For us, 8 boxes is definitely enough, although DD's only 5. :) I would feel uncomfortable giving her 12 a day. It just seems like 12 would mean I'm either doing too much or I'm assigning busy work, just to fill up the day. (For a younger kid - I haven't schooled an older kid yet.)

I was directed here when I begged someone on another board to tell me where she goes to get advice from people who aren't all about unschooling. :D I get really tired of all the, "if they aren't reading yet, it means they aren't ready and they might not be ready until they're 13 and that's fine," nonsense. I've not read WTM, but I'll get around to it eventually. I don't know that we're textbook classical, because I've not read WTM or any other book about classical education, but the science and history curricula I'm interested in do work on the rotational schedule and I am interested in using a Latin curriculum at some point. I also believe in having goals and in rigorous education...as long as it's not painful. :tongue_smilie:

Actually, I know all about those things. I'm from an old, old United Pentecostal Church family. ;) If anyone in my family did/does dare swim in mixed company (most of them didn't/don't at all, no matter what they're wearing) they wore things like what you're referring to. I'm talking about swimsuits that your average, non-religious person is going to go find at the mall. The things you're referring to are generally specialty items sold by, for and to people who dress conservatively for religious reasons. I've never seen a knee or ankle-length swimsuit anywhere but shops/catalogs/websites dedicated to modest dress, which essentially always goes along with conservative religions. The closest I've seen are skirt suits or short suits that go to mid-thigh, and that won't cover all of the stretchmarks or cellulite on some people. Maybe modest suits are sold elsewhere, but the majority of Americans don't even know about them, much less where to get them.

Thank you all! It could be the problem that I was building my log with DD dictating, since right now she hates writing. (I think she might be a little slow with her fine motor skills, but I'm giving her a little more time to mature before I rush to judgment on that.) I guess I really do need to do it all on my own first. That's what I get for rushing.

Bikini-wearing mom here! I'm 30, I have one child and I still look good (although if we're being honest, I'd kill to look like I did before DD was born, lol). I don't have stretchmarks, I'm thin (5'0" and 100 lbs) and in shape. I don't hang out anywhere, my swimsuit's not up my butt and my boobs aren't popping out of my top. I personally would not be comfortable in a bikini if I didn't still look decent in one, but I really don't care what someone else wants to wear. I might not find exposed stretchmarks attractive, but I love the attitude behind them. Besides, some people get stretchmarks on their thighs and stuff, where no swimsuit will cover them anyway. I have a sister who's overweight, all of it being on the bottom half, and covered in cellulite. She still wears a bikini, whereas I'd avoid situations where I had to take off my knee-length shorts if I looked like her. However, I think her comfort with her own body is AWESOME and I LOVE that about her. :D

I'm new here and am hoping you parents can give me some help with SWR, so that I can actually use it. As of right now, I'm thinking of chucking the whole thing and switching to AAS with Happy Phonics for my 5-year-old DD, because SWR is just making us both miserable. I've built some of my little text, but I'm still unclear on when the different spelling rules are supposed to be introduced. At one point it told me to review rules such and such, but that would imply I'd already covered them, which I don't recall ever being told to do. Additionally, what on earth can we do to make it more interesting, or should I just decide it's not for my kid and move on? Currently DD hates it. Whenever she sees the cards or log in her workbox, she gets downright belligerent. Generally speaking, she's a happy flashcard kid. It's just SWR that she hates. When I posted about this at the SWR Yahoo group, I really only got responses from the hardcore "make her do it and have your husband read her Bible verses about how she should be obedient" crowd. I'm not religious and that's not helpful to me. I'm not opposed to structure and I do have goals for DD, but I don't want her to HATE schooling. I looked at All About Spelling and it seems so much more clear and interesting. Plus, it says that in the first year kids will learn when to double different letters, how to pluralize and things like that. I don't see where SWR gets very clear. It seems to me like they just give you some flashcards and a list of spelling words that you're supposed to give in a certain order. Perhaps this is just because I've not read every single bit of SWR yet, but I've gotten all the way to maybe step 18 or 20 (I can't recall, off the top of my head) and still haven't seen it. HELP! lol

Hi, I'm newly registered, so I hope you don't mind me joining in this conversation. I'm not religious at this point. I'd consider myself on the atheist side of agnosticism, to be descriptive. However, I was raised in the United Pentecostal Church, so I come from a very, very, very fundamentalist Christian background. One of the reasons I left the church as an adult was exactly because of issues like this. I absolutely do NOT believe that Christians have any imperative to fight for "Godly" laws. Who determines exactly what is "Godly" anyway? The whole notion is ridiculous, IMO, because WHERE would one draw the line? Would it be the Catholics, who could fight for laws requiring weekly confession? Would it be the Baptists, who could fight for laws outlawing dancing in nightclubs or the sale of alchol? Would it be the Pentecostals, who could fight for laws requiring all women to wear skirts that cover their knees? Would it be the Mormons, who could fight for laws requiring everyone to wear the special undergarments? Fighting for laws simply because they would uphold your personal religious beliefs is a slippery slope indeed. Additionally, I agree very strongly with the PP who mentioned that most evangelicals would not agree with the founding fathers on some points. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, if they knew more about many of those men's true religious/spiritual beliefs, as outlined in their surviving letters and writings, they'd disagree with them on many things. It's only been over the last 100 years or so that people have managed to convince themselves that this country was founded and lead by conservative Christians of today's ilk. It's simply not a fact and when people complain about "revisionist history" they often fail to realize that by perpetuating this myth, they're guilty of teaching it themselves.