This blog post had an interesting discussion of "looking for bias": http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-mulroy-on-critical-thinking-in.html Certainly the bridge builder *may* have an ulterior motive for recommending that the bridge be built, and I'd certainly scrutinize his arguments extra carefully because of it. *But* while recognizing a potential conflict of interest provides a reason to take a closer look at his arguments, it does not itself *negate* his arguments. If his conflict of interest means he made a bad argument, it needs to be *proven* from the content of the *argument* itself. That's the ad hominem - dismissing/approving the *argument* because of the *person*, not because of anything in the argument itself. It is certainly likely that a biased person makes a biased argument (or a moral person makes a morally good argument), but any quality that you expect to see in the argument (based on the speaker) still has to be proven from the *argument* itself, not merely *assumed* to exist, because of the character or situation of the *speaker*. I enjoyed the whole book much more than the original article/first chapter, btw - he expands and refines his argument, along with offering proof.

Here's a link to the original article/monograph that he later expanded into the book: http://www.ateg.org/monographs/mulroy.php (it's fairly similar to chapter one). I *loved* War Against Grammar. His point that traditional school grammar is actually rooted in our *intuitive* understanding of language, as contrasted to academic/linguistic/speculative grammar's attempts to describe grammar completely explicitly, without resorting to any sort of intuitive sense of what a noun or verb or such is, was such an eye-opener to me. I mean, you think of school grammar, and you think of dull rote rules with no relationship to living language. Mulroy shows that most of what the anti-grammar camp is against is *bad* school grammar teaching, not school grammar itself. (It's very similar to arguments against phonics that are actually arguments against *bad* phonics teaching; pro-phonics people are just as against that sort of stuff as anti-phonics people.) My takeaway was that good school grammar teaching is rather comparable to good arithmetic teaching - in both cases plenty of informal, intuitive knowledge of language/numbers needs to come first, and formal knowledge is explicitly built on and connected back to that intuitive knowledge. As well, Mulroy believes that school grammar is a means to an end - understanding language - not an end in itself (finding the perfect, most accurate model to describe our language, a la academic linguists).

Well, today I did LoF Apples with dd5 with the ALabacus and the RS method of counting (one-ten one, one-ten two) and she got it so much better :). Don't know why I didn't think to try that before, as I really love the ALabacus. So I think I'm going to continue with that for the time being. Thanks for helping me think it through :).

I have everything for Miquon, teacher's books and everything, but I have not been able to wrap my brain around how to do more than play with the rods (which is really fun and awesome, actually, and we do it a lot), nor muster up the will to study it until it makes sense. That day may well come, though, but it is not today ;). I'm not sure how to stretch out 1a, especially with dd5 wanting to keep moving on in the book itself, although come to think of it, she'd probably be willing to go back to old stuff if the new stuff was too hard. And there's lots to do with number bonds, which is where we are, too. I looked at the samples for RS A, and I did like them. Thought I might try teaching the first few lessons from the sample and see how it goes.

I'm really attracted to highly flexible curricula that offer a stream-lined list of concepts with teaching suggestions and otherwise leave it up to you. I love to plan, I love to tweak, and I love the idea of having the ability to customize everything on the fly as circumstances suggest. And before I started officially hs'ing dd7.5, I accumulated several of them. And then I started hs'ing for realsies, and came to realize there's a lot to be said for open and go ;). Only it turns out dd7.5 is not an open and go child. We can do something as written for no more than a week before it no longer fits even a little bit and requires modifications. And as it turns out, I'm not all that great at wantonly mangling the careful arrangement, and end up dropping it and winging it for a while. But straight winging it feels too haphazard, and we don't progress much. And so I go back to the open and go structuredness, all nicely arranged for me, and dd meshes well with it for a few days and then starts rapidly not meshing until I give it up again and go back to winging it. I really do need a flexible, responsive loose structure, and I actually own many such programs, as well as even more resources to use as a spine to make my own. But I haven't been able to make them work so far. How do you make teacher-planning-heavy curricula work in your hs? :bigear: ETA: The particular planning-heavy thing I'm thinking of right now is to teach from the SM textbooks and do a MotL-style 5-a-day review instead of the workbooks. Trying to figure out the practicalities of that.

My 5yo really, really wants to do regular school work, just like her sister ;) (otherwise I'd do nothing formal). I've been playing around with SM 1a and LoF Apples, but 1a is going too fast and while she enjoys LoF, it's, idk, a bit abstract for her or something - she's not getting all that much out of it. I've thought about doing MEP reception, but I think she'd really enjoy and benefit from tons o' hands-on work. I've got the Activities book, but a) I didn't manage to use it with dd7.5, and b ) tbh I really want something entirely open and go (as older sis cannot use any curriculum as written for more than a few days, and I've resigned myself to parent-intensive major modifications there, and I'm not up for doing the same for dd5, and winging it is just not cutting it in terms of doing something every day, which is really important to dd5). Since I've already got just about all the necessary manipulatives for RS A, I'd just need to buy the lessons and worksheets, which makes it not so bad in terms of cost. I'm really tempted, because of the ease factor, but a) would it really be open and go easy? and b ) I really like to buy more than use what I have, and I'm a sucker for impulse buying stuff - don't need to add to the pile of unused curriculum, kwim? So, what's the Hive's opinion about what factors would make RS A a reasonable purchase in this situation? (Or something cheaper that was open and go.) :bigear: ETA: I'd also welcome advice on how to plan out the Activities book, or the Kitchen Table Math book (which I think would be good, if I could figure out how to make it happen). I'm willing to do quite a bit of advance planning, so long as the day-to-day experience is pretty close to open and go.

I suppose it depends on what particularly you like about MCT. I like MCT for his enthusiastic, contagious love for the subject, and how he creates interest in the allegedly dry details, showing how they contribute to the whole experience instead of glossing over them, and to me Orberg's Lingua Latina has a similar feel. He's a man who loves Latin and really *gets* it at both an intuitive level and at a technical level, and it shines through in his books.

Interrupting to say that I pink-sparkly-heart *love* The Abolition of Man. Also, I just bought Leisure, thanks to this thread, and I'm rather tempted to use this post to justify delaying starting N&N, which has been on my shelf for a year and a half. Probably I really ought to start by re-reading The Abolition of Man ;).

I don't worry myself, because I think my dd7.5 and dd5 could catch on quickly enough if needed. But if you are worried that A) it might be hard for your dd to catch on to the CC way of doing things, and/or that B) your dd would be upset if she discovered she was at a (hopefully temporary) disadvantage in ps due to how you hs'ed her, I would go ahead and include a CC-aligned wb or two (maybe one each in math and ELA). Hopefully it wouldn't take too much time and you'd have your bases covered. Or I'd get a sample of CC work for your dd's level, sit her down and explain to her the differences in how you hs and how the ps is doing things, and how you worry she might be at a disadvantage (should she ever have to go to ps) if she has zero experience with the CC way of doing things. Show her the CC stuff, and ask her what she thinks: would she like to do a bit of CC work to make sure ps wouldn't be an issue, or would she rather wait and deal with possible CC issues if/when they arise. That way it's a somewhat informed choice on her part, so that she wouldn't be taken by surprise at any difficulties in coming up to speed.

I bought this book for full price last year, and it was worth every penny. I was excited to see it as part of Amazon's educational kindle deals today :): http://www.amazon.com/Giftedness-101-Psych-Linda-Silverman-ebook/dp/B00AZYWOUA/ref=zg_bs_158125011_65

Some more good ones: Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B00555X8OA/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1 Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Won't Stop Talking: http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking-ebook/dp/B004J4WNL2/ref=pd_typ_k_sp_1_1_p?ie=UTF8&refRID=0GE1QKEV4KV9ED6APJYV Many/all of Malcolm Gladwell's books are on sale, too. Also, How to Write a Sentence: and How to Read One, Too, by Stanley Fish: http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Sentence-And-Read-ebook/dp/B0043M6IYI/ref=pd_ts_zgc_kstore_158125011_9?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&pf_rd_p=1593699562&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=158125011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=00B8NSW6YS22WP5J1WM2 And Giftedness 101, by Linda Silverman: http://www.amazon.com/Giftedness-101-Psych-Linda-Silverman-ebook/dp/B00AZYWOUA/ref=zg_bs_158125011_65 - I bought this at the full digital price last year and it was well worth it.

Oh, awesome - I just took that book back to the library today - it's been on my list to buy.

I'm pretty sure that the Flat Earth Society is satire, with a dose of romantic myth that its members enjoy but don't actually *believe*.

My dd7 is very visual, and the only program that consistently works for her is Life of Fred. My plan is to start her in BA after going through all of LoF elementary (whenever that is). I looked at the LoF books and the BA 3A pre-test, and I think going through LoF elementary will cover everything needed to start BA 3 (with the possible but not definite exception of multi-step word problems, so I plan to add in CWP, which I already have). In any case, we're going to find out ;). In general, playing with our c-rods, RS abacus and soroban has been of far greater help in dd7 learning her facts than any work I've done with them on purpose. I demonstrate new concepts for a few minutes (sometimes I have her watch Education Unboxed videos with me), to expand her mind, give her more ideas, and then let her go for it on her own. When I am lucky, one of my demonstrations sparks her interest right then, but in any case, until she sees it for herself, builds it completely by herself, she doesn't get it. But hanging out in one spot till she does turns math into horrible drudgery. Two soroban apps have been immensely helpful: Talking Abacus (free) and Abacus Adventure (free trial, and $2.99 for the whole app, iirc). Dd7 decided to count to 1,000 by ones on the talking abacus app one day, which cemented place value and making five/ten exchanges. And the Abacus Adventure is providing fact practice as well as abacus practice and mental math practice; dd7 gets stuck occasionally (she is pretty much learning addition with regrouping through the app), so I do actively teach it and work with her through the rough patches, but I can see her speed and facility with numbers improving by leaps and bounds.

I realized I didn't really answer the question :tongue_smilie:. With that combo - LoF, facts practice, Ray's, informal money/time/measuring - I don't think she'd be missing out on much, if anything. The experience of doing pages of math equations, maybe, but that may very well be a plus ;). LoF doesn't have as many problems as some programs (in LoF elementary the focus re: things to master is addition/subtraction and multiplication/division facts, along with multi-digit add/subtr, and the author recommends outside practice to solidify those things), but if you also do Ray's you'd definitely have plenty of problems. But LoF introduces a *ton* of additional math concepts, as well as lots of topics from outside math - you learn *so* much more than just math facts and add/subtr/mult/div :).

I'm doing LoF elementary with dd7 - she loves her "Fred and Kingie" books :). It has plenty of clock work and a decent bit of gentle fact memorization (and adds in additional fact practice in Honey, but you could certainly do xtra math as your practice). I plan to add in SM CWP for well, more challenging word problems ;), and the Abacus Adventure app for mental math, which we are already doing. I think the LoF books are pretty complete and then some concept- and teaching-wise, but at some point in the elementary series he recommends adding in more practice than is just in the books, to cement things. He recommends informal practice inspired by real life, but you could be more formal than that. (I might try MotL's 5-a-day approach.) My plan is to start Beast Academy 3A when we are done with LoF (whenever that is), and so far as I can see (looking at the BA 3A pretest), LoF elementary ought to cover everything, with the *possible* (not definite) exception of multi-step word problems, which is why I'm adding in CWP. Certainly both series are written by people who love math and love to play with math, and LoF mixes hard conceptual thinking problems with easier fact practice and computation problems, which will be good prep. I have all the LoF elementary books, and I will try to scan over them to see if anything glaring is missing.

Welcome to the board :). I read at around 500-600wpm, with sub-vocalization, and that's been fast enough for all practical purposes. But I do retain at that speed. How fast can you read *with* retention? I wonder how your short-term memory loss factors into this. I've read that speed-reading can be a big help for dyslexics, because it uses the visual processing system of the brain rather than the auditory processing system, and visual is usually a strength for dyslexics. But generic you still has to actively work with the information to move it from working memory into short/long term memory storage, and it can take more specialized techniques to actually *interact* with material at speed-reading speed. It is natural for anyone to not remember what they read when they read faster than their brain could interact with the material. Does your short term memory loss interfere with working memory? Or is your working memory fine, and the problem is elsewhere? How do you work around your memory loss in day-to-day life? That might gives clues to how to read so you can retain it better. Eta: you say you retain better when you listen. Does reading aloud to yourself count? Or only when listening to someone else read? Reading aloud tops out around 150wpm, and maybe that the speed your brain can comfortably interact with the material, and/or maybe you have to work hard enough at decoding when you read yourself that it takes away from your ability to focus on interacting with the meaning. Musings, anyway - I'm no expert on dsylexia or memory loss, but maybe it can help give you things to consider.

Sacraments, definitely, and also maybe end times beliefs. Lutherans are amillenialists. In many ways, the tongue-in-cheek label "pan-millennial" - the belief that God will make it all properly pan out in the end and so we don't need to sweat it - fits pretty well ;). Ime end times aren't talked about much - it's just not a big focus . General differences between Baptist/non-denom and Lutheran end times beliefs: a) dispensationalism is incompatible with Lutheran theology, b ) we don't believe in a rapture separate from the general with-trumpets-Second-Coming, and that c) we see the focus of Revelation as retelling the whole salvation story. To go into a bit more detail on the sacraments: As mentioned, infant baptism and the Real Presence in Holy Communion are obvious differences. But they are just the most noticable part of the deeper difference, which is the Lutheran belief in baptism and communion being sacraments, means by which God gives us His saving grace. So we believe that baptism and communion (which combine God's Word with physical elements) and God's Word itself - the means of grace - don't just point us to Christ or remind us of Christ or symbolize the salvation we have in Christ, but that God literally *gives* us Christ through those means of grace. So we believe that each and every time a person is baptized or takes communion or hears the Gospel, the Holy Spirit is actively working in them - connecting us to Christ, forgiving our sins, creating and sustaining faith :). The means of grace are *huge*, foundational beliefs in Lutheran theology. They are not just the answer to how God initially saves a person, but are also the answer to how God *keeps* people saved and how God works in His people.

LCMS Lutherans definitely *do* believe other Christian groups are Christian, and in fact accepts as valid *any* Trinitarian baptism performed by a Christian group (something many evangelicals refuse to do, in fact). We differentiate between heterodox and heretical beliefs. Heterodox beliefs are those that we believe are wrong yet still contain the Gospel, so we see churches that teach heterodox beliefs as Christian, but with errors. (They generally return the favor, seeing our differences as *us* being wrong ;).) Heretical beliefs, on the other hand, are those that corrupt the Gospel so much that they are not preaching the Gospel at all, and so we see those churches as not Christian. To give examples, we believe that Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists are heterodox - Christian, with errors - and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical and not Christian. WRT prayer, LCMS Lutherans do indeed pray with other Christians (we don't pray with people who *aren't* Christian, though). But what LCMS Lutherans *don't* do is participate in a worship service that preaches heterodox or heretical beliefs. Which is to say, we'd happily participate in an orthodox worship service with other Christians and people of any beliefs :), but we would not participate in a worship service that preached wrong beliefs no matter the pedigree of the Lutherans putting it on ;). It has nothing to do with the *people*, but rather is all about not cooperating with wrong *beliefs*. We don't want to say we agree with what we do not in fact agree with. Because we believe that ideas have consequences, and that those wrong beliefs *hurt* people. And our church body doesn't want to participate in an activity that we believe is *hurting* people. You don't have to agree with us that a given belief is hurtful to respect that we *do* believe it hurts people, and so we don't want to be part of something we believe is causing harm. I think most people agree that good people don't do things they believe would hurt someone, so I'm rather surprised sometimes that people don't disagree with us on the merits - you are wrong about this belief hurting people - but instead argue that beliefs just don't matter in the first place. So I don't really think separatist is a fair understanding. For one, separatists usually try to separate in *all* areas of life, and Lutheran theology is actively *against* withdrawing from society. For another, it's not about "staying away" from people with differing beliefs, or even staying away from contact with the beliefs themselves, but about not actively *participating* in the practice of beliefs we do not share. We are out in the world in many, many, many other ways :).

Yeah, sometimes we aren't as kind and loving in living out our beliefs as we should be :(. It's often easier to focus on points of disagreements than to acknowledge that we *do* agree on many core things, and easier to look down on those with whom we disagree than to show love and mercy :(. At the same time, it's not loving nor merciful to pretend disagreements either don't exist or don't matter. It's hard, to fully acknowledge *all* of a situation, good and bad, and to use that knowledge to love fully and well, being *true* to our beliefs while still being *humble* in our beliefs. (WRT to your post, to uphold our beliefs about worship without being exclusive, to refrain from joining activities that preach contrary to our beliefs without keeping ourselves separate from the wider Christian community - it's not easy, but it is important.) Yet our beliefs certainly call us to do so. And mostly, ime, we do try :), imperfect as we most certainly are.

The LCMS is theologically *conservative*, especially compared to ELCA, but it isn't fundamentalist, as fundamentalist, or fundamental, has a specific meaning. Specifically, fundamental Christians are those who hold a particular set of Christian beliefs, drawn from a set of essays written in the early 1900s, called "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth". And as not all of those fundamentals mesh with the Lutheran Confessions - in fact we disagree strongly on several points - LCMS Lutherans are *not* fundamentalists.

Here's a link to the page where I got the direct link I posted before (which was a pdf); maybe that will help: http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=685 . Definitely *not* fundamentalist, and not really evangelical in the generic American evangelical sense, either. We're conservative theologically - or more accurate, *confessional*: we hold to the Lutheran Confessions as a true explanation of Scripture, and so believe, teach, and confess in accordance with them. But we mostly stay out of the political realm as a church body, believing that the church's job to proclaim the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, period. So we don't have all the political baggage that gets hooked on the evangelical label (and we differ theologically, as well). So while we are conservative wrt Scripture, it's not in the same way as evangelicals are and *definitely* not in the same way fundamentalists are. Lutherans believe that God works through means, and so we *do* consider and engage modern textual scholarship (instead of declaring it all to be bad), yet we also maintain belief in verbal inspiration. A professor at one of our seminaries is doing some awesome work on seriously considering and taking into account modern textual scholarship without sacrificing belief in the Bible as God's Word. LCMS theologians are in general both serious scholars and serious Christians, and imo it gives our theology more depth and intellectual focus than is common in fundamentalism and some branches of American evangelicism, while holding to the core of historic Christianity better than some of the mainline denominations.

Here's the LCMS's Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles: http://www.lcms.org/doctrine/scripturalprinciples (it's long but not too long). And here is the LCMS position paper on "The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices". It's kinda long (29 pages), and my general understanding is that women may not serve in any role that is pastoral in nature (pastor, elder, duties specific to pastor) but otherwise may do anything else (including congregational leadership). There's nuances and differences in application between congregations, though, as well as the reasoning behind it, which is why I'm linking to the actual document.

Ours is the third Sunday in Advent, at the Sat evening service.

We don't do Santa, but we aren't militantly anti-Santa, either. We read books with Santa and watched shows with Santa, and generally treated it like all the other fairy tales and myths and stories we read - if asked, I'd say the characters weren't real outside of the story, but otherwise we'd discuss the things that happened in stories the same way we discuss things that happened outside of stories and only discuss real/not-real when it was pertinent. When dd7 was 5, she was *very* concerned with real/not-real, and I confirmed that Santa, along with dragons, fairies, magic, etc., were not real. I do feel like it would have been lying if I'd told her they were real - she was forming her sense of the world, with a very literal definition of real/not-real that mattered greatly to her, and if I'd said yes, using some abstract sense of real, while knowingly letting her assume I meant her concrete sense of reality, I think I'd have damaged her trust in me. Interestingly enough, dd7 *now* "believes" in Santa and fairies and the rest with great flair and conviction, so telling her the truth certainly didn't "ruin the magic" for her. Dd5 is waaaaaaaaay more lackadaisical about real/not-real, and mostly doesn't seem to care, certainly not how dd7 did; whenever she asks, about Santa or whatever, I'll tell her the truth. Telling the real truth as best I know it, to kids or anyone when they ask, is a huge thing for me. I initially didnt do Santa because it felt like lying, but now - with experience with the change from not knowing/caring about real/not-real to knowing and caring - I think the real issue isn't how Santa is initially presented, but whether, when kids ask if Santa is real, parents *then* tell the truth as best they know it. To answer "is Santa really real?" by affirming that Santa truly is really real, like plants and birds and you and me, with no qualifications - to me that *is* lying at that point. And I think a lot of the damage is done when parents try to "keep the magic alive" in kids who are past the age of magical thinking. Eta: as a Christian, who believes that Jesus really truly rose from the dead and that the miracles in the Bible are really real and teaches that to my dc, I don't want to muddy the waters by telling them that Santa et al are real and then later clarifying that i mean "real" in a totally different metaphorical sense. Dd7 has already asked if various miracles really happened, and I'm quite glad I didn't ruin my credibility with her by previously saying that I believed Santa et al were real, when what I actually meant was "real".