This year I was wanting to do more for the 12 days of Christmas. We're members of a liturgical church, so at church we do Advent - the season of hope and anticipation - leading up to Christmas and then the Christmas season extending from Christmas Day to Epiphany (Jan 6). But it seems that our at-home celebration goes along the lines of the Christmas season starting the Friday after Thanksgiving (Advent? what is that?), culminating on the 25th, and then the 26th is back to normal again :glare:. For Advent, we do light an Advent wreath - here is a nice overview of the history and meaning - and do Advent-themed devotions. Perhaps we will finally get to our Advent calenders this year, too :glare:. And this year I'm wanting to space our decorating over all of Advent - maybe putting up just a few ornaments each day, and putting up each piece of the Nativity scene separately. And for Christmas, I'm trying to persuade dh to spread out the opening of the presents over the entire Christmas season, instead of one big orgy of materialism on the 25th. Anyway, those are my thoughts thus far.

I have Music of the Hemispheres and Building Poems. Basically MotH is kinda a fun overview, dipping into each major area, but not studying it particularly in-depth. It is more about helping you see the possibilities in poetry, to start feeling like all the little bits and pieces really have something to contribute and that it's exciting to try to figure it out (instead of feeling like analysis is just basically making up stuff that no one cares about anyway :001_huh:). I got it to help *me* start to appreciate poetry, and it worked in spades :001_smile:. I was getting random poetry books down to look through :thumbup:. Then BP gets you started in systematically looking at each aspect, starting to analyze it, once you've been hooked to the idea via MotH. I imagine each subsequent volume keeps digging deeper.

Well, *don't* do what I did. I went a cruise with dh and a 4mo, and ended up taking something like 9 or 10 bags, mostly full of baby stuff! We didn't even touch half the bags, and we had to have a porter help us haul it to our car when we left. It ranks as the most ridiculous packing job I have ever done :glare:. IME, if you don't use it at home, you're not going to use it on vacation, even on a cruise ;).

Well, if you have no problems with people who use other versions, then I really don't think you fall under the category of KJV-only that the site was against. My understanding of straight-up KJV-only, which that site is refuting, was that *no* other English translations are acceptable, period (sometimes even that the KJV is *better* than the original language texts). So if you believe that the KJV is the *best* English translation, but not the *only* valid translation, then, really, the site isn't directed at you in the first place :grouphug:.

My reading of the OP is that the author said yes to using the KJV in the study, but disagreed that the KJV was the only acceptable translation, and sent a website link about the latter that was apparently rather inflammatory. (Although websites on both sides of the issue tend to get rather inflammatory ;), so maybe that was the best of the bunch :001_huh:.)

There is a huge difference b/w saying that the KJV is *a* valid translation - which the author affirmed by saying the OP could use it - and saying that the KJV is the *only* valid translation, which is what KJV-only claim, and what the author was refuting. And, yes, some people (my dh is one) are rather passionate about refuting KJV-only for various reasons - the author probably meant well in sending the website link, but maybe could have picked a better one if the one she sent was on the bashing side of the coin. Anyway, I've gotten good ideas from people who are militant atheists, who think my belief in Christ is the epitome of unenlightened, superstitious nonsense. I've decided that a good idea is a good idea, even if the person who gave it to me thinks I am an idiot who is brainwashing my children :001_huh:.

I will use programs whose authors think a non-foundational belief of mine is ridiculous so long as it doesn't show up in the material itself, or the program is so good at what it does that I think editing it or explaining the bits I disagree with is worth it. If it is a foundational belief, then it depends a bit more, as that is likely to influence the whole program whether it is overtly included or not. Personally, I'd don't see translation choice as a foundational belief, and it wouldn't bother me. They think I'm wrong, I think they're wrong - I'll just agree to disagree :tongue_smilie:.

There are differing levels of "understanding the whys". One is having a sense of how the various math procedures and techniques work, and when/why to use them. This is pretty necessary imo - if they don't have this, math is just a collection of rote procedures, and they can't apply to anything remotely novel, including real-life situations. Not good. For example, I fell off the math understanding train at integrals in Calc I. But I soldiered on through 5 more math classes on my rote knowledge, not understanding, but managing to get A/Bs anyway :glare:. But when I needed to *apply* that knowledge in my EE classes, I was totally sunk. Just couldn't do the necessary math - I was unable to do anything novel, and I didn't have the time to rote memorize all the common variations. But Saxon certainly succeeds here with some kids (and fails miserably with others). Try asking your kids about how they solved a problem, particularly a word problem - if they can give an answer other than "dunno" or "cause the book says so" :tongue_smilie:, chances are they've got this level of understanding ;). You can also give them word problems from other books or set some real-life problems, to see if they can apply what they've learned. If they can do this, if they can competently apply what they've learned to novel problems, they are probably understanding what they are doing well enough to make it in life. The other level of whys is concerned with the *mathematical* reasons why math procedures work, with learning how to work in an axiom system and prove things - basically, with doing *real* math, not just applied math. I did not learn this either, though I am now trying to - mostly you don't in this country until you get to upper level college math courses. And you can clearly get through life quite well without it ;). But it matters to me because, a) it's how the ancients taught math, b) it's teaching the *real* whys, which is important for its own sake to me, c) it trains the brain, d) it's math for the sake and beauty of math, not just for utilitarian reasons. Mostly, it matters to me because it is real, and true, and beautiful - and that is both important to me for its own sake, and also that is the core of classical ed to me - teaching the good, the true, the beautiful. No one *needs* this sort of math, just as no one *needs* to study great literature. But imo it is important in forming a whole human being, one who can think well about important things. But most people don't find it to be worth the effort - I just happen to :). ETA: Living Math has a nice list of books, most of which are geared for the first sort of understanding, but the Sawyer books, at least, I think touch on the power and beauty of math in the second sense, as well.

Actually, she was alleging that *Saxon* only teaches the hows, not the whys - which is not the same as saying that all kids who use Saxon will only take away the hows and not the whys. Sure, no one is doubting that some kids who use Saxon know the whys when they are through (if *everyone* failed, then there wouldn't be a controversy over it, kwim ;)) - but some just as clearly *don't*. Neither of which, alone, says word one about whether Saxon itself teaches the whys or not. As you pointed out, some kids won't learn the whys even when it is generally accepted that the program they are using presents the whys. The key is how Saxon teaches things - does it present concepts? And how? And which concepts? It would be lovely to have a mathy person walk through a few topics, show how Saxon does it, explain any deficiencies, and show how they feel it ought to be done. While I've several resources showing how various topics ought to be taught, I don't think I've seen those ideal approaches contrasted with the approaches taken by various hs curricula (though Mathematically Correct has done something similar with ps curricula). (And not too many mathy people are interested in buying and reviewing stuff they know from the get-go they don't like.) But *that* is the sort of thing that would give some hard data about the merits of the program itself, as opposed to anecdotes about kids who've gone through the program, some of whom would have succeeded with anything, some of whom might have needed special help with anything - none of which can say anything definitive about the program itself, other than these sorts of kids succeed (for certain definitions of "succeed") and these sorts of kids fail (for certain definitions of "fail"). Useful, but not particularly helpful or applicable in sorting out the current question - whether Saxon itself teaches the whys, and to what extent.

It's not so much that it will only work if you do things just as they intend - but that you won't get the results they promise if you don't do exactly as they intended. Sometimes that's true, you know. And sometimes it's not. And maybe you didn't want their results in the first place, so of course you do something else.

I enjoyed Eragon, so other things we enjoyed... Dh and I have been reading Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, which is quite good - plot is less derivative, too, imo - I had no idea where it was going most of the time. Also, The Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan, is quite entertaining - and as Book 13 just came out, there is plenty to read :tongue_smilie:. (FYI, the last three books are co-written by Brandon Sanderson, as Robert Jordan died with a 1500pg manuscript for the final bits - that is how we found out about Sanderson in the first place.) Dune is a classic, but might/might-not be suitable for a 15yo. The Redwall series, by Brian Jacques, is also quite good.

Yeah, but I do wonder sometimes about the wisdom of completely slicing 'n' dicing a program to shreds to get it to fit instead of just finding a different program that is a better fit off-the-shelf in the first place. I mean, Saxon is clear that it expects students to do every problem because some things are only seen in the problem sets. It's not an optional thing - teaching through the problem sets is part of its foundational strategy. So as soon as you don't require every problem, you are no longer using Saxon as it was intended to be used. You are improvising, using it as a vehicle to accomplish something it never was intended to do, something that it explicitly says will *fail*. You are no longer relying on the knowledge and abilities of the program designer - *you* are now effectively the program designer, and it is all on *you* to make sure you have the knowledge and abilities to make it work. It's like using an appliance to do something in direct violation of its instruction manual. Maybe you really know better and can make it work successfully :thumbup:. Or maybe the designers actually know more than you, and were *right* that it's a very bad idea ;). I just start getting wary when I'm planning to modify programs in ways that fundamentally change that program - do I *really* know what I am doing? Or should I find another program, one that is designed to do what I want in the first place? The homeschooling freedom to *make* that choice is great :thumbup: - but there's a lot of responsibility there, too. And too often it seems like hs'ers forget that maybe program designers actually might know something about their subject, that maybe they did things for a *reason* - and that *maybe* it behooves us to figure out that reason before we conclude it is clearly stupid and unnecessary ;).

That's not how I'd frame the conceptual math vs procedural math debate at all. Discovery != conceptual, and strictly-step-by-step != procedural. They are two completely different spectra - a math program can teach concepts in a very step-by-step way, or be all about promoting discovery of the procedures, with no explanation of *why* they work (the latter describes Everyday Math and its ilk, imo). And yeah, just like discovery/step-by-step is a spectrum, not a binary choice (as is mastery/spiral, for that matter), conceptual/procedural is as well - even though it gets framed as a binary choice as well :glare:. So yeah, I'd agree that the proper question is not, "Is 'x' program conceptual?", but "*How* conceptual is 'x' program?" Basically, what concepts does 'x' program teach, and how does it teach them? How often are concepts presented and explained and applied? What is most emphasized - procedures or concepts? Are concepts there to justify the procedures? Or are the procedures there as useful applications of the concepts? That's what I look for, anyway (I've not seen Saxon, so can't judge where it falls personally - but math people I respect say it falls on the procedural side, so I'm inclined to accept that.)

IMHO, no more harm than the impact reading twaddley English books as a kid has on one's ability to read the classics as a young adult :tongue_smilie:. I mean, if that's *all* you do, it's not looking promising ;), but so long as you realize you have to gradually step it up in order to reach the classics, there's no harm in it, imo. (And I'm more inclined to include modern language techniques in learning the classical languages, so I think it will help build low-to-mid-level proficiency, which, while not getting you to the classics on its own, is a good foundation to build on.) And she's just 6 - she's got plenty of time to go deeper when she's in upper elementary/middle school, and still have plenty of time to read the classics in high school. Some of the concern w/ CLC is that kids start it in middle school/high school, and by the time they finish the series, they only have a year or two left to read the classics - they have no time for extra remediation. Anyway, why not play around with them while your dd's young and has time to play with Latin? Worst that could happen is that she's not ready or doesn't like them, and then you stop - no harm, no foul. But it sounds like she might enjoy them :).

The Intelligent Person's Guide to the Latin Language is great for giving a nice big picture view of Latin grammar, plus it includes all sorts of historical tidbits about how certain aspects came to be. It really helped me pull together all the grammar bits into one cohesive whole, get a feel as to how they all work together.

Looking at my dvd shelf: *Spiderman 1-3 all have a romantic subplot *Heck, even Batman Begins/Dark Knight have a romantic subplot, but they are a bit dark, esp DK. *The Italian Job definitely does

I think there is something of a romantic subplot, but it was cut quite a bit from what was in the book, iirc. Mr. & Mrs. Smith comes to mind - about a married couple, both assassins, neither of whom ever told their spouse their real job. Of course the truth comes out ;), and I think it has a good mix of action and romance, very entertaining.

A bit OT, but memorized prayers can be said from the heart, too :). Just because I didn't make it up from whole cloth doesn't mean it has no meaning for me ;).

Do you agree with her assessment about Saxon just covering the hows and not the whys, and you're wondering if it really matters if students know the whys? In this case, I'd be inclined to say supplement, especially as he is so strong in math - you don't want to artificially limit his math potential. Some programs that address whys: *Art of Problem Solving *60s Dolciani texts *Life of Fred Or are you not sure if you agree with her Saxon assessment in the first place? In that case, I'd be inclined to ask her for a few specific examples that she can walk you through: here's Saxon's approach, here's what it is lacking, here is how I think it should be taught. This could give you a better idea of what sort of things she is seeing, and whether you agree that they matter, and to what extent. HTH

I just don't see typing skills as a viable *replacement* for handwriting skills. For one, printing legibly is slower than writing legible cursive, and that is going to hurt them on the SAT, AP, and other standardized tests that are timed and require extended handwritten responses. And despite handwriting officially not being graded, the whole thing's subjective and thoughts in beautiful handwriting just come across as better than thoughts in messy handwriting. And being able to take rapid legible notes is a skill worth having - what if you can't afford a computer to take notes on, or you can't always sit by an outlet, or you have a prof that bans them in his class, or you just find it is easier to organize your thoughts on paper than on the computer? And I've noticed in many fields that people are finding that trying to skip the old pen & paper step and go straight to the computer - pen/paper arithmetic vs calculators, autoCAD vs hand-drafting, typing vs handwriting, for a few that I've seen - just doesn't work. The perils of going to a calculator too soon are well documented here ;). And, interestingly, with drafting, they've found that people who learned it old-school, who mastered drawing by hand, had no problem translating those skills to computer drawing programs. But younger engineers, who had done little or no hand drafting before moving to autoCAD, had far greater trouble with visualizing what they wanted to do. And there seems to be similar evidence of that for handwriting - that students who cannot write in a rapid, legible way for an extended time suffer in comparison to those that can, even when computers are the primary means of "writing" for most tasks. There's apparently something about *doing*, with one's hands, that forms connections in the brain that the computer equivalent just doesn't do. Anyway, that's why I'm going to focus on handwriting quite a bit. (I formed most of these opinions from reading posts and associated links on Kitchen Table Math - here are some posts on handwriting, for those interested in more than my bare assertions ;).)

I've read quite a lot that CLC doesn't leave students ready to tackle "real" Latin without quite a bit of handholding, as well that there isn't enough grammar work in the text/wb themselves to enable students to translate accurately and precisely without outside supplemental work - that the focus w/ the grammar work is "getting the gist of the passage" rather than being able to distinguish between shades of meaning. I took EsterMaria's response as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement/pointing-out of those issues - that people who complete CLC just aren't at the same level as people who complete more rigorous programs. I've not made it through CLC personally yet, but CLC proponents on Latin lists tend to concede the grammar issue, either supplementing or arguing that it doesn't matter for most students in the first place.

We do what is apparently the standard Lutheran table prayer, though I've no idea how it came to be :tongue_smilie:: Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest, and let thy gifts to us be blessed. Amen. (And can you believe I totally blanked on it and actually had to google "lutheran table prayer" to jog my memory :glare:.)

DD4 watched the original trilogy at age 2-3, repeatedly; dd2 has seen them, but I don't think she was old enough to really be paying attention. They might have seen the first prequel, but we won't let them watch Revenge of the Sith (third prequel) 'till they are quite a bit older. I myself watched the original trilogy by age 5, and dh saw them all first-run in the theaters, starting at age 2 :tongue_smilie: - we've both loved them quite a while :). Anyway, the romance doesn't go beyond an "I love you", a bit of mistaken jealousy, and a chaste kiss. The violence isn't too much, unless you start thinking about the implied death count from blowing up two Death Stars :001_huh:. The ending of Empire is kind of intense, but my sensitive dd4 handled it ok. We have looser standards than many here, but I don't consider Star Wars one of our iffier choices (Spiderman 1-3 for our 2-3yo, otoh :001_huh: - good morals, which is why I allowed her to watch it with her daddy, but more intense than I was comfortable with).

I've read about CLC being used with 2nd graders successfully (at a slower pace - Unit 1 in g2-3, and Unit 2 in g4-5, iirc), and Veritas Press has CLC being used for reading practice with LfC, starting both in the latter half of 2nd or beginning of 3rd. I think a parent here with a very gifted 6yo used CLC with him successfully. But Minimus is by the same people as CLC - I'd be more inclined to finish up Minimus before starting CLC with a kid that young, unless she really finds Minimus way too easy. CLC starts out really slow, but it jumps up quite a bit in difficulty - somewhere in Unit 2 or b/w Units 2 and 3 - you wouldn't want to get there too soon and stall out if you didn't have to. Also, wrt to doing CLC and then following up with LfC, CLC is a full program - it goes a lot further than LfC, which is just an elementary program and would need to be followed up with a more complete program in any case. If you got very far in CLC, you'd be past a lot of LfC. I'd either do them simultaneously a la VP, or use another grammar program to follow up CLC (LP, I think, moves at a similar-ish speed, for similar age groups).

I can understand why you responded as you did, but I'm not sure it is sending the message you want to send. Basically, you are saying to your ds8, "Since you hurt your brother, I am going to hurt you." Heaven knows I often end up doing the same sort of thing with my girls :grouphug: - but it doesn't work, and more importantly, that's not the message that I want to convey - that it is ok to do mean things to people who themselves do mean things. Question: Do you think your ds8 is saying those things to *deliberately* hurt his brother? Or is it just that he feels like saying those things, and either doesn't think, or thinks that since he doesn't mean them to hurt ds5, they won't actually hurt ds5, despite all evidence to the contrary? Also, do you feel that he should be required to be nice and listen to ds5 upon occasion, even if he doesn't want to, or would it be acceptable if he politely declined and left the room? I think I'd work on requiring him to apologize and restate his intent to not listen in nicer words, at the very least. Every time he says something mean, he needs a do-over, doing nothing else until he can say it in a nicer, socially acceptable way - giving him the exact words to say, if need be. If he's really wanting to be mean, though, I'm not sure what to do there :grouphug:.