Nancy Ann
-
Posts
219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Nancy Ann
-
-
Wow! I just want to thank everyone for their insight. I really appreciate how much information you are able to offer. I suppose that comes with experience!
Just to clarify - when you speak of LOF, are you talking about Life of Fred? As I recall from The Well-Trained Mind, Life of Fred is recommended as a supplement to your primary math curriculum. I was actually planning to begin the Life of Fred series on a weekly basis (or more or less as is reasonable) to go along with the Saxon program.
I appreciate that Right Start has helped tremendously with my wiggly worms. However, I have noticed that as the children grow older, and more mature, wiggly worm is not as much an issue. They are building their stamina to sit and focus. According to The Well-Trained Mind (TWTM?), Saxon is a very thorough program and will allow for more advanced math courses later in high school if that is what the student (and mother) decides to do. Whereas, I am not really sure Right Start will be able to offer this path. So this is the thinking behind my plan.
I really love that there is this community in which to share ideas and opinions. :thumbup:
Yes, LOF is Life of Fred. There are people who feel LOF is good as a main curriculum and people who think it should only be used as a supplement. I am one who believes it's very good as a main curriculum. I have known other homeschool moms who use it as a main curriculum as well and their children have done very well on assessments and SAT's. So, like everything you have opinions for both sides and you just have to decide for yourself and for your kids.
I can see one using LOF elementary and the first few books like Fractions and the other book Decimals and Percents as a supplement. Though I believe it's redundant and not needed. However, once you get to Algebra and Geometry it would be very hard to do two curricula. Lots of families start with using LOF and another main curriculum like Teaching Textbooks, Math U See or Saxon and end up just dropping one of them because it's too much.
In my opinion if you want to supplement LOF, I recommend for grades K-6 getting a simple workbook from the book store of basic math facts and math concepts for those grades. Another option would be Miquon Math, this would be an excellent supplement with Life of Fred for the elementary series.
When you get to Fractions, Decimals and Percents, Pre Algebra, Algebra and Geometry you can use the Key To Math series for extra workbook practice if you want. You would probably not need to use all the pages of each of these Key To Math books, just use them as needed.
LOF also now has another book to go along with the Algebra book that gives extra practice problems.
ETA: In my opinion LOF allows for more advanced math for kids because a good math student can go through the books much quicker. LOF teaches the same stuff and many times even more but doesn't have as much repetition and I think teaches more efficiently.
The reason Saxon moves a bit quicker than others is because geometry is included with each of the texts, (she explains this in The Well Trained Mind) there is not a separate geometry. So, kids can progress faster.
However, now Saxon just came out with a separate geometry so if you are using the newer version of Saxon (4th edition) it won't have geometry included in each level of the program and you will need the separate geometry. So, if you go with Saxon you may want to consider the 3rd edition which will include geometry and your kids can advance quicker through the curricula.
-
I didn't say that anyone had referred to Rod and Staff. I was using it as a reference to what I understood "drill and kill" to be. I was not commenting on RS.
Saxon doesn't rely on drill. The "numerous practice" isn't like that in R&S. Each problem has a specific purpose in expanding new concepts and reviewing those previously taught. That's why you don't skip problems. Jann in TX (and others) will tell you that the students they tutor in Saxon are the ones who were allowed to skip problems.
I am sorry Ellie, I misunderstood your bringing up Rod and Staff.
I will just have to disagree about each problem having a specific purpose. In my opinion there are just too many problems! Yes, the problems do expand on new concepts and review previous concepts, but there are still too many for each concept and sometimes concepts are reviewed too much. It was extremely repetitive. Don't get me wrong I think Saxon is a solid program and students will learn what they need to learn, however it is not for everyone and for some students it can really be a very bad choice.
I wish they had a different way to organize it so students wouldn't have to spend so much time on concepts and problems they don't need to. I don't like how the instructions tell the parent they really NEED to do all the problems and not give the parent the feeling they know what's best for their kids and they know if their kid has the concept learned or not.
-
So what would be a good curriculum for late elementary science? Especially for a mom who doesn't have a great science education and isn't really sure where she stands?
I lean to young earth but don't have a whole lot of problem with thiestic evolution or Old Earth type stuff either. To be honest I don't give it a whole lot of thought. I believe God created the world but all the how's of it are a mystery and we just do our best to figure it out. But, the point of it all I am not sure.
I like Jeannie Fulbright Elementary Apologia Exploring Creation series. She has responded to me on the yahoo boards for this curriculum and has stated that it is certainly reasonable to use this into 8th grade. There is not an Earth Science yet so I was going to just get various books on that to read. I don't consider her to be too heavy handed. She is young earth and mentions things from time to time in her books against evolution or why evolution is wrong. We just read it and talk about it matter of factually.
My son goes through two books a year (he is a 6th grader this year) This means one lesson a week. Totally doable for the older elementary kid. The books are beautiful and I love how God is mentioned frequently about His beautiful creation. The most important thing to me in a science curriculum is that God get's the glory. I am a little trepidatious of the high school Apologia written by Dr. Wile. I really don't mind young earth but I don't want preachy, but I MUST have a curriculum that gives God the credit for creation and talks about Him through the science. I don't feel there is a whole lot to choose from.
Jeannie Fulbrights science curriculum is really wonderful!
-
No, I don't really think that because I think they are getting so much more with homeschooling. Different but way more!
ETA: My kids have no other homeschool friends. They have friends who go to public school that are from church or from the neighborhood or from Boy Scouts.
I would assume you have a Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or American Heritage Girls in your area? That is the only extra curricular activity/social group we are involved in. Our church is extremely small! 33 members. Only my daughter has one friend there that she sees only on Sundays.
Agreeing with others who mention the family aspect. I started homeschooling as well for academic reasons and now it's all about our relationship together as a family and time spent for my children to enjoy their childhood. There are many years of adulthood, way more than childhood.
-
I disagree with you on both counts, that it is drill-and-kill and that it isn't big on teaching the why.
I would put R&S in the drill-and-kill category. And Saxon *does* explain the why; it just does it incrementally, over time, providing the children with plenty of practice along the way.
This is what our own Janet in WA had to say about it:
I am not sure anyone has mentioned Rod and Staff, I believe we were talking about Right Start. Right Start is not anything close to drill and kill. I am not familiar with Rod and Staff.
In my experience drill and kill does not necessarily mean it doesn't teach any of the why's it's just the drill and kill relies too much on just practice to learn the concept or the curriculum just over burdens the child with too much practice. I believe, the Saxon program mentions how they believe the numerous practice is what will help cement the concept, they do not recommend only doing half the problems, they make it clear to do all the problems. But, of course the teacher can tweak it.
LOF is absolutely excellent at teaching the "whys" of math concepts. He uses a story to give examples of how the concept works in real life. It's amazing! My son is learning all sorts of algebra concepts through stories. It's just genius. Sometimes, I wonder if we are just used to thinking that we need lots of problems and practice to learn math. LOF has really opened my eyes to another focus on math.
-
Yes, I have low days as well.
Sometimes it happens because I put too many expectations on myself and my kids. I have not been to any forums for several months and to be honest it's been great! My head is clear and my focus in strong. Going on lots of forums and visiting blogs and constantly putting my neck over the fence to see what other homeschoolers are doing is a sure way for me to get uneasy and upset with how our homeschool is doing.
Other times this happens because I am getting too obsessed with homeschooling. I think about it all the time, I plan for it all the time and I dream about it!! I go to bed at night and instead of reading a book or saying prayers I go over our school curricula in my head! When this happens, it's time to get school done for the day and start reading a book or picking up some other hobby to do or get involved with the kids more in non school ways.
Breaks very rarely help me when I feel like this, mostly I just need to change something I am doing. There is usually some attitude I have that is causing me to have such stress about homeschooling. Again, most of the time it's expectations. We live in a culture that prides itself on having high expectations for things because that means it';s the best. In the homeschool world there is so much pressure to choose the best math curricula, the best science, language arts, history and if you don't choose the best than you are doing a disservice to your kids. Of course everyone has their opinion about what the best is and have no problem telling you your not using the best. Though, many people mean well.
But, if your stress is because of it being lots of hard work and you feel you need a break than that would be a good course. I guess all I am trying to say in a very long winded way is that you can't give yourself the correct treatment unless you have a proper diagnosis.
I do know that life is not easier if you send your kids to public school. I was very stressed when my older was in Kindergarten! I have determined that nothing in life is easy and so that is not always the best reason in making a decision. However, I do think simplifying ones life can make things easier. It is possible for a person to take on so much. But again, many times that happens because our expectations tell us we have to do so much!
ETA: I need time alone. I go to the movies or bookstore or do something fun by myself. I will go once a week or just every couple weeks, whenever I need to.
-
I agree that your charter school teacher is misinformed. Or, maybe she has some sort of experience with other families that warrants this. My son did Right Start and we completed level D. Than we switched to Saxon because I wanted that to be the program we use through high school. He had no problem understanding the material, it was not hard to transfer at all. There is a test online that Saxon has that is used for placement. I believe we started in 5/6 but you should have your child take the test to be sure, all kids are different.
I do regret not sticking through with Right Start until atleast E. But, I loved Right Start at the beginning, but it started to just wear on me and wasn't as good anymore. Level B was our favorite. I was frustrated because it was moving slow, there were so many lessons I just didn't want to go over again. Infact, most math curricula seems to take too long to explain simple concepts and I just find it frustrating. We switched to Saxon and my son hated it. He hated having to do about 30 problems each day. Saxon goes on the philosophy that if you keep practicing and practicing you will learn it solid. This may be true, I have no idea, but I do know that my son's love for math absolutely plummeted that 3 months we used it. I switched to LOF and the love of math is back, I also love how it progresses quickly and reviews, (sort of like a spiral curriculum but not exactly, LOF is a completely different curriculua)
I am very happy with LOF and consider it to be quite complete. I have given him assessments along the way and he is doing just fine. I add in some various workbook pages or I write my own basic math problems sometimes to keep his operation skills up. But LOF is our main.
-
This is very encouraging, thank you. I haven't had a chance to really get a good look at it. I don't own a copy yet and just looking at samples. It sounds like there is more to it than just the reading in the lesson and comprehension questions. I am glad to hear of the research aspect. I did notice this in some of the samples online but I didn't know how much or how many lessons would have that.
I feel terrible saying this, but I am rather anxious to finish our Sonlight Core so we can move on to this! :) I think my son will enjoy this so much better. I do hope my daughter will take to Sonlight better because I do really like that curriculum. But, it's hard when you don't have a child who is enthusiastic. I guess I don't expect my son to love history in the same way he loves Minecraft or Legos, but some enthusiasm would just make it easier to teach.
-
Here is my dilemma? My son who is a 6th grader this year is just not a big history buff, but he does enjoy it when we stick to biographies and factual information. We use Sonlight (this year Core E) He enjoys learning and discussing the facts but the historical fiction is really hit and miss. So, I have been using Sonlight for years but just thinking it's not gonna work much longer.
I am thinking Mystery of History. I like the Christian perspective, that is very important to me. I am wondering if it's enough for him. I was thinking of adding in some biographies here and there and an Usborne World History or Kingfisher World History book. He really likes the facts stuff.
When I look at MOH I love it, but each lesson doesn't seem to have very much information. There doesn't seem to be much depth. But, maybe I don't need that. I guess that is sort of what I am asking, how much depth do I really need. Especially if I add in some biographies and the Usborne book. It is still rather light for history compared to Sonlight, but I just sort of feel done with making history such a HUGE part of our homeschool like with Sonlight. I would really like to read A LOT more literature books that are not related to history at all. Since history is just not a major interest for him I would like to have the time for my son to read other literature that he may find interesting and enjoy more.
I would like to use MOH from 7th grade through 10th. Than for 11th/12th maybe go back to Sonlight for a specific American History course and Government/Econ.
-
Nancy Ann,
I want to take seriously your mention of feeling depressed since this thread started. It is a completely normal and understandable human reaction to become anxious and depressed when one feels opposed by one's community, even if it's an ad hoc and temporary kind of "community" like a forum thread. It doesn't matter if you "ought" to feel ganged up on or not; you do, and it's a crummy feeling. I'm sorry.
Take a break from this thread. Seriously. You're certainly right, there are undoubtedly people who share your opinions who aren't posting. You've spoken up for yourself and for them. Nobody thinks badly of you for having spoken up; nobody is going to think badly of you for being done speaking up. And absolutely nobody here wants your children's mom to feel anxious or angry or depressed over an internet forum.
I may disagree with you about evolution, but if you were here in my living room, I'd get you a cup of tea, and I think we'd have a lot in common to talk about. :)
Thank you very much for you kindness and you are totally right.
However, is it not the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome! :)
-
Or maybe one could choose the leave the community table rather than asking everyone else to cease conversing? Pour oneself a glass of wine and go read in the corner?
Yes, and that would show the wisdom of the person pouring themselves a glass of wine and the lack of compassion and kindness for the others left at the table.
-
Are you suggesting that respectful disagreement is wrong?
Sometimes yes.
I do not think people should change their opinion. I also do not expect everyone to have my opinion. It is very obvious that all of you have not comprehended my post. I only mean there are times when a discussion should stop.
If there were a table of 6 friends all of them talking about a heated topic. 5 of them all agreed with each other and the other one disagreed. Even in respectful disagreement that one person is going to get overwhelmed, frustrated and inevitably it will lead to some sort of melt down. I think it's hard for anyone to take that kind of pressure.
The argument that says " the person can just leave, or the person can just not go online" is not something I agree with because I think we should be better than that. We should show restraint and not continue to bombard the person.
I am only saying that if it seems a thread is going one sided maybe it would be wise to shut it down.
-
First of all, when everything that gets posted in regard to Creationism is refuted by multiple sources, it's not because we're bullies. It's because there is zero evidence for Creationism in the first place.
Second, disagreement is not meanness. You can take your toys and go home if you want, but just because a majority disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that we're nasty people. What do you expect SWB to do, come into the thread and say, "Now seven of you on the evolution side have to switch to Nancy Ann's team because otherwise it's just not fair and we don't want her to feel bad." Come on. If you really believe that respectful disagreement shouldn't be tolerated, you're probably going to want to avoid the internet completely. Or any kind of human company, for that matter, because respectful disagreement is pretty common.
I expect the thread to be shut down.
Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good.
-
-
I'm going to ask one last time, though I'm not expecting an answer from proponents of including information about Creation in a science class. This is the question that vexes me.
How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit and for what purpose* is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?
I would say any family that even remotely cares about their belief system the children will pick up stories and beliefs from them. Either the child will ask a question and the parent will answer according to their belief or it will just come up in conversation.
From a secular family I would assume kids will pick up less. Not because of ignorance on the parents part but mostly because of priority. If it comes up they may talk about it. Again kids ask questions.
I have no statistical data to back this up, the is just my general opinion.
The benefit is simple. Many still believe that there is value and good science in opinions that contradict some of the elements of evolution. You may disagree with them and others may disagree. But, no amount of stomping feet and calling names and yelling at the roof tops that the science for creation and intelligent design is outdated, misrepresented and misinformed is going to change that the science is good, real and relevant to our time. If you and others want to believe that the mainstream science is pure, not tainted with personal world view bias, or doesn't have it's own misinformation and misinterpretation, than you can live in your fairy land. I am happy in my fairy land so please, by all means be happy in yours!
You won't like my answer, but there it is. The reason I never answered it before is because it seems like you already have an answer and are just waiting for a response so you can contradict and give your reasons why the person is wrong. So, like an idiot I play the game.
Anyone read The Butter Battle Book lately? The word sparring between Old Earth and Young Earth and ToE and Intelligent Design seem very similar to that of this book.
-
Coming out of my cave licking wounds from yesterday.
I am really impressed with you Saddlemomma in all the posts you have done on this thread. You have really stood tall and above all remained respectful. You have been smart and God honoring.
I believe there is bias in the science community and many times good science get's shoved under the rug because it doesn't follow the world view or politics of the science community. There are tons of articles by professional scientists that support this. There are tons of opinions of graduate students who do not hold to any particular world view struggle in the research programs and drop out because of all the agendas. People's world view does impact science. It impacts what get's put in the textbooks. Current political agenda has huge impacts in what the authority figures in the scientific community will publish and what gets money for research. This is not to say everyone is doing it. But it's a big enough problem that people are starting to stand up and take notice. Mostly it's people from other studies that are noticing this. Professional people from the studies of mathematics and social sciences are noticing this and commenting.
Anyway, I just want to share this bible verse with other Christians who are reading this thread and may feel discouraged or upset and maybe even second guessing themselves and their faith. I have been in some dark places and I know how these sorts of threads can do that to people because it's happened to me often. God is real, God is good and God is the creator of this beautiful world.
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV)
-
Ganged up? We're asking follow-up questions.
:huh:
ETA: These discussions are not a test in endurance or intelligence. They're a matter of exploring information.
Exploring information assumes you do not already have an opinion and that one is honestly open to another person's ideas. I don't see that here, I see a lot of people playing that, but not actually open to other ideas. Most here have there opinion and what they think is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who has the talent for debate and strength for endurance to stick it out!
I am bailing out on this conversation because I have nothing of value to add that will benefit anyone. I do not have the endurance to answer all the so called "follow up questions" and all I am left with is to bash to try and relieve some of my frustration, so it's best to bow out now.
-
Being ganged up on by atheists and made to feel like an idiot for believing in a loving God is just not how I want to spend my evening. No good comes from discussions like this. People can't share what they truly believe or what they consider to be a truth because others will mercilessly attack them and drag them over the coals until they leave the discussion or they submit to current thought of the day. If I bring up anything or link to anything in this discussion that supports my view it will immediately be refuted and mocked. There is no end to this sort of thing. This is not a polite discussion and sharing of ideas but nothing more than intellectual wanking.
ETA: These discussions are not a test in intelligence but a test of endurance.
-
Creationism is not just Christian, it belongs to the Muslim faith and Jewish faith as well. For me it's a relevant topic to bring up in class and not sure what the big deal is. To be honest I could careless if they teach it in science class or in history class or in English class. Creationism is relevant and should be taught in schools.
I don't see a problem. with taking a few days in a science class to talk about these other ideas. I do see the point that some people have about Creationism as not a science. I obviously disagree and I use the horrific Apologia to teach my kids science. ( permission granted for many of you to go leave the room and throw up if needed)
-
This isn't how information is gained or passed, however. It shouldn't be a part of the educational system in the United States!
But all in all, I do understand your point. It's not my intention to turn this into a religious discussion, but to comment on your thoughts here:
I think this shows a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is, and how the scientific method actually works. Although I personally think it also shows a lack of historical knowledge regarding biblical claims, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Discussing the merits of science for the sake of education is really important, and for this reason I think it's vital that we have people who really do know how the scientific method works. The Texas Board of Education simply doesn't have representatives that can do that, clearly, or they wouldn't be voting on adding creationism to public education!
Here in America our culture has strong religious beliefs, mostly Christian but other beliefs as well. Majority of people believe that God exists. If this was Sweden or China it may be a different story. I think it's completely reasonable to allow for this in our education system.
It is fair to teach possibilities or ideas in science. In all science something has to begin as something that is not a fact or theory. ID and Creationism are still a popular belief and there is some credence to it. Those who believe in ID and Creationism are not morons! Taking a few days to discuss this in a classroom is healthy, good and creates a well rounded and balanced education.
It could be that Texas is going about this all wrong, but the idea that Creationism and/or ID have no place in public school education system is incorrect in my opinion.
ETA: It is true there are many theories of how the world came to be, especially when you add in religious theories. I don't think we have to share all the different ideas, certainly not in science class. That would be something for a world religions class to undertake. But, here in America, God is quite relevant and Him creating the world is still a very strong and relevant thought. It makes sense to teach it in science class. If you lived in China how much American History are you going to get? Education is geographical and cultural and relevant to the time whether we agree with the time and culture we are in or not.
-
I don't think people reject religious claims based on human error or human stupidity, but on the credibility of the claims themselves. For example, archaeological research has yet to find support of much, if not any, of the claims made in the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, or the Pentateuch. Who, or what, did these characters (Elijah and Daniel) base their own faiths upon? There was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob/Israel, no Joseph with the coat of many colors, no Moses. There is no evidence of Israeli captivity by the Egyptians, no hint of travel through the desert by this tribe of people.
In all likelihood, Elijah and Daniel were also heroic characters in fantastic stories passed down from generation to generation, and nothing attributed to them ever happened. In any case, it's increasingly more difficult to believe religious claims based on characters and events that never, and likely never existed. It's the same pattern we see with the decline of worship of Zeus after it was well established that the top of Mt Olympus never had a temple or housed any gods at all.
As people become familiar with the history of the ancient near east, as they did with the top of Mount Olympus, these stories will be increasingly relegated to allegorical. Eventually, they'll stop serving even that function. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, will likely continue finding support and confirmation in increasingly developing fields of science.
Albeto,
I am not getting into a debate with you about the bible and existence of God. It's not that I can't. I can certainly hold my own when it comes to these topics and when it comes to historical and scientific facts about these topics. But, the truth is we will go around and around and get no where. The result will be my anxiety will go WAY up and I won't get supper going tonight and we will end up having take out! :) Hmmmm...take out sounds good!:)
When Jesus walked this earth and performed miracles in front of peoples eyes and walked among us, people did not believe. I doubt very much any of my words will convince you of anything or give you any insight. I am not sure God can be approached in an intellectual way. I really am not sure how people come to God. I have struggled and been confused but intellectual argument has very rarely been what brought me back or helped me out. It was prayer. Praying even when I thought no one was there to listen.
-
This is a thread about science standards and textbooks.
Yes, and threads ALWAYS stay on topic and don't meander! :) I think my comments fit with conversation we had and various comments on the board.
-
I think the reality is the belief in the judeo-christian god is not going to be around much longer. It's following the same trajectory as the greek and norse mythological gods, and that makes believers anxious. I think that's why there is such a (desperate?) desire to find some compelling reason to take it seriously, to keep it relevant. It used to be religious believers didn't have to use science to support their beliefs. As information increases, religious theories change. God created fossils to test one's faith. Wait, no, the fossils were a result of the Great Flood. Or wait, the fossils do reveal the age of the earth, but God is the real source of the Big Bang.
Well? Which is it? If religion answers the questions about how we got here, why nature looks and works as it does, then what is the answer? If religion can't be trusted to know the answer, and has to keep changing it to keep up with evidence, then in the words of Stephen Fry, "What is it good for?"
I cannot deny that in 100 years from now there may be less people who believe in God or are Christian. For me, however, that does not mean He does not exist. Popularity of opinion or common beliefs certainly does not make something true. There will always be a remnant. In the bible when Elijah had lost hope God showed him a remnant of believers. In the bible Daniel was in the minority and he is a great mentor for those of us who find ourselves in a similar circumstance.
I think trying to use science to prove God is a big mistake religious people are making. But, judging God based on human error or human stupidity is also a big mistake.
-
I find it hilarious that you consider Christianity a major religion, and Buddhism a minor one. Geography certainly does shape our perceptions, doesn't it?
You guys really have a strange sense of humor on these boards. So many things many of you find hilarious that are not really all that funny. :)
Anyway.... what makes something a major or minor religion is extraordinarily complicated. Here is something that shows the basic population and percent of religions. Obviously geography does have something to do with it, but this article shows basic population and percent. Christianity still has more population than any other religion or non religion. Buddhism is quite high as well. I really don't know how one would consider a major vs minor religion.
Disney is changing its special pass for persons with disabilities
in The Chat Board
Posted
Is this policy going to change for people with wheel chairs as well?
I hope they can work something out. I do think Disney is doing it's best but I wonder if it's worth doing. Yes, some people take advantage and it's rude and sad, but I think more harm is coming from this change. Kids who are autistic for instance, just can't spend a long day in the park. There are lots of quiet places, nooks and crannies so to speak in both Disney World and Disneyland and maybe those will be places to go between rides. It will mean less rides for many families though and that's unfortunate. I guess I want to understand why Disney is making this change. There will always be people taking advantage of the system, but in this case people who need this system REALLY NEED it! It makes a huge difference for so many families!
My sister needs a wheelchair when my brother takes her and my mother to WDW. She has paralysis on one side of her upper extremity and her lower is slightly, she can walk but not all around WDW! Standing in lines would also be too much for her. My brother takes my mom and sister almost every year in January. I wonder how this will effect them.
ETA:I haven't been to WDW in about 14 years, but we live in California and have gone to Disneyland numerous times. We don't have any disability issues in our family, but sometimes I wonder how children and families with sensory issues deal with it. Over the last 13 years I have noticed a huge increase in stimulus with sound, colors, activity etc... at Disneyland. I don't think I have any sensory issues but I can hardly stand to go to the parks any longer. It just doesn't seem to be the same Disneyland 10 years ago. It just feels SO MUCH! Maybe it's just me getting older!! :) My kids are pretty much done after a day and a half they are 11 and 4.