Sciences: We do a combination of written and oral tests. Exercises are written (without the use of formulae at the time of taking the test, of course); next to the exercises a few precise theory questions are asked (those that literally require a sentence or two to respond to) and then a few questions which would require longer elaborations - they need to only outline the responses to those, and then we continue orally: they "narrate" (in lack of better expression) the theoretical problems asked, I ask some more related theoretical questions, and we talk on the level of the abstract, not the concrete (those were exercises). Then I check, or sometimes we check together, or they self-check the level of the concrete (the written exercises) and see if there were problems with solving those and where. That's for Chemistry and Physics (we do science with "divided" fields, not with units); for Biology, it's similar like History. It can take about 60 minutes for such a test (approx. 40 for the written part and approx. 20 for the oral part), but that's because I'm quite detailed. History (and Biology): We do predominately oral examinations. That doesn't count as "talking" about a problem the way we normally talk about it when we do school, it's an exam situation - I ask, they respond. I start with concrete, precise questions (of the type "who, when, what") and then gradually move onto the abstract level with the questions that require more elaboration. No sources are allowed to be used, except for the maps (for History) and, if needed, illustrations for Biology (depending on the content and what needs to be "shown"). Those type of tests take about 30-45 minutes. How do I prevent that they memorize just long enough for a test? I'll sound overly strict, but it's actually very simple: I don't really announce those tests, for most part. I do them instead of a regular lesson, and it's their reponsibility to be prepared. I try to minimize "artificial" situations in which we agree first, and then take test I know they studied specifically for, and try to make it a normal periodical check, without much fuss over it, to see how they actually progress. Those grades are only my own orientation, though, since they take their formal exams every year someplace else. But it's good to check from time to time, you might get surprised - both positively and negatively.

I'm not talking about allowances, more like... how, and at what age, do you teach your children to deal with money in a more elaborated context (past personal finances) - if you teach it at all? My mother, and especially my in-laws, have been complaining over the years on how the girls are "financially illiterate" and how they have to explain to them all of the things we, parents, should have taught them from early age (I disagree that a child of one-digit age should operate with the terms "stocks", "currency", "mortgage loan" etc, sorry, and I don't understand why would anyone want to explain those to a kid... but now when they're slowly hitting their teens, maybe it would be the time to handle some basics). So I wanted to ask over here if there's somebody who teaches - formally or informally - concepts in Economy to their children, at what age do you do it and how? So far they know how to convert dollars to euros to shekels (due to the fact we travel quite often), they vaguely understand how some currencies can be strong/weak and how they can change, but don't understand mechanisms behind it, and I'd like to teach that in the simplest manner possible, sort of "how the world economy works" thing. And next, elements of banking (how economy works on a micro-level, how banks function, where money comes from and how it's regulated, etc.). Did anyone here do something similar with their kids? What materials, if any, did you use? How old were your kids and how well did they understand it? Do you think it's important to know these things or not really? Am I hitting for something overly ambitious and should I wait till they're older teens, or my in-laws are right and they should know the basics? Thanks for your suggestions in advance.

Studying things that aren't her primary academic interest is a part of school too. Therefore, I would completely ignore all of her complaints and not modify a curriculum to indulge her. But that's only me.

Can I sneak in even if we aren't Christians? :) When my then about-4 y.o. talked to dad about the gods she knows about, by showing him drawings ("This is X, the god of Y; this is Z, the goddess of A" kind of thing), at some point he laughed, sat her, and told her: "Look, kid, there's only one God, and we don't believe in Him." :D I think that confession, made in the remarkable spirit of "Jewish atheism" (my mother in law, when she heard that, commented something of the kind how for us Jews monotheism is innate in our souls, and even if we reject God intellectually, we still automatically behave in monotheist patterns :)), made her more confused than anything else, gods-wise and mythology-wise. And now seriously, even our daughters, raised in an atheist home which was "sorta" culturally Jewish, pretty much always distinguished monotheism from polytheism, even before formal instruction on those concepts. I don't think it's an issue for kids, especially if they come from religious homes and grow up religiously. They might have intellectual difficulties with some outern aspects (such as specific stories which can be parallel and thus similar, etc.), but if they grow up practicing a monotheist religion, I don't think they get confused by fantastic stories or fairy tales or mythologies or "transfer" the polytheist "modus operandi" onto their home religion, thus confusing them. At least personally I haven't met a child with that difficulties, and I know quite a number of kids from observant Jewish and Christian homes who read mythologies at an early age. If you attribute importance to a specific system in your home and raise your children that way, no way they wouldn't "get" that that system differs on the essential level from other systems they read about, it goes subconsciously. When my daughters grew up a little I studied Greek philosophy on religion with them and tried to explain how Greek "polytheist system" as we know it from popular representations might, in fact, be a "fossilized" stage from one epoch, while during other periods many people thought differently about the phenomenon of god(s).

Actually, you don't even need it in there. suus / sua / sum In the context you provided it would be suum filium et suam filiam, but that's only if you want to emphasize it's his children, otherwise the sentence can go without it too.

There: Andre bonus nauta est. - the indefinite article your son put here is typical transferring the element of English into Latin, and syntactically it would be better to organize words the way I just did Nautam parvi filius et filia clamant. - has to be accusative for nauta (they call HIM) - actually from the point of view of "style" and what's natural for Latin you couldn't say such a sentence (while technically correct, not in the spirit of the language), but I won't correct it further, it's more than enough for a beginner Nautae parvum filium et parvam filiam multi barbari occupant. Pugnant. - same as above, not in the spirit of the language, but for a literal translation it's good - has to be genitive for nauta ("of him", his kids), and accusative for children Mali barbari Andrem superant - Andre gets "m", accusative again Filium et filiam ex Italia portant. - accusative for children Good. Syntatically, Andre solus navigat would be better, but the sentence is correct. Bravo. :) Andre spectat Italiam. - Italia has to be accusative (direct object) :confused: I can't see the sense of this in either Latin or English, can you explain? Andrew is help, in what sense? Andre contra multos barbaros pugnat. - accusative again (direct object) Filium et filiam liberat. - accusative ;) Nautae filius et filia tuti sunt. - genitive singular + syntax; I also wouldn't use "tuti", but okay. Overall, lexically he's pretty good (the choice of words is generally okay); morphologically so-so (accusatives seem to be an issue?); syntactically not as much, but syntax is what you learn the last in any case, so no need to worry about it so much yet. Cute story, btw. :)

Who wrote that text? No complains about your son's translation, but the text itself is FILLED with mistakes. Can you please point to me where it's taken from, what book/curriculum? EDIT: In case it's English to Latin translation made by your son, I understand - in that case I'll correct it, no problems; but if it's Latin to English and if those are their mistakes... too many to be typos. EDIT2: Okay, got it now, he wrote the story and translated it into Latin? Sorry for my initial confusion, I'll correct Latin in a few minutes.

I'll break your post into smaller parts because you're talking about a few quite different topics here. :) [bold emphasis mine] The point you make here is actually for most of the classical homeschoolers incorrect, the key is in the bold part - nobody is really advising the study of classical languages as opposed to the study of modern languages (in fact, from what I noticed, more often than not people combine the two). There is nothing inherently superior in classical languages as languages and as opposed to the modern languages. Granted, people study classics for variety of reasons, and even I personally disagree with some of those (which will be my next point), but nobody is advising the study of them INSTEAD of the study of modern languages. Some people view them as a sort of "additional" content, some people (me included) view them as a "default" part of the classical curriculum, but keep in mind that it's usually not the question of A versus B. This is the part where I agree with you. While I allow each person to decide for themselves the reasons why they're doing something and to which extent they'll do it, I disagree with making Latin a kind of "proxy" for some other goals which can be attained in much smoother, easier and more direct ways. If you want to teach analytical approach to grammar, or vocabulary roots, you really don't need Latin. Some people will still choose to do it via Latin, and while they're entitled to their position, I personally disagree with that. I believe that the reason here should be Latin language, literature and civilization behind it itself, and not that as means to some other field. Also, I noticed that people who tend to use Latin as a proxy generally don't aim that high with Latin (by "high" I mean post-morphology and post-syntax level, i.e. texts and metrics), but are content with a degree of familiarity with it. While I, again, recognize that as a legitimate goal, I think the vague familiarity with a modern Romance language would do the same, PLUS result in some additional practical benefit, which is why I usually suggest the study of a modern Romance language if one wants to help English vocabulary, and Latin if you're interested in Latin for its own sake. What do you mean by "many original writings"? :D How about this - valuable writings of great cultural significance, in the context of so-called "western culture", were written in a plethora of languages. Latin and Greek, while technically being roots of our culture, do not have a monopoly over what our culture is and what it developed into. A lot of people seem to glorify them for completely wrong reasons, as if Aeneid was somehow inherently superior to The Divine Comedy or to Faust, just because it's older. Another typical mistake is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" one, i.e. thinking that everything is necessarily rooted in the classical culture because it came after it, and thus reading into that culture things which originally might not have been there at all. That, combined with general romanticization of Latin/Greek world which is overpresent (films, even lots of literature and textbooks!), is a killer combination for the "mystique" and a part of the popularity of Latin. Good translations exist. Also, a lot of works composed in other languages, which would be more than worth reading in their original languages, are also around. The choice of Latin and/or Greek is actually a difficult one, since every choice of something is also a not choosing something else and one might really wonder why would anyone make that choice for classics in today's world. I may elaborate on that sometime later (kinda in a rush right now), but it's a choice everyone needs to make for themselves. In short, I think it's about cultural heritage which somebody should keep (not necessarily everyone, and it's better if a hundred interested people do it properly, than thousands uninterested superficially) and, to lesser extent, about those cultures themselves and the diachronic understanding we may gain from them. Again, it's not the question of "better" or "worse". It's more like the question of certain ideals related to the shared cultural heritage of the nations belonging to our cultural circle. Also, it's rarely studied instead of something, more often it's additional to something. I teach classics basically from kindergarten... Yet my daughters are fluent native speakers of both Italian and English and with different, but both high, levels of proficiency in Hebrew (with which we have another special relationship, being our cultural heritage as well). I myself studied classics throughout middle/high school in a very traditional school, yet French, English and German and their respective literatures were also studied in that school and were of no less importance. It wasn't the question of fashion or even elitism, classics were simply integral part of curriculum. You couldn't kick them out, but you also couldn't kick Chemistry out. It was all intertwined, which doesn't mean that we necessarily studied other disciplines through the classics, it just means that there was a system, a "matrix" if you wish, and while there might be many different systems of education, based on different ideologies, the "matrix" of classical education in our context was such and such, and it included classics as equally worth parts of curriculum. What I do at home now with my kids is something similar.

Classical can refer to a method or to a content, and that's where a lot of misunderstanding lies. I don't accept as "classical" a model which doesn't encompass the study of classical languages, history, literature and philosophy - for me, the content is very important in the definition. Other people might focus on the method, and thus accept as classical anything which follows a 3-stage model. While I think it's integral part of classical education to some extent, depending on the model, I don't think that itself makes an educational model "classical".

No, thank God. A small lactose intolerance for my younger one (and we're generally as a family not much into dairy), but nothing severe or life threatening.

We do all of the Math/Sciences with metric system being the default one. Also, we're Europeans by origin, so it naturally comes as the default one in our minds - I actually had to learn myself first and then to teach my daughters to think in the standard system too. My husband, being a scientist, was also adamant on that matter, that the girls have to receive their Science education in the metric system. :)

I suppose I'm somewhere in the middle. I did start early (is K early enough? :D), but never really treated it as a formal subject until somewhere about 3rd, 4th grade. I didn't use any curricula, only went by my own intuition (having had 8 years of quite intensive Latin education in middle and high school + additional university Latin literature and Latin/Italian historical linguistics courses), and made it quite playful. Our Latin in K and in 1st grade was mostly about vocabulary and getting familiar with "that language our language evolved from" (we're native Italian speakers, so we have different approach to Latin). It was mostly about lots of words and pictures of what those words meant, some easy sentences taken off the texts and lots of proverbs. 2nd and 3rd grade were similar, more about cultural literacy than building actual language skills, even though they technically did know most of basic grammar (pretty much all declensions, indicatives of present and imperfect, and both futures I think; I taught them all of that almost nonchalantly, "by the way", while reading small excerpts from easier texts) when Latin became "formal". Then we slowly shifted towards the approach in which the language itself becomes our primary interest, and studied formally the grammar we knew, and expanded it from there. When the morphology was done, we moved onto syntax + texts of course. By the time they hit high school age (right now they're 6th and 7th grade), they should be able to read any text in Latin, included poetry which keeps to the standard meters (since we included metrics too), which leaves all four years of high school exclusively for work on texts and contextualization of those texts (history, philosophy, etc.). I did something similar with Greek too. In any case, in early years the focus was on living languages, even though the classics were always somewhere in the air, and their importance was increased gradually. That's the positive side of early Latin: if your goals are very high, it's better to start earlier and break that goal on lots of little phases. However, very formal and analytical study should, in my opinion, wait for when the child can think analytically about the language which they have to learn analytically as it's not spoken, that's very individual, but usually somewhere 3rd-6th grade. So I'd say anything before that should be more informal and playful, if you want to start early, in order not to frustrate the kid or yourself.

Definitely not History for us. :D We do it regularly, and chronologically, but I feel like it's one of the subjects on the lower end of the priority list right now. Right now what we're doing with History is trying to get the basics and the context done, but it's far from what would be my ideal for History. However, you can't emphasize everything and have to make some kind of priority list. I guess that for us priorities would be centered in two areas: one would be languages and Literature, which we really study a lot and more thoroughly than other areas, and the other one would be sciences, especially for my younger one with an extra interest in it.

Well, I'll just point to the obvious: in order to make a selection, you have to have read all of the works you consider. If you do it randomly, then what's the point, since you're missing the context and what you choose might not be representative? That's why I agree with everyone before me who suggested textbook readers and anthologies, unless of course you think you can do a better job and have read enough to make your own selection. :) I make my own selections for Literature and, for now, for Philosophy; we don't read a lot of History and for those I rely to readers.

You know what, maybe at the end of the day you're right. :) Being fluent and teaching my kids from a different perspective, I don't have enough experience with true beginner programs, and Hebrew from Scratch is the kind of material that you profit from the most once you have some foundation to build on. I mean certainly, there are people who learn Hebrew on their own via this program (as I said, I know a handful cause I was helping them with Hebrew and they were autodidacts who had used this program before), but there might be indeed easier options that are worth checking out.

Because I was classically educated myself and could not fathom sending my daughters to the US school system upon moving here and depriving them off the important content. Granted, we're not typical classical homeschoolers and we actually do many things differently than TWTM, however, I still find it one of the better systems available.

I require formal grade level schoolwork done at some point (mostly because they take yearly exams home in Italy, but also because I want to make sure they don't miss out on things), but I don't base their schooling on that. They work roughly within the same topics, but deepening them; and for some areas they cover material which isn't grade level (or school level for that matter). I also don't force them to work together and study the same things, even if it would be easier for me (they're not even a full year apart age-wise), because I want to respect their individual needs and meet them each where they are, thus I find myself dealing with completely different curricula, topics they explore and different texts. For now I'm working with the older one on her extras, since they're roughly my fields (languages and humanities) as well as give her harder readings, and we think about adding an extra language for her too; I'm helpless with the younger one though as she's into heavy science, so she gets her tutor over here every week and they study Biochemistry. I can barely follow her extra science; by the time she finishes this grade (age-wise she's 6th) I probably won't be even be able to. I support their interests financially as much as I can. They get to travel, meet people that deal with the things they're interested in, get materials they need. I take their interests very seriously and want to encourage them to study. However, I don't allow the rest of the schoolwork to be neglected. While I do modify what I teach a little for each of them, no way I'll allow a science-oriented one to get away with Italian Literature or Judaics, even though I know she'd like to minimize those, and there's no way her sister is getting away with minimal Maths and Sciences - she gets the full school dose at least. So that's my approach: encourage the strengths and try to teach them at their level there, if you can't, outsource it; when it comes to other fields, do the equivalent of what a good school would do and keep it at grade level if they show no particular interest in those. We've had a few small burnouts, but I don't take those drastically, they're normal parts of life too. You take a few days off and go somewhere, change a climate a little if you must (the universal cure in my family: a travel :D), and get back to work. You always make sure what's elective and extra, and what's standard program and a must. They dictate the tempo of the extras and are fully entitled to slow down a bit if they need (or even give up for a while, why not; maybe in some periods kids need other types of interests), but you dictate the tempo of the standard program and decide what amount of slowing down is acceptable. That works for us.

My baby beliefs are pretty similar to those of my friends, but we differ when the kids become older. The first place when we part are "control" issues. I control my daughters WAY less than most of the people I know, and we're also physically WAY more apart than most other parents and kids. I leave them the entire summer (two months) in Italy with my parents. I send them for two or three weeks of winter break abroad too. When we're in different cities/countries, we don't even heard each other every single day (provided I know who they're with, of course; the situation is different if they're by my or my husband's family and if they're in a camp with people I don't know as well - in that case of course I call and make sure they're okay). When we're together, even then we allow a lot of personal space and don't force contact which doesn't come "naturally" (it's not like I'll call them to come to living room to socialize when somebody comes and things like that). Most of my US friends couldn't IMAGINE raising elementary and middle schoolers that way; some of my Italian friends could and do something similar, but I guess I'm still the most extreme one. The next point where we part is home life. I really don't require of them to do much around the house, which is again something my Italian friends are quite close to me, and my US friends not that much. Simply, even I wasn't raised with much emphasis on physical work around the house or too much chores (sure I had those, but they were mostly "symbolic", as are those of my daughters), so I don't raise them as responsible as are other kids I know with regards to that aspect (I would also consider it hypocrite to have a maid for most jobs and require of them to work much more past what they use). I also don't really make a fuss here and I'm not punitive in that aspect. Most of my US friends over here consider it terribly wrong and a bad note in my parenting ("You're raising them lazy! You're raising them without the appreciation for physical work!" etc.), most of my friends in Italy totally understand the point of view in which kids are being given only small symbolic work. The third point are academics. I'm sort of merciless when it comes to this and it's one of the rare things I'll really make fuss about if it's not working properly (I can stand chores being postponed or an outburst of bad mood, and will not really mention it if it's not a big deal or a habit, but I CANNOT stand intellectual laziness in any way, shape or form). I also have very high criteria for both of them, because they're gifted and I want them to use those gifts rather than just "get by" with academics. Most of the homeschooling moms I know think I'm nuts when it comes to academics. I'm still convinced I do what's best for MY children. The fourth point where we totally part is authority. I really don't have, nor have ever wanted to have, an authoritarian approach to parenting nor do I wish my children to see me as a figure of "authority". I also don't raise them to be good and obedient kids to various "authorities", good and silent citizens, and stuff like that. That doesn't mean that I will tolerate anarchy or lack of respect, I just don't like the aura of "authority", don't want it to be the mode I approach my children and don't want them to grow up with the feelings of guilt and need to obey whoever is on a higher position than they are. I don't have a "I'm your friend" approach, but I'm not their authority either. I never use a "Because *I* (Her Majesty Mother) said so" as an argument for anything, and I actively teach them to disqualify those as arguments when they hear them. Needless to say, most of the parents I know think I'm nuts in that aspect. I still think there's more harm in raising overly obedient kids and raising kids on the principle of obeying and following a shepherd. And finally, we often disagree when it comes to "bad stuff" (junk food, schund culture, you name it). I tend to allow everything in moderation and not make a big deal out it if it doesn't get out of control, most of the people I know have a preventive approach ("Let's not allow it so we're not even put in the situation that it might get out of control"). I tend to not have those extra layers of protection around the things I forbid, i.e. I explicitly forbid less things than most parents I know, and I tend to be somewhat flexible about "lesser evils". While my approach might not be universal or applicable for every situation and every child, for us it's working. So yes, I'm by default friends with people who parent differently. My closest friends though are quite similar.

I have a 6th and a 7th grader working on different grade levels for different subjects. We school six days a week (Sunday through Friday); with five days a week roughly starting about 8, 8.30 and finishing about 4 or 5, and the sixth day starting at the same time but finishing about 1 or 2, in some cases earlier. That time includes a lunch break (which varies in length, it can be about 20-30 minutes as well as it can be a full hour, they decide for themselves) and occasional other small breaks they take when needed. That time includes self-study as well as one on one instruction with me and them studying together certain areas if possible; I do not assign homework out of that time, but that time usually is not sufficient to fit in all of the required readings, so they read a few hours sometime during the week on the top of that for school only. They don't do much chores, the daily load hardly exceeds 15-20 minutes and consists of more or less fixed ones. The younger daughter has private instruction usually once a week in science and sometimes it's squeezed in the school day, sometimes it's an extra. It takes 2 or 3 hours. The older daughter has her own academic interests aside, but no formal activities related to them. They mostly spend their free time in unstructured way or with their friends. At the moment they don't do any evening activities because they don't want to (we travel a lot and they spend parts of year abroad, so they say that exhaust them enough and that they want peace and tranquility the rest of the year while they're home), but they do physical activities during the unstructured time.

I actually know a handful of people who learned Hebrew with that textbook and audio (young adults). Granted, they had to outsource it at some point, but at the end of the day, to learn ANY language to a high level you need to actually use the language and not rely solely on what you get taught. What are you talking about? Anyone can learn to read Hebrew in a matter of maybe not hours, but certainly DAYS (that is, not weeks, and certainly not months) and with reasonable practice, they should be able to follow the material they're studying with quite smoothly. To read Hebrew fluently without vowels and to know how to read it it takes to actually know the language (the tricky thing about Hebrew is that you often can't read what you don't know as you don't know where the vowels are and many words can be read differently), but let's not mystify the language to those who don't speak it - it's really not that hard to learn the script, and OP has an 18 y.o. ALL beginner textbooks will keep that in mind and use either vowels either phonetic transcription at first. Except for maybe very non-visual people, I can't see how can the fact it's a different script be a real stumbling block. An advise, though - try to minimize the transliteration, and especially don't write the pronunciation above the words. Learn to read the alephbet right away, without "helping" it that way, cause it might actually hinder your progress. It's much better to have an alephbet chart next to you and decipher letter by letter for a while, and get stuck and try over and over, until she learns, than to write the pronunciation and trick herself, and thus not learn it properly for a nice while.

#1: Appalled by the American school system. (Cultural and educational differences, he felt he did not want our daughters to be part of that system.) A solid education was an absolute must for our daughters. #2: Good private boarding school was an option, and financially we could have handled it, but the girls were so little and so tied to us, it would have been cruel to send them away at the age of 5-6. #3: Both of the girls were gifted, so they needed extra attention, one on one approach, and extra work in order to profit from their education; the typical public school education would strive to drown them in the mass, and we did not want it. #4: Italian education. We did not want our daughters to speak their first language on the level of a second one. We wanted full Italian education for them (language, literature, culture), as well as that they go through the entire Italian curriculum in Italian and do their exams in Italy every year, to avoid problems when we come back. #5: Some level of Jewish education was a must too, however, being atheists, we felt extremely uncomfortable about sending them to Jewish school which would stress the religion and not only the cultural and the linguistic aspect. #6: We travel a lot abroad, the girls spend all summers in Italy and winter holidays in the Alps, and they go with or without us to other places during the year, so we needed more flexible schedule, as they're technically out of school about 1/4, maybe even 1/3 of the year. #7: Cultural reasons. He wanted our daughters to maintain a distinct complex national and cultural identity and he felt that allowing them to mingle with the local children in all contexts (not only playing and having friends, but also sharing education, sharing popular culture, etc.) would make them grow up entirely in a foreign culture, absorb only foreign customs and manners and thus assimilate and feel foreign in their primary culture, to which we will inevitably go back eventually.

I found that to be amazing, in our situation as well. I speak English to them when we study English and several other subjects, and sometimes even during the non-school hours (though I try not to), their father never speaks English to them, and yet, they have perfect pronunciation and know the language just as well as Italian. :D If you have family in Germany, or close friends, consider sending the kids there for the ENTIRE holidays, like two months in the summer, or two-three weeks in the winter, depending on when do you have holidays. Do it repeatedly over the course of years and absolutely require of everyone in Germany to speak and respond to German only. Short visits can NEVER do what a constant exposure to the language can do over the years. It will do wonders, that's basically how we kept up with Italian when our daughters had "English only" phase - they CANNOT rely on people knowing English that well in Italy :D, so they were forced to use only Italian even in periods when they felt like talking only English. Too bad that in Israel everybody speaks English and is more than willing to speak English to them when they come, it slowed down their progress with Hebrew A LOT when they were younger. This rings a bell, I STILL have to remind my daughters quite often that it's impolite to just shift to Italian or Hebrew when we're among other people, because it's so obvious that they do it in order not to be understood. :D We start languages earlier, study multiple languages from early childhood, we generally come more in contact with foreign languages, and if you travel a few hundred kilometers you're usually in another country with another language already, thus a number of your friends, colleagues and relatives are also likely to speak other languages, etc. All of those, when combined, make you less shy because it's a common situation, while in the US people do tend to be somewhat paralyzed. That's a shame, you'll never learn if you don't try.

Mine have limited TV time, so not much TV over here, but they do use internet a lot. I usually don't complain since they tend to use it for educational purposes more than anything else (they aren't into social networks), but I do require a break from the computer every half an hour because I don't want them to sit all the time. I'd say however that they don't use electronics more than 2-4 hours daily, that article is quite extreme. I use computer a lot because if I work (translations), I have to be on the computer so I tend to multitask at the same time (like now). My husband also uses it mostly for work. We don't allow technology in their rooms yet, so if they want to use computer, they have to do it in the living room, and can't do it late. They do have cell phones and music though, but I haven't noticed they spend that much time on it (I see them around the house without earphones far more than with them).

I make a general plan before each semester, but it tends to change as we go, and I make definite weekly plans with the girls Friday after school. About 8 hours Sunday through Thursday, and about 5 or 6 hours Friday. That would make it about 45 hours weekly. That time does not cover all of the Literature readings (they read those in their free time) and most of the assigned essays, so if I were to include the extra time for that, add 5-6 hours weekly, but that's quite flexible because they tend to squeeze in those hours if they finish earlier the rest of the work. Age-wise they're 6th and 7th grade, content-wise we do a mix of middle and high school material: Italian (Literature, Grammar, Writing) - native language level English (Literature, Grammar, Writing) - native language level Hebrew (Grammar, Reading and Writing; Literature for the older dd) - advanced foreign language level, but the older dd is slowly making a shift towards studying it at a native level too Latin (Literature, Syntax, some Metrics) Greek (Morph/Syntax, Literature) Maths (they both do 8th grade material together) Science - we have it split by disciplines, thus they do separately Biology, Chemistry and Physics (about 6 hours in total) History Geography with very basic Economy/Politics (we tied the two together in order for the girls to get in touch with what's going on in the world) Judaics/Tanach - used to be tied to our Hebrew studies, not we separated it, but do it only once a week, nothing huge Music/Art - quite informally, usually only once a week each (though they get plenty of "practice" there by attending concerts, spending all summers in Italy and seeing all you could possibly see, etc.), sometimes as a part of school hours, sometimes not; we're saving history of music/art for later The older dd also does Formal Logic and Philosophy (in total 2-3 hours a week, with me); the younger dd has some Logic incorporated in her extra Math work and she studies extra high level science (Biochemistry) with a tutor weekly, sometimes in and sometimes out of school hours. I taught at university, so it's not really comparable.

See, when you put it this way, it's quite clear you didn't really understand much, from the book alone I mean. It's the wording that's revealing you, though I get what your idea was. But the terminology is all wrong. And it's not your "fault" nor you're not the first one who read that book (or Asher Lev for that matter) and then said something so simplifying that it's wrong (simplifications at some point inevitably become plainly wrong, and an author should keep that in mind when writing a culture-specific work for larger audience). Non-Jewish perception of this book is usually very much along those lines, from what I talked about with many people. Ultra-conservative? No such thing within the Jewish world: those who are on the "conservative" side oppose very much those who are on the (ultra-)orthodox side. Chassidism is not a sect, and strictly speaking it's hardly even a single "movement", though that would be the best word applicable. It in itself consists of many "sects" (again, in lack of better expression) and Potok and authors like him sometimes explicitly named which ones they're speaking of, and sometimes not, though they left enough clues for a Jewish reader to "get" it (Asher Lev, for example). The whole issue of Zionism and its equally fervent opposition in "The Chosen" is also treated very poorly. Somebody outside of the Jewish context can hardly understand it relying solely on this book. In the next book, "The Promise", the issue of textual criticism applied to the Jewish tradition and law is also treated incredibly poorly; it's one of the very complex topics (so is Zionism) in the Jewish world and you can get a very wrong glimpse of it by just glimpsing at it through Potok's book, if you're not Jewish and you don't know many things which a Jewish reader knows by default and Potok did not bother to elaborate, knowing them himself. You either have to know these things from before reading the book, either it leaves you puzzled or with very, very superficial understanding of anything. That's why I don't think Potok is a good choice for people outside of the Jewish context who want to explore the Jewish culture, if they read him without getting informed on many things from other sources. Yes, it's an okay coming-of-age book (though there are much better ones around), but specifically to get to experience the culture from the inside, probably not the best choice. Though not that you have a big choice anyway. All I'm trying to say is, things are often not what they seem like. I have to say my opinion was that Potok was a little bit too ambitious, taking too complex themes to incorporate into the general story and not treating them well enough (Zionism, textual criticism of Talmud, the issue of art, etc., depending on the work).