I may be off the mark with this thought, but it's what came to mind so I felt I should share it. Do the people who are hurting you realize that what they're criticizing applies to you? Sometimes people say things to others, or in the hearing of others, that they'd never say if they knew more about the people who are listening. This kind of thing can bring great pain, without the speaker having a clue what the consequences of their unthinking remarks may be to others. If that's the case, please realize that they may be being harsher than they would if they understood that what they were saying applies to you. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it does mean that they may not really have a full understanding of that which they are criticizing. It's hard. All you can do is to learn from the experience, and try to extend to others the grace that has not been extended to you. In the long run, your hard-earned wisdom and example in how to thoughtfully handle this sort of thing may go a long way towards helping both those suffering as you have been, and those who would criticize them. :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

But to look at it another way, they've already taken the step of placing him in an environment where he is living and learning the Catholic faith for most of his day, and getting FHC training. Perhaps, if they truly cannot attend Sunday mass (esp. if it's because they are working crazy hours to afford the Catholic school for their son), FHC *is* the next logical step.

Yes! I can see both sides of this. However, I do think that while not going to Sunday mass is a huge issue, we shouldn't overlook the fact that this child is in a Catholic setting for 6-8 hours a day, five days a week, with Catholic teaching and prayer no doubt infused throughout the curriculum. And the family is paying out-of-pocket for their child to have this Catholic environment when he could have gone to public school for free. And the child goes to mass once a week. Not Sunday mass, true, but mass just the same. And that is living a significantly more faith-based life than the public school Easter/Christmas Catholics who are going through the hoops for FHC but didn't attend mass regularly before and are unlikely to afterwards. All of that shows significant commitment on the part of the family. I would hope that someone from the church reaches out to the family and helps them find a solution, for their child and for themselves. I know at least one parent who gave up on the Church, for themselves and their children, because nobody seemed to care enough to help them find a way to get through the hoops. The hoops are there for good reasons, but there should be outreach and encouragement for those who face barriers to jumping those hoops.

I am a fan of the second. The third gets tedious and loses the fun of the original work. The only exception might be if your student needs lots and lots of practice and repetition.

What Farrar said for classical ballet taught to serious students. But you're talking more about dance as therapy (physical or occupational or emotional), or dance as fitness, yes? You can go to college for dance, and perhaps "dance therapy" or something similar, but be very careful, as it can be expensive and you may not get the return on investment you'd like after spending all that money. If you go that route, look at lots of schools and dig deep into their curricula and philosophy to get the right fit. Our family has had dance teachers who went the classical ballet route, taking serious classes for years as a child then work with a professional company. I have to say I much prefer these teachers, regardless of what genre or setting they are teaching in, because they have a foundation in both the actual dance part, but also in the ritual and etiquette of teaching class, which makes them very effective teachers. Even serious hip-hop teachers, who are unlikely to have a classical ballet background, are much better if they've cross-trained in genres like jazz and African and perhaps some contemporary, and if they've had significant company experience and/or training. I've also had fitness-dance classes taught by both highly/formally trained teachers and those who have a more "direct entry" background. While there have been some good teachers who have more talent and instinct than formal training, I've found that most of the really good ones turn out to have had serious dance training (not always ballet) as teens and young adults. The reverse is also often true; those who are not great often simply don't have the quality dance background/training, even if they have the Zumba certification or what-have-you. The key qualities for a fitness instructor are enthusiasm and the ability to run a class in a professional way, sensitive to how the students are doing with the ability to change plans on the fly to meet the needs of their students. Direct-entry is possible, but the more quality training they have, in more-or-less any dance genre with good teachers, the better they can be. I've also been part of a studio where the student body includes both serious dancers and those we call "once-a-weekers". The OWs include a variety of kids with special needs. For these students, while some amount of dance training is useful, what's key is a sensitive, thoughtful teacher. Some of the teachers at this studio came up as kids in the studio, and while they've had some formal training, it's nowhere near what teachers at a pre-pro, company school would have. But for the special needs kids, that's not important. It's the teacher's ability to nurture the child's ability and to help them enjoy expression and movement though dance that's key. What local resources does your dc have? Do you have quality classes with excellent teachers? Can your dc spend 15-20 hours taking class every week, year-round? Do you have access to master classes, ideally studio-based (because of fewer students) or perhaps at dance conventions? I would also suggest that your dc watch lots and lots of dance performances in a wide variety of genres. So many dance students have really only seen their local studio's recital, or perhaps other studios at competitions, which doesn't really cover the full dance world. Get out and see dance - ballet, of course, but also contemporary, African, hip-hop, ballroom, tap, jazz, musical theater, "audience pleasing" things, alternate/fringe things - really everything you can find!

Ask if there appeared to be any damage to the box? Perhaps it got torn in transit and then taped up and sent on its way without all of the contents. Or, perhaps the buyer is mixing you up with the seller of something else they bought? Just trying to think of scenarios.

If his high school or DE grades are low enough that he is not eligible for dual enrollment (is that what you meant?), then he may actually be a better applicant as a transfer than as a potential freshman. He will need to show colleges that he is capable of college-level work, which he can do by taking a year or two at the CC. I am assuming that the grade situation does not inhibit him from taking non-DE classes at the CC? If, on the other hand, the issue is that you've got him labeled as a senior at the CC and thus he's not eligible for another year of DE, talk to the CC about his need for another year of high school (he's not graduating yet is enough info for them, I think) and whether he can take DE classes for another year, perhaps as self-pay if you've been getting tuition assistance previously. Find out what their rules are, and speak their language (e.g. he doesn't have enough credits to graduate, so he is doing another year). If his grades are decent, this would be a good approach, I think.

If you live out of state, you can get a free library card to the NYC public library for three months. To renew it you have to go back to the library. The beauty of it is that you can borrow Kindle books and audio books using the Overdrive app, and you don't need to visit the library for that. So even if you can only go the once, that means free summer reading for the whole family until mid-August! They let you check out 12 books per card, IIRC. You need an ID to get the card. In-state folks can get a card for longer. I have library cards from several other large cities, and their e-book collections are nowhere near as extensive as the NYPL. The building is really nice - lots of carvings and such. In the lobby there is a very small cafe - too small to really call a cafe - that has a VERY limited selection of pastries and perhaps 2-3 kinds of sandwiches as well as drinks. They have about 5 tables. There are also tables in front of the library (outside) which is a nice place to enjoy a picnic lunch. There is a gift shop in the lobby also. It has some cool stuff for book-lovers. Things like socks with literary themes, and so on. We enjoyed looking through it. Lots of gift ideas. There's a nice display in the window right now of important women. You need to go to the third floor to get a library card. While you're there, there is usually an art exhibit of some sort on the walls of the hallway. Last weekend it was of historical South American photos. I wouldn't go just for the exhibit, but it's interesting to look at if you're there anyway. They sometimes have other exhibits; there was a Hamilton one a while back but it is closed now I think. Check their website to see what may be on offer when you're there. All of the rooms are full of marble and carved wood and all kinds of cool stuff to look at. It is a majestic building. There's also a ladies room on the third floor. Be aware that the ladies' room(s) close earlier than the library itself!!! (The cleaning staff wants to get their job finished and leave when everyone else does, I think.) The Milne stuffed animals were on display in the children's department when I was there a couple weeks ago. I usually take the train into the city then walk to the library. Driving won't be fun but is do-able. Best if you have a designated navigator so you're not trying to navigate and drive at the same time.

We had a case of shark teeth too; ortho process lasted for.ev.er. If you have a health care savings account thingy (is that what they're called), see if you can get the ortho to work with you on the billing to take maximum advantage of the account. It won't change the cost, but by paying with pre-tax dollars you can save a significant amount. (The higher your usual tax bracket, the more you save.) Very roughly speaking, if your tax bracket is 30%, then normally you must earn $100 to spend $70. So to spend $7000, you would normally have to earn $10,000. With the account, to spend $7000, you "only" have to earn $7000. Check the rules - you need to plan ahead. I am so glad someone shared this tip with me before we put two through ortho.

Interesting. I had always heard FLK as meaning "this kid's facial features make me wonder if there is some kind of underlying syndrome". Lots of genetic conditions involve, among other things, certain facial characteristics, so FLK can be a potential symptom. Maybe the use of this slang is different in different areas. If you live in the US, you'd have to be seriously unobservant to not notice Christmas, for example. Of course there are secular parts of the holiday, but there's no shortage of religious references too. Easter is less public-oriented, but still widely visible. It would be hard not to notice the churches in your neighborhood, and the movable-letter signs outside of them, even if just when driving past them. There are churches even in the poorest neighborhoods, and in many remote ones. It would be rare for a child to go to a public school that didn't include Christian children - in fact they are usually in the majority. And many, if not most, private schools are at least nominally Christian of some flavor or another. And many children's books include references to going to church, Christian holidays, and so on. I would be shocked to find a not super-rural-plus-homeschooled 8-year old in the US who had no inkling of Christianity, or one who by age 10 or 12 didn't have a grasp of the basics - Jesus, God, the Christmas story, and so on. Now, these kids may not have a full understanding of the nuances of a particular denomination, but Christianity is all around them on a regular basis.

Having once lived in a neighborhood where solicitors included addicts asking for "a drink of water" followed by requests for money, or worse yet a later break-in, I am skeptical of the motives of any stranger at my door. I used to have a sign on my door that said "No solicitors please, religious or otherwise." It worked surprisingly well, for both salesmen and religious canvassers. (I suppose you could add "religious, political, or otherwise" if you wanted to limit the people running for office as well. I don't mind them so much.) Something to consider if you are in an area where this is an ongoing issue and you want to limit it. Our current municipality has an ordinance requiring solicitors to obtain a license, which tends to limit things somewhat, and gives me the power to ask to see their license, and the ability to complain to local officials if a solicitor is being aggressive or otherwise inappropriate. I regularly report people like the scammer guys who want to redo my driveway with what is likely to turn out to be black paint. (Now and again we've had the Feds coming around asking about someone, either as part of an investigation or because the person is pursuing a security clearance. That's always a bit strange.) Come to think of it, it may be time to hang a new sign. And make sure, once again, that I'm on the "do not call" list.

So it's just coincidence that it is easier-thus-cheaper to sew if you don't enclose the seams? Call me skeptical. To enclose both seams, you have to sew one then kind of roll up the entire thing (kind of like a burrito) and put it between the gusset and the main piece, then sew the other seam, then turn it right side out and add your elastic to the leg openings. That's not very speedy. It's much easier if you just sew one exposed seam at the back and leave the "pocket" in the front. Easier means it is cheaper to sew, and can be sewn by someone with less skill. And of course the smaller the gusset, the less fabric needed for it, so again, cheaper. (Side note - I took a bathing suit class years ago and they taught the "burrito method", as it's known, so that you wouldn't have a pocket where, in the ocean, sand can uncomfortably accumulate!) The fancy (and expensive - as much as $20/pair!) breathable sports undies often have little to no sewing at all - the gusset is two pieces of featherweight fabric fused together, and the leg elastic is either super-thin and fused in place, or non-existent.

Craftsy has a great online class where you draft undies to fit you, then sew them. The teacher is amazing, and shows how to make all kinds of adjustments for different kinds of figures. I know most of y'all aren't going to sew your own undies, but if you might, check out the class.

Moving back to the study mentioned in the original post, it has been retracted by the journal that published it - Updated: Vaccine-autism study retracted — again For the second time, a journal has quickly retracted a study that suggested vaccines raise the risk of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. The study first raised a furor last year, prompting a Frontiers journal to quickly retract it. After it was republished in the Journal of Translational Science this month, that journal has also retracted it. Although the titles of the two papers changed, the abstracts were nearly identical. Both studies surveyed the parents of 666 home-schooled children, 39% of whom where not vaccinated, and concluded that vaccination increased the risk of neurodevelopmental problems, particularly if children were born prematurely. A representative of the Journal of Translational Science told us “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children†has been retracted, and it will update us with an explanation. ... When the study appeared last year in Frontiers in Public Health, it caused a firestorm on Twitter, prompting Frontiers to release a public statement, noting that the study was only “provisionally accepted but not published.†It was retracted later that same week.

I'm just going to say it. That is flat-out irresponsible. The people around you who are immune-compromised, newborns, pregnant moms, the fragile elderly, and those particularly vulnerable to certain diseases for other reasons, need this information to care for their health. You may not be aware of their circumstances, so you cannot know when exposure may be cause for concern and when it is more likely to be benign. And consider this - if you have an unvaxxed kid, you need this information from others to care for your own child's health. Please think seriously about the potential ramifications of your choice. Pray or meditate on how "do unto others" applies in your situation. Please - seriously consider giving others the information they need to make their own informed choices about if and when they will expose themselves or their vulnerable loved ones to your unvaxxed kids.

From the CDC: Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die. As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children. About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability. For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. Measles may cause pregnant woman to give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby. ... Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life. SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness. Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States. Among people who contracted measles during the resurgence in the United States in 1989 to 1991, 4 to 11 out of every 100,000 were estimated to be at risk for developing SSPE. The risk of developing SSPE may be higher for a person who gets measles before they are two years of age.

This would require a *massive* increase in infrastructure. Customs officers would have to see papers from every single person entering the US - even US residents returning from a vacation - for this to be effective. We would need more customs officers, more people to create the paperwork for Americans going overseas, and more space in airports to process the passengers upon entry. Other countries would need more people to document the vaccines given and do titers, and in some cases more access to vaccines in general. And of course there would be a problem with forged documents, etc., so the process of documentation would get tougher (and more expensive) over time. I think this is an idea that sounds good in theory, but isn't very practical in practice.

That's a good question. Here's my thinking: It's not so much the number of unvaxed kids in the study being proportional to the number of unvaxed kids in the general population. Rather, the question is whether the unvaxxed kids in the survey are representative/typical of unvaxxed kids in the general population (or even of unvaxxed kids in the homeschooling population); ditto for the vaxxed kids. The researchers basically contacted 131 homeschooling organizations and asked them to send info about the study, with a link to the study questionnaire, to the groups' members. They made it clear in the request what the study was about - long-term effects of vaccines. Some chose to answer, some didn't. They got 415 responses (which included 666 children). They do not report how many mothers were asked, but that's an average of only 3 moms per homeschooling organization, so not a great response. The main problem with that approach is that you don't get a random sample. Some moms might be more motivated to answer the survey because they are very anti-vax and want to share how healthy their children are. Moms who didn't vax and have kids with health issues might be less motivated to answer. Thus it is unwise to extrapolate the data from these unvaxxing moms to unvaxxing moms in general. The unvaxxing moms are also overwhelmingly middle to upper class, married, older, educated, and white. Their children are more likely to be healthy than the general population of children, whether vaxxed or not, because they are more likely to have access to quality food, adequate housing, and health care. Thus it is unwise to extrapolate from the experiences of these moms to the general population. The fact that the sample included such a large number of unvaxxed or partially vaxxed children seems to me to be out of proportion with even the homeschooling population, though I don't have data to confirm that. If it is the case, it means that the sample is disproportionately skewed towards low/no vax families, which leads me to question how representative of / typical of the homeschooling population the vaxxing responders are. That is, the problem is not that there are more no/low vaxxers in the study group, but that the study group is not a random sample of homeschoolers combined with the fact that the responders are self-selecting, which leads to questions about whether the results can be extrapolated to homeschoolers at large, let alone the population at large. Other things I noticed: Vaxxed kids were more likely to have been diagnosed with ear infections and pneumonia. However, I wonder if the non/low vaxxers were less likely to take a child to the doctor to get this kind of diagnosis rather than treating it at home. The same goes for allergies and eczema. Again, the assumption seems to be that the two groups of families (vaxxing vs. low/no vaxxing) are similar in all other ways, but I don't think that's likely to be the case given the selection methods. In fact, those with at least some vaccinations "were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to use medication for allergies (20.0% vs. 1.2%...), to have used antibiotics in the past 12 months (30.8% vs. 15.4%...), and to have used fever medications at least once (90.7% vs. 67.8%...). The vaccinated were also more likely to have seen a doctor for a routine checkup in the past 12 months (57.6% vs. 37.2%...), visited a dentist during the past year (89.4% vs. 80.5%...), [and] visited a doctor or clinic due to illness in the past year (36.0% vs. 16.0%...)". This can be seen as an indication of more sickness, or of a different reaction to sickness. In other words, did the vaxxed kids see the doctor etc. more because they were sicker, or because their parents were more likely to take them to the doctor when they were sick?It also seems likely that families who don't vax are also less likely to spend the time and money to get formal diagnoses from health care professionals for things like ADHD, autism, and learning disabilities. If you don't trust the medical community when it comes to their vax recommendations, why would you want their label for your child's behavioral or learning issues? (Especially if you are homeschooling and can make the needed accommodations yourself without need for a label.) Obviously, some people don't vax for medical reasons, but given the sample population and the large number of non-vaxers as opposed to partial vaxxers, I am assuming that the preponderance of non-vaxxers in the survey do so out of concerns about vaccine side-effects outweighing benefits. Interestingly, the researchers do not report asking the respondents about the reasons for their vax choices, although they do ask about their reasons for choosing homeschooling. As the researchers themselves stated, "additional research is needed" to see if the findings are replicated "in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs."

Interestingly, the study authors see that as a plus: "A major challenge in comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children has been to identify an accessible pool of unvaccinated children, since the vast majority of children in the U.S. are vaccinated. Children educated at home (“homeschool childrenâ€) are suitable for such studies as a higher proportion are unvaccinated compared to public school children." http://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U.S.-children.php Note also that one of the researchers is Brian D Ray, of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Ray has done a number of studies of homeschoolers; most or all of which I've seen have been criticized for selection bias / non-random samples. HSLDA has commissioned the NHERI to do at least one study, with HSLDA using the results as if they were representative of the entire homeschooling community, despite the similar self-selection issues.

Here's something I wrote for another forum - There is *so* much scientifically wrong with this study, and even worse the way it was reported in the article, that it's hard to know where to start. The most important thing to understand is that they used a non-random, non-representative, self-selected sample of homeschoolers, and that they attempted to extrapolate their results to the general population. Of the people who volunteered to participate in the study: 92.5% were white. 91.2% had at least some college education. 69.3% made over $50K per year. 91.2% were Christian. 93.7% were married. And a whopping 70% were either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, with 39% completely unvaccinated. This is not representative of the homeschooling community, let alone the general population. Again, the group studied was NOT randomly chosen from the homeschooling population. Rather, the study was described to potential participants as looking at “whether vaccination is linked in any way to children's long-term healthâ€; it is thus no surprise that mothers who choose not to vaccinate their children were dramatically over-represented in the study population. The authors (of the study) are careful to explain *some* of the limits of their study, but the article written about the study comes to a number of conclusions that simply aren’t supported by the data. For those concerned about these issues, I encourage you to read the actual study, rather than the inflammatory and misleading article, and to keep in mind that the people who participated in the study are in no way a random sample.

If you decide to check it, you don't need to use a suitcase. You can check something in a sturdy box. If you are flying Southwest or another carrier that doesn't charge for checked bags, that would be an option. If you're flying an airline that charges, though, you're best off with putting it in the liquids bag. Remember that each person is entitled to a liquids bag of their own, so no need to mix it with other things if you don't have too many toiletries.

Prentice Hall Science Explorer series. Might be a bit below an accelerated student who has some background in it, but would make an excellent spine. There are roughly 16 books in the series, covering all the basic middle school science topics, and some are geared more towards 6th and some more towards 8th. There are lots of resources - worksheets of various kinds for each section, vocab, tests, experiments to do, and so on - enough that you can pick and choose which is most useful to your students. If you get the CD-ROM of resources, which is often cheap second-hand on Amazon, you will have a lot of resources to use in putting together a great course. And it's secular, and scientifically sound. You could easily get a solid 3-4 years of science working through this series, and they are excellent preparation for high school level work.

I would have him take the SAT and/or ACT this coming spring, so you have some baseline scores to work with. Then again in the fall after some serious prep. While he is "average" compared to your older dc, 95th% is nothing to sneeze at. And if he did 95/87 this year in the PSAT, don't rule out NM level but don't rely on it either; might want to prep specifically for the test. Test scores seem to be his best area. His grades aren't stellar, and neither is the challenge level of his classes, but his school is a good one and local colleges will know that and take it into consideration. If he can get serious and improve his grades, that will also help. A B isn't horrible, but a C is less than ideal. Talk to him regularly about what's going on in his classes, so you can encourage him to give that wee bit of extra effort to turn C+ into B-, and B+ into A- or A. He isn't a social butterfly with the ECs to show it, but he is showing interest in his field through the things he does. Think seriously about how he will spend this summer and next - internship? job involving computers? college summer program? - as this will help him to show his interest and strengths on applications, as well as give him a taste of his field and help him develop some skills. Don't rule out non-state schools, just don't rely on getting in and/or getting the financial package to make them feasible. Look at stats and talk to admissions staff and take advantage of Naviance (a super-helpful tool if his school offers it) to get a sense of which schools might be a good fit and a realistic target. Also, don't assume state schools are the default for "average" kids - since the economy crashed I've observed a lot of kids in my area get into excellent private schools but choose to go state for financial reasons, and the state schools have become more selective accordingly. So don't put all your eggs in the state basket either, unless you're sure of the stats.

Make sure you have the proper tools for her style of hair. I can't speak to curly girl tools - if she has curly hair speak to a professional who knows curly hair well. If she has straight hair, consider the following: --Use conditioner, generously. --Get a wide-toothed comb. The widest-tooth comb you can find. Something like this. --When the hair is wet and has been conditioned, start combing. Gently comb the very bottom half-inch of the hair, all the way around. Then comb around again, starting a half-inch farther up. The comb should glide through gently. --If you come across a tangle, don't try to pull the comb through it. Instead, start again at a point lower than the tangle, and move up in ever-so-small amounts to gently work through the tangle. --Remember, this is using a very-wide-toothed comb. Once you have finished, if you feel it's necessary, you can go back and use a finer-toothed comb. But not a lot finer. The whole idea of the comb is to avoid the pulling action of a brush, especially on wet hair. The wide teeth make it easier for the comb to go through the hair without pulling. The reason for starting at the very bottom, combing out only a small amount at the ends of the hair, is that you won't make any tangles worse, so you can minimize any pulling to get through them.

You cannot know whether it hurts or not, or how much it hurts. We can never know that for another person. She says it hurts. Why not simply believe her? Then together you can brainstorm solutions. Let her wear her hair the way she wants to. If she doesn't mind it in her eyes, then let it be.