Does Riggs do markings? How do they mark the y making the long e sound?

Thank you for your replies, everyone! I looked at AAS but it is out of my price range, unfortunately, seeing as I would need to buy multiple levels. I may look at it again. I'm currently considering Sound Beginnings. I'm waffling between buying something new and just making WRTR work by hook or by crook.

Exactly! There may be a Catholic approach to math, in that it would require virtue, hard work, discipline and a respect for order. But these things are inherent in mathematics, you don't need to Catholicize it. God is the author of mathematics, in any case, as he is the author of the order in the universe. Studying science or mathematics (or anything true, good or beautiful!) is studying His work and adding a veneer of religion only cheapens the value of the religious icon. Counting crosses instead of apples doesn't teach the child anything about the meaning of the cross.

This exactly. Things that are "good, true and beautiful" have value in and of themselves, even if they aren't explicitly Catholic. It is better to choose the best curriculum rather than one that isn't as good but has a veneer of religion.

My understanding of these is that the federal government is not involved at all and there are in fact no attached incentives. There is a built in incentive, in that each state could potentially spend considerably less money designing their own standardized tests if they are able to use tests that are being purchased/paid for/used by many other states. Spreading the cost around, so to speak. As long as the federal government stays out and it is truly a state initiated program, as it is now, I don't have a problem with it.

What is the forum etiquette about "bumping" your post back up to top? I don't want this question to get buried, and I can see this is a very busy forum, but I don't want to be rude or tacky, either.

Thank you for the welcome! Wow, this is a busy forum!

Right, and that's what I meant. There is in Catholic moral theology a tradition that there may be rare exceptions where a Catholic may do an action that is against the moral ideal or the strict letter of the law, but that action is not sinful, or at least is not a mortal sin, as it is the best possible choice they could make in their particular circumstances. This principle is not currently in official favor, but it has certainly been around and in use for centuries.

Thanks so much for these reviews! I have to say that MIF sounds very appealing to me, I also think that Math Mammoth is a bit cluttered for my first grader, but it is A LOT more expensive than MM when the text, workbook and teacher guide are all bought. It sounds like the Teacher Guide is essential, yes?

Absolutely!

Yes, and in addition to these there is a deep moral theology tradition that acknowledges that that at times there can be exceptions to moral teachings, and which views the moral laws as ideals but also recognizes that we as humans can only do the best we can. This is similar to the idea in the Orthodox Church of "economia," that sometimes an individual can only do their best and not strictly meet the letter of the law. Now, you are right that this is not in the official documents of the Church, but it does have a rich and strong history, such as in the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, just like other elements of moral theology such as the principle of double effect. You are right that this has been abused lately, but "ask a priest" is still very good advice. As a reply to OP and the entire discussion: I was trained as an NFP teacher and worked as one for several years. Over this time I learned a lot through my own experience and in my experience working as a teacher and consultant, and I also did a lot of reading about theology and the history of theology. I now have a much more nuanced and less black and white understanding of many things. This, as a disclaimer and an indication of where I'm coming from. I think the Church has an important job in safeguarding the link between the unitive and procreative purposes of sexuality, which have each been denigrated in our society as sex is treated simply as recreation. Yet, I think many of the NFP organizations downplay the unitive function of sex. It is really important to a marriage, it is the very food of the marital union. I have seen marriages damaged by the use of NFP. I don't think that this automatically invalidates the teaching, after all following Christ has certainly resulted in harm to the bodies of many martyrs throughout the centuries. God hasn't promised earthly success and happiness for those who follow him. On the other hand, Christ sanctified marriage and established it as a sacrament, as a very means to give grace to the husband and wife and a symbol of God's love for His Church. It is not unimportant. Our understanding of human sexuality, as a Church, has changed rapidly. It was not so long ago that the "unitive" purpose of sexuality was not mentioned at all, and the listed purposes for marital sex were "procreation and a remedy for concupiscence." At times in the history of the Church, intercourse during natural sterile times, including during pregnancy, was viewed as of questionable morality, since it could not be procreative. The Church now has a much more positive view of sexuality and I think our understanding of it will only deepen as John Paul II's writings on it are more fully explored. I think that the Church's teachings on sexuality could change more than most conservative Catholics think they could; change outwardly while inwardly safeguarding the same values. Yet, we are to form our conscience in the light of the Church and what it proclaims now, and not what it might or might not possibly proclaim in the future. I completely understand why someone would feel that using NFP is more damaging then using contraception, but I can't encourage them to go through with the use of contraception. When we have been weak and violated Church teaching I have always been sorry. If someone is having difficulties with the use of NFP, I'd encourage them to consult an instructor, consider learning a different method that may be more appropriate for them, seek the counsel of a priest and spend a lot of time in prayer.

I jumped in already, and thought I should post a brief intro. I'm Becky, mom to Paolo (8), Roger (6), Rosemarie (4) and Verity (18 months). We are a practicing Catholic homeschooling family and are following the suggestions in the Mother of Divine Grace syllabi this year, with some substitutions on my part. My boys are in Third and First grades. I was referred here a few times by posts on another forum, and I thought it might be a helpful place to hang out. I have read The Well Trained Mind, but don't in fact own a copy but I hope that I'm still welcome. I used to work as an NFP Teacher, but no longer have time for that. My husband works full time, often overtime, and also is in school so there is a lot of responsibility on me to run the household in addition to homeschooling. Um, not sure what else to say.

This isn't true for everyone, for most of the people in my husband's family writing cursive takes longer. I remember that Mel Levine had something about this in one of his books, probably A Mind at a Time. Writing cursive, for some people, can be extra difficult because it involves coordinating a lot of different mental processes. ADHD runs in my husband's family, I think this may be a factor. I've seen the official cursive fonts for other countries, though, such as those for the various states in Australia (yes each state has an official font for schools) and they are more like Italic handwriting than American cursive. The last three samples on this page are Australian fonts: http://www.drawyourworld.com/dnealian.html I'm not sure what I think about cursive. I tried introducing NAC to both my kids last year, and was not at all impressed with the tracing methodology of the book. I'm using WRTR this year and may introduce the cursive to my third grader. His fine motor skills are poor and his manuscript is still awful, though.

Hi! I'm brand new to the forums here. I joined mostly because there seem to be many folks here who are familiar with WRTR, and the WRTR Teachers list and Spalding forms don't seem to get much traffic. I have four kids, two of whom are school aged, a 3rd and a 1st grader. We are following the Mother of Divine Grace syllabi recommendations this year. We followed these for my oldest's first grade year, also, but last year enrolled with St. Thomas Aquinas Academy -- a correspondence type program. In any case, MODG recommends WRTR along with Starting a Spelling Notebook for third. As MODG's recommendation for first grade phonics didn't work for my older son, I decided to try to use WRTR for both of the kids. I read through the book several times and thought I was good to go, but after a week of school I find myself thinking, "What do I need to do next?" Some of my problems: Starting a Spelling Notebook, while using the WRTR book, seems to make several changes to the methodology. I can't decide whether to follow this, or try to figure out what to do based solely on WRTR. For instance, SSN (for my third grader) has you start the beginning notebook rule pages while you are still learning the phonograms, for variety. Also, once you are into the spelling list dictations, it has you dictate words on Monday, the child copies these words into the other column on the page on Tuesday and read them into a tape recorder, then do a "self-test" on Wednesday by listening to their reading, then do a spelling test on Thursday (it is a four day week for most 3rd grade subjects). I can't quite figure out what WRTR wants me to do. It sounds like they want me to dictate words every day (how many?) to write into the notebook and have the child practice reading (out loud? how many?) words from the notebook everyday. I had thought there should only be one instance of each word in the notebook, like it is a reference book. Should the child then practice writing the words on other paper? Then it suggests, in one spot, a weekly spelling test, but gives no guidelines on that. I don't own a Teacher's Guide and don't really see how I can afford one, unfortunately. The Y thing. I have to agree with others, like the author of the Sound Beginnings program (which I kind of wish I'd bought) that it doesn't make sense not to teach the long e sound for y. I'm not sure I can buy the Spalding explanation that it leads to better spelling, as there are many other sounds spelled multiple ways, and the long e sound at the end of a two syllable word is almost always spelled with a 'y'. I would think teaching the short i sound would make it less likely for the child to accurately figure out how to spell a word which they haven't already studied, such as in their own writing. I had decided to teach this sound for the y and just adjust the program, but now I'm realizing how much I'd have to figure out and change if I did that. But I already introduced the sound and made some changes as notes to myself in my copy of WRTR. I'm really torn about how to go with this. Thoughts on this? For my first grader, I think I have a rough idea of what to do. SSN doesn't cover this grade level, so I'm just going by WRTR. We've had one week of school, and have introduced the first 26 phonograms. So next week I'll keep adding more phonograms, starting teach putting words together (he can already read, somewhat) cover vowels and consonants. At least that's my plan. I would love a list of more specific things to cover when, but my understanding is that if I just practice these things, and syllables, markings, etc over and over before we start the spelling dictation then we'll be good to go, yes? Now, once we're doing the spelling pages, we dictate words every day, read words from the notebook everyday. Do we practice on other pieces of paper, too? Spelling tests? I think maybe I'm overthinking all of this, but I just prefer to have things planned out and this doesn't really do it for me. However, I don't see how I can buy much, if anything, to help me at this point. Money is very, very tight.