Brad,
Just a few questions:
1. What evidenciary justification do you have for assuming created kinds (baramins) when constructing taxonomy?
2. How will you deal with the progressive movement into separate baramins (as they are understood from YEC lit today) as seen in the fossil record? Example: Reptile to mammal series with jawbones becoming middle ear ossicles, Archeopteryx.
3. Does your curriculum rely heavily on extant species in current ecosystems? If so, why is the fossil record and extinct species ignored or played down?
4. Is catastrophism, most notably the Noah's Flood, important to your model and curriculum, or is punctuated catastrophism (meteor strikes eg) with intervening periods of uniformity to be used?
5. Why should we use baramins when they have yet to be defined?
I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play. Vestiges and atavisms would further blur the lines between current baramins as seen through the lens of uniform evolutionary lines with common ancestery going further back than baramins may want to allow.