Logistically, they can do it, but perhaps they should not do it if it was specified that the account was permanently closed (unless specified differently in the initial contract and that they have a policy of reopening accounts for auto pay going wrong - like you were explicitly told).

This is what I would do too. Send the copy of whatever you have and see what they are going to reply.

For the total amount of what? The cost of closing an account? Is it somehow specified on that check that you payed for the permanent closure of the account? You are "supposed" (not really supposed because the banks' policies differ, but that is what I am familiar with) to have two receipts - one, a confirmation that you payed a certain fee to close the account, and two, a statement that you were permanently closing an account and that they paid you, after having substracted that fee, the rest of the money that was on the account(typically specified). Perhaps the two coexist on the same confirmation, but still, there is some kind of an explicit formulation about the (permanent) closure of the account. If anything like that is specified on that check, they cannot do it, they cannot do a "this is how we operate" and they must take upon themselves the cost of whatever was the mistake (most likely) that had your account opened. If you do not have any kind of a written comfirmation that you closed the account and if it was only orally (i.e. "informally", since not registered in writing) agreed upon that you were closing an account I have no idea how things work in that case.

Did you get a written confirmation that the account was closed? When you are closing an account, they are typically supposed to give you a small receipt as a confirmation that the account was closed, which you have to sign. Do you have something like that?

Hehe. :lol:

:confused: She asks about a situation in which she cannot provide something, nor can she find that elsewhere in her surroundings. So, I say, fine, the situation is not ideal, but within what you have there are still some choices which are better than others. What is problematic about that?

Bright and eager? I voted 20-35 minutes, I think it is closer to the higher end of that range, but still roughly there. (Unless it is that little five year old of yours about whom you opened a thread recently. She probably needs less. :p)

As always, go with the best or, in that case, the least bad option - whichever one that is. The lesser of two evils principle.

Wow, that question was completely out of line. I think you handled it beautifully. :)

I see little point in your bringing that particular disagreement up. What is the connection you are trying to establish here? In the context of that quote, you were talking about being able to evaluate high level materials in a subject which you admittedly do not understand. I fail to see how you can evaluate such materials without concrete knowledge of what they are about. Yes, you can listen to various recommendations, see what is used in various colleges, and so forth. But that is not what I thought you claimed. What I thought you claimed was that you were able to evaluate the materials yourself and de facto design a course of studies on something you do not know. That is what makes me marvel, because I do not consider it realistic. Your quote from upthread, bold emphasis mine: Am I being too literal and not understanding you? Are we talking semantics (it would not be the first time :D)? Or you really, honestly claim that you can skillfully design and evaluate a course about something you do not understand, as well as appreciate the differences between the options as regards college level materials in that context? Because if the latter, we do part our ways quite drastically on this particular topic. I do not see anyone actually suggesting that. :confused: What many people are saying, though, is that at some point in some fields a parent is likely to exhaust their own level of preparation and skill and will perhaps not be the best option available for the child at that time to learn from / with - so we got into the whole outsourcing thing. True. The issue I am talking about, however, is the one of optimization, not necessarily "only" solid education. Sometimes the optimal choice for our children, within our realistic possible choices, is to delegate some things to somebody else to teach / oversee and mentor / grade / whatever. Sometimes not (so we have to make our best with what we have), but sometimes yes. It does not mean that it would be out of the realm of possible to do these things at home. But it is not always the highest quality option. Personally, I am interested not only in providing a solid foundation to my children, but also in the optimization of the process: and that means that at some times they will not study some areas with me nor taught by me. And it may even mean that there will be many such areas, or even that most areas will be such in some cases, such as, presumably, our case if we were to continue to homeschool all the way through. And so we go back to my initial point: in my case, with my children, and within my reality, it may be certainly possible that if we were to homeschool all the way through, ultimately I would end up teaching them only philology and letters. Saying so does not mean that I deny the possibilities of homeschooling or that I extrapolate my situation to any other person's - it only means that it might be that, in my case and cases like mine, pursuing excellence (to go back to the original topic) would take the form of a rather drastic outsourcing. And I simply do not see why you took it the way you did. Yeah, I have a tongue in cheek way of phrasing things and when I write "seee, I did it aaaaaall on my own" I ironize my own toddler-like stubborness about some things - but my point is to emphasize that pursuing excellence for us might as well look as backing off a little (or a lot) rather than investing myself more as a parent. It is one facet of the optimization process which may be a part of some people's realities. Nobody was suggesting that PS can automatically do a better job (though I hold the reverse to be true too - HSing is not automatically superior either) and nobody was suggesting people should fear to educate their children. We are talking about how to bring about academic excellence, and I am pointing that in some cases, it may take that particular form. I am still :001_huh: at this whole conversation.

Thank you for this post. I could have written it, only using examples from different fields which hit closer to home for me, but demonstrating the same problems in the principle.

Even if there is a strategy, though, I think it would imply a certain level of knowledge. Even if not of all the nuances - but one would need to have tangible skill and knowledge to be able to evaluate whether that knowledge is presented better in one text as opposed to the other one, right? So, that is the part I do not get. I can filter reasonably well through materials where I am acquainted with the matter, but not through those where I am not. Just how does one do that? Self-study is different, though, allows for that experimentation, but if I am choosing the materials for my children and if it is not a self-study, but a regular part of studies with me as an active participant and all, should I not be able familiar with the topic to even be able to choose materials - or require input by somebody else who is familiar with it?

:iagree:

I do feel capable of teaching high school level material. To various extents in various fields. That is the crux. :) When I reach a point at which I cannot teach it, or at which what I would have to do to teach it means paying a price I am not willing to pay, I outsource it. What is the problem with that view? No, I do not feel capable of teaching design and technical drawing. The amount of skill *I* would have to acquire to even begin to appreciate the nuances that are at stake there, and to even begin to see things the way a trained eye sees them, is beyond what I think is reasonable to invest in time and effort. So, I can send the kid to a school which teaches that OR I can outsource it within the homeschooling framework by having somebody else oversee their progress and work with that. I can still do the art history part with the said child (primarily because I almost ended up in that field, and I have had several years of it myself in school and educated myself beyond that, so I feel comfortable that I can teach the basics well), but I cannot do the practical part. I am also not capable of teaching music. I mean, my daughter was making mistakes which I did not even hear, because I do not have a trained musician's ear. What are huge differences for somebody who knows what to look for and who can hear the nuances, to me those things sound(ed) the same. I also felt I could not teach English past a certain point, even though I *did* teach it when the girls were younger. But we hit a point at which I felt they would profit the most from their literature studies if guided by somebody else, for whom that language and literary tradition is the primary one. Sure, I could have continued it. And in many ways I did stay engaged, continuing to read some things with my daughters, so it is not like I completely vanished from the picture. But the excellence was continued largely by me backing off a little and recognizing what I cannot do, letting those parts be taught or overseen (if a self-study) by somebody who can do it. On the other hand, I taught classical languages pretty much all the way through (although had my daughters developed an intense interest for Greek, I would have outsourced it rather soon), entirely high school level, even though age-wise my daughters were not yet in high school. Because I had the knowledge. Had I not been capable of doing it nor willing to pay the cost of getting to the point of being able to do it, I would have outsourced it and I would not have had the least problem with it. It may be less than obvious because my daughters are on the younger end of high school, age-wise, but due to their uneven development and uneven focus on things, I have had to deal with great oscillations between the levels they were working on, which means that they have been working on some things on high school level (and beyond, FWIW) for years now. Homeschooling them through formal graduation is another story, and the reasons why we will most likely not go that route cannot be simplified to "I do not feel competent" because there are many other factors which affect that decision to keep in mind. I am satisfied that I have given to them, academically and culturally, most of what was truly important to me by this age, so that even should the decision be reached to take a different route (which seems to be happening, though it is not set in stone yet and the route can still be reversed back to some form of homeschooling), I am okay with that. I do not understand how you can reasonably investigate the materials about something you do not understand, on that level of education, or design a study of something you do not understand. (Independent study is something else and I agree about that.)

Yes, I have repeatedly put myself into a position of a "discomfort" of various degrees of intensity, having to research my options well and having to go out of my way to find bridges from my level of knowledge to the level of knowledge I desired in some area, both for the sake of my self-education and as a part of the homeschooling journey with my children. Even more so, I consider a certain level of "discomfort" to be a normal and desirable part of any serious intellectual effort, because nothing is worse on the soul and mind than being lulled into complacency. That being said, I cannot reasonably deny an enormous difference in the quality of instruction - both "as a journey" and "as a final product" - between the areas in which I *knew* what I was doing due to being significantly ahead of my children and being able to see a much more complex big picture than they did, and the areas in which my level of "discomfort" was such that I was having a hard time keeping tabs on what was going on. This is if we are talking about instruction where interaction with me, "supervision" by me, and the ultimate evaluation by me are integral parts of the process. If we are talking about facilitating, things change. But facilitating is already a form of outsourcing, is it not? True, it need not necessarily involve another person in the process, but I am talking about the dynamic that you stepped out of and let the reins to somebody / something else. My children have proven *very* capable of learning things in this mode. But I do not consider it a failure as a homeschooler to admit to my limitations and say that there were areas in which I could not reasonably... you know, it is not even about being on top of them anymore. It is about being able to even follow them now, for some things. As in, yes, I can be there as the dear mother concerned about the studies of her children, but I cannot even be a reasonable interlocutor for them about some things or a reasonable discussion partner. And I consider *that* - the fact that our children do leave us behind at some point - also a normal part of growing up and not a tragedy nor something to be ashamed of. It is an emancipation... just like our children stop needing us on a primary level of taking care of their physical needs, just like they will emancipate economically at some point, so they, little by little, emancipate intellectually. I do not even see it as a worthwhile goal to be on top of them and guide the process all the time. That is where my comment about the ego fits in (by the way, I am quite surprised with how you took it :001_huh:, since you are one of the last people on here from whom I would expect reading "implications" in my posts or feeling called out by them... I was talking about *myself*, *I* being the prideful idiot who had a hard time letting go of some things and some ideals of homeschooling without outsourcing, wanting to keep it all under my control beyond my reasonable skill - I have no idea why you even read that as a general comment about anything other than my own reality - let alone as an insult in disguise :001_huh:). It is wonderful if Kathy (or anyone else) had the energy, competence and determination to follow through, on her own, her children's educations to very high levels, even in areas of greater (initial) personal discomfort. But I am Ester, not Kathy. :) I know what I can and what I cannot do; I know what I could do, but at a cost (in energy, time, nerves, wherever) that I am not willing to pay; and I know when to back off for *my* well being (as selfish as it sounds) and, as I like to think, for the greater quality of my children's education, if I recognize they can get that greater quality elsewhere. If this sounds disjointed, it is because it is late here and I am insomniac, but it makes sense in my head.

:iagree: Emphasizing this in case it was not clear from my posts.

But how is a child hurt when "retard" is used as an insult in a whole different context, with whole different people? How is my child hurt when "narrow-sighted" is used as an insult among some other people in some other context? How am I hurt when somebody else, in some other context, says to somebody else: "Don't you jew me!" That is what I do not get. The words have evolved to those other contexts, too. I am not talking about using those words in their "original" contexts in a deliberately offensive way. But the video claims that the child is hurt also when the word is used in those other contexts, as an insult, in accordance with its evolution into an insult. That is what I disagree with.

Thank you, Rebekah. Exactly.

:grouphug: I am sorry this is hard for you. I am a bit unusual in that I really do not have a problem with words per se, not even the ones which 'could' be loaded for me. I have a problem with intentional offenses *in general*, but not with specific words. If that makes sense.

Why? I don't use it. I just don't like being "prescribed" not to use words, especially selectively. I'm okay with saying let's not offend each other *in general*, but waging war on words is... not my cup of tea.

No. :) I even joked with that one myself once.

Every word has its history. The words "idiot" or "imbecile", for example, have been used in official medical classification of certain ranges of cognitive impairment. "Retarded" is a latinism and it was used in the context of cognitive impairment which was perceived as a cognitive development at a slower than a regular speed, thus making those individuals "not on time" (retarded, tardiness, it is all about the same root) in their development. Same thing with "precocious", pre-cocious, "matured ("cooked") before its time" to describe some individuals on the other end of the speed of acquiring new skills. The word "stupid" was about being stunned to the point of being senseless, about being thoroughly confounded. All of those words, and all other words in our languages, have their history. But the words, other than their history and the original context of their genesis, are also lively and get adapted by each society in time and in space in different ways. Language is a vivid organism, in such a way, in continuous development. Many, MANY words have become almost completely detached in many speakers' minds from the context of their genesis and their original meanings. They simply mean, on a broad scale, something else today. "Blind" or "narrow-sighted" are used as insults too... yet they remain a part of the (pseudo-)medical terminology and nobody bats an eye about that. We all use "stupid" in situations which have nothing to do with being struck. And so forth. I shiver at the attempts to "clean" the language of all those "unclean" words and I shiver at the dictatorship of "PCese" that has come up with many absurd and inadequate constructs. My emotional reaction to those attempts would be the best described as... scorn. Not acceptance, not even neutrality. Active scorn. You cannot regulate a language. You can teach that it is not nice to offend *in general*, no matter what words you use, and you can teach proper manners at that - but to wage a war on specific words, or words with their historicity in general, is not an attitude I accept, or even respect. We teach children to try to be nice and to try not to insult. In situations in which specific words or expressions would be too loaded, to refrain from them. But I do not teach them censorship, I do not teach them to write off the history of words, nor do I call them out on every instance of a "problematic" word. I also try to instill in them the love of precision and clear thinking and I hope that will be their ultimate arbiter in how they talk about things. And if they believe that, etymologically and as far as capturing the essence of the phenomenon, "retardation" is the most suitable term to explain some of what they mean, I am okay with that. As long as it is not used with an intention of offending and in offending contexts, I see nothing wrong at all, per se, in the word.

The problem with discussions like this is that we have so vastly different experiences, both with our own educations in public / private schools (I think only few people on these boards were homeschooled themselves?), and with outsourcing our children's educations. I sometimes say (and only half-jokingly) that if I were to homeschool my children all the way through the graduation, ultimately I would end up teaching them exactly one subject - our language and letters. In most every other area, with these particular children and their particular drive and capacities, sooner or later I would hit a wall... and some walls I have already hit. My children can still self-educate and learn via other materials, but we have reached the point at which my own education is too lacking to truly be on top of them and, consequently, to be able to evaluate what they learn while being intellectually honest. I cannot grade what I cannot teach. And what I cannot teach, where I cannot be on top of them, where *I* am not of the resources - we are truly equals in those areas, and they need somebody else's input and evaluation, especially on a high school level. It can sometimes be hard on my ego, you know. :D I am told to be one of those confident people, whose confidence even borders slight arrogance at times. So, what do you mean, that I am not capable of educating my own children? :svengo: But ultimately, this is not about my ego and this is not about my petty little satisfaction that, seeeeee, I managed to do it aaaall on my own, as if it were my own little project in which I am to "prove" things to myself. This is not about me nor about proving myself to anyone. This is about those poor kids' educations. And if what *I* can give them is not good enough overall, or only in some areas... if they get better opportunities elsewhere and with other people... and if they are driven to succeed past the bare minimum and willing to embrace the mentorship of other people, I am never going to let my ego interfere and handicap my children. Of course, there are other kinds of limitations too: there are geographical or financial limitations which may constrain somebody to a situation of having less choice and realizing that in some aspects, even if their own preparation is deficient, it is still the least of all evils offered. I have no moral problems with that. :) And most people have to do that with at least some areas. I only object to an a priori stance that whatever done at home is magically superior to it being done elsewhere, or to this conclusion reached with too little evidence for both sides. FWIW, my eldest child is in a school (which she finds pale in comparison with what she did at home) and my middle daughter has been basically privately tutored for many areas, whether IRL or online, and today she got up early to get into her potential tutor's studio with a huge map of drawings to see if he would agree to work with her. For some things I can be at the top of her, but for some things, I cannot be anymore. As she grows, she expands past my personal limitations and grows into her own person, which needs the WORLD, the big wide world out there, and not having that world reduced to her mother. And it is good and normal, because only a bad student does not ultimately end up breaching away from their teacher. ;)

Because you posted a more or less representative sample of your son's writing, I focused on the common elements related to the format / style, because that is what you complained about. And that is where I do not think he has problems. ;) However, taken *in isolation*, I could make a number of specific observations to several papers, related to the specific claims / content / phrasing. Those are, however, not the kind of general format / style insights you asked, so I omitted them, but that is actually where I see some problems, rather than where you seem to see. Yep. :)

I once used that example with my child when we were discussing pleonasms and tautologies. :lol: