Becoming fluent in 2-4 years?! No way, unless you live in the country where it's spoken and handle most of your business directly in the language. But then again, the definition of fluency varies too. I would never call my daughters fluent in Hebrew, yet I've heard them described that way more than once. Sure, they can watch TV and get most of it, read news and get most of it, converse about everyday topics with ease and about harder, more "academic" topics if helped, be in Israel and conduct most of their communication with other people in Hebrew (buying and ordering stuff, casual chats, etc), and they even know most of the Israeli teen slang, listen to Israeli music basically every day and have good accents. I don't call that fluent. Till they're casually reading Israeli literature without noticing it's in Hebrew and till they can do academic-level writing about Philosophy and Physics in Hebrew, using all the proper terminology, they're not fluent in my eyes. They're fluent in English and Italian, with a "reasonable command" of Hebrew. Many people call them trilingual, I call them bilingual and I think they have a long way to go till fluency in Hebrew. Pay attention to those "fluent in X months" stuff. Nobody can make you fluent with an hour a week in a few years, you need to live in the language to become fluent in it. Regarding the price, I think it's reasonable. I sometimes tutored Italian, ranging from $60 to $80 an hour, in my house (however, I tutored exclusively people with a decent background in the language, who wanted speaking practice on non-everyday topics or needed help with a specific kind of terminology, i.e. I didn't teach basic grammar for that money but advanced stuff, and it was always a few lessons only, not that I was continuously teaching somebody Italian, but rather helping with specific advanced stuff), and even I considered that a little bit expensive - but since I didn't need to do it for a living, and since I had a kind of monopoly (no other good Italian teachers able to handle those stuff, and not much Italians here...), I used the situation to suit me. ;)

Morally, I'd approve (even welcome) an abortion in cases of rape, child and young teenage pregnancy, extreme poverty which would imply the impossibility to raise and educate a child and which would inevitably lead to certain side-effects (child labor and alike), mother's life and health being threatened, serious medical complications with the fetus'. So, no, I wouldn't morally approve an abortion purely "out of convenience", in case where you have two adult people engaging in an activity the potential consequences of which they're aware of, with no protection, both financially stable, healthy and able to raise a child, no medical complications included, and who yet decide the baby would be threatening their comfort zone, so she goes to abort out of that sole reason. I'd consider such a behavior irresponsible and couldn't say "yes, I think she made a right decision". Children are not toys, not even potential children, to throw them away as we please, for no reason other than our own comfort. Yet, I think that even in that hypothetical situation, a woman should have a legal option to abort till certain stage of pregnancy. Do I agree with her choice? Absolutely not. But I think she should have an option to do it, legally and in a medically acceptable environment, nonetheless. In fact, I don't think we should outlaw things for my own comfort or that I have a right to dictate to other people what to do with their bodies for my mental peace. The beginning stages of pregnancy are comparable to having a parasite inside of your body, and there is a huge debate at which point the thing becomes alive in full sense of the word. As a matter of fact, the whole of pregnancy is, medically speaking, a pathological state for the body. And I'm of opinion your body - your choice, as long as you abort within certain time span (not in late pregnancy). I do think abortion is bad, but I also recognize that in some cases it's the least of all the possible evils. I don't think in black-white paradigms, I don't think that one should stick to moral "absolutes" and disregard the circumstances. As a matter of fact, I think that bringing the baby into the world of extreme poverty, or by young parents who can't handle it and who are only going to burden other people by their choice, or an unwanted baby who will constantly remind you to the worst thing in your life... is equally irresponsible, if not more, than preventing it to be born in the first place. Giving birth to a child you won't be able to maintain, educate, give proper childhood to, take care of medically if it has defects (and burden other people, if you can't) is in my opinion wrong, for the sole sake of staying within your comfort zone mentally, and I think it's selfish, equally as the aforementioned situation in which I think aborting is wrong. That being said, I don't think abortion is "good" and there are many cases in which I don't even morally approve it, but I think it should always be an option. I also don't think it's a murder, if done right away. It's simply, to put it in brutally honest terms, getting rid of an unwanted parasite inside of your body which doesn't live for itself yet. I'm more concerned with medical implications for the mother than with the ethical ones. I also don't think it's killing a child. It's killing a possibility of a child. You don't know what you're killing. You may be killing one Beethoven, but you may be also killing one Hitler. You can't know, you're killing a possibility of both. Universally speaking, there are probably also many "good" abortions, of would-have-been's bad people. Many of you have in their minds sweet little children, but those children bear certain genes (especially those who are a product of a rape) and not all of them will be good and moral, even if you raise them as such, and many of them will develop pathological traits of character and will hurt other people. The bottomline is, you never know, since you're killing a possibility. I think it's wrong to kill a possibility if that possibility lives for itself, which fetus in early stages of pregnancy doesn't. I also don't think it's wrong to kill a future certainity (notice that I said future, not present!) and to abort if you know that child will be ill or will have a miserable life in general. Basically, I don't think it's a murder. I don't think it's a good thing, but definitely not a murder in my eyes.

One can never do everything, nor teach everything one "should". One can, however, make sure to teach the skills our children will be able to use to learn anything they want and need later in life, as well as the love of learning and the need to continuously work on themselves (not only regarding the intellect - but also regarding the body, personality, etc). Since my daughters regularly take (and rock! :D) the exams in one Italian school for all subjects they'd have there, at least formally we have the situation clear and know that we aren't missing anything. I've also tried reading those "What should your X grader know" stuff, but in my opinion they don't reflect that which an X grader should know. I think the education is much, much more than some written "standards" for some "grade". Another reason why I chose to homeschool - to give them education rather than "filling the requirements". So we do quite a lot, and I don't really care that much about the formal division by grades (but then again, I don't because they excel, if they weren't meeting the requirements for their "grade", I'd probably be worried and think I'm doing something wrong).

Last year they were 5th and 6th grade by their age, but they were doing math together - since my younger one really, really loves it, and my older one is not at all crazy about it, but she perfectly gets it. Combining Italian and American curricula, we finished 7th grade and did half of the 8th grade. They do math five days a week, about an hour a day - I schedule an hour, but they're usually done earlier, and my older one is agonizing about moving onto other things. The younger one does math also on Friday (but not the regular one, she does extra math her father assigns her, on different topics), the older one doesn't, so she usually gets about 5 hours a week, while the younger one does it in her free time too, so she gets more. I'm lucky regarding the fact that they both "get" it, they both do great with abstract thinking, so they don't need to spend a lot of time doing concrete math exercises, as they get the idea behind it. So math is not a problematic subject in our home. :-)

I have exactly that - a "household help", not just a "cleaning lady". She comes over twice a week (Mondays and Thursdays) and stays for 7-8 hours. She's been working for us for years and she seems to have formed some kind of her own schedule when to do what. There are some things she does every time she comes (the floors, dusting, bathrooms, etc.), while the rest of the time she just does the "little" stuff which vary depending on the day and the situation - she does the dishes if there are dishes to be done, organizes my kitchen a little if it's disorganized, does the laundry if there is laundry to be done, if it's done but needs to be ironed she does that, puts random things in the house back to their place if they're in mess, stuff like that. Once a month she does the extra things, such as the windows and the curtains, in a more thorough cleaning of the house (usually it's two days in a row). Everybody who's at home at that time helps out with that monthy cleaning. The rest of the time we just try to be clean all together. I've taught the girls to always clean up after themselves and to keep their rooms in a reasonable order, and DH is also a relatively tidy person. We don't have much issues with cleaning, everybody does their part in it, but it's still relatively little, given that we do everything regularly so the house is always decent. So yes, there are still people who do it. Some of them pretty well in fact. ;)

First of all, I think that the age matters here. Even a couple of years is a big difference - the situation is not nearly the same if the girl in question is 14-15 and if she's 18-19. In all honesty - and I know many of you here will disagree with me - I believe abortion is the least of all evils when it comes to very young girls. They're simply not able to be mothers - physically barely prepared, emotionally immature, proper children, financially unstable, dependent on their parents almost completely... And yet, even if we overcome all that and welcome a new baby, only then the problems begin - can they raise the child? I'm not talking about getting up at night and changing diapers, that's but a minor physical endurance test, compared to what comes a year or two later... Are they able to raise the child, being children themselves? To teach the child, being half-literate themselves? To present any kind of a role model to the child? Any kind of authority? From what I've seen in such cases, such young mothers usually develop a kind of "sibling relationship" with their baby, rather than mother-child one - which is understandable, but quite bad if you ask me. The child is put into one quite unhealthy situation, of being basically raised by grandparents (yeah, a mother can work and all, but she is not fully financially stable while she still lives with her parents, etc.) and of knowing, for the rest of his/her life, that they're a "side effect" of their mother's teenage irresponsibility, not a wanted and a planned baby. And yet, I don't take away the logical possibility of those young girls to be good mothers. I haven't seen it myself in practice, but I do believe it's possible - just not common. I guess it depends a lot on the girl in question. When it comes to a bit older girls - 18-19 - that's a different situation. While I would still approve an abortion here (I'm very pro-choice, I basically approve abortion in nearly every case of an unplanned or unsuitable pregnancy, regardless of woman's age), I also see those girls as much more prepared to be mothers (though still essentially unprepared) and I would be more peaceful knowing my daughter at that age has a baby. Of course, as a parent, I'd support and help my daughter with any choice, and every choice is a hard one in that situation, and there is no universal answer as to what to do, what I wrote above is just a vague "outline", God knows what I'd think if it actually happened to my daughter. I would just feel bad about her having to suddenly skip a lot and grow up quickly because of a single unwise choice - but I'd be there for her.

History may not be interesting for everyone, but an overview of a national and world history is, with no doubt, a part of the "standard equipment" we expect from an educated person - any educated person, regardless of what they do in life. Chinese, in the other hand, is by no means a part of the "standard equipment". As any language - especially the "big" ones - it is useful, but it is not necessary. I would personally never trade the basics for the extras, particularly if the extras are not really wanted by the child in question. I'm all for the extra content - but as an addition to the regular curriculum, not the substitution for some of its parts which we may deem less pleasant. I would under no circumstances allow a 12-year-old to skip History and to take an exotic, hard-to-learn language instead which she'll most likely master only the bare basics of, given the lack of a true interest and time - and that's in my opinion a waste of time.

I agree with Tara. Not so long ago I posted on this forum the curriculum which was followed at my old school, both for Latin and Greek. As you might have noticed if you follow the Latin-related threads, the curriculum is pretty elaborated and advanced, and yet, all of it was done without ever doing any kind of "active Latin", except for an odd writing exercise. We never, ever spoke Latin in the class - yet, in the 8 years we did Latin we went through tons of the original texts (Caesar, Virgil, Ovid, Plautus, you name it), some in excerpts, in some cases the whole works, and with time we got used to reading Latin, and that resulted in quite a high-level reading fluency. We all learned Latin in the good old fashioned analytical manner - grammar and translation, vocabulary memorization, and then later analysis of a discourse without translation, and then later natural reading. By the time we were 18, most of us could read way more fluently than college majors in classical philology which used to come to our school (they had to do some kind of teaching practice with us students). That being said, I don't think that using Latin is a "bad" thing - I just believe it should be acknowledged that Latin and Greek are primarily studied out of different reasons than modern foreign languages. They offer a diachronic perspective to the student, and they offer primarily communication with a text and, via the text, with the culture that produced it. While they can be used to communicate, such a communication is necessarily half-artificial in our time and place. The Latin spoken today is close to the constructed languages, with so much invented vocabulary needed to speak of our daily matters. I don't think that should be a purpose of studying Latin, unless it were to be revived (and as far as I know, the only really successful language revival ever is the case of Hebrew), which I don't see happening. There is no natural Latin surrounding, and even if there is (if you were to name Vatican, for example), it's contextually limited; there are no native speakers in a full sense of the word, etc. The active "using" Latin today is just sugarcoating its difficulties for students and making them learn more naturally, as many courses do - and I'm perfectly okay with that, as long as that kind of "constructed Latin" doesn't become the purpose for itself and replaces the real purpose of studying Latin - the texts. And that difficulty is more present than ever, since more and more educators teach Latin "touristically", the way they'd teach basic French or German, and not traditionally. If you do that, your child is in no way going to profit - they can learn their roots equally well from Italian (or any other useful Romance language you can teach), and get so much more in fact from a living language. If you want them to learn specifically Latin, give them the full priviledge of Latin, which is maybe a harder process due to the limited input, but is still a very rewarding study area. That's another reason why I suggest to wait with Latin a little, till your child can handle the analytical study of the language, and to possibly introduce a modern foreign language (or a second native one, if there is) before jumping into Latin. Of course, everybody is entitled to do what works best for them and their child, but that's my two cents.

I don't mess with what they read in their free time. When they were younger, I used to take them to the library and comment on books with them, but they were always free to choose what to read, and so they are now. They talk to me about the books they read every now and then, but I don't "check" them, they're old enough to make their choices now (11 and 12). Some of their choices keep amazing me, since I've noticed a mild inclination towards "high literature" with both of my daughters; some of their choices, in the other hand, are purely teen lit and junk stuff. I think, however, that it's great that my daughters choose to read both things such as Les Miserables and stuff like Twilight in their free time. As far as school stuff are concerned, we follow a curriculum and they know what's on since the beginning of a school year. They can choose to do an odd book or two of their choice too, however, only in addition to the required readings, not as a substitute. The Italian part of the readings is based on what they would read if they lived in Italy (they also need to go through those for the sake of the exams they do e very year), plus some other things I deem important; the English part of the readings is very loosely based on what their peers read at school here, but enriched a lot. I'm happy they both LOVE reading. :-)

Thank you everybody for your posts, I was really curious as to what other people think. She's perfectly bilingual at this point - I'd say she's equally fluent in both languages, on all levels (she can handle youth slang just as well as academic material in both languages). Her Hebrew is also reasonably proficient (I wouldn't call it fluent, but she's on a good way to become fluent), but not at the level of young Israelis her age (she's far, far better with the spoken language, has no problems understanding TV or communicating, but her reading skills are quite basic and she can't handle the language on an academic level yet). She's not very interested in science though, she's more humanities-oriented so far. However, as DH is into science, I believe simply hearing him and being exposed to all she was exposed to so far will help her to maintain some contact with scientific English. Her English spelling is amazing, she reads tons in both languages and she's really literate. I think the key is to make her continue reading literature - not just magazines and such stuff - and I don't think I'll have problems with that, given that she loves it. We also regularly do the unknown words, her vocabulary is even bigger than it should be at this grade level (but I think that's because of Italian and classics more than reading itself, so she easily recognizes a lot of "big words"). She doesn't want to attend university here, not even high school. I warned her that that might change, and then she told me that if she changes her mind, she'll simply make up what she has to, take standardized exams and no problem. She actually has a point there, I know a lot of people who entered universities here from other school system that way. I think that's exactly what I'll do. :) She'll have to read literature in English, but I'll allow her do the rest in Italian.

My older daughter, 12 years old (rising 7th grader), today informed me that she doesn't want to do any English anymore. By that, she meant that she doesn't want to do any of the curriculum we do in English. At first I was about to tell her to give up this newest caprice and that it would simply not go, but then I asked her to present her arguments and she did a surprisingly good job. Here they are: 1) Every year they take exams for the complete Italian curriculum in one Italian school. They do it at the level of their peers, age-appropriate, despite the fact they are not being raised in Italy. So she says that, technically speaking, I am making them do bi-curricular work, which she doesn't like - she would prefer to do one curriculum only, enriched with classics and Hebrew, but still, one curriculum only. 2) She says that her English is excellent (which is true - she is indistinguishable from native speakers, and her literacy is also significantly higher than that of the native speakers her age - she reads at high school level with no problems), and so is her sister's, and that she already speaks it at a higher level than the one she should be speaking it, given that it is technically a foreign language. She sees no purpose in curriculum in a foreign language, if she already gets a full one in her own. She says that she understands she needs to be literate and functionally proficient in the language of the country she currently resides in, but she sees no point in studying Chemistry or History in that language too. She wants to do all of her school work - all - in Italian only, and only once (and not, as we did so far, develop balanced bilingualism by doing the material in both languages). 3) She says that, as an Italian citizen who just happens to live here temporarily due to her parent's job (which is true... the only reason why we are here at all is DH, it was never supposed to be this long, and even now we don't actually intend to settle down here, and every two years when DH is about to renew a contract we go through the "should we stay or should we go back" discussion, and I know that at some point we will go back, probably while they are still at school age), she wants to be treated exactly that way, and not as if she were here forever and as if she essentially belonged to this place by her heritage (in that case she'd feel obliged to do it, but it's not a case, so she doesn't). Besides, she wants to attend high school overseas (and will, we strongly encourage that, she is a little bit too young now, but might leave as soon as next year, to do a complete 5-year high school in Italy while living with our family there; or in two years) and eventually settle down there (she is still too young to speak of definite settling down, but I get what she says). Now, thinking it through a little, she might have a point. I wanted to give them the best of both worlds, but she doesn't have to take the other world if she doesn't want to, and I probably shouldn't force her to. She reads in English, watches movies in English, has English-speaking friends, we also speak it at home (alongside Italian) and her English will not deteriorate if we don't school her in English. Her further schooling will also force her to be in contact with English to some extent (she'll probably have it at a foreign language level though, once she's in Europe). And yet, if she'll need it later in life on more academic level, she'll learn the terminology she needs (she wouldn't be the first or the last one to have to do it). It's nothing new, she's been a little like that for years already (too much patriotism installed during parts of the year spent in Italy? :D), but now she managed to give me some serious argumentation for her standpoint and I can't ignore it. Also, it'd be much easier for me too. The younger daughter (11, rising 6th grader) loves and wants to continue to study English and develop balanced bilingualism and sees our stay here as the chance to belong to two worlds except to only one. She also thinks her sister should be given a choice to belong to only one world, if she feels that choice is the best for her. So what do I do? Do I allow my daughter to do only Italian curriculum, with an occasional book or two in English just for the sake of keeping up (since I can't actually teach it as a foreign language, she's too immersed into it to be foreign :D), or do I force her to belong a little bit more to two worlds, especially given that she's off in a year or two and will probably not have such a chance again? What would you do?

I never used 1h / grade level approach. It may be that I have children who can concentrate more than average, but we never had a light start. In first and second grade I started with 4-5 hours daily, six days a week (Saturday was the day off), and even that was not a radical change given that I have been basically working with them the same thing, though unofficially, in the previous years. Then in third/fourth grade we did about 6 hours daily and 4 hours Friday; and in fifth/sixth 7-8 hours daily (only Wednesday 6 and Friday 5). That is without lunch, but with breaks (about 5 minutes between the subjects, and 20 minutes of gap between "Italian" and "English" part of the day, which probably makes up to almost an hour of wasted time - but they need that time). That is also excluding assigned reading and memorization, which they are supposed to do on their own in their free time (but we do not have classical homework often, so they do most of their school job during those hours). They have always been okay with that, and able to concentrate, we never had any serious problems nor they felt they lacked free time.

Absolutely. It is possible to learn a language without learning much about the culture it's related to, but it's also pretty pointless. The knowledge of morphology or syntax was never - and should never - be a goal for itself; rather, the purpose of studying classical languages has always been to enable a student for a diachronic understanding of a text and a civilization it belongs to. One cannot accomplish that goal without a decent grounding in Roman history, periodization of Roman literature (which includes reading its works, maybe not all in original, but at least translation), Roman culture and civilization in general. My Latin classes always included those, and I teach that too.

I don't recommend starting Greek before a heavy foundation in Latin (a heavy foundation meaning that you're done with morphology and are doing syntax), because otherwise your child is going to reach the difficult points in both languages at the same time, while it is probably better to be able to focus on one language when the difficult parts come. So, when you encounter difficulties in Greek morphology, you will have already done the Latin one (which is a lot easier) and it will be a sort of discount, and while doing morphology, you will focus on Latin syntax and texts. Then later, while still working on Latin texts, Greek will just catch up. In my old school they made 2 years of difference, and I think that's a reasonable gap; however, a lot of it depends on a specific child. I do recommend at least a year of gap between all languages, classical or modern ones, simply to be able to separate them in your mind. I don't think it's good to start two at the same time, but if you add another one after a year, you will not miss much and it will be significantly easier.

When they were younger, we taught them to keep aside a fixed 10% of all of their "regular" income (allowance is regular income) and at least 50% of all of their "extra" income (the random greater sums of money they get by relatives for special occasions). Up until they were 7-8 we did that for them, then they started to do it on their own too. We don't force them to, if they choose not to do it, it's fine by us, but they usually do it. The savings are 50% to spend at some point, and 50% to not spend. So, 50% of what they save stays within their reach and can be used to buy concrete things they want which cost more. The rest 50% is long-term saving and the principle is just like in the bank (they can't get the money for whatever is their current fit, but they get extra money for the sole fact they don't spend it). We've noticed they developed a very healthy relationship with money. :D They often put aside 20-30% of their allowance, and even up to 100% of extra money they get (they did their maths and figured how to get the most out of it, even if it doesn't mean immediate pleasure). We also taught them about finance in general, allowed them to see how our family finance works, and we taught them about the market, why is there so much temptation to spend, how to get over that, why one should never be in debt, how to know what you need and what you don't, where's that fine limit. So far, they seem to get it. We don't teach them to give money to the others (we actually try to teach them to minimize the finance in their relationships with other people, to separate money-issues from people-issues and to help with their effort and time), but if they want to support some organization or activity with their money, they of course can do it. We don't pay for chores, they have to do it because they're part of the family, not because it's their "job". We also don't pay for any other achievement. We don't require them to work before they are done with their schooling - and that extends to all levels, we will not expect them to work in high school or university unless they want to. Currently, our goal is to try to teach them to make the money work for them when they're a bit older - to teach them about monetary system, investments, etc. We believe that "finance literacy" is very important.

We do half of our curriculum in Italian, so basically all of the mornings are strictly in Italian. We don't regard it as a "foreign language", though. So far we did only Latin (will add Greek this year as a subject; so far we did "play" with it, just like before we did with Latin, but it wasn't treated as a fully-fledged subject, they only have the basics), 3 times a week (every other day - we do school Sunday through Friday, Friday being half-day), every other day, during the Italian part of the day (since we do it through Italian textbooks and using the "Italian" pronunciation - though they know classical and ecclesiastical as well). I intend to add Greek exactly that way, to alterate days, though I don't think it matters as much. They do Hebrew about twice a week, on random afternoons, mostly with their father, when they do grammar and reading, and Friday we always have some family "Hebrew time" (we usually alternate between Italian and English at home, and save Hebrew only for shabbat, because we think it would be too much of a headache for all to regularly speak it every day). Our daughters seem not to have any problem with that.

No. The only reason why we homeschool at all is because we're appalled by the US school system in general (no offense intended, it is just not our cup of tea), we weren't able to find a suitable school around, and we wanted to provide them with a complete Italian curriculum, enriched by classics and some elements of Jewish education. The only reason why we homeschool is actually that we're convinced we can do a considerably better job than any school around here - originally it wasn't our intention to homeschool. However, as kids grow older, we aren't so sure of it any more. I can teach them comfortably only up to certain point (I would say early high school is exactly that point), and I would greatly prefer if they were taught in high school by people who are professionals in the fields they study. Sure, I had my share of Latin, Greek, History or Chemistry at school - but I am not professionally related to those fields, and maybe my children will want to be, so I want them to get taught all of their work by people who might not only teach them better, but also open some new gates for them, connect them with people in the field and others interested in it, etc. We also think it's crucial for them at some point to learn to function in the classroom, get a feeling of "school life", etc. So, when they reach the age, we are going to help them choose a boarding school (or arrange a situation for them should they choose a school without boarding option) according to their interests and needs and send them there.

As I said, not everything is applicable for everyone in every situation. I could easily say that Dante is a "must-read", or Pirandello, or Svevo, and I would be completely correct in the world I come from, but not so much in the world I came into. Even though I still consider La Divina Commedia to be far, far greater work than most of the 'classics' I encountered here, Dante is simply not applicable to this country and this culture as a "must"... As an "elective", certainly, but not as a "must". The original question was which books do we consider a "must-read". So, taking into account the above, I decided to focus only on those which seem to really be "shared" more than an element specific to one culture. The works I mentioned are the only ones I have noticed - having lived in multiple countries and studied (and taught ;)) comparative literature - to be a commonplace. I personally may prefer Goldoni or Moliere, but they are not as culturally relevant to all of the West.Civ. as is Shakespeare. In the same way, I may think that some works by Turgenev or Tolstoy are a much higher-quality readings than Dostoevsky, but they are equally not as relevant for the non-Russian context as is Dostoevsky, if they are relevant at all. The 'classical' element speaks enough for itself, and so does the Bible - they are the foundations of the West.Civ. itself. I may personally be an atheist, and I may personally have hated memorizing Menin aeide thea... in middle school, but I will never deny that those were some of the vital parts of my education and that without a knowledge on the Bible and the classics, I would not be able to understand the vast majority of the literary works I studied or the culture I belong to. So, that's where the list comes from. Of course that I believe one should read many, many other things, but I do consider those to be the "basics", if I had to pick the basics.

2nd grade? Native Language and Literature - 45-60 minutes (reading, composition, spelling, recitation and oral expression practice, pretty much anything) Music - 20-25 minutes (theory: solfeggio, lots of listening and recognizing the examples of classical composition and some theoretical points on them; also learning bits of the history of music) Mathematics - 10-15 minutes (a couple of exercises to repeat what was studied the day before, but in another language, since we aim for balanced bilingualism) National and Religious Education - 15-20 minutes (reading the texts related to it, studying together the architecture of churches/synagogues and works of art that are related to the episodes from the Bible, etc.) Break (for about half an hour, needed to eat something, take a walk or doing something physical, switch languages and get into the "English mode") English: Reading and Literature - 30-45 minutes (reading aloud, recitation, silent reading and then reading comprehension exercises, stuff like that) English: Spelling/Writing - 10-15 minutes (spelling dictation and correction, working on calligraphy) Mathematics - 30-45 minutes (revise, lesson, individual practice) Geography - 15-20 minutes (world geography, work on the globe and workbook) Lunch and chores (about an hour and half total) Somewhere in the afternoon - whether directly after lunch or no - an hour of "silent study/reading" in the home library, during which a child may study or read whatever they want, regardless of the language and regardless of whether it's a part of curriculum or no. We did this hour only Mon-Thu. Friday instead we did Hebrew for an hour or two in the afternoon (really the basics - reading some "normal" texts and some Torah with translation, a prayer or two, nothing huge, we never made a serious emphasis on the Jewish element, we just wanted to grow up in a mildly Jewish cultural atmosphere) Friday evening / Saturday we did none schoolwork at all Sunday we had a little adapted school day, excluding the English part and doing classics instead (same as with Hebrew - an hour or two, nothing huge and formal, nothing stressful, reading a bit of historical stories, doing some very basic Latin/Greek grammar points... basically it was more preparing for the real classical education in the years to come than anything else).

I think dictation is very important, both in one's native language and foreign languages. It helps with distinguishing between the sounds and spelling, both of which are very important, especially for young children, and later also helps with the speed of writing / note taking in general.

I basically consider undereducated any person belonging to the so-called "Western culture" who has not read a thing by Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, a single classical Greek tragedy, and who has not at least skimmed Iliad/Odyssey and Bible (not necessarily read the full texts of the latter three, but has to be familiar with them to some extent). Everything else - from Dante to 20th century American lit - is in my opinion debatable and not applicable for everyone everywhere as a "must-read", but the above is, in my opinion, really a minimum everyone should have.

Children don't differentiate between languages as much as they differentiate between situations and people associated with those situations. Until I went to school I was not aware of the fact I was bilingual - not aware in sense of intellectual awareness and the concept of two different languages. I was simply aware of different situations, and me behaving differently according to the situation. The fact that situations are usually related to people does not help much parents who "switch" languages with their children, or who in the presence of their children speak other languages children speak, because nearly all children at some point rebel; the key is in consistency then. But overall, to successfully teach your children a foreign language, if they are young, you need to create something which will present to them a different situation - sometimes little stuff, such as a change of location (e.g. speak only foreign language to your child in a specific room, at a specific time of the day; have a specific toy nearby to play with when speaking a different language, etc), help a lot, especially if they become a routine - young children need a routine, with the older ones it's considerably easier.

Myrrh, I did not intend to imply that you should teach Spanish to your children, especially if there is another language you prefer and are more comfortable with - I put "culturally relevant" or "economically relevant" because I think there is little use out of an odd "exotic" language (unless it is a heritage language, of course) and learning such language for the sake of it - if you want to learn it for your personal pleasure and enrichment, wonderful, go for it; but I don't think you're really doing a favor to your children if you choose Slovenian or Lithuanian rather than French, German, Spanish... You get the point. It does not have to be Spanish - it can be any language you can effectively teach in your surrounding, which is of at least some global and economical importance, at least somehow culturally relevant to you and your children. French is a perfect choice, why not go for that, if your children agree? American politics is really not my cup of tea - I grew up in a different system so many "typical" American situations I still find absurd and they present a shock to me, like the example you mention with dysfunctional education due to lack of language competence of most of the class, etc. - but I will say that I don't think one should learn a language in order to accommodate the newcomers to their country (especially illegal ones), I'm of an opinion that it should be the other way round. I actually find it laughable - tragically laughable though - that a single group of newcomers practically made the majority learn their language at some point in certain states, for the sake of being able to function well on their territory. I will cut it on this as I'm new and I'm not sure which amount of politics - if any - is allowed on these forums, but there, just wanted to let you know that I essentially agree with your reasoning.

I was never hit by either of my parents. I consider myself to have been a well-behaved child and a good student nonetheless. I never hit either. An example is worth a thousand words. If you teach your children, in theory, about some virtues - being calm, respectful, thought-out, etc - and then they see that the moment things go bad or unplanned in practice you suddenly change your attitude and go against all you taught them, that is what they will learn. Hitting out of anger or disappointment is not a reaction of a calm person, is not an act of respect towards another person (even if that person is your child - especially if that person is your child), is not a thought-out behavior, is not a sign of good manners, but rather an impulsive act and - in my opinion - pretty barbaric reaction. The only situations in which I justify it is when it is "medically" needed - the cases of severe shock or hysteria, fainting, etc, but even then we talk of a single hit, given to provoke shock rather than physical pain, not a beating of any kind. Some extreme toddler tantrums can fall under the "hysteria" category, and I don't consider a parent a monster if they hit their child in such a state, as long as they did it calmly, not out of frustration with an accompanying scene/yelling/etc - but for the vast majority of other cases, I find hitting unjustified and more a method for a parent to unwind than anything else. Which I strongly disagree with. But a beating - actually beating, as in, repeatedly hitting a child with a foreign object with an intention to cause actual, physical pain - I do consider that an abuse. If you have to resort to that, I believe that something, somewhere, went terribly wrong between you and your child.

I am going to disagree with the idea of teaching children classical languages (or only Latin) first, and then eventually modern foreign languages later - except, maybe, in the cases of children who are being raised bilingually. First of all - because young children learn foreign languages with natural ease which extends to all aspects of the language studied, from phonetics (they are likely to develop a solid, even native-like pronunciation, with enough exposure to native materials, and especially if taught or regularly talked to by a native speaker) to morphology/syntax (they are likely to learn them in an intuitive manner more than formally when young, simply through usage, which gives them huge advantage when they reach the phase of more "formal" learning). In my opinion, in order to fully benefit from the way young children learn languages, one needs to choose a "living" one - a language a child is going to be able to use in a plethora of different contexts, including day-to-day ones, and embrace it as a part of his/her life, as well as develop all language skills in a foreign language at young age - not only passive ones followed by the minimum of active usage, which is most often the case with the classics. Secondly - because of utility. I do generally dislike to apply the utilitarian way of thinking when it comes to education, and I believe that a well-rounded education is far, far more than the set of useful or good-to-have knowledge and skills one might "need", but when it comes to foreign languages, I would never go as far not to think about the aspect of usefulness as well. A solid knowledge of a modern foreign language, especially if a "big" language or culturally and economically relevant, is a great aid later in life - and children are most likely to learn it well when they are young and learn languages intuitively. So I say leave the classics for middle and high school, because one benefits the most out of classics and learning to think in and through organized grammar structures when one can learn the best that way - and that is certainly not at the age of 7 or 8. Use those early years - the younger the better - to acquire with an ease a useful modern foreign language (or two ;)). I was classically educated myself and, honestly, I saw unbelievably little difference between my classmates who started Latin at 8, 10, 12 or even at 14, by the end of high school. True, we were in different classes for classics program-wise, studied different material and read different texts; but if you had given us the same test (and they did, more than once), with the same text, same grammar, same translation, the average result of each group would have been - surprisingly - pretty much the same, and the curves of the individual results within each group too. I am not denying that there always were slight differences, but they were incredibly small, almost to the point of being statistically irrelevant - especially when compared to the similar French or German results, which always showed pretty drastic oscillations between students who started to study it at different ages. Modern languages seem to be learned differently than the classical ones, and the age seems to matter there more. Personally, I started Latin and Greek at 10 and 12 respectively (and continued till the graduation, even followed by some university courses), and I never considered that a late start. Prior to that, I would focus with my children on early bilingualism and biliteracy.