I made my own tiles and used 1 inch wide magnet tape - I cut 1/2" squares, which has worked great. The roll probably cost $8, but I've made nearly 300 tiles with the same roll and still haven't used it up (I can make 4 tiles per inch of magnet tape; 10ft of tape is 480 tiles). Here's something similar to what I got, but a bit cheaper: http://shop.hobbylobby.com/products/1-flexible-magnetic-strip-with-adhesive-804989/- I think you could find it or something similar in any craft store.

Similar to milovany, our church body believes, teaches, and confesses that the point of attending the Divine Service is to receive the gifts of God (that's why it's called the "Divine Service" - it's God's service to us). We go to church to hear the Word proclaimed and receive the Sacraments, because we believe that God creates and sustains faith through the means of grace He entrusted to the Church. And so the common reasons to not go - "I can feel close to God outside of church", "I can serve God outside of church" - are muted somewhat, because "going to church" isn't about us serving God, but God serving us, and the Sacraments, God's gifts to us, are entrusted to the Church and are only to be found there. Unfortunately, too many members don't know what our church body believes, let alone be able to confess that truth themselves, because too often pastors and churches are failing to *teach* :(. And that's my biggest complaint about our church, and one of the biggest things I'd look for in an ideal church - that the pastor and teachers center their teaching around the core doctrines of the church. That we *actually* believe, teach and confess the things we *say* we believe, teach, and confess. That our core doctrine is treated as the active and living foundation it's meant to be (and not as a museum piece sitting in the corner); that the core basics of the faith are kept front and center and everything is explicitly linked back to them (instead of as a bunch of boring basics that must be learnt in order to get on to the "good stuff"); that the goal of teaching the faith and all learning in the Church is: faith in Christ. Too many sermons in my church assume that everyone present knows the basics, so they don't need to be explicitly mentioned :(. And too many hymns and songs are merely consistent with Scripture - they are true enough if considered properly, but you need outside teaching in order to be able to consider them properly. Except that the hymns and the liturgy and the sermon are supposed to be *teaching* us the faith, and if even *they* require listeners to have outside knowledge of the core teachings of the faith - well, where *are* we supposed to learn the faith??? Ugh, I'm tired of the only Gospel being in the Absolution and the Eucharist :(. (But at least it *is* there somewhere.)

The adding letters that aren't there thing - both my dds do that, and it turns out they seem to have some phonological processing issues, so that they do not have the underlying skills necessary to learn to read phonetically. (DD8 did learn to read in spite of it - she had a breakthrough after a year of reading lessons and I thought that those skills finally clicked, that she was just a late bloomer; turns out, as I later learned, that her breakthrough was in learning to read in *spite* of those deficits, which are still there and still causing problems.) I'm doing LiPS to help build those skills. Susan Barton (the author of a reading program for dyslexics) has a free pre-screening test on her site that checks to see if kids have the necessary phonemic awareness skills for her program (which is similar in approach to AAR/AAS - learn to read via phonograms and rules): http://www.bartonreading.com/students_long.html#screen. It's an easy way to see if phonemic awareness is an issue. In the meantime, if she liked AAR, it might be worth going back through level 1, since it sounds like she probably didn't master it. (I repeat lessons and re-read book chapters myself when I hit a wall.) It might turn out that AAR won't be enough, though, no matter how many times you repeat it - there are several red flags in your post :grouphug:.

In addition to what Kiara.I said - which I completely agree with - it sounds like he's learned the beginning/intermediate mechanics (which I think of as roughly covering single and multi-letter phonograms, simple and complex single syllable words and some common two and three syllable words), but probably hasn't learned the advanced mechanics (tackling longer and unfamiliar multi-syllable words). A lot of programs end once they've covered all the phonograms and all the syllable types, assuming that the application to longer, multi-syllable words will happen automatically. Except that it doesn't for a lot of kids, even strong readers. *I've* learned a lot from explicitly learning how to chunk multi-syllable words and how to experiment with where to place the accent. I used to never, ever be able to pronounce words I learned from my reading, because my ability to break them into syllables and place the accent was extremely lacking - left to myself, I had cobbled together an approach (which is more than some kids manage), so I could "read" long, unfamiliar words, but my pronunciation was wrong 90% of the time. (Which is really embarrassing, and I was always censoring my speech to avoid words I didn't know how to say.) My cobbled-together approach just didn't reflect how English words generally behave, and had no flexibility to allow me to try something different if my first try didn't sound right. Readers *need* to be able to handle unfamiliar multi-syllable words, and though some manage to intuit the structure without being taught, a majority don't - they intuit a shallow and incomplete structure, or don't manage to intuit enough to have *any* internal sense of the structure of long or complicated words. And it really limits what a person can read - you can be functionally literate, enough to get on in society, but without the skills to interact with complex texts. Unfortunately I can't give btdt recs for advanced phonics, because my kids have phonological processing issues and so the non-remedial things we've done didn't do a thing for dd8 (Reading Pathways and Webster's Speller: RP was easy to use and we did all the multi-syllable practice, which I did like - just couldn't make up for dd8's underlying deficits; we did 60 or so lessons in WS, but dd8 *loathed* it and in retrospect it both didn't make up for her underlying deficits *and* hit her other weaknesses, which is probably why), and the less intensive remedial program required better phonological processing skills than dd8 had (Sopris West's REWARDS, which is too much for a 5yo anyway). We're now doing a very intensive remedial program (LiPS), which is overkill for neurotypical kids. There's been discussions about hitting advanced phonics on the board, though, and many people use spelling programs to hit those skills.

We use Luther's Small Catechism - the first section on the Ten Commandments gives a brief explanation of each commandment that summarizes the teaching of the whole Bible on the Law and includes what we are not to do and what we are to do. You can see the text of the Small Catechism here, and this is the book I use with my kids: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Ten-Commandments-Follow-Do/dp/0758602278

Maybe it would help if both you and your dh considered what would have to be in place for each of you to be comfortable with the other person's preference? That you think about what an acceptable-to-you Catholic school would look like, and your dh thinks about what an acceptable-to-him homeschooling environment would look like. And then look at what it would take to make each option practical. If, as you say, you aren't going to be able to afford even the perfect Catholic school, then it's probably a good idea for you and your dh to be thinking about how to make homeschooling an acceptable, *doable* option in any case.

A few thoughts/questions: Do you agree with his educational ideals? Setting aside the practical side of implementation, if there magically existed such a school, would you want to send your kids? Does he agree with your educational ideals? Does he agree with you that parochial schools too often have the same issues as public schools, and that they are indeed deal-breaking issues? In summary, is his vision of his ideal parochial school compatible with your vision of the ideal educational environment? (From what you've said thus far, you don't sound *too* far apart, and if you have substantial agreement here, that's an excellent start.) And turning to specifics, is the particular parochial school that is being reformed, that your dh thinks might be compatible with his ideals - if it turns out that it is not only compatible with *his* ideals, but also *yours* (assuming your two ideals are compatible themselves), would it be a realistic option for you? From what you've said, it seems your objections to Catholic schools aren't absolute (that there is no possible school that could be acceptable ever) but more because you don't think a good one (from your perspective) actually exists; but if it *did* exist, you might be open to sending your kids there. And if so, is it possible this particular school might be in the process of turning into a school you could approve of? That while you would be threatened by the idea of *any* Catholic school being better than homeschooling, you maybe could be on board with seriously considering if *this* particular Catholic school, at a particular time, is good enough for you to send your kids? It sounds to me like neither you nor your dh would actually want to send your kids to a *bad* Catholic school, but that you might have higher standards for what a "good enough" Catholic school would look like. That since your dh values having a community, he might be willing to overlook some level of issues you wouldn't overlook in order to have the benefits of a shared Catholic education. One thing I might mention is that it's not much of a shared community if you don't actually share the beliefs being taught ;).

My oldest dd (who feels kind of uncomfortable with being the outlier wrt schooling) has asked about why we don't send her to the local Lutheran school. We can't afford it, for one (which is what I told dd) and also I do worry that too many Lutheran schools are giving a secular education with religion class tacked on, but it did get me thinking. Dh is a pastor, and he's friends with the pastor of the church that runs that particular school, and I know that that pastor is at least *trying* to give a genuinely Lutheran education (and that's all I can say about myself, too - I'm *trying*). He has a strong interest in catechesis and classical ed, and there's a reasonable chance that his school shares my goals and general methods. I support the general goals of his school, but I don't really have any interest in sending my kids there - but maybe I *should*. I have a strong tendency to want to go it alone, to embody the rugged individualist American ideal that, really, I think I *shouldn't* be following. Something for me to think about.

I won't go into detail, then, but I used to agree with you - better to use secular materials than bad Christian materials, under the idea that no theology was better than bad theology. But I no longer believe there is such a thing as "no theology" - secular materials embody a theological view of the world, too - and though I sort of thought it would be easier to separate out secular "theology" than bad Christian theology, I'm starting to realize that I've absorbed far more of a secular worldview than I thought. I now see trying to choose between bad Christian theology and secular philosophy are trying to choose the lesser of two evils, and really I need to put my effort into seeking the *good*. I can't afford to have my view of the good of man, of how to live life, formed by the "lesser" evil, kwim? Eta: I do think it's pertinent to a discussion of Aristotle, though, in that the secular ideal of a neutral public square is completely antithetical to Aristotle's view of education and politics (and per MacIntyre is actually a complete fiction - there is no such thing as moral neutrality, because taking the position that a large slice of life is "morally neutral" - I.e. outside the purview of morality - is taking a particular moral stance, and a novel and controversial one, at that.)

I'm not a philosopher, so these are just some very amateur musings, but in After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre talks about how for Aristotle the pursuit of virtue wasn't supposed to be an individualistic thing, but rather everyone in a city-state was united in their vision of mankind's highest good, and pursued that good together (what virtues you seek to develop depends on what you see as humanity's ultimate purpose or goal). In fact, Aristotle's ideal of the polis *required* a shared common good, a shared ideal for the purpose of mankind. And education was to initiate students into that shared pursuit of the commonly-sought ultimate purpose, because that shared pursuit was the foundation for society, it was what bound the people together. But that is not the ideal of liberal democracies. Whereas for Aristotle the common good was an an all-encompassing vision of what the good life for man was and what was the best way to achieve it, in liberal democracies, the ideal of the "common good" is far more modest - a minimal set of shared beliefs that is enough to support a limited government that protects and safeguards the liberty of the people to pursue their own idea of man's ultimate good. So public education is about passing on that minimal set of shared beliefs, but it's not *supposed* to be a complete moral education on its own, because there is no shared conception of mankind's purpose to unite around. Parents and churches and others are supposed to add their own moral teaching about mankind's purpose and highest good, because by design public education is just teaching the lowest common denominator wrt the moral dimension of life - only those things mutually agreed on, which is (hopefully) sufficient to maintain a government limited in scope which can safeguard the freedom of the people to pursue their own highest good from among all the competing views. MacIntyre is skeptical about whether citizens really can be bound together as one nation when the "common good", such as it is, is so intentionally impoverished - where there is no agreement on the big issues of life. He talks about the need for new "monasteries" - places where people are bound together in the moral pursuit of an all-encompassing common good. Many Christians have talked about how to make local churches into such intentional communities, and I wonder if your parish school might be far closer to your dh's ideal than public school.

That is just like how the father on Arrested Development would "teach a lesson" to his sons (going so far as to hire a man with a prosthetic arm so that when everything went to hell "because of the kids' actions" - we're talking ersatz swat raids and staging shoot-outs between criminals - the man would toss his "blood covered" fake arm and shriek "my arm, my arm!" to properly cement the trauma). I can't believe someone would "teach a lesson" like that in *real life*.

One thing I noticed is that in these sorts of minimalist scenarios I default to passing on my own education, and for better or worse pull away from all my plans to give my kids something more than I received. I've been evaluating our homeschool lately, and I realize I'm doing well at teaching what I am strong in (math, wide-ranging reading-centered content, a book-rich life and a desire to learn), and everything I struggle with teaching is also a subject I am weak in (or have only intuitive knowledge, nothing formal). And I think that's because it's just plain *hard* to give your kids something you don't have yourself. No matter how bad our day is going, I can always snag a kid for a impromptu math lesson, or grab a stack of books and read to them on the couch - because I *own* that knowledge, because I've internalized it so thoroughly it's a part of me, and so I can focus my energy on how to communicate it to my kids. But for things that I don't know, I have to find the time to learn it ahead of time or use materials that teach me as I teach my kids, and a lot more things have to go right in order for that to work out. So far I have successfully given my kids exactly two things I never got myself: phonics (I was taught with pure whole word) and an appreciation of poetry (I was completely tone-deaf and generally skipped over any poems I came across). I read and studied up on phonics and teaching reading for *years* before I taught dd8, so that I'd pretty well internalized it by the time I started teaching her (and good thing, too, as it wasn't an easy process and two of three so far have issues). And even with all that, LiPS is hard going, because it's new to *me* and I have to figure it out before I teach the kids and that's just a lot of work, and it falls off the table a lot because I just don't have the energy to tackle learning and teaching in close succession. And poetry appreciation we learned together (unintentionally) from me reading nursery rhymes aloud for literally years. And that actually kinda counts as me passing on my own education, because I loved nursery rhymes as a kid and so I had a foundation to work from. It wasn't until way later, after years of nursery rhymes, that I realized I'd developed enough of an ear for language to appreciate some "regular" children's poetry, and then went on to learn about poetry appreciation and discovered that I accidentally stumbled on the traditional path to learning to appreciate poetry. Anyway, so any minimalist, think-through-what-you-actually-do-for-real, pare-down-to-what-you-REALLY-value sort of exercise has me going back to what I *know* - and that mostly means my own education, filled with copious reading on all sorts of things (I read for hours a day) and where I learned to explain my intuitive understanding of math, but where I never learned to explain my intuitive understanding of language (to use it, but judging only by what feels right) and where I learned formal science without any intuitive experience to ground it (meaning I can't apply any of it practically and it's just this side of useless everywhere but a classroom). Because though I have tons of plans to remedy all those lacks (and the shelves of books and curricula to go with ;)), I only have so much energy, and when push comes to shove I retreat back to what I *know* works - which is what I know, period.

Per their website, BB1 and 2 cover the equivalent of one year of high school Latin; it looks like BB1 covers the first third, approximately, and BB2 covers the latter two thirds. So having completed through Ch 13 of BB2, he's over 85% of the way through the first year of high school Latin - ITU why you don't want to start over. If I were you, I don't think I'd buy something new just yet. The fact he's having problems in Ch 14 probably indicates he needs more practice on the material in the previous chapters. You could either go back a few chapters, to the last place he found it easy, and go back through the grammar and translating parts again, to solidify the material (I do that myself on books that are difficult - when I get bogged down, I go back a few chapters and re-read; when I hit the problem section again, it's generally smooth sailing). Or you could pull out your Latin Prep books for "new" review. My understanding that Latin Prep 1-3 is the equivalent of two years of high school Latin, so you could probably start book 2 or towards the end of book 1. It could be helpful to use Latin Prep as a review from the beginning, blowing quickly through the early chapter; if the vocab's completely different, it could be troublesome to start midstream, but that's going to be an issue moving to any new series midstream, kwim? ETA: My point wrt using Latin Prep as review is that LP can be useful supplemental practice - that you can use it while still keeping LL as your main Latin program - kind of a sideways move, to use Latin Prep to practice and solidify the Latin already learned instead of reviewing by going back through parts of LL again (and so you can feel more free to skip and condense and otherwise just do bits and pieces of LP, because you are only using it to shore up your LL spine, not switching to it as your new spine). It's just that you have two good Latin programs in your house right now - personally I'd try to make them work before looking to buy something else.

Drawing a bar diagram: [------1st------][---2nd----][-3rd] [-----][-----][10][-----][-----][-----] [---------------3,000--------------] You end up with the third pile as your unit. So: Third pile = 1 unit, Second pile = 2 units (twice the # in third pile) First pile = 2 units + 10 (ten more books than second pile) All the piles together equal 3,000 books, so: 2 units + 10 + 2 units + 1 units = 3,000 5 units + 10 = 3,000 5 units = 2,990 One unit = 598 books First pile = 2 units + 10 = 1206 books Second pile = 2 units = 1196 books Third pile = 1 unit = 598 books Check: 1206 + 1196 + 598 = 3,000 (and a good thing I did the check, too, because I had a math error and that would have been embarrassing ;)) Answer: The third pile has 598 books in it. Does that make sense?

Yes. For one, God not only created the world but actively maintains it and keeps it going even now, so there is air to breathe and lungs that continue to breathe it, and He works through the lives of all people, believers and unbelievers, to provide everyone's daily bread. The question isn't so much, "Why do bad things happen? Why is this good world marred by tragedy?" but rather, "Why is there any good whatsoever in the first place? Why isn't the world overwhelmed and destroyed by evil?" The very fact that our sinful world works most of the time for most people is nothing short of miraculous and is entirely due to God's ongoing active involvement in the world He created. *Everything* good in our daily lives, believers and unbelievers alike, comes from God's constant and continual work in people's everyday lives. Believers have been reconciled to God by grace through faith in Christ Jesus' atoning life, death, and resurrection. Our sins are forgiven, we are no longer at war with God, we are made new creations in Christ; we are filled with the Holy Spirit, who creates and sustains faith in us through God's Word and Sacraments, and that faith is a living and active thing, constantly doing good works before the question (of should we do good works) has even been asked. How can there *not* be a difference between living in God's world while at war with its - and our - Creator, or living our lives in harmony with the God who made the world and us? Between God working through us unknowingly and unwillingly, using us to do His will even while our wills are entirely opposed to God's will, and us welcoming and eagerly awaiting God working through us, *wanting* His good and gracious will to be done, and awestruck that God would use *us* to do it. IDK that it's a matter of believers receiving tangible temporal benefits in the sense the world sees them - the rain falls on believers and unbelievers alike - but that Jesus Christ is the way, the only way, to be reconciled to the Father, and we are *meant* to be in fellowship with God, to be righteous before God and before man - that life in line with ultimate reality is way better than life not aligned with reality.

I'm a buy-ahead curriculum junkie, so I've got shelves of stuff I've not used yet (ever) - but with 15 min to pack, how am I going to choose between them? (Also, now I'm really regretting not having already stocked my kindle with the texts necessary to do a complete LCC education from books in the public domain.) For the definites: ELECTRONICS/MISC *kindle, iPad and associated chargers, wall and car (would take solar chargers if I had them, but don't) *pencils, paper, sharpeners - as much as possible *deck of cards (or two or three) - wish I had a book of Hoyle RELIGION/FAITH *Bible - would love to take my study Bible, but it's huge; with space at a premium I'd take My Very First Holy Bible (enough pictures to take the place of our big children's Bible but with the complete esv text and half the size of my study Bible) and hope for the best re: electronic usage because the study bible's on my kindle and iPad *hymnal - Lutheran Service Book: includes the small catechism (which provides the core of a devotional life) and covers music, too (and if the iPad keeps working, we have audio for nearly 100 hymns) *small pb copy of the Large Catechism, if space - way smaller than the full Book of Concord (which is also on kindle) and is theology geared to living out the faith Highly probable: MATH *Elementary Mathematics/Geometry for Teachers - two thin paperbacks that explain how to teach through arithmetic; I could probably go through algebra 1 with only what's in my head, but these would be very useful and don't take up much space. *Abacus (2) - small and biggest bang for the buck math manipulative PHONICS *LiPS and LiPS tiles in baggies - not too much space and two out of three kids need it (and I'm pretty sure it will be three for three); covers reading and spelling (minus a word list) for the students with phonological processing difficulties. *Let's Read, if space - has all the graded phonics reading practice you could want, but it's a big book (and I have McGuffey's readers on the kindle; for that matter, I have the first twelve lessons of LR on the kindle, too) *ABCs and All Their Tricks, if space - for spelling lists (I do have Webster's speller on my kindle) LITERATURE *Gyo Fujikawa's Mother Goose, Children's Poetry, and Fairy Tales books - they are our favorite mother goose and poetry collections, not too large, with lovely illustrations (and the fairy tales one is also loved, if not such a clear favorite) *A.A. Milne: deluxe color illustrated editions of Winnie the Pooh and House at Pooh Corner (fairly compact) *two volume Reader's Digest very best fairy tales, if space (I've got all 12 of Lang's fairy books plus umpteen other fairy tale collections on my kindle) *Beatrix Potter, complete tales, if space - we all love this book, but it's big and space is at a premium (and now I'm kicking myself for not getting the public domain ones on my iPad) HISTORY Child's History of the World (if I had more public domain stuff on my kindle I'd probably leave this) GEOGRAPHY *wall maps, world and US (fold up into nothing and we consult them daily) *atlases: world first and then US, if space (we consult them a ton, but they take up space and i just don't know if I'd prioritize them over more lit or not) Now we exit the realm of books that I actually use Right Now (and so know are useful), and move into the realm of seems-good and might-be-useful, and so more of a crapshoot: ENGLISH *Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, complete (last one in series; includes a review of everything that came before) - it's small and probably the biggest bang for the buck/size *rhetoric/composition book, if space; probably Corbett or D'Angelo or Horner *Writer's Jungle, on kindle and iPad SCIENCE *BFSU, all three on the kindle/iPad and paper copy of vol 1, if space (now wishing I'd printed hard copies of vols 2 and 3) LATIN *Lingua Latina - complete, can be used with a variety of ages, and small footprint; in order of priority: LL1, Teacher's Materials, Exercitia 1 (both are very thin), College Companion, LL2, Exercitia 2, extra readings book DRAWING *how to draw book - either Drawing with Children or Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain *art markers MATH *Algebra book, if space - probably Modern Algebra: A Logical Approach (don't know if I'd prioritize book 1 or 2) or if space was at a premium, Gelfand. I'm going to leave it there. No idea how much will fit, but I'm pretty sure the core of what we actually use will fit, and I've a pretty good idea of the order of priority for the rest (and if I used my biggest rolling suitcase instead a carry on, it will all definitely fit. This was interesting, thinking through my priorities realistically based on what I actually do and use, so the majority is proven stuff, even though my kids are young.

From a Lutheran perspective, the core Catechism texts are considered to be effectively a mini-Bible - learning the catechism is learning the essential core teachings of the Bible (and the texts are also the basis of Lutheran spiritual practice). And in fact most of the texts are straight from the Bible: *the Ten Commandments are the summary of the Law (and are straight from the Bible) *the Apostles' Creed is the summary of who God is and what He has done for us *the Lord's Prayer is the model for prayer (and straight from the Bible) *key verses on the meaning and purpose of the Sacraments (Holy Baptism and Holy Communion) You start with the texts themselves and very basic explanations, and as you learn and study (and live out what you learn - the catechism isn't just the core of our theology but also the core of our practice of faith), the rest of the Bible is brought in. But the catechism teaches how the Bible is meant to be understood, so it naturally comes first. (And of course we believe that the catechism is a faithful explanation of the Bible, else we wouldn't teach it ;).)

My dd6 is gluten-free and chocolate-free. My mom adapted her forgotten cookie recipe and they turned out really well - the basic recipe is naturally gluten-free, and she used vanilla chips instead of chocolate chips (and cashews instead of pecans, because dd6 loves cashews), and they were better than the "usual" chocolate-chip-and-pecan recipe (really, you can use any combo of chips and nuts). And they are dead easy to make: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/meringue-cookies-forgotten-kisses-recipe.html

Random bits about the National Latin Exam: *If you are ordering the exam for 2015 the order form has to be postmarked by Jan 20. *the Intro to Latin exam covers half of the Latin 1 syllabus; so if you are in year 1 of a two year Latin 1 program, this would be your exam. I don't know if LC I/II count together as Latin 1, in which case finishing LC I would be half of Latin 1, but for LfC, I think it's all three primers together, so I don't know if Primer A would be enough (an Amazon review said that her son aced a practice intro exam after finishing Primer B). In any case, here's a link to the NLE syllabi, which outlines the knowledge tested with each exam, so you can see if what you've done covers what's on the intro exam: http://www.nle.org/pdf/syllabi/NLE_Syllabus05_2014.pdf Also, here's a link to old NLE exams - your student could try an intro exam and see how they do: http://www.nle.org/exams.html#previousexam

I second/third more reading practice, particularly learning to comprehend Latin as Latin, instead of having to turn it into English in order to understand it. I somehow got As in my two years of high school Latin without ever learning to actually *read* Latin (the little stories that began each chapter required much laborious word-by-word translation for me to make sense of them). And I approached translations like puzzles - first find the verb, then the subject, and then sprinkle around the other words in some way that hopefully makes sense - I had no idea what the Latin actually said until I'd turned it into English (and so when "the rules" were ambiguous I had no idea what made one translation right while the others were wrong). Our teacher knew the language *extremely* well, but somehow I mastered all the grammar and declensions and conjugations, and put all those parts together in doing all the translating, without ever seeing Latin as an actual *language*. The translating in Latin 2 was already pushing my understanding ; even though I'd mastered all the various parts, I was feeling increasingly shaky on translations, because as they got more complex (with multiple possible options for what each case might be doing), the puzzle approach to translating was overwhelming me - Latin 3 would have *killed* me. It wasn't until studying about teaching Latin that I started seeing Latin as a language - and realized that translating to find out what it says is exactly the *wrong* approach; rather, you can't properly translate unless you *already* know what it means - this was such a lightbulb moment for me. I really like the Lingua Latina book - it works very well as a reader to bridge from Latin grammar to reading actual authors. It was what taught me to actually *read* Latin, instead of decipher it. Pars I covers the same material as Wheelock's and it has a *lot* of reading material, far more than 38 Stories, that is excellent for learning to think in Latin: http://focusbookstore.com/PartI-familiaromana.aspx

That's dressed for me ;) - right now I'm in fleece pants, a cami, and a flannel shirt (it's my winter "uniform"). I only put on jeans when I'm going out (my 3yo knows this and whenever he sees me in jeans he asks me where I'm going :lol:).

This is what we do. Heck, during the winter I have "daytime" pj pants and "nighttime" pj pants ;) - I just do so much better when I "get dressed", do my hair (nothing elaborate, just combing it and throwing it in a bun), and wash my face. With the kids, I require that they get dressed in something different than what they wore to bed (occasionally they want to wear "day clothes" to bed), and that they comb their hair. I just justify it with it being "what we do" - it's part of getting ready for the day and that's that. I'm quite in favor of re-wearing clothes that aren't actually dirty or smelly - I do the same thing - no point in washing clothes that don't need the washing. (It's why we have a separate laundry bin for underwear - makes it easier to do an underwear batch and also keeps the re-wearable clothes from getting smelly from being by the underwear.)

WRT Disney, if you don't care what you hit, if you're fine with going on whatever rides have short lines (People Mover! Love that thing, and there's never a line ;)) and whatever restaurants aren't crowded (we did the Norwegian restaurant totally impromptu one time because we were by it and it wasn't crowded and it was one of the most memorable parts of that trip), then fly by the seat of your pants works great - we've done that for day trips. Well, we planned a little, in that we had one popular ride we wanted to do and so we ran there first, and then we hung around that section of the park and did all the less popular rides. But if you want to do particular rides or shows or restaurants, planning ahead allows you to make reservations and think about where everything is in the park and the best order to hit them (heck, which park to hit in the first place - hopping parks takes time, plus getting a park hopper pass costs more - for one day it's kinda overkill unless you really want to hit rides in multiple parks, and that would take planning if you don't want to waste time.) For our upcoming multi-day trip, we're planning around what restaurants and shows we want to do (you can make reservations 180 days out, and for the most popular ones you really need to do it right around the 180 day mark). I don't like racing around the park, so we'll probably do whatever's got short lines in the general vicinity of our main restaurant for the day.

Thinking aloud here - is there really no benefit to having or working to develop "ease...in [that] certain type of processing"? AKA, does the ability to read not just fluently but *rapidly* really have no impact on one's academic strength or crystallized intelligence? I'm a fast reader, and ime the ability to interact with more material in a given time has been of *great* help in doing well academically and in increasing my stored knowledge (which is half of what makes up intelligence, at least from a fluid/crystallized view of intelligence). The reading load in some professions is immense - a slow reader, no matter their intelligence, might find themselves shut out. Of course my lack of physical skill has shut me out of probably at least as many professions, and has definitely sharply reduced my experiential and bodily knowledge, but part of the reason my physical skills suck is because I combined lack of natural talent with zero effort to improve. I'm never going to be an Olympic athlete, but with deliberate practice I could be in the typical range, which opens quite a few doors. IDK, the ability to read relatively rapidly seems similarly useful and teachable - worth some degree of deliberate effort to cultivate where it doesn't flower naturally. Of course, it doesn't sound like the AR program involves any actual *teaching* wrt increasing reading speed - rather that continual untutored practice will magically work, or not work. Any failure is either due to lack of incentive (thus the rewards for meeting goals) or lack of natural ability, and it's not as if actual *teaching* could make up for *that*. /sarcasm (And expecting too much too soon, as seems very like wrt expecting off the charts performance as the goal for all, and 2nd graders at that, is also a typical American educational problem.)

For some reason I tend to read Dickens while pg, so I get extra emotional over the horrible treatment of children and must take breaks to rant to dh about the horribleness of it all :lol:. I tend to read books at the speed they lend themselves to, fast enough to have enough to think about and slow enough so that I *can* think about it. So it takes me two weeks to work through a 200 pg theology book and half a day to read a 500 pg thriller, and all sorts of rates in between. There are some books that have too little content that there's no way to read them fast enough to have enough to think about, and there's books that are worth an hour a page, and there's books that deliver at all speeds - you can think on them at multiple levels, spend as much time as you want.