The girl mentioned in your previous post was leaving the university, which presumably means that she passed the entrance exams, which means that the college considered her capable of doing college level work.

Mine is the old version, a 500+ page hardcover, and it's comfortable for me. The new format added 200 pages, but it seemed like it wouldn't be much thicker according to the spine width calculator. I also wanted to keep the cost down, which one book does. I've never liked the 8.5 x 11 size books because I find them difficult to read across the page. I'm rambling. Anyway, I'm glad you're not unhappy with the size. :-) And now I should probably get off the forum and actually go do something to make that separation between 1 and 2 happen. :001_rolleyes:

Levels 3 and up will have answer keys. Level 1 doesn't have exercises, and with Level 2, I think that the introduction and the discussion are enough, even if the child doesn't find every last verb in a passage. Level 3 begins diagramming, though, so I felt an answer key would be helpful. Edited for grammar because, seriously... :smilielol5:

Extremely well said.

Yes, this. We have simplified so much over the years that in a way, yes, we're taking a "grace life." My oldest is in the eleventh grade now, and I don't even try to do all the things with my kids that I thought I should try to do back when he was in K. I define rigorous as thorough coverage of basic skills, so I no longer feel like I need to use multiple programs for subjects in an attempt to be rigorous enough. Plodding coverage over the years is better than a pile of programs and burn-out. When I add extra, it needs to have a good reason, like a child who truly needs more. I think a grace year could be a basic homeschooling reboot. Let's explore, read, cuddle, talk, and evaluate what's really important TO MY FAMILY, not to extended family, the people at church, or the ladies on the forum. Now, we never actually did this. Instead, we just started dropping things that made our days long but yielded no fruit. But I see how a grace year could have given us a place to start from scratch instead of winging it until we found our comfort zone.

I don't believe I've done this. I've been very specific about my disagreement with comments in this thread. She's been "called out" for things she didn't actually say. Many in this thread have acknowledged that their own experiences have influenced the way they read the article. This is subjective. Objective evidence shows that the idea that she's advocating, or even just approving, doing nothing for an entire year is incorrect. There is no objective evidence that supports the view of the article that says she gives the seal of approval to doing nothing for an entire year. To say otherwise defies objective reality, as I've attempted to demonstrate. A couple of you now have pointed out to me that it's okay if we have different opinions, and that people disagree, and yet these comments seem to indicate that my disagreement with your opinions is unwelcome. People in this thread posted opinions on the internet. I disagree strongly, and I'm calling y'all on it. But I feel like we're now arguing over whether the sky is blue. It doesn't stop being blue just because it's cloudy where one person happens to be. It just looks that way to the people in that place. Subjective. As an opinion, I agree with the basic premise, that children should be progressing every year in their educations, and that something is wrong if parents TRULY do nothing and assume that their children will somehow still be educated as an adult just because they were homeschooled. As an argument against the article, though, it makes no sense because, objectively, she didn't encourage that behavior. I believe that this is what Hunter meant. The article was used as a jumping off point for a particular argument. However, the argument never matched what the article actually said. It's also possible that some were actually influenced by the original post which indicated that the article said something it didn't. I think a discussion of what a grace year can look like, should look like, how it's been helpful to various people, etc., could be a very interesting, helpful discussion for homeschoolers anywhere. But that's not what this was.

I also don't think it's unChristianlike to call someone out when I think they're doing wrong. In fact, that's what I was doing with my posts. Many of these posts were mean. If I followed a link back from my blog to a thread like this one, I'd be very hurt. And this thread isn't about calling her out on being wrong, because she's not a part of this thread as far as I know.

I eventually stopped buying curricula and started buying books. As a general practice, I recommend it. We've regretted so many curricula purchases, but we've regretted very few book purchases. We use curricula for math, LA, Latin, and US geography, and for everything else, we use a spine and some good books.

Yes, the article lacks clarity. Remember, what I'm arguing here is that it's wrong to say that she advocates doing nothing when that cannot be shown through quotes she herself has made. That can only be argued by reading into what she said. Nothing you said here negates the points that I made in my previous post with quotes from the article itself. In any case, the additional quotes from her from the comments, that I also referenced above, make it clear that her intention was not for a complete break. So, yes, the article lacks clarity. That's not the point.

We've done history both ways, and I prefer together. Conversations, activities, and experiments are easier this way. Plus, my knowledge of history is still not the greatest; hearing about too many different time periods in one year really hurts my brain.

Objectively, no, I don't see how it could mean whatever the reader wants. To assume that she is advocating doing nothing, as people have argued here, one would have to ignore all the quotes I listed above, and read into other passages things that she didn't actually say. Could she, and should she, have been more specific about exactly what she's advocating? At this point, I'd say absolutely yes. :-)

I also recommend NOT filling out optional forms. "Optional" eventually becomes "mandatory" when too many people participate, and the argument runs along the lines of, "Well, obviously it was only a minority of people who objected."

A quote from the author from the comments which further clarifies her position: "Keep 'em busy for sure. I would not suggest doing no school for extended periods of time but the idea is to prioritize and not to worry." ETA another one: "We'll lag in English and then the kids will get into writing stories or letters to friends and we're catching up. God is good!"

Of course it's fine to disagree with people. Calling them idiots and making accusations of neglect is another matter entirely, as is continuing to insist that she said it was okay to do NOTHING, when I can't find a single quote in the article that says that. In the interest of fairness, I went and read it a fourth time. "In fact, in many cases, the things your kids learn by the experience can be life-changing – for the good!" She assumes the children will be learning. That doesn't imply NOTHING. "It is tempting to think that somehow this homeschool year will be different–to think that this year you will have long stretches of uninterrupted time in which to lovingly fill your children with all wisdom and knowledge, provide three home-cooked, gourmet meals a day in your perfectly clean and organized home." She mentions the absurd expectations that many people feel like they have to meet. This does not seem like she's accustomed to giving her message to a bunch of slackers. "I was asked, after speaking at our local homeschool convention last summer, how we did school while our daughter, Abby, was being rescued from the middle of the Indian Ocean during her solo-circumnavigation attempt. My answer? 'We didn’t.'" I'm going to cut her some slack here. I don't think I would have been doing formal lessons then, either. "Your break does not necessarily need to be complete. You may focus on certain subjects like literacy, the 3 R’s, or character while taking a break from other, less important (at that time and in that circumstance) subjects. Your family’s choice of how to take a Grace Year will depend on your unique family needs." Not NOTHING, but a break of some sort dependent upon the needs of the family. "Many years ago, when I was fairly new to homeschooling, I attended a talk put on by a group of veteran homeschool moms. They shared the stories of their homeschool years–the trials, the struggles, and the victories. I’ll never forget the statement that one mother made after one particularly dramatic testimony. She said that despite her fears and doubts, God had filled in the gaps and then some." This is not a statement that God will fill in the gaps of our laziness and slacker attitudes. It's just encouragement for the Christian that God is bigger than any mistakes we make along the way. "I mean, if you are drinking wine in the afternoon and watching soap operas while your kids are watching cartoons upstairs, get some help..." That's the statement that reminds people she's not giving some sort of permission to slack off and do nothing. That's my objective evidence. My opinion is that this article was presented in a negative light in the original post, and many reacted to what was said in the original post instead of what the woman actually wrote.

The negative responses in this thread are aimed at that article, but NOT at what the article actually says. Perhaps she should have said it? She DID say it. Several people have tried to point this out, but everyone keeps going back to this attitude that she said it was okay to do NOTHING. She was called an idiot, and it's been implied and outright stated that what she's advocating is educational neglect. Since she didn't, I consider this unfair. And since I would want to be defended in a similar set of circumstances, I feel a strong need to defend her. It's wrong to accuse her of what she did not say. And yes, it makes me extremely sad to see Christians bashing other Christians in this way. You're saying that you feel this way because you've seen slackers, but just because there are slackers out there, that doesn't mean that's what she was advocating, and she shouldn't be judged so harshly (I reiterate: idiot, neglect) based on a single post taken out of context from everything else she might have said on her homeschooling blog.

In the original article, she did not promote being unavailable to her children, not emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise. She actually said the opposite, making it quite clear that the children should be with the parent, partaking in adult life. I've made comments like the ones listed above re: not getting much done at various times. What I always meant was that we weren't meeting my insane standards, not doing everything that I had planned for us. I never meant that literally nothing was going on. At our most minimal, including summers, children are at least reading a lot. I'm appalled that people might make that assumption instead of assuming the best unless there's a reason to do otherwise. Many people can't let out their frustrations about homeschooling to their families, and they assume that another homeschooler will understand. This thread makes me sad. Many here seem to see in that article some insidious plot to promote educational neglect. I see in this thread the lack of understanding for the plight of others that made the article necessary.

But this is not what she actually suggested. Lots of people take all summer off, which is one quarter of a year. To me, that is an extremely long time for no academic work at all, and for some people, summer is the time for doing NOTHING. But they get back to work in the fall without issues. A year is four times as long, of course, but she never said to do nothing during that time. I can't see myself choosing to do this, but I can see how it could work for some people.

Unschoolers usually don't do formal academics. Most of us don't call that neglect. A lot of learning can happen in many different ways, even just reading a little every day. I'm not going to start accusing some woman of promoting educational neglect because I think she may have implied it even though she never actually said it.

I just took that to mean, as you said, for people, "to give themselves a little grace when they are struggling." :-)

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

Each lesson day has a chapter from a piece of children's literature, and this book is read each lesson day until the book is finished. Level 2 begins with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. So each lesson day until it is finished, one chapter of the book is scheduled. The lesson uses a passage from the book to illustrate the concept presented in the lesson. Lessons include a poem and an Aesop's fable to read, and copywork from the literature, poetry, or the Bible. Levels 2 and up also include a grammar exercise. The last lesson each week is either a picture study or a narration. Each lesson is a few pages, including the poem and fable. My boys are old enough to do the copywork and exercises independently. There's less copywork in Level 1, only a one-line sentence at first. That gradually increases. The samples for all levels of LLTL include the first two weeks worth of lessons, and on Amazon, the sample for PLL includes the first seven lessons. I recommend trying a few lessons from each and see which one you and your son enjoy the most. I'd also recommend reading the TOC for each program and seeing which one seems to meet your particular requirements better. And I'd be happy to answer any further questions.

Thank you, Beth. :-) I will *try* to get that done within the next week. I just need to create new covers for them. When I'm finished, they'll be available immediately through CreateSpace, but it will take about another week for them to be up on Amazon.

I honestly don't understand this. Why would I do that when I can just have my child sound out the words? Too many words have very similar shapes. More importantly, the shapes don't mean anything, but the letters and phonograms do. And, there are far fewer phonograms and rules than there are sight words. Teaching sight words was always based on a false premise, that good readers take in the whole word instead of recognizing each sound individually. In Why Johnny Can't Read, the author mentions a study that was considered evidence of this. The study showed that people recognized whole words faster than they could recognize the individual letters. The conclusion was that people somehow took in whole words instead of individual sounds, and that phonetic instruction is merely a crutch used until the new reader can do this. But the study truly only showed a correlation, not causation. The matter is not that simple. I can recognize my phone number faster than I could recognize seven random digits. This doesn't prove that I somehow take in whole phone numbers and only recognize digits while I'm learning the phone number. In Uncovering the Logic of English, Denise Eide's mentions that the latest brain research shows that good readers decode every word, they just do it very fast. The whole language approach that is supposed to be so fun and wonderful for the child, that's how I was taught to read. I hated it. I still remember sitting there and being encouraged to guess, look at the pictures, and all the other methods that are used instead of actually teaching children HOW to read.

Yes, I like the word "effective"; it's less loaded. :-) I hope y'all find it so, and enjoy it, too.

In all fairness to the author, she did say: I think this also has a lot to do with environment. We severely limit screen time in our home, and we don't allow twaddle when it comes to books. My boys don't have a lot of ways to just completely waste their time. We've never taken a "Grace Year," but they have learned a lot over the years during times when we were doing less in the way of formal academics.