e.g., a crumple zone or airbag) reduces the force experienced without changing the total impulse required.
   • System definition and its effect on whether conservation appliesGiven a novel three-object or multi-stage collision/explosion scenario, determine whether treating different subsets of objects as 'the system' changes the conclusion about momentum conservation.
4. Unit 4: Work, Energy, and PowerThis unit builds a second way of accounting for what happens in a collision or a moving system, energy, and immediately sets it side by side with momentum from Unit 3 so your child has to tell them apart on purpose. They'll work through kinetic energy, potential energy, conservation of energy in ideal setups, and where energy actually goes in real ones (heat, sound, deformation), ending with power.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Work as force times displacement, with angle/component considerationGiven a force applied at an angle to displacement, calculate the work done using W = Fd cos(theta), and correctly identify when work done is zero, positive, or negative.
   • Kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) and gravitational potential energy (mgh)Calculate kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for an object given mass, velocity, and/or height, and correctly apply units (Joules) throughout.
   • Conservation of mechanical energy and energy dissipation as heat/sound/deformationExplain why mechanical energy is conserved in an idealized frictionless system but not in a real system, identifying where the 'missing' energy goes.
   • The distinction between conditions for momentum conservation (always, isolated system) versus mechanical energy conservation (only without dissipation)For a given collision or mechanical scenario, determine whether momentum, mechanical energy, both, or neither is conserved, and justify the determination using the physical conditions of the event (elastic vs. inelastic, presence of external force, presence of dissipation).
   • Power as rate of energy transfer (P = W/t = ΔE/t)Calculate power as the rate of energy transfer or work done over time, and interpret what a given power rating means in terms of energy transferred per second.
   • Experimental verification of conservation of mechanical energy using height and speed measurementsDesign and carry out a household-materials investigation (ramp-and-cart or pendulum) to test whether height-related potential energy converts to kinetic energy in a pattern consistent with conservation of mechanical energy, and identify sources of measured energy loss.
   • Application of energy and momentum conservation reasoning to novel multi-stage mechanical systemsGiven a novel machine or system description not discussed in class (e.g., a roller coaster loop, a bungee jump, a ballistic pendulum), predict and justify which conservation law(s) apply at each stage and identify where energy transformations occur.
   • Quality of justification for conservation-law selection in mechanical scenariosCritique a peer's or sample's written justification of which conservation law applies to a given scenario, identifying whether the justification confuses momentum and energy conservation or omits a necessary condition (e.g., ignoring an external force or dissipation).
   • Real-world energy transformation processes described in technical/informational textInterpret a technical text or video (e.g., on regenerative braking or roller coaster engineering) describing an energy transformation process, and synthesize it with the class's conservation-of-energy model to explain the process in the student's own words.
5. Unit 5: Waves: Energy Transport Without Matter TransportThis unit breaks the idea that 'traveling' always means an object changing location. A wave moves energy through a medium while each point in that medium just oscillates in place and ends up back where it started. Your child will build wave vocabulary, amplitude, wavelength, period, frequency, from watching a rope or slinky before ever seeing the formula v = fλ, then use interference to show that two waves can cross each other and keep going unchanged, which is the real evidence that a wave isn't a moving object.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The parts of a transverse wave (amplitude, wavelength, crest, trough)Given a labeled snapshot of a transverse wave, identify and label amplitude, wavelength, crest, and trough.
   • The distinction between transverse and longitudinal wave motionClassify a given wave demonstration (rope shake, slinky push-pull, sound in air, water ripple) as transverse or longitudinal based on the relationship between particle motion and wave travel direction.
   • The wave equation v = fλ and its relationship to T = 1/fCalculate wave speed, frequency, wavelength, or period given the other two quantities using v = fλ and T = 1/f.
   • Wave speed as a property of the medium, independent of amplitude or frequency of the sourceExplain why wave speed is a property of the medium rather than a property of the disturbance producing the wave, citing a specific medium property (tension, density, temperature) as evidence.
   • Superposition of two overlapping wave pulsesPredict the resulting displacement pattern when two wave pulses of given shape and amplitude meet, applying the principle of superposition.
   • Constructive and destructive interference as outcomes of superpositionDistinguish constructive from destructive interference in a given two-source scenario and predict resulting amplitude at a point.
   • The difference between a medium particle's local oscillation and the wave's propagationExplain, using the motion of one specific labeled point on a medium over one full period, why that point's motion is not the same as the wave's motion.
   • Superposition reasoning applied to an untaught interference contextGiven an unfamiliar two-wave scenario (e.g., two speakers producing a quiet spot in a room, described but not previously modeled), infer whether interference is occurring and justify using superposition reasoning.
   • An experimental procedure for measuring wavelength, frequency, and computing wave speed from household materialsDesign and carry out a measurement procedure using household materials (string/rope or water tray) to determine wavelength and frequency, then calculate and compare predicted vs. measured wave speed.
   • Wave-based energy transport vs. object-based energy transportCompare the mechanism of energy transport by a wave to the mechanism of energy transport by a moving object (from Unit 4), identifying what is conserved and what is transferred in each case.
6. Unit 6: Light, the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and FieldsThis unit takes everything just learned about waves and asks: does light follow the same rules? Some things carry over, wavelength, frequency, v=fλ, and one big thing doesn't: light needs no medium at all. Your child will build the electromagnetic spectrum as the same v=fλ relationship at different scales, learn to draw reflection and refraction ray diagrams, and meet the idea of a 'field', a way of describing influence that exists at every point in space, whether or not anything is sitting there to feel it.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The wave equation v=fλ applied to electromagnetic wavesGiven a wave's frequency and the speed of light in vacuum, calculate its wavelength using v=fλ, and vice versa.
   • The electromagnetic spectrum and the energy-frequency relationshipOrder a set of electromagnetic waves (radio, microwave, infrared, visible, UV, X-ray, gamma) by increasing frequency and explain that photon energy increases with frequency.
   • The law of reflection and ray-diagram notationConstruct a ray diagram showing an incident ray, normal line, and reflected ray for a plane mirror, correctly applying the law of reflection.
   • Refraction as a consequence of a wave's speed change at a boundaryPredict the qualitative direction a ray bends when passing from a faster to a slower optical medium, using the change-in-speed explanation rather than a 'crowding' account.
   • The set of wave properties that generalize across mechanical and electromagnetic waves versus those that do notCompare light and the mechanical waves studied in Unit 5 (water, rope) to determine which properties (wavelength, frequency, v=fλ relationship, transverse oscillation, need for a medium) transfer to light and which do not, citing evidence from the vacuum-jar contrast and reflection lab data.
   • The field model as a description of influence at every point in space independent of whether a test object occupies that pointExplain why a field model (defining a value at every point in space, including points with no object present) resolves the 'action at a distance with nothing there' problem raised by light traveling through a vacuum.
   • Prediction of interference behavior for untaught EM-wave scenarios using the field modelGiven a novel scenario (a wave phenomenon not discussed in class, e.g., two flashlight beams crossing in a dark room), predict whether the beams will show interference effects like water waves or pass through unaffected, and justify the prediction using the field model rather than memorized examples.
   • Inference of relative wave speed in an unknown medium from observed refraction angleGiven an unfamiliar transparent material's approximate refractive behavior (e.g., a novel gemstone bending light more sharply than glass), infer whether light travels faster or slower in that material than in air, without being told the speed directly.
   • Scattering versus specular reflection as distinct light-matter interaction mechanismsDistinguish frequency-dependent scattering (why the sky is blue) from wavelength-independent reflection (why a mirror image is not colored) as two different light-matter interactions, given a written explanation containing both phenomena.
   • The student's own reflection lab data and its relationship to the law of reflectionSummarize the household ray-diagram lab procedure and results in a lab report that states the measured angle relationship and the predicted image location, with the claim supported by the specific angle measurements collected.
7. Unit 7: Electricity and CircuitsThis unit treats circuits as a new home for two ideas your child already trusts: charge in equals charge out, and energy supplied equals energy dissipated. Voltage gets introduced as energy per unit charge, the field idea from Unit 6 made measurable, rather than as a brand-new mystery quantity. Your child builds real circuits with batteries and bulbs before formalizing Ohm's law, then applies everything to a sealed 'mystery box' they have to figure out using only a multimeter.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Conservation of charge in a single-loop series circuitGiven a simple series circuit diagram, a student identifies the direction of conventional current flow and states the value of current at any two points in the loop.
   • The proportional relationship V=IR among voltage, current, and resistanceGiven a circuit diagram with a battery and one resistor, a student calculates current using V=IR when voltage and resistance are given, and calculates the missing quantity when either of the other two is given instead.
   • The structural difference between series and parallel circuit topology and its effect on current and voltage distributionA student compares a series and a parallel circuit built from identical bulbs and batteries and explains why bulb brightness changes differently as bulbs are added to each configuration, referencing current and voltage separately.
   • Electrical power and energy dissipation using the P=IV relationshipA student calculates electrical power dissipated by a resistor using P=IV and, separately, energy delivered over a stated time interval, connecting the result to Unit 4's definition of power as energy transfer per unit time.
   • Inferring internal circuit structure from external voltage-current measurementsGiven measurements of total voltage and current for an unknown combination of two resistors, a student infers whether the resistors are arranged in series or in parallel and estimates their individual resistances.
   • Circuit diagrams and free-body diagrams as structurally analogous modeling abstractionsA student draws an analogy between a circuit diagram and a free-body diagram from Unit 2, explaining what each abstracts away from the real system and why both are legitimate models despite the simplification.
   • A measurement-based strategy for characterizing an unknown circuit from external inputs and outputs onlyGiven a sealed mystery box with two external terminals and access only to a multimeter, a student designs a measurement sequence that will determine whether the internal components are in series, parallel, or a combination, and justifies why the sequence is sufficient.
   • The distinction between voltage (energy per charge) added by series batteries and current capacity added by parallel batteriesA student explains why doubling the number of identical batteries in series increases the energy delivered per unit charge while doubling identical batteries in parallel does not, without invoking the discredited notion that more batteries simply means more current under all conditions.
8. Unit 8: Capstone: Engineering Design Under ConstraintNo new physics gets taught here. Your child picks (or is assigned) a constrained build, a mousetrap or rubber-band car that has to travel a set distance and stop in a target zone, or a circuit device that has to meet a power/resistance target, and has to figure out, without being told, which tools from the whole year apply. They predict performance on paper first, build it, test it, and use the gap between prediction and reality to figure out whether their physics reasoning or their construction was the problem. They do this twice.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Criteria versus constraints in an engineering design briefGiven a design brief, the student writes measurable criteria (e.g., stopping distance within a marked zone ±5 cm) and lists physical/material constraints (allowed materials, size, cost) separately from criteria.
   • Model selection among kinematics, force, energy, momentum, and circuit modelsThe student selects which prior-unit model (kinematics, Newton's second law, energy conservation, momentum conservation, or circuit rules) applies to a specific sub-question about their device, and states why the other models do not fit that sub-question.
   • Pre-build quantitative prediction using energy or circuit equationsThe student calculates a predicted stopping distance (or predicted circuit power output) for their design using energy-conservation or circuit equations before construction, showing all given values and units.
   • Discrepancy between predicted and measured design performanceThe student compares predicted performance data against measured test data for two design iterations and identifies specific sources of discrepancy (e.g., friction not modeled, energy lost to sound/heat, measurement error).
   • Diagnosis of design failure as reasoning error versus construction errorGiven their own iteration-1 and iteration-2 data, the student explains whether a design failure was caused by an error in physics reasoning (wrong model or wrong equation) or an error in construction (build did not match the modeled assumptions), citing specific data as evidence.
   • Iterative redesign informed by discrepancy diagnosisThe student redesigns one specific component of their device in response to a diagnosed discrepancy and re-predicts performance using the same model, adjusting at least one input variable.
   • Integration of concepts from at least three prior units in a design rationaleIn their written report, the student cites and correctly applies concepts from at least three prior units (e.g., kinematics prediction, energy-loss accounting, circuit power constraint) to justify their design's physics rationale.
   • Qualitative prediction of design outcome under an unrehearsed parameter changeDuring the oral defense, the student answers a novel 'what if we changed X' question (e.g., doubled the mass, halved the resistance) by reasoning from the underlying model rather than recalling a rehearsed answer, predicting the qualitative direction of the change in outcome.
   • Equation forms for KE, PE, F=ma, and P=IV from Units 2, 4, and 7The student recalls the equation forms for kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, Newton's second law, and electrical power without reference, in the context of a mixed retrieval warm-up.

Try a real Algebra-Based Physics: Modeling Matter, Motion, and Energy lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Industrial America and the Gilded AgeThis is where the course starts: the period right after Reconstruction when factories, railroads, and a handful of very rich men reshaped the country faster than the law could keep up. Your child will look at real strike accounts, wage data, and immigration numbers and build an argument about whether industrial growth mostly helped ordinary Americans or mostly hurt them, and the honest answer is 'it depends who you ask,' which is the point.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinguishing features of a trust versus a monopolyGiven a definition and a short scenario, the student classifies a described business arrangement as either a trust, a monopoly, both, or neither, and states which feature of the scenario determined the classification.
   • The gap between the Sherman Antitrust Act's text and its actual enforcement in the Gilded AgeThe student explains why the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) was rarely enforced against major trusts during the period it was in effect within this unit, citing at least one specific structural or political reason from the unit's sources.
   • The robber baron vs. captain of industry interpretive framework applied to the same historical actorGiven Carnegie's 'Gospel of Wealth' excerpt and a Homestead strike worker's account describing the same company, the student compares how each source characterizes the relationship between industrial wealth and worker welfare, and identifies the value each author prioritizes.
   • The mixed and group-dependent effects of industrialization on wages, immigration, and urban living conditionsThe student infers, from a set of unlabeled wage, immigration, and urban population data for 1877-1900, whether industrialization's effects on ordinary Americans were uniformly positive, uniformly negative, or mixed depending on which group is examined, and states which specific data point most complicates a one-sided claim.
   • The pattern of government intervention favoring employers in Gilded Age labor disputesGiven a new, previously unseen primary source excerpt from a Gilded Age labor dispute the student has not studied (e.g., a coal strike outside the unit's covered cases), the student determines which side of the strike the government sided with and generates a plausible reason why, based on patterns identified across the unit's studied strikes.
   • The builder-versus-destroyer historical debate over Gilded Age big business, evaluated across a mixed document setThe student constructs a DBQ argument answering whether big business in the Gilded Age was more a builder or destroyer of American opportunity, using all 5 provided documents, that explicitly addresses at least one instance where two documents are in tension rather than treating all documents as pointing the same direction.
   • The chronological sequence of major Gilded Age economic and labor events, 1877-1900The student recalls the correct chronological order of five key events (Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, Homestead Strike 1892, Panic of 1893, Pullman Strike 1894, formation of a major trust) without reference to notes.
   • The role of government policy (tariffs, land grants, court injunctions) in enabling industrial growth, against a purely self-made narrativeGiven an argument claiming 'industrialists were entirely self-made and government played no role in their success,' the student critiques the argument by identifying at least two specific pieces of counter-evidence from the unit (e.g., tariff protection, land grants to railroads) that the claim ignores.
   • The transferability of the builder/destroyer interpretive framework to market concentration in an unstudied historical or contemporary contextGiven a claim about a completely different historical period never discussed in this course (e.g., 21st-century Big Tech antitrust debates, described only in a short unlabeled scenario), the student determines whether the same builder/destroyer interpretive tension from the Gilded Age applies, and justifies the judgment using the structural criteria (market control, worker/consumer impact, government response) developed in this unit rather than any surface similarity.
2. Unit 2: The Progressive ResponseNow that your child knows what was broken in the Gilded Age, this unit asks whether the fixes actually worked, or whether the people doing the 'fixing' were also doing some controlling of their own. It's 14 days of matching specific abuses to specific reforms, and confronting the uncomfortable fact that the same reformers who protected factory workers also pushed immigration restriction and other exclusionary laws.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Muckraking journalism as a documentary genre exposing specific industrial/urban conditionsGiven a primary-source excerpt from a muckraking text (e.g., The Jungle, How the Other Half Lives), the student identifies the specific abuse or condition the author is documenting and states it in one sentence.
   • The causal relationship between a specific documented industrial/economic abuse and a specific Progressive-era regulatory responseThe student matches a specific Gilded Age abuse (named in Unit 1) to the single Progressive-era reform or regulatory agency that most directly targeted the mechanism of that abuse, citing text from both units.
   • The legal distinction in antitrust law between firm size and anticompetitive practiceThe student explains why the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts targeted the mechanism of monopolistic pricing/rebate practices rather than the existence of large companies as such.
   • The dual character of Progressive-era reform legislation as simultaneously protective and controllingThe student classifies a list of specific Progressive-era reforms (workplace safety laws, prohibition, immigration literacy tests, direct primary, eugenics-based sterilization statutes) according to whether each expanded protection for a group or restricted/controlled a group.
   • The internal contradictions and shared underlying motives (social control, efficiency, moral order) within the Progressive coalitionThe student constructs a written argument explaining why the same Progressive coalition could simultaneously support protective labor legislation and restrictive/exclusionary legislation, resolving the apparent contradiction rather than merely listing both types.
   • The conservation-versus-preservation distinction in Progressive-era federal land policyGiven the contrasting cases of Gifford Pinchot's conservationist resource-management approach and John Muir's preservationist approach, the student infers the underlying disagreement about the purpose of federal public land, without being told the distinction in advance.
   • The multi-decade organizational campaign (state campaigns, NAWSA strategy, wartime leverage) leading to constitutional ratificationThe student traces the specific sequence of organizational and legislative steps between the initial moral/political claim for women's suffrage and the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, without skipping intermediate institutional steps.
   • The general procedure of matching a documented abuse's specific mechanism to a reform's specific legal provisionThe student applies the abuse-to-reform matching procedure (developed in this unit) to a specific reform-abuse pair from a Progressive-era policy area not directly taught in this unit's lessons (e.g., pure food/drug regulation applied to a not-previously-discussed adulteration practice, or banking-panic regulation applied to the Federal Reserve Act).
   • The recurring, generalizable tension between market freedom and government regulatory authority as a pattern across historical periods, not a fact specific to 1900-1916The student generalizes the regulation-vs-market tension identified across Units 1-2 into a statement about how the boundary between market freedom and government authority gets renegotiated, applicable beyond the Progressive Era.
3. Unit 3: World War II and the Reordering of SocietyThis 16-day unit (second quarter) covers how a total war rebuilt the American economy and government at an even bigger scale than the New Deal did, and asks a hard, uncomfortable question: how do you fight a war for freedom abroad while denying it to Japanese Americans, Black service members, and women at home? Your child will build a single evidence-based essay across the whole unit rather than writing it all at the end.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The transition from New Deal relief spending to wartime deficit spending as the mechanism that ended the DepressionExplain how the shift from Depression-era relief spending to wartime production spending (1940-1944) ended mass unemployment, citing at least two specific mechanisms (military conscription reducing labor supply, federal war contracts).
   • Categories of home-front wartime measures (economic mobilization, social control, civil liberties restriction)Classify a set of ten short home-front practices (rationing books, victory gardens, war bond drives, price controls, women riveters, Japanese American removal orders, Double V campaign editorials, labor union no-strike pledges, propaganda posters, conscription notices) as primarily economic mobilization, primarily social control, or primarily civil liberties restriction, and justify borderline cases.
   • The legal/political justification mechanisms behind Japanese American incarceration versus military segregationCompare the legal and political mechanisms used to justify Japanese American incarceration (Executive Order 9066, Korematsu v. United States) with the legal and political mechanisms used to justify continued segregation of Black service members, identifying one structural similarity and one structural difference in how the federal government justified each.
   • The persuasive intent embedded in a specific piece of wartime government propagandaInfer the likely motivation behind a specific instance of wartime government messaging (a Rosie the Riveter poster, an Office of War Information film clip, or a war bond advertisement) by identifying who is being addressed, what behavior is sought, and what is left unsaid, using no external source beyond the artifact and its publication context.
   • Corroboration of an unseen primary source against previously studied unit evidence on the home frontGiven a primary source excerpt the student has not seen before (e.g., a letter from a Japanese American internee, a Double V campaign editorial, or a war worker's oral history not used in class), corroborate its claims against at least one other unit source and identify one point of agreement and one point the new source adds that class sources did not cover.
   • An argument evaluating U.S. fidelity to its stated WWII war aims using home-front and incarceration/segregation evidenceConstruct a source-based written argument, using at least one home-front document and one incarceration-or-military-segregation document, that takes a defensible position on whether the U.S. lived up to its stated war aims, addressing at least one plausible counterargument.
   • The generalizable legal pattern of 'military necessity' reasoning as applied beyond the Japanese American incarceration caseGiven a brand-new case not covered in this unit (e.g., internment-adjacent restriction of German or Italian resident aliens, or a hypothetical modern wartime civil-liberties scenario), predict and justify whether the same legal reasoning used in Korematsu could apply, generalizing the 'military necessity outweighs individual rights claim' pattern beyond the taught case.
   • The chronological sequence of events from U.S. neutrality to the Pearl Harbor attackRecall the chronological sequence of the road to Pearl Harbor (Neutrality Acts, Lend-Lease, oil embargo on Japan, Pearl Harbor attack, declaration of war) in correct order.
   • The Double V campaign's dual-victory framing and its logicSummarize the Double V campaign's dual aims (victory over fascism abroad, victory over racism at home) and explain why the Pittsburgh Courier framed the two as inseparable rather than sequential.
4. Unit 4: The Sixties: Vietnam, Rights, and BacklashAn 18-day unit (originally planned for 17, but two lessons needed a second day each) on how the 1960s produced both the biggest civil rights laws in a century and a war that badly damaged public trust in government. Your child extends the movement-mechanics pattern from Unit 4 to Black Power, women's liberation, and environmental organizing, and works through Vietnam's escalation and the gap between what officials said and what was actually happening on the ground.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The chronological sequence of Great Society legislation and Vietnam escalation, 1963-1972Given a blank 1963-1972 timeline, place at least 8 major Great Society and Vietnam escalation events in correct chronological order and state one causal link between two adjacent events.
   • The mechanism differences between Great Society programs and New Deal agenciesExplain how at least two specific Great Society programs (e.g., Medicare, Head Start) targeted a different population or mechanism than a named New Deal agency, using the regulation-vs-market thread vocabulary.
   • The four-part social movement mechanics frame applied to post-1965 civil rights organizingApply the four-part social movement mechanics frame (organizing, media strategy, legal strategy, backlash) developed in Unit 4 to explain the post-1965 civil rights movement's shift toward economic justice and Black Power.
   • The shared organizing/media/legal-strategy structure across the women's liberation and environmental movementsCompare the organizing, media, and legal strategies of the women's liberation movement and the environmental movement to identify a shared underlying structure, before either strategy set was explicitly named as an instance of the movement-mechanics frame.
   • The applicability and limits of the movement-mechanics frame when applied to the anti-war student movementGiven no prior instruction connecting the frame to this specific case, determine whether the anti-Vietnam-War student movement fits the four-part movement-mechanics frame or requires a modified version of it, and justify the determination with evidence.
   • Evidence of a credibility gap between official statements and battlefield reality in Vietnam-era primary sourcesEvaluate a primary source news broadcast or government statement about the Vietnam War for evidence of a credibility gap, citing specific textual or visual details that contradict an official claim.
   • The relative causal weight of Vietnam versus domestic unrest in damaging public trust in government, 1963-1972Construct a ranked causal argument, using at least four primary sources, for whether Vietnam or domestic unrest did more lasting damage to American public trust in government, explicitly weighing and connecting the sources rather than listing them.
   • The containment doctrine as applied to the strategic logic of Vietnam interventionRecall the definition and one historical application of 'containment' and 'sphere of influence' from Unit 5, then correctly apply 'containment' to explain the strategic logic of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
5. Unit 5: Conservative Resurgence and the End of the Cold WarCovers 1973 to 1991: the pivot away from the New Deal/Great Society approach toward deregulation and tax cuts, the assembly of the modern conservative coalition, and the Soviet Union's collapse. This 16-day unit treats the 1980s as another turn of two arguments the course has followed since Unit 1, how much the government should regulate the economy, and what containment actually means, rather than as an isolated decade about one president.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • Stagflation as a crisis of the Keynesian policy consensusExplain how stagflation (simultaneous inflation and unemployment) undermined confidence in the Keynesian demand-management consensus that had governed U.S. economic policy since the New Deal.
   • Supply-side and monetarist economic policy versus Keynesian demand managementClassify specific 1980s policy changes (e.g., ERTA tax cuts, airline and trucking deregulation, Fed interest rate policy under Volcker) as either supply-side/monetarist or Keynesian in their underlying economic logic.
   • The continuity and change in the regulation-vs-market argument across 100+ years of U.S. historyCompare the economic-argument thread from Unit 1 (laissez-faire vs. trust regulation), Unit 3 (New Deal regulation), and Unit 7 (deregulation) to identify what stays constant in the underlying dispute and what changes with each era's circumstances.
   • The composition of the New Right political coalitionIdentify the three major constituencies (economic conservatives, religious/social conservatives, Cold War hawks) that made up the New Right coalition and give a specific 1970s-80s example of each.
   • Social movement mechanics (organizing, media strategy, backlash) applied to the New RightExplain how the mechanics of social movement organizing (framed explicitly in Unit 6) apply to the New Right as a movement -- its organizing infrastructure, media strategy, and use of backlash against the 1960s-70s left -- rather than treating it only as a set of election results.
   • Continuity and change in containment doctrine from Truman/Kennan through Vietnam to the Reagan DoctrineCompare the Reagan Doctrine's approach to containment with the containment doctrine as originally articulated by Kennan and applied in Vietnam (Units 5-6) to determine what continued and what changed.
   • Competing historical explanations for the Soviet collapse (internal weakness vs. external/U.S. pressure)Given a primary source excerpt from a U.S. policymaker or a Soviet official never encountered in class, infer which side of the internal-weakness-versus-external-pressure debate about Soviet collapse the author's evidence would support, and identify what additional evidence would be needed to test that inference.
   • A defensible causal argument about the primary cause of Soviet collapse, structured to rebut the counter-argumentConstruct a rebuttal-integrated causal essay arguing a primary cause of Soviet collapse that explicitly anticipates and answers the strongest evidence for the opposing causal explanation, using both U.S.-policy and internal-Soviet evidence.
   • Transfer of the regulation-vs-market and engagement-vs-restraint frameworks to an unstudied caseGiven an economic or foreign-policy scenario from a country or era never studied in this course (e.g., a hypothetical or real case of a government facing simultaneous inflation and stagnant growth, or a great power confronting an ideological rival in decline), apply the regulation-vs-market and containment-vs-restraint frameworks built across this course to generate a reasoned prediction of likely policy responses and their contested justifications.
   • Single-cause claims about Soviet collapse versus multi-causal historical explanationCritique a textbook or documentary claim that attributes Soviet collapse to a single cause (e.g., 'Reagan won the Cold War') by identifying what evidence the claim omits and what alternative causal weighting a professional historian might offer.
6. Unit 6: Globalization and a Post-Cold War WorldRoughly 1991 to 2008: the period after the Soviet Union fell when the U.S. had no single organized rival, global trade expanded fast (NAFTA, WTO, China), and 9/11 eventually ended that whole interlude. This 16-day unit asks what happens to the regulation-vs-market argument and the containment argument once each one's original reason for existing (New Deal-era problems, the Cold War) is gone.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The shift from containment to a post-Cold War foreign policy without a single organizing rivalGiven a timeline of 1989-2001 events, identify which events represent continuity with Cold War containment logic and which represent a genuinely new foreign policy problem.
   • Competing candidate organizing logics for post-Cold War U.S. foreign policyExplain why the absence of a single rival power (like the USSR) made it harder for policymakers in the 1990s to agree on a single goal for U.S. foreign policy, using at least two competing candidate goals (humanitarian intervention, democracy promotion, counterterrorism) as evidence.
   • Humanitarian intervention decisions in the 1990sGiven a case (Somalia 1993, Bosnia 1995, Rwanda 1994, or Kosovo 1999), classify the U.S./international response as intervention or non-intervention and identify the stated justification offered at the time.
   • The inconsistency of humanitarian intervention criteria across 1990s casesCompare the Rwanda non-intervention and Kosovo intervention decisions to infer what conditions made U.S./NATO policymakers more willing to act in one case than the other.
   • The domestic wage and employment effects of trade liberalization in the 1990s-2000sUsing NAFTA/WTO-era trade and manufacturing wage data, generate a claim about whether free trade made the average American worker better or worse off, and identify at least one piece of the data that complicates a simple yes/no answer.
   • The regulation-vs-market thread as a transferable analytic frameworkGiven an unfamiliar current trade or globalization dispute (e.g., a 2020s tariff or outsourcing controversy never discussed in class), apply the regulation-vs-market framework built across this course to predict which side of the debate different political and economic actors would likely take, and justify the prediction with evidence from at least two prior units.
   • September 11th and the war on terror as a turning point in U.S. foreign policy organizationExplain how the September 11th attacks functioned as a hinge point that ended the 1990s' multiple-candidate foreign policy debate and replaced it with counterterrorism as the new organizing logic.
   • Post-Cold War foreign policy patterns as competing frameworks for evaluating new casesGiven a novel post-2008 foreign policy decision never discussed in class (e.g., a 2010s or 2020s intervention debate), evaluate whether it more closely resembles the 1990s humanitarian-intervention pattern or the post-9/11 counterterrorism pattern, and justify the choice with named criteria.
   • The tech and information economy's economic effects in the 1990sSummarize the main claim and at least one piece of supporting evidence from an assigned reading on the tech/information economy's effect on late-1990s productivity and employment.
   • A data-supported argument about globalization's domestic economic effectsDraft a thesis-driven explanatory paragraph using at least two numerical data points from trade/wage sources to support a claim about globalization's domestic effects, correctly citing which source each data point came from.
7. Unit 7: The Twenty-First Century: Security, Recession, and Renewed MovementsThe capstone unit. Sixteen days pulling together the post-9/11 security state, the 2008 financial crisis, and today's social movements that use digital tools, and requiring your child to connect each one back to arguments built earlier in the year. It ends with a research-based essay and the course's cumulative final exam.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Post-9/11 security legislation and institutionsRecall the sequence and basic provisions of major post-9/11 security legislation and institutions (PATRIOT Act, Department of Homeland Security, warrantless surveillance programs).
   • The causal chain of the 2008 financial crisisExecute the basic financial-crisis causal chain (subprime lending -> mortgage-backed securities -> bank failures -> TARP/bailout -> Dodd-Frank) by correctly sequencing and labeling each stage.
   • Deregulatory reasoning across the Gilded Age and pre-2008 periodsCompare the deregulatory arguments used to justify Gilded Age trust behavior (Unit 1) with those used to justify pre-2008 financial deregulation, identifying structural similarities and differences in the reasoning.
   • Post-2008 regulatory expansion (Dodd-Frank, consumer protection agencies)Explain why federal regulatory power expanded after 2008 in terms consistent with the course's recurring claim that crises expand federal power more durably than they contract it.
   • Organizing tactics of a contemporary social movementClassify organizing tactics used by a contemporary movement (e.g., Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, or immigration-reform organizing) according to the movement-mechanics framework (organizing, media strategy, legal strategy, backlash) built in Units 4-6.
   • Prediction of policy response in an unfamiliar liberty-security scenarioGiven a security-policy scenario the student has not encountered in class (e.g., a hypothetical future surveillance technology or emergency-powers debate), infer where on the liberty-security spectrum U.S. policy is likely to land and justify the inference using the course's recurring crisis-expands-power pattern.
   • A course-long synthesis argument linking a contemporary issue to prior unitsGenerate a research-based synthesis essay connecting one contemporary issue (security, economic regulation, or a social movement) to at least two named prior units, constructing an original argument about continuity or change.
   • Framing and omission in a contemporary immigration-debate sourceCritique a documentary or op-ed source's framing of immigration and demographic change by identifying what evidence or perspective the source omits.

Try a real United States History: 1877 to the Present lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: Thinking Like a Psychologist: Research Methods and the Replication CrisisThis unit builds a working picture of how neurons fire, what brain chemicals actually do (and don't do), and which brain structures are linked to which behaviors. The whole unit keeps circling back to one question: just because something is connected to a brain area or a chemical, does that mean it causes the behavior, and even if it does, does that mean the person has no say in it?8 skills ▸close ▾

   • Operational definitions of abstract psychological constructsGiven a research question, write an operational definition for an abstract psychological construct (e.g., 'stress,' 'aggression') that specifies exactly how it will be measured or manipulated.
   • Experimental, correlational, and case study research designs and their tradeoffsClassify a described study as experimental, correlational, or case-study design based on whether a variable was manipulated, and identify the tradeoff (control vs. generalizability vs. depth) that design choice implies.
   • The distinction between correlation and causation, and third-variable/confound reasoningGiven a novel correlational finding never discussed in class, generate at least two distinct plausible third-variable explanations and explain the causal mechanism each would imply.
   • The relationship between statistical significance and effect sizeExplain why a statistically significant finding with a small effect size may not warrant a strong real-world claim, using both concepts correctly in relation to each other.
   • The replication crisis and the methodological features that predict replicability (using the Open Science Collaboration 2015 project as the anchor case)Compare a study that replicated successfully with a similarly designed study that failed to replicate, and infer which specific methodological feature (sample size, preregistration status, effect size, p-hacking risk) accounts for the difference in outcome.
   • The link between research ethics (informed consent, debriefing, coercion) and data validity in classic psychological studiesGiven a description of a classic psychological study (e.g., Milgram, Watson's Little Albert), identify a specific way the study's ethical violation also threatens the validity of its data, not only the wellbeing of its participants.
   • Warrant judgments and methodological critique applied to unfamiliar research write-upsGiven two never-before-seen study write-ups from unfamiliar content domains, judge whether each stated conclusion is warranted, name a plausible confound or design flaw, and propose a methodological fix targeted specifically at that flaw.
   • The generalized standard for evaluating trustworthiness of any claim about mind or behaviorGiven a claim about mind or behavior encountered outside of class (e.g., in social media, advertising, or a news article) after this unit ends, apply the full methods toolkit to independently decide how much trust the claim deserves and articulate the specific evidence that would change that judgment.
2. Unit 2: Biological Foundations of BehaviorThis unit takes apart the idea that seeing and hearing are like recording devices. Instead, your child learns that the brain actively builds perception out of incomplete information, using both raw sensory input and expectation. Illusions, selective attention, and the invisible-gorilla-style experiment aren't treated as party tricks, they're evidence for how perception actually works.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The neuron action potential as an all-or-none electrochemical eventDescribe the sequence of events in an action potential (resting state, depolarization, threshold, firing, refractory period) and explain why the process is all-or-none.
   • Neurotransmitter action (reuptake, agonist/antagonist effects) at the synapseGiven a novel scenario describing a drug's effect on a specific neurotransmitter (e.g., blocking reuptake, blocking receptors), predict the resulting change in neural transmission and behavior.
   • Brain structure-function correspondenceMatch major brain structures (cortex regions, amygdala, hippocampus, brain stem) to their primary documented functions.
   • Structure-function inference from lesion evidenceGiven a case description of a person with damage to a named brain structure (e.g., Phineas Gage-type frontal damage, split-brain, amygdala lesion), infer which behavioral changes are plausible and which are not, given documented structure-function relationships.
   • Capabilities and limits of lesion studies, EEG, and fMRI as brain-research methodsCompare what lesion studies, EEG, and fMRI can and cannot show about the relationship between brain activity and behavior, and identify which method is appropriate for a given research question.
   • Causal versus correlational support for brain-behavior claims in media reportingGiven an unfamiliar pop-science headline claiming a behavior is 'caused by' a brain structure or chemical, evaluate whether the underlying evidence (as described) supports a causal claim, a correlational claim, or neither, and identify the specific confound or missing evidence.
   • The biopsychosocial model applied to a specific behaviorExplain how a single behavior (e.g., aggression, anxiety, addiction) can be described simultaneously at biological, psychological, and social levels using the biopsychosocial model, without treating any one level as the complete explanation.
   • Heritability estimates and gene-environment interaction, distinguished from genetic determinismGiven twin-study or adoption-study heritability data for an unfamiliar trait, explain what a heritability estimate does and does not mean about an individual's fate, and identify the specific gene-environment interaction misconception in a given student or media statement.
   • Appropriately hedged causal language for brain-behavior claimsGenerate a rewritten version of a hedged, evidence-appropriate claim from an overclaimed biological causal statement, justifying each hedge with a specific methodological reason.
3. Unit 3: Sensation and PerceptionThis unit explains how experience changes behavior through three mechanisms: classical conditioning (Pavlov-style association), operant conditioning (rewards and consequences), and observational learning (learning by watching someone else). A lot of the unit is spent correcting how loosely these words get used in everyday speech versus what they technically mean.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • The transduction sequence from physical energy to neural signal to cortical interpretationGiven a description of a sensory event (e.g., light striking the retina, sound waves striking the eardrum), state the correct order of transduction steps from physical stimulus to neural signal to brain interpretation.
   • Absolute threshold and difference threshold as distinct, definable conceptsDefine absolute threshold and difference threshold in one sentence each and correctly label 4 short given scenarios as examples of one or the other, using the exact scenario types modeled in class (a faint sound detected at increasing distance; a weight change noticed on a backpack).
   • The interaction of bottom-up sensory data and top-down expectation in producing a single perceptual experienceExplain, using a specific illusion or ambiguous figure as the case, why the same sensory input can produce two different conscious perceptions, in terms of top-down processing supplying an interpretation the bottom-up data alone does not fix.
   • Inattentional blindness as a consequence of limited attentional capacity applied to a novel real-world scenarioPredict, for a novel selective-attention scenario the class has not previously discussed (e.g., a distracted driver scanning for pedestrians while texting), whether inattentional blindness is likely to occur and justify the prediction using the concept of limited attentional capacity.
   • Categories of visual illusion (depth, motion, constancy) defined by underlying perceptual mechanismClassify a set of unfamiliar visual illusions (not shown in class) as primarily depth-based, motion-based, or constancy-based, using the defining features of each category rather than surface appearance.
   • Cross-cultural research on the Müller-Lyer illusion as evidence that experience shapes perceptionCompare the carpentered-world explanation of cross-cultural differences in susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion with a hypothetical alternative explanation (e.g., innate biological difference), and identify which explanation the available evidence actually supports.
   • A student-generated mini-experiment testing a selective-attention or illusion effectDesign a small selective-attention or illusion demonstration for classmates, including a procedure, a simple data-collection method, and an explicit prediction, that isolates one perceptual variable of the student's choosing.
   • Methodological limitations (sample size, confound) applied to a novel student-designed perception studyCritique a peer's mini-study write-up by identifying at least one Unit 1 methods concept (sample size, confound, or lack of operational definition) that limits the confidence one should place in the peer's conclusion, and state specifically what evidence would need to change to raise that confidence.
   • Results of the student's own selective-attention or illusion mini-studySummarize the results of the student's own mini-study (response accuracy or detection rate across conditions) in a short results section that reports what was found without yet interpreting why.
4. Unit 4: Learning: Conditioning and BeyondThis unit treats memory as something the brain rebuilds each time, not a recording it plays back. It then extends that same 'the mind constructs things, it doesn't just record them' idea to how people solve problems, judge risk, and decide what to believe. A running theme: feeling very sure about something is not the same as being right.10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The four-term structure of classical conditioning (US, UR, CS, CR)Given a novel description of a stimulus-response pairing, identify the unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response.
   • The extinction/spontaneous recovery pattern in classical conditioningExplain why a conditioned response can undergo extinction, then spontaneous recovery, using the distinction between the CS-US association weakening versus being erased.
   • Biological constraints on conditioning: taste aversion and preparedness (Garcia effect)Given an animal behavior anecdote involving food and illness, explain why taste aversion learning violates the standard timing and generality assumptions of classical conditioning (biological preparedness).
   • The four-quadrant operant contingency table (reinforcement/punishment x positive/negative)Given a description of a behavior and its consequence, classify the situation as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, or negative punishment.
   • Schedules of reinforcement and their characteristic response patternsCompare fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in terms of the response pattern each produces and predict which schedule is being used from a described pattern of behavior.
   • Documented limitations of punishment as a behavior-change strategyDiagnose why a real or invented punishment strategy failed to produce durable behavior change, referencing at least two documented weaknesses of punishment (e.g., suppression without extinction, generalization to the punisher rather than the behavior, need for continuous application).
   • Bandura's observational learning model (modeling, and the attention-retention-reproduction-motivation sequence)Explain how Bandura's Bobo doll findings support observational learning as distinct from direct reinforcement, identifying the role of modeling, attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.
   • Integrated application of classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning to a novel real-world scenario, including evaluation of claims against research limitsGiven an unfamiliar training program, advertisement, or habit-change app description never discussed in class, identify which conditioning mechanism(s) are operating, predict the behavioral effect of a specified change to one variable (e.g., switching schedule type), and flag any claim that overstates what conditioning research supports.
   • The terms extinction, generalization, and discrimination across both conditioning typesRecall the standard definitions of extinction, generalization, and discrimination as they apply to both classical and operant conditioning.
   • Popular misuse of 'positive reinforcement' and 'conditioned' versus the technical operant/classical definitionsCritique a media or advertising claim that uses the term 'positive reinforcement' or 'conditioned' in a way that is technically inaccurate, and rewrite the claim so it is consistent with the mechanism.
5. Unit 5: Cognition: Memory, Thinking, and Problem-SolvingThis unit follows how biology and experience interact continuously from before birth through the teenage years, not on a fixed schedule, but shaped by when things happen. It covers attachment research, Piaget's stages and the ways modern research has pushed back on them, the teenage brain, and Erikson's stages as a rough map rather than a strict law.12 skills ▸close ▾

   • The multi-store (sensory/STM/LTM) model of memory and encoding-storage-retrievalGiven a diagram of the multi-store memory model, label and explain the function of sensory, short-term/working, and long-term memory in the correct sequence.
   • The role of the hippocampus in memory consolidationExplain how hippocampal consolidation (Unit 2 content) links short-term memory to stable long-term storage, using the neuron/structure vocabulary from Unit 2.
   • The misinformation effect on eyewitness recall (Loftus)Predict, before observing a misinformation demonstration, whether and how a leading question will alter recall of a witnessed event, then compare the prediction to the observed outcome.
   • Reconstructive memory and the mechanism of the misinformation effectGiven a new, previously unseen eyewitness scenario embedded with a leading question, explain why the resulting memory distortion occurred by naming the specific mechanism (reconstruction at retrieval, not storage failure).
   • Forgetting: interference, decay, and retrieval failureClassify given examples of memory failure as primarily interference, decay, or retrieval failure, distinguishing surface similarities from the underlying mechanism.
   • Availability heuristic and confirmation bias as distinct but confusable cognitive shortcutsCompare the availability heuristic and confirmation bias in a pair of contrasting real-world decision scenarios, identifying which bias is operating and why the two are easily confused.
   • Heuristics and biases applied to an unfamiliar decision contextGiven a completely novel decision scenario from outside psychology (e.g., a business or medical decision never discussed in class), identify which heuristic or bias is most plausibly at work and justify the choice against at least one alternative explanation.
   • Expert-novice differences in metacognitive access to procedural knowledgeExplain why experts are sometimes less able than novices to verbally describe how they solve a problem, using the concept of automated/proceduralized knowledge.
   • The relationship (or lack of it) between confidence and accuracy in recallGiven a set of confidence ratings and accuracy scores from a memory or trivia task, evaluate whether confidence is a reliable predictor of accuracy in that data set and justify the evaluation with reference to specific mismatches.
   • Proof versus suggestive evidence, applied to a classroom demonstrationApply a Unit 1 methods judgment (what counts as proof vs. suggestive evidence) to evaluate whether the class misinformation demonstration alone proves the misinformation effect or merely illustrates it.
   • Core memory vocabulary: encoding, storage, retrieval, reconsolidation, misinformation effectRecall the definitions of encoding, storage, retrieval, reconsolidation, and the misinformation effect using unit vocabulary with precision.
   • The eyewitness misinformation summative scenario, integrating mechanism and methods judgmentWrite an evidence-based explanation of why a specific instance of memory distortion occurred, integrating memory vocabulary and a methodological judgment about evidence quality, for the summative scenario.
6. Unit 6: Development Across the LifespanThis is the hardest unit in the course. It covers how mental disorders, mainly anxiety and depression, kept narrow on purpose, get classified, studied, and treated, and why even trained clinicians using the same manual sometimes disagree about a case. It's explicit from day one: this is education about conditions, not a tool for diagnosing yourself or anyone else, and it does not cover self-harm methods. If personal concerns come up, they get redirected to a counselor or trusted adult, every time, not just once.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Critical vs. sensitive periods in prenatal/early developmentDefine 'critical period' and 'sensitive period' in prenatal and early development and correctly classify given scenarios as examples of one, the other, or neither.
   • Harlow's and Ainsworth's attachment research and its limitsExplain how Harlow's and Ainsworth's attachment studies each support the claim that attachment quality depends on responsive caregiving rather than only feeding, and identify specific methodological or ethical limits of each study.
   • Piaget's stage theory and modern methodological critiques of itCompare Piaget's account of a specific cognitive milestone (e.g., object permanence or conservation) with a modern critique that used a modified method to get a different result from the same-age children.
   • Adolescent prefrontal cortex/limbic system maturation gap and risk-takingExplain why adolescent risk-taking is better accounted for by uneven maturation rates between the limbic system and prefrontal cortex than by 'poor decision-making' alone, using Unit 2 brain-structure vocabulary.
   • Erikson's psychosocial stages and their defining conflictsGiven a novel scenario describing a person's behavior at an unspecified age, infer which of Erikson's psychosocial stages the scenario most plausibly represents and justify the inference using the stage's defining conflict.
   • Erikson's psychosocial stage theory as a heuristic vs. a fixed universal lawCritique Erikson's stage model itself as a framework, identifying at least one specific way it functions more as an organizing heuristic than as a strictly sequential, universally fixed law, using evidence of cross-cultural or non-linear developmental patterns.
   • Interaction of risk and resilience/protective factors across developmentGenerate a plausible, research-grounded explanation for how a specific named risk factor (e.g., poverty, insecure attachment, prenatal exposure to teratogens) combined with a specific protective/resilience factor could produce a described developmental outcome for a fictional individual not covered in class materials.
   • Well-supported vs. speculative developmental claims, applying Unit 1 evidentiary standardsDistinguish, within a written justification of a developmental claim, between a claim that is well-supported by cited research and one that is speculative extrapolation beyond what the cited research actually shows.
   • Piaget's four stages and their approximate age rangesRecall the correct chronological order and approximate age ranges of Piaget's four stages of cognitive development.
7. Unit 7: Understanding Mental Health: Disorders, Classification, and TreatmentNo new material gets taught here. Your child picks a real public claim about behavior, a news story, a self-help trend, an ad, and traces it back to whatever evidence actually backs it up. Then they build a four-level explanation (biology, learning/cognition, development, social) for the behavior underneath the claim, and write a conclusion that's honest about how much the evidence actually supports.9 skills ▸close ▾

   • Diagnostic criteria as a threshold of symptom pattern, duration, and functional impairment, not a checklist a layperson completesGiven a description of a person's symptoms and their duration/impact on functioning, state what additional information a clinician would need before applying a diagnostic label, without assigning the label themselves.
   • Sources of diagnostic disagreement between clinicians using shared criteriaExplain why two clinicians using the same diagnostic manual might reach different conclusions about the same case, citing at least two distinct sources of disagreement (e.g., symptom overlap across categories, self-report reliability, clinician judgment about functional impairment).
   • Distinguishing features of anxiety disorders and depressive disorders as taught in this unitClassify a set of case vignettes as most consistent with an anxiety disorder, a depressive disorder, or neither, based on the presence or absence of criterion-relevant features (duration, impairment, symptom cluster) rather than a single dramatic symptom.
   • Biopsychosocial model applied to depressive or anxiety disordersExplain the biopsychosocial model as applied to depression or anxiety, connecting a biological factor (e.g., neurotransmitter systems from Unit 2), a psychological factor (e.g., learned helplessness or cognitive patterns from Unit 4-5), and a social/cultural factor into a single coherent account of one case.
   • Randomized controlled trial design applied to a treatment-outcome studyGiven a summary of a randomized controlled treatment-outcome study (with placebo/control arm), identify the independent and dependent variables, the comparison group, and one plausible confound, applying the Unit 1 methods vocabulary to this new content domain.
   • The distinction between population-level treatment evidence and individual diagnostic/treatment conclusionsCritique a real treatment-outcome study or pop-media mental-health claim by distinguishing what the evidence supports (a treatment's effect for a studied population) from what it does not support (a claim about what a specific individual has or should do), producing a written argument that makes this distinction explicit.
   • Evidentiary standards for mental-health treatment claims, generalized beyond taught examplesGiven a novel, previously unseen public claim about a mental health treatment (e.g., a social media post, a supplement advertisement) sourced independently by the student, evaluate its evidentiary basis using the full toolkit and generalize a rule for what kind of evidence would be needed to trust it.
   • The distinction between professional diagnosis and self-diagnosisExplain why licensed-professional diagnosis differs from self-diagnosis using an online symptom checklist, citing at least two specific risks of self-diagnosis (e.g., symptom overlap across disorders, absence of differential diagnosis, no functional-impairment assessment).
   • Historical change in psychiatric classification as driven by evidence and by social/political contextSummarize how the classification and treatment of a named historical case or disorder category (e.g., homosexuality's removal from the DSM, changing criteria for PTSD) changed over time in response to evidence and social change, distinguishing scientific revision from social/political pressure where the historical record shows both.
8. Unit 8: Capstone: Evaluating a Real Claim About Mind and Behavior10 skills ▸close ▾

   • The chain from public claim to underlying evidentiary sourceGiven a real public claim about behavior (news article, book excerpt, or ad), the student traces the claim back to its underlying research source and states what kind of source it is (peer-reviewed study, press release, popular book, opinion).
   • Strength classification of a research source using methods criteriaThe student classifies the evidentiary source behind a chosen claim as strong, moderate, or weak using the Unit 1 methods criteria (sample size, control group, replication status, effect size, conflict of interest).
   • The relationship between replication status and warranted confidence in a claimThe student explains why a study's replication status (or the absence of any known replication attempt) changes how much confidence a reader should place in a public claim built on it.
   • A multi-level biopsychosocial explanation for a specific chosen behaviorThe student constructs a four-level explanation (biological, cognitive/learning, developmental, social-cultural) for the single behavior underlying their chosen claim, stating how each level's factors interact rather than operate independently.
   • Single-level versus multi-level explanations of behaviorThe student differentiates a claim that names only one level of explanation from one that accounts for multiple levels, and identifies what evidence is missing from the single-level version.
   • Hedged, evidence-proportioned written conclusionsThe student writes a hedged, evidence-proportioned conclusion about their chosen claim that states the confidence level warranted by the evidence rather than asserting the claim is simply true or false.
   • Responsiveness to critique of one's own evidentiary reasoningIn the oral defense, the student responds to a question about a weakness in their own evidence chain by revising or qualifying their written conclusion rather than defending it unchanged.
   • Unit 1 methods vocabulary definitionsThe student recalls the definitions of at least four Unit 1 methods terms (confound, effect size, replication, sampling bias) without notes, on a closed-note retrieval check administered on Day 1.
   • Correlation-versus-causation judgment from study design featuresGiven a described study (sample, design, result), the student calculates whether the study design supports a causal claim or only a correlational one, using the criteria taught in Unit 1.
   • Structural similarity in evidentiary strength across superficially different claimsThe student compares two classmates' claims that appear to be about different behaviors but rely on structurally similar (weak or strong) evidentiary patterns, and identifies the shared underlying pattern.

Try a real Psychology: Mind, Brain, and Behavior lesson, no account needed →

1. Unit 1: The Image Made of Words: Poetry and the LineThis is where your child learns the two tools the whole course runs on: telling a concrete image apart from a vague abstract statement, and a three-step way to critique their own draft (name the problem, quote the exact line, decide the fix). They read short poems, imitate them, then write and revise three original poems.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between an abstract statement of feeling and a concrete image that implies feelingGiven a line containing an abstract emotion word (e.g., 'sad,' 'beautiful'), the student rewrites it as a concrete image that implies the same emotion without naming it.
   • Line break as a meaning-making unit, specifically enjambment creating momentary double meaningThe student identifies where a line break in a given unfamiliar short poem creates a moment of double meaning (the line reads one way at the break, differently once the next line completes it) and explains what each reading contributes.
   • The self-critique protocol applied to image specificityThe student applies the self-critique protocol (name criterion, cite evidence from own draft, decide fix) to their own poem draft for the criterion of image specificity, producing a written statement that names the criterion, quotes the exact line, and states a specific revision.
   • The effect of line-break placement on emphasis and pacing independent of word choiceGiven two drafts of the same poem where only the line breaks differ (identical words), the student explains how the change in line breaks changes the poem's emphasis and pacing without changing its paraphrasable content.
   • Reader feedback as a basis for targeted (not global) revisionThe student revises their own poem in response to two specific parent-reader questions ('Where did you get confused?' and 'Where did you want more?'), producing a second draft and a brief written rationale connecting each change to the reader's specific comment.
   • The gap between a poem's literal paraphrase and its interpreted meaningGiven a poem never discussed in class and with no accompanying paraphrase or theme statement, the student writes an interpretive claim about what the poem means that is NOT reducible to the poem's literal paraphrase, and supports it by citing one specific image and one specific line-break choice.
   • Formal risk-taking justified by its effect on meaning, not by novelty aloneThe student takes a deliberate formal risk in an original poem (an unconventional line break, an unresolved image, a break from established stanza pattern) and, in the self-critique, argues for why the risk serves the poem's meaning rather than defends it as decoration.
   • The three-way distinction between abstract statement, concrete image, and image-as-implicit-statementThe student classifies a set of eight lines pulled from student and published poems as either 'abstract statement,' 'concrete image,' or 'concrete image doing double duty as statement,' and justifies the two hardest calls.
2. Unit 2: Scene, Summary, and the Shape of a StorySame three-step critique method as Unit 1, now pointed at a whole short story instead of a line. Your child learns to tell scene (moment-by-moment, staged) from summary (compressed, time-skipping), to catch the difference between showing an emotion through detail and just stating it, and to see that the order information is revealed to a reader is a choice, not a report of what happened first.8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The distinction between scene and summary in short fictionGiven a short mentor-text passage, students correctly label each sentence or paragraph as scene or summary and state the textual feature (moment-by-moment action/dialogue vs. compressed time-covering statement) that justifies the label.
   • Show-vs-tell revision of an emotion-naming sentence into concrete sensory detailGiven a passage that names an emotion or judgment directly, students revise it into a passage that conveys the same emotion or judgment using only concrete, sensory detail, with no sentence stating the feeling.
   • The effect of narrative reveal order on reader inferenceGiven two versions of the same short scene that differ only in the order information is revealed, students explain how each order changes what the reader knows, expects, or infers at a specific point in the text, citing the exact sentence where the difference in reader experience occurs.
   • Application of the self-critique protocol to structural criteria (scene/summary, show/tell) on one's own draftStudents apply the self-critique protocol (name criterion, cite evidence, decide fix) to their own in-progress draft using the show/tell and scene/summary criteria, producing at least three protocol-structured statements that each name a specific line as evidence.
   • The diagram of reveal order versus chronological event order in a student's own storyGiven their complete draft, students produce a structural diagram showing the order in which key information is revealed to the reader (as distinct from chronological event order) and identify at least one point where the two orders diverge.
   • Authorial withholding of information as a structural choice in an unfamiliar textGiven an unfamiliar short story never discussed in class, students identify where the writer withholds information from the reader and infer why the writer likely made that choice, given no explicit prompt naming the technique.
   • Generation of a structurally alternative version of one's own story and articulation of the resulting change in meaningGiven a completed short story of their own, students generate an alternative version of the same plot content with a substantially different scene/summary allocation and reveal order, and explain in writing what emotional or interpretive effect changes as a result, using no criteria or template provided in class for this specific transformation.
   • Definitions of scene, summary, and the three-step self-critique protocolStudents recall the definition of scene and summary and state the self-critique protocol's three steps from memory, without reference to notes.
3. Unit 3: Writing What Actually HappenedSame critique method, same detail and structure vocabulary from Units 1 and 2, now applied to true stories about their own life. This adds something genuinely new: honesty. Your child has to think about whether memory can be trusted, where self-reflection turns into self-justification, and what they owe the real people who show up in their essay.11 skills ▸close ▾

   • Scene vs. summary in a true-event narrativeGiven a personal narrative draft, identify which passages are rendered as scene and which are rendered as summary, using the Unit 2 definitions.
   • The definition of concrete detailRecall the definition of concrete detail established in Unit 1 and state it without reference to notes.
   • The taught R/J test applied to the exact sentence pairs used in direct instructionGiven a sentence pair already sorted as reflection and justification during Day 8 direct instruction, apply the taught one-sentence test (does it explain new understanding, or does it defend the past action) to correctly re-label each sentence in the same pair without the label showing, using only the definition given in class.
   • The mechanism by which scene vs. summary changes reader experience of true materialExplain why a specific memory rendered as a scene creates a different reader experience than the same event rendered as summary, citing the mechanism (selection and pacing, not just 'more detail').
   • Self-reflection vs. self-justification in first-person narrative writingDifferentiate sentences in a personal essay draft that function as self-reflection from sentences that function as self-justification, applying a definition given in direct instruction.
   • Divergence between personal memory and a neutral factual recordGiven two accounts of the same shared event from different people, infer at least two specific ways personal memory can diverge from a neutral record and state the implication for using memory as writing material.
   • The self-critique protocol applied to a personal-essay draftApply the self-critique protocol (name the criterion, cite evidence in own draft, decide the fix) from Units 1-2 to a personal essay draft using this unit's criteria (scene vs. summary, concrete detail, reflection vs. justification).
   • Ethical defensibility of a passage about a real person in the student's own true-event draftGiven a decision framework (purpose, less-harmful alternative, would-you-show-them test), evaluate whether a specific passage in the student's own draft about a real person meets a defensible ethical standard, and justify the judgment with the framework's criteria.
   • Structural ordering choices for a novel true-event narrative and their interpretive effectsGiven a true event never discussed in class, plan two structurally different ways to order the material (e.g., chronological vs. in medias res with flashback) and generate a brief account of what each ordering would make a reader infer, without teacher-provided cues as to which structure fits.
   • A complete revision cycle on a personal essay draftRevise a full draft personal essay by executing at least three specific changes identified through self-critique and parent-reader notes (converting summary to scene, replacing vague statement with concrete detail, resolving a justification passage into reflection).
   • Reflection vs. justification in an unfamiliar published textGiven an unfamiliar published personal essay excerpt (not used in class), assess whether the writer appears to be reflecting or justifying at a specific moment, and cite textual evidence for the judgment.
4. Unit 4: The Portfolio: Revision as ArgumentThe wrap-up. No new evaluation method gets taught here, your child pulls out one piece each from Units 1, 2, and 3, cold, and has to diagnose and revise them under a real constraint: only three priority fixes total across all three pieces. Then they write an essay defending those three choices in specific, criterion-based terms, not 'I liked this better.'8 skills ▸close ▾

   • The genre-specific criteria sets from Units 1-3 applied diagnostically to one's own prior draftsGiven one piece each from Units 1-3, re-read cold and generate a written diagnostic statement naming, for each piece, which of its genre-specific criteria (image/concrete detail, show-vs-tell, structure) the piece currently meets and which it does not, citing specific text as evidence.
   • The self-critique protocol and its genre-conditional applicationRecall the three-step self-critique protocol (name the criterion, cite the evidence, decide the fix) without a reference sheet, and state which step differs when applied to a nonfiction piece versus a fiction piece.
   • Revision priority-setting under a scarcity constraintGiven three revised-or-revisable pieces and a constraint of only three total priority revisions across all of them, produce a written priority plan that ranks which piece needs which revision most urgently and states the criterion-based reason for the ranking.
   • Criteria-based defense versus preference-based justificationRecognize the difference between a defense sentence that names a criterion and cites textual evidence and one that merely states a preference, when given paired examples of each.
   • A reflective essay defending named revision choices with criterion and evidenceCompose a reflective essay defending three specific revision choices, each naming a criterion from Units 1-3, citing evidence from the draft, and explaining the effect of the change on a reader.
   • The parent-reader question sets, generalized to an untaught genreGiven a genre the course did not teach (e.g., short dialogue or drama), infer which of the three existing parent-reader question sets would need a new question added, and generate that question with a stated reason.
   • Transfer of the self-critique protocol to an unfamiliar piece and unstated criteriaGiven an unfamiliar peer's draft outside the three studied genres' typical form, apply the self-critique protocol's diagnostic logic (name what criterion would apply, cite evidence, propose a fix) without being told which criteria set fits.
   • Portfolio assembly format and completeness requirementsExecute the mechanics of assembling the final portfolio (labeled pieces, diagnostic log, parent-reader notes, essay) according to the specified format.

Try a real Craft and Revision: A Creative Writing Workshop lesson, no account needed →