Depends on the Lutherans ;). In the US, the largest Lutheran denomination, ELCA, does pretty much fall into that description :glare:. However, most of the other denoms, including the second and third largest - LCMS and WELS, respectively - do believe the Bible to be God's inspired and inerrant Word. We hold a very high view of the Bible, actually, as we believe the Word of God to be a means of grace, by which God conveys His saving grace, which creates and strengthens faith :). As our kids' catechism says, "When I read the Bible, the Holy Spirit is keeping me in my faith" :).

Which is actually my point - RCC believes in a right answer, and why in the world would you want people to study the Bible ignoring what the church has already taught about it? B/c in BSF, from what I understand, everybody comes to their own personal conclusion, and are not allowed to argue with what anyone else thinks, and are not allowed to bring any sort of church teaching into it. So everyone is studying the Bible in isolation - and as the multitude of Protestant churches can tell, you, they don't all come to the same conclusion. Which means the odds of a lone person coming to the same conclusion as millennia of learned Catholics theologians on their own is basically nil. Which is why I thought that Catholics were *not* supposed to study in isolation, ignoring church tradition and teaching - *because* that is how all the Protestant schisms occur, because people take no time to figure out what anyone else has said on the topic, b/c my uneducated opinion is just as good as that of millennia of learned theologians, and so people constantly reinvent old heresies. I thought there was a *reason* that Tradition existed, and that was to guide people, so that everyone is not reinventing the wheel, theologically speaking. So why would you want to study the Bible outside of Tradition, since, as you say, they go hand in hand?

Honest question here, but I didn't think Catholics were big on Bible study that does not take Tradition/Church teaching into account :confused:. I mean, we Lutherans don't believe in the "every person reads the Word in theological isolation from the rest of the Church" Bible study paradigm, where everyone comes up with their own "personal" interpretation, b/c there is no "right answer". We study the Word in the context of the Confessions (the "right answer" ;) unless and until proven otherwise from Scripture), and since Church teaching and Tradition have equal footing with Scripture in the RCC, I thought they'd be even more concerned about people divorcing Bible study from the context of church teaching :confused:. In which case, the BSF paradigm would be a really bad fit. (Also, BSF's SoF holds to exactly 66 books of the Bible, but that seems minor in comparison to the above, if accurate.)

Thoroughly agree that Awana is not doctrinally appropriate for RCC/EO/Lutheran/etc - I'm Lutheran, and would not do it with my dc for that reason. But, to me at least, saying that a program is anti-Catholic is *different* than saying that a program isn't in line with Catholic beliefs - and people in this thread were referred to Awana as anti-Catholic/anti-JW/etc, and I didn't think that was warranted over doctrinal differences, is all. I think of anti-Catholic as being actively hostile to Catholics, and I don't think teaching something that is against Catholic doctrine to inherently be a hostile activity (though depending on the doctrine in question, it could go there). Same with LDS, JW, EO, Lutheran, etc.

Methodists aren't reformed, but I have no idea if they are liturgical as a whole.

Yes :). Lutherans, RCC, and EO are all liturgical but not Reformed.

My understanding of the Awana SoF is that the kids/parents don't have to sign it - they can be anything - iirc Awana has an evangelizing focus, and so it would be silly to exclude anyone who doesn't already believe as you do. The SoF is just for the hosting church (and maybe leaders) to sign. I don't really think of it as being anti-Catholic or anti-Lutheran or whatnot - we're all welcome to attend - and learn the error of our ways ;). I guess I don't see honest doctrinal disagreements as being anti the people who believe them. Else I guess that the RCC is pretty anti-Lutheran ;). We can disagree without sugar coating it without being mean. It's not a personal attack that Awana teaches stuff I disagree with, kwim? Our church programs are open to all - but we teach stuff that RCC, Baptists, etc disagree with. What else would we do, anyway, but teach what we believe?

I'm really quite shocked at all the personal attacks that people here have experienced :(. My reason for not wanting to do Awana is just that I don't agree with the SoF on a few important points (ordinances, premillennialism, Arminian slant in the how one is saved section). I didn't figure that any of the leaders would be making a point to say that everyone else is wrong or going to hell or some such, just that they would be teaching things I thought was wrong - and since they are quite up front with their SoF, I could hardly blame them for adhering to it, kwim? I just don't want my dc being taught that, is all. I'd be a bit worried wrt Catholic friends, in that the official SoF is incompatible with RCC teachings, as well as EO and some Protestants, and so I'd be surprised if the SoF beliefs didn't filter in somehow. I mean, what's the point of a SoF if no one believes or follows it? I have more respect for churches that teach what they believe, even if I disagree, than for churches who effectively ignore what they pledged to follow.

But it's not just the Scriptures, but a particular interpretation, one that the OP disagrees with (if she plans to convert to RCC or OC). And ideas have consequences, and wrong doctrine can - and has - destroyed lives. The OP has to decide how potentially dangerous she considers the AWANA doctrines, both intrinsically and in that it contradicts what she considers to be true - sometimes kids don't relinquish ideas they way we'd like them to. But false ideas are false ideas, even if they are promulgated by fellow Christians - and they can still do damage.

Just wanted to note that AWANA isn't generic Protestant (if there is such a thing), but a specific type of Protestant, and is equally incompatible with other Protestant denominations. I'm Lutheran, and AWANA just would not work for us either. Denying the Sacraments, for one - that's an equally big deal for us, too - and I know there are others (AWANA is Arminan, I think, which would exclude Calvinists, too).

I don't think of those sorts of manipulatives as having much to do with learning basic arithmetic, but as promoting spatial reasoning and logical thinking. I bet most architects and engineers spent quite a bit of time as kids building things ;). I see those sorts of things as similar to the strategy games that 8FillstheHeart's family plays so much, that she believes (and I agree) have contributed to their overall math ability. I'm not sure that I am much for doing them as part of formal math, or anything - but I think that spending time doing those sorts of logical, problem-solving building activities *does* promote overall math ability.

Have you looked at the WTM rec's? B/c just about all of them are parts-to-whole, iirc - it's a big part of SWB's approach. Also, looking at your sig, I'd say most of what you list is already parts-to-whole. PL/CL certainly is, as is WWE. I'd say AAS is also (most OG programs are, I think). I *think* that MM would be as well - it is described as a more step-by-step, no-conceptual-leaps-required version of Singapore. R&S is generally described as very step-by-step, which is more a parts-to-whole trait (certainly not the reverse!). Not sure about GWG or SWO. So what is it about your current programs that is not working for you, b/c just looking at your list, I'd say it is just about all parts-to-whole already.

There is some overlap, in that they are both speculative fiction, set in worlds that are in some way not the "real world" ;). And they get classed together a lot - all those sci-fi/fantasy sections :tongue_smilie:. I like them both, but not all do - my dad is strictly sci-fi, and my sil is strictly fantasy, for example. Anyway, I see the difference as to whether all the speculative elements are grounded in "science", that there is a rational grounding for all the otherworldly elements - sci-fi - or whether things just are, they exist because they do, or for explicitly magical reasons - fantasy. (Not that everyone will agree with me :tongue_smilie:.) But *having* magic doesn't automatically make something fantasy - for example, Zahn, a hard sci-fi author, has a wonderful book that deals with actual magic in a very sci-fi way (Triplet). And some books have a lot of sci-fi trappings - space ships, etc. - but overall have a fantasy feel (Stephen Lawhead's Empyrion books come to mind here).

I'm kind of shocked at all the people who wouldn't care about a lax lifeguard :confused:. Yes, I would never let my non-swimming or weak swimming children out of my reach - but lifeguards aren't just for those who can't swim well. Accidents can happen to anyone. I want *both* me and the lifeguards keeping an eagle eye on things, myself. I would definitely report any lax lifeguards.

Weeelllll, it sounds disaster-y to me - I'd do a trial run, at least.

From all my reading, gf recipes usually use a mix of flours to best mimic the effects of wheat/gluten - substitute at your own risk, and expect a few failures as you sort out what works. This site describes what each sort of flour is used for.

When I first found CSMP, I did a lot of googling for reviews, and I found some from people who'd went through the program and *hated* it, with the flaming passion of a thousand fiery suns, for much the same reasons as outlined above - that CSMP was just *so* different, that either they never got it in the first place, or they had a wretched transition to "regular" math b/c they just couldn't see how what they learned in CSMP applied at all. And, as those were some of the *big* criticisms of New Math in general, it didn't surprise me much. I never saw anything that said that CSMP taught false stuff, just that it taught things so *differently* that often teachers couldn't make nor tails of how it related to "real math" any more than the students, which inevitably led to badness. In general with New Math, people either loved it or hated it, based largely on whether it made sense to them or not - with a large part of that being whether it made sense within the larger picture of math. CSMP is even more out there than most, so it doesn't surprise me that it had some pretty spectacular failures, especially along those lines. All that to say, so long as *you* see how the CSMP stuff applies to more traditionally presented arithmetic, you can make sure that your dd does as well, and this won't be a problem for you.

Oddly enough, we aren't using my theoretical favorites, which are MEP, CSMP, and Miquon. MEP and CSMP suffer from me having to get them printed out - but R would *love* the CSMP books, so I at least need to get on that. MEP and Miquon suffer from me having a worksheet aversion in the younger years, and not being prepared enough to just pull activities out of it on the fly. We are mostly using: *SM 1a - R will pull it off the shelf on occasion, and we'll start at the beginning and work through as far as she feels like. Last time we got over halfway through, pulling out blocks to do the number bonds. *RS - I'm pulling from both the math games and activities book, though no worksheets yet. R loves playing games, and I can look through the books and pick something out quickly. *Cuisenaire rods - We do a lot of free play and pattern-making with 10x10cm wooden frames. I try to introduce Miquon and MMM ideas, but results are spotty atm. *Random math lit, using the RS abacus to do the problems. I need to get better at posing new problems that are conceptually similar to those in the books - R has them pretty much memorized by now :tongue_smilie:. I have high hopes for Arithmetic Village (winging its way here now) - R loved all the samples, and she loves books and stories in general. I still plan to get MEP/CSMP/Miquon in at some point - R is just 4.5yo, so I figure I've got time ;). We'll see if it ever materializes. I think I really need to just have them all printed out at Kinkos or something - getting them printed out here is just not happening, clearly.

Lol, I understand having what might possibly be construed as too many math curricula/supplements :lol: (I bought mine over *2* years, though ;)): *SM 1a-3b; CWP 1-6 (yes, I bought them all when they were going oop ;)) *RS Activities for the Alabacus, TM & Worksheets; RS math games kit *MEP *CSMP *Miquon, everything (6 books, 3 TMs, 300 rods) *Mathematics Made Meaningful (another Cuisenaire rod program; I think I like it better than Miquon, actually) *Arithmetic Village (R is getting this for Christmas :tongue_smilie:) Plus random teach-the-teacher books, and math lit books. And at least two options for each secondary class :tongue_smilie:. I like being able to mix-n-match as the mood strikes me ;). Enjoy your new math purchase :).

But at least addressing it in high school is easier than doing so in college :grouphug:. I ended up depressed my junior year in college over my inability to adjust my expectations and study methods finally catching up to me - dropped out of college over it (after wasting several thousand dollars on flunked classes :glare:) and it took years to recover (and I *still* haven't managed to truly figure out how to break old habits :glare:). I was too used to breezing through classes, and on top of that had the attitude that the mark of a smart person was not having to study or do any work to succeed :glare: - the very thing decried in that article. Being able to teach my dc at their level, provide an appropriate challenge, is one of the big reasons I want to hs. And the thing is that my parents have a wonderful work ethic, were big on me doing my best, whatever it was - *they* weren't the ones putting the "smart = not having to work" ideas in my head. I did internalize their work ethic as being a good thing, but never had to put it into practice, which turned out to be a big problem when I finally was in a position to need it. I don't think my parents realized the problems that can stem from never being challenged, as my mom is the sort to work hard whether she needs to or not, because that is what is expected, and my dad was able to go from slacker to hard worker practically overnight as soon as he realized he needed to. But I saw no reason to put in more effort than required (still don't, even when reality indicates otherwise :001_huh:), and I turned out to be unable to change that even when I needed to :(.

Dd4 is getting the Arithmetic Village books and associated manipulatives (jewels/sacks/treasure chest). But she wanted it from the moment she saw it on my screen - insisted that we watch all the demo videos - so I think it will be a hit ;). She is also getting several illustrated classic books whose movies she likes (Alice in Wonderland, and others I can't remember right now :glare: - ETA, Stuart Little is another one). Dd2 is getting some books off Ambleside Online's pre-K list. And they both are getting art supplies in their stockings. Dh's parents are likely to get educational stuff, too. My parents are doing the year of Disney princesses (my two are quite girly ;)) - dress-up clothes/shoes and dolls. I figure it's good for imaginative play :tongue_smilie:.

Isaac Asimov is classic - I particularly like his Robot series and Foundation series (which are both in the same universe - I'd read them in the order they were written, not their chronological order within the universe; Asimov wrote a few prequels to the Foundation series that assumes knowledge of what comes next). Frank Herbert's Dune is also classic. I also think of Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke as classic sci-fi writers. More modern writers that I like: Timothy Zahn (my favorite - I've read all his books; "The Icarus Hunt" is probably my absolute fav), David Weber (particularly his Honor Harrington series), Orson Scott Card ("Ender's Game" is probably his most well-known book, and probably my favorite). For sci-fi humor, Robert Aspirin's Phule series is fun, but still on the "normal" side ;), and Douglas Adams' Hitch-hiker's Guide series is hilarious and totally cracked :lol:. Well, I think that exhausts most of my sci-fi bookshelf :tongue_smilie:. Have fun - sci-fi's been one of my favorite genres since I was a kid :).

You could look at KISS Grammar - I think it does a good job of showing the big picture, and the basic method is very customizable. Plus, it's free ;), so you can look it all over and use as much or little as you want. It doesn't do formal diagramming, per se, but you could add it in easily enough. This (pdf) is a nice reference to diagramming you could add to anything.

I only have two irl people to discuss things of interest with - my dh and my sis. All the rest of that I get from online interactions. And atm it's working for me :). I even forget most of the time how out of step I am with most people irl :tongue_smilie: (the occasional Bible study comment that goes over like a lead balloon reminds me ;)). So long as my close family gets me, it doesn't really bother me that the rest of my interactions are pretty compartmentalized (I'm *me* for all of them, but different parts of me are at the forefront - outside of my family, I don't think most people have had the opportunity to see enough sides of me to really know *me* - and that's ok). Most people have no idea what I spend my time researching and thinking about (or even that I *do* spend large amounts of time researching things), and we find plenty to talk about anyway - real things, too, not just random superficial weather-related chit-chat :tongue_smilie:. I just got the feeling from your post that it bothered you some to contemplate closing off whole sections of your life from your irl friends, and I just wanted to give a perspective that it doesn't have to be a bad thing at all :grouphug:.

These are more in the line of supplements, but I really like Voice Lessons and Discovering Voice by Nancy Dean, and Rhetorical Devices, by Brendan McGuigan. Dean's books have short, open-and-go lessons/practice on identifying the presence and literary significance of diction, detail, imagery, syntax, and tone - meant as class openers. I was *horrid* at analyzing passages for those things in AP Lit - just couldn't get the *point* of all of it. Voice Lessons helped me understand *why* I should care, as well as how to go about doing it :thumbup: (Discovering Voice covers the same ground as VL, but at a somewhat simpler level - can be started in middle school - you can get a good feel for the respective levels using Amazon's Look Inside feature.) Rhetorical Devices does much the same as VL/DV, but for, well, rhetorical devices :tongue_smilie:. It gives a brief overview and some practice for each device - kind of a user-friendly intro. They aren't full programs or anything - but they equip you to be able to analyze things yourself - give you practice with identifying and using specific literary tools.