Can you provide *concrete examples* of what she struggles with? It would be a lot easier to talk about this if it is more concrete than vague. :)

Evening. To be clean for bed. I never really understood folks who shower only in the mornings - the idea of going to bed with all the dirt from the day seems to me... less than appealing. I think evening showers are ideal.

We dress up. I care not about the barbarization that is going on - my family is not going to partake in it. We dress up for theatre, ballet, opera, classical music performances, promotions, nice restaurants... all situations in which more formal dress code is required. I was raised this way, I cannot fathom not dressing up for those circumstances. However, we are in general more formal dressers, so it is typically not a big deal for us.

I would have them take Latin III.

I like Claire and Claudia for C names for a girl.

Homeschooling was NEVER on my radar, not in my wildest dreams. The most "alternative" schooling options in my extended family included sending children to schooling abroad or putting them into international schools. But schooling outside of some kind of an institution was not happening. I knew it existed, but I thought it was only for kids who live in geographically isolated areas, or very rare cases of children who are ill and cannot be educated otherwise, or who live on the road due to a traveling lifestyle and who thus cannot have a continuity to actually attend school... and for a small fraction of children of religious nuts, LOL. :lol: I could not conceive why on Earth would one homeschooling if they did not belong to those groups, and for the latter I believed it to be way more harmful to children than beneficient and at times questioned whether homeschooling for no "special reason" should even be legal. And, oh the little ironies of life, I ended up homeschooling. :tongue_smilie:

I recommend Athenaze spread over two years for high school Greek I & II.

This was probably not directed at me, but I wanted to take a stab at it anyway. One may, within the legally imposed limits based on where they live and which may mandate covering some areas, do whatever the heck they wish. Your homeschool, your rules. :) The reason why most people do not emphasize it in every discussion of these issues, I believe, is because it goes without saying. Ultimately, you can do however you please and whatever you find the best for your DC, whether is it sticking to a prepackaged curriculum by the book, or improvizing it all, or something in between with lots of mixing and matching. So, nothing is really verboten. The thing, though, is that sometimes one gets the optimum of the program by actually following it, and some programs are designed the way that they are harder to rip to pieces and mix and match with other things as you please than other programs. It still does not mean that using a curriculum outside of its "intended metholody" is verboten, but it does mean that the calculated optimum will probably not be accomplished that way. AoPS, in particular, is one of those programs which I would actually not alter, because while it may work, I think the optimal way to use it, for us, is to use it the way it is. On the other hand, the optimal way to use SOTW for us has been davka by supplementing, mixing, matching, using additional resources and eliminating activities and even large parts of the text itself - because I felt I could offer more, and better, by not using it as a stand-alone thing and by not using it perfectly the way it was "intended" (albeit it is a flexible example). With AoPS, however, I simply do not find that I have enough background knowledge to make that estimate and go "against" such an excellent curriculum with my own ideas which most likely stem from half-ignorance far more than out of a deep familiarity with the discipline. So, in that respect, I feel like I might have lost that optimum had I gone against the current. My daughter does tweak it minimally in the process, but she, neither, has done anything drastic to it. People, of course, have a full right to decide that what they personally want out of something is not what the intended methodology proposes. I do think, however, that it takes knowledge of the discipline to know what exactly you want out of it and how you are going to tweak it to meet those goals. The art of tweaking is like being a good painter, or a good cook. It is not only about mixing the ingredients and some benevolent joy in improvization. It is also about knowing when to STOP your hand lest you overpass the optimum. And here is where I, personally, like to seek advice from people who have not only BTDT, but also have a background in the discipline, because I believe I can profit very much from their recommendation as to when to STOP. It still does not mean blindly following the instructions. It still does not mean having the curriculum own you rather than you owning it. It still does not mean stifling the child's soul into a box. Nor does any radical tweaking automatically imply a courageous step out of the box. And sometimes, to step out of the box the way you meet your optimum, means knowing the box backwards and forwards first, rather than stepping out of it "blindly", which would have been the case with me and AoPS. To go against something, you must know it first. You must know the content, then it is easy to improvize. Otherwise the tweaking becomes the cooking of an amateur chef - and while it may allow for much joy and surprises and good solutions along the way, it may also lead up to burning the kitchen and ending up with barely edible dishes. The balance is tricky to get. But, at the end of the day, we are all free to cook as we wish, by the feeling or with detailed instructions or anything in between. So sure, we adapt. But even in adapting... there is some wisdom in knowing when to stop adapting, IMO, and just implement some materials in their intended form. AoPS may or may not be one of those materials for you.

I have always been doing a combination of language and literature. Prior to high school, the language part is essentially grammar, with some vocabulary thrown in if you do it. In high school, the language part evolves into a more sophisticated linguistic study of one's native language, covering a wide variety of topics - from phonetics and phonology of one's language, to the overview of morphosyntax (esp. with syntactical analyses, which fit nicely with the classical languages overview), to some general lexicology (what used to be vocabulary studies in lower grades, but more sophisticated now), history of the language and a touch of semantics. Believe me, there are LOTS of things to count as a "language" part - the assumption that the language part is "done" by high school need not necessarily be correct and you can take it to a whole 'nother level (as I believe it ought be done anyway). And then there is literature, of course, which makes up the vast majority of each course. But the language part, even if only a fraction of what is studied, may still be firmly there.

I do not have boys, but I am very thankful to mothers of boys with your attitude. Most parents we know choose to completely ignore the subject because it is such a taboo - they know their boys are consuming it, but they simply pretend not to know because very few people dare have those firm discussions of the long-term moral and emotional implications those materials can have.

I would personally encourage your student to reorganize the thoughts here - as the introductory paragraph it is not bad, but structurally, I would reorganize it the way to first define what it is (make second sentence first), then collocate it in historical context (first and third sentences). The parts that I bolded I would cut out or drastically reword because (i) unnecessary and too general (why bring up those other people if you are not going to bring them up?), and (ii), no movement per se allows or disallows the expression of emotions, but it may emphasize some things, and I would not treat Puritanism as a "religion" per se, but as one possible expression of religious life and thought within the same religion. So, I would reword those parts. This somehow does not connect very well with the rest. What is the source of the quote and who is the clergyman? Okay, but this is a good second or third paragraph, not a good concluding one, because the topic is Great Awakening, not George Whitefeld - you must talk about him, but then go back to the original topic and contextualize it with the Great Awakening - WHY his preaching style and how he was received was different and how it fit with the Great Awakening, and then conclude on the notes about Great Awakening, not some particular person.

Work / novel. Never play the "what the author wanted to say" game (it is one of the deadly sins of writing in my book :tongue_smilie:). You can only speculate what was his intended message, you must take the work "as is". Furthermore, the whole talk about "message" is extremely problematic. Artistic texts are defined by their *form* way more than by their *content* or any "psychology" behind them (in terms of intended messages, states of mind which brought the author to write what he wrote, etc.). Ditto. And here. Judgment. :tongue_smilie: And too informal. A better way to go about it would be to attempt to discuss how those images fit into the structure of the work and why, in his opinion, the structure of the work depends so largely upon them, and why is the language used in such a peculiar way to incorporate several levels of happening / thinking without clear distinctions, and what effect does that on the whole produce, etc. I am with him, though, about disliking many elements of Bradbury's style, LOL. His paper reasonated with me. :D

I get what you mean ;), and you are right, but there actually are non-negotiables... it is just that the "logic" behind it is more subtle and more culture-bound than in fields in which there is a direct progession. But I *cannot* skip Antigone even if my student does not really get into it, for example, because I *need* it for some connections I want to establish. There is a whole lot of works I cannot skip, or if I can, I can maybe skip one or two of those works off that list, but I definitely cannot alter it drastically or I lose those connections. Even in classical languages where I more often work with fragments than with whole works, it is not random at all which fragments I choose. Flexibility potential is somewhere about 10-20% (assuming normal school focus and normal progression - with advanced children and particularly interested it is slightly different).

Literature and history, when done "properly" are also very far away from "do it as you please and mix and match as you please", LOL. I am always amused with the perception that these fields are somehow easier to tweak. They probably are if you are not interested in the big interconnected picture, but only in taking bits as regards your interests, but if you are... not so easy. There is still some order and some connections which must be made.

I would not use AoPS with an average math student. In my eyes, high school math is a *general education* subject, and AoPS takes things way PAST the "general" part (plus some parts of it are essentially competition math). It is a very worthwhile intellectual effort on its own, but in the context of general education, the amount of time, effort, and a certain intensity it requires may be too high of a cost for the ultimate benefit. I might use it with an average student with high inclinations towards math-heavy fields, who is willing to pay that price, but basically, I would only use it with a fraction of children who truly enjoy the subject, "click" with it easily, and want to do it. Likewise, I would not have a child read complete works of Cicero and Virgil in Latin - that is beyond the scope of general education. A child who wants it, bring it on, but general Latin is something else, and even a GOOD general education Latin is something else (and I do not have low standards in this camp LOL). A child who wants to go further, or a family with a particular cultural emphasis on some things - bring it on - but I would not consider it a "standard" situation. AoPS is a less extreme example, but still, I think loosely along these lines.

"Connected" in what sense? As in, connected to/via internet? Connected in a "there is a (general) connection between us" sense? Siamo collegati / connessi*, allora comunichiamo. (ITA) Anachnu mechubarim / kshurim*, az bo/i/u** nedaber. (HEB) * The first option is more in the internet sense, the second one is for a statement that there is a general connection between us * Bo if you are talking to a guy, boi if you are talking to a girl, bou if you are talking to more people

Yes, we talked earlier than I would have preferred, but it was unfortunately relevant enough so I felt we had to address it. :iagree:

Homer in translation (except for the excerpts studied as a part of Greek lessons), Malory and Shakespeare in their original language, yes, and not abridged, but EITHER full works (when possible) EITHER excerpts which are not chosen the way that one basically abridges the work and presents those excerpts instead of the unity of the work (as I explained two years ago in a previous post in this ressurected thread :D). You must also keep in mind that my children do not have problems with Latinate vocabulary. Their vocabulary struggles are with the older Germanic layer of the English language, not with the Latinate / French layer, so that makes the whole thing a LOT easier. For what they do not know, there are dictionaries and commentaries. I require a paraphrase of some works (with a commentary), along with the analysis of syntax of the passage (if they learned syntax yet, in middle school they can pretty much do it already), when I want to be absolutely sure they understand what they are reading. I even turn a paraphrase into a part of the exam sometimes by choosing a random passage from what they read and having them paraphrase it in writing, as a part of the exam (I allow dictionary use to find synonyms, as in any case the dictionary does not help much if you do not understand the passage syntactically and if you had not read it before to know which synonyms are a reasonable option and which are not). I also require a paraphrase aloud sometimes when we study things together and I especially require it for religious literature in original, otherwise they are all "yeah, yeah, we understand the general meaning" and that makes me go NUTS, because of course they understand a general meaning, but the whole point is that in the parts they study they understand MORE than a general meaning. (Sorry for the delay of few days in answering, I was moving.)

Relax. :D She's a bright, motivated kid. What's the best thing that can happen? She'll love it and everything will be fine. What's the worst thing that can happen? It can not work. If the worst happens? No big deal. In that case you'll put it aside for a while and ultimately everything will be fine again. ;)

To which they reply, "But the quality of that benefit depends largely on the *people*, not abstractions - and if you take all the quality out, if all good teachers sell themselves to private institutions or people like you, educated and who care, take their kids out... there will not be much left, so because of that you will not send the child in school for their benefit, and so we get a vicious cycle in which you are dam*ed if you do and dam*ned if you don't." I actually hate to admit that their examples are pretty sound ones. Some societies which are considerably less liberal (liberal being defined in economic terms here) actually have greater cohesion and quality of national education system, simply because they limit the choice. So, while you may not attain your *optimum* in those schools, they are never just as bad as the worst schools in "freer" societies, there is less of a socioeconomic stratification in schools, etc. And those people see it is a good thing and find the doctrine of choice to be essentially a pretext for selfishness. It is not a wiser not a more stupid perspective, just... worlds away ideologically.

I agree with you. I know some (rich!) folks who are actually consistent within that philosophy. They are not only against homeschooling, but also against private schooling, and they believe that all choice that is to be offered ought to be offered within the public system to ALL, or to the best candidates from those ALL (so, yes to exclusive schools, but not those that discriminate based on parental wealth or where you are zoned, but by academic achievement and performance on entrance exams). Their kids are in public schools. It is not ideal. They have the means for better. But they firmly see a value in having their kids in those schools. They think that a nation which does not attend a school together - the primary level from where we start - is bound to disintegrate as a nation (and they actually cite examples from countries with longer or richer traditions of private and home education). Sure, those people leg up their kids in other ways. Nearly all of them, although they do not call it that way, "afterschool" in some form; their children travel and learn languages abroad; they are even privately tutored for some extras or receive music education aside. But the bulk of their education their children are receiving in schools attended by everyone, and they think that is how it should be. Their children have friends from all layers of society due to that. Our choice to homeschool, in their eyes, is elitism at best and a severe moral degeneration at worst. Personally, I am messed up. In a way glad that my children were abroad when the decision to homeschool was being made, because I would certainly feel at least somewhat guilty isolating them, in their own country, from its living school culture. We wrestled with that issue when we first thought, before homeschooling was ever an option, whether they would be in the regular system or we would start with an international school. The reactions we got for even considering it were: "Well, yeah, it is a broken system and it is a broken society, on many levels. But you can either be a part of it or not be a part of it, you cannot sit on two chairs by trying to take the best of both worlds. Either they are going to be a part of their nation, for the good and for the bad, or they are going to be cosmopolites with international education hanging in international circles, not truly one of the rest, in some ways strangers in their own country, if you make that choice." For homeschooling, many people reason essentially the same way. If you do not have comparable childhood and youth experiences and milestones as everybody else, with all the school culture and trips and whatnot, you are not 'really' one of us. And for many reasons, I wanted my kids to be a part of that, even if it is a less than perfect system... On the other hand, there are two things in which I am very much like your national doctrine: if I had to prioritize between an individual and a society, I would always prioritize an individual, and if there is an issue which can be solved in several ways, I would always solve it in the direction of greater personal freedoms and choice, not lesser ones. So, in that respect, I cannot possibly be against homeschooling in principle, even if I do agree there is an element of disintegration of nation which does not attend a school together. And yeah, this attitude alone disqualifies me as a morally sound person in those people's eyes. We simply see values in different things. So, I understand why one would have such an attitude, and I often wrestle with some facets of that attitude myself. I see it all the time as this is a typical litmus test on which I fail as a moral creature in those people's eyes. :tongue_smilie: :( Sigh. C'est la vie. :)

This is actually an easy one. :) You correct it and "fossilize" the result in the form of a grade whenever you test knowledge - at the end of each unit, or semester, or only at the end of the year, in accordance with your testing philosophy and approach. Some people like to base the grade on numerous small tests spread throughout the year, others do a single exam and call it a day. However you decide, those you do not allow to be corrected the way that it changes anything - sure, you go over the mistakes with the kids, or have them write a separate correction, or, if you do oral follow-ups of written exams, the first questions you ask are the ones regarding what they messed up in the written part of the exam, so it is not "ignored", but the result IS fossilized into a grade before you get back to it. The result does not change based on the corrections which took place. Because it was a test, not regular work. For everything else, for the "learning stage" (how are they supposed to learn if not by making a lot of mistakes along the way?) rather than the "testing stage", you mark it incorrect and they correct, but it is not graded.

I only homeschool one at the moment. Her greatest strengths are mathematical and scientific reasoning - she is very advanced in the subjects that are centered around it, has had a very intense interest in (bio)chemistry for several years and now she has discovered economics, which she currently binges on. Another pecular skill she is very good at is drawing, especially of a more precise, technical kind, which ties wonderfully with her interest in architecture and art history. She also has a very firm hand and one of her hobbies on and off has been coloring miniscule statues - a few people have commented that she is an excellent potential surgeon when they saw how good and how precise and firm she is with it. Interestingly, however, she has never had a particular interest in expressing herself via art, she is more into the technical side of it. Her weaknesses are more in the character realm than in the academic realm - I doubt there is anything this child would not be able to master provided a desire to do so and she eats up any academic challenges she is interested in, BUT, at the same time, she is her own worst enemy. She is prone to distractions and needs to exercise a greater level of active self-restraint than most people to be able to work in a less than perfect environment. Perfectionism (hard to overcome, but she has come a long way). School-wise, one of the effects of puberty was holding Greek in particular contempt. :lol: However, I would not say she was bad at it... Just not her cup of tea. She is also quite scattered in history.

Don't. Inauthentic, pseudo-intellectual charlatanism with a highly pretentious title, little to no substance, ideas which range from amusing to downright dangerous. Just my $.02 based on limited, superficial contact with it (because I did not deem it worthy of my time to study it more extensively).

This is sad. :(