The survey people are likely connected with the government, which is doing this in the interest of public health. Like I said, there is no possible way that some random group or researcher doing a survey could get into a public school to ask kids questions about sex; they probably couldn't get approved to do a survey about sexual behavior in teens, period.

I'd be very, very hesitant about any book that insists that Christian parents must spank their children and are irresponsible/negligent in their duties if they don't. I've found that this rules out many (although certainly not all) Christian parenting books.

These studies also help to separate reality from hype. If you were to go by what's on the news, in magazines, and on Oprah and Law & Order SVU, you'd think that teenagers are going at it like bunnies, from the time they are about 12. In reality, that's just not true. The rate of sexual activity among teens has not risen in several decades, and has in fact dropped since the early 90s (it rose throughout the 80s and early 90s), as has the number of partners the average teen who is sexually active has had. Oral sex is not nearly as prevalent as the media would lead us to believe. One would get the sense, from the media, that your average 15-year-old is having sex, but in actuality the average age of onset of intercourse is 16.9 for boys and 17.4 for girls (which is pretty much around what it's been for as long as we've been tracking these things). In general, teens are not behaving as promiscuously or recklessly as we're led to believe, and they are actually having less sex and having fewer partners than people their age were twenty and thirty years ago. So that's why we need facts. Otherwise we're left with stories of "rainbow parties" that probably get a lot of attention but don't reflect the reality of most teens.

Finding out information about the actual sexual behavior of teens, rather than relying on the kind of sensationalized, anecdotal stuff we usually use when discussing the subject. On the one hand, I can totally understand how a parent would be annoyed that their child was given this survey without permission. On the other hand, if we feel like having information about the sexual behavior of young people is useful--for public health purposes, for educational purposes, etc.--then this is really the only way we're going to get it. My best friend is a psychology professor who does research into women's sexuality. Just getting approval to do surveys and interviews with adult women about sex is extremely difficult. (In order to do human subjects research, you need to get the permission of a review board at whatever institution you are affiliated with.) There was simply no way she could have gotten permission to do research with teens. All of her statistics on teenage sexual behavior came from this kind of large government study. These seem to be the only large-scale, formal studies that can be done on the sexual behavior of young people. So I do see a reason and even need for such research. But I can also see why a parent would be annoyed that their child was given any type of survey that wasn't directly school-related without their permission. ETA: Without even looking at the story, the survey WAS anonymous. There is literally no possible way that it would be okay to do research on the sexual activity of minors and not have it be anonymous.

I'm really glad things worked out so well for your daughter. SSRIs can work incredibly well for anxiety disorders. In fact, it's my understanding that, even though SSRIs were originally developed as anti-depressants, they actually have a significantly higher success rate in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Panic disorder in particular seems to respond extremely well to medication therapy. I resisted taking medication for years, and I so wish I hadn't. After maybe a week or two on an SSRI, the anxiety that I had been struggling with on a near-constant basis was reduced so dramatically that I felt like a different person. It went from being something that I had to be constantly vigilant about and constantly using coping skills to handle just to get through the day (and sometimes even that didn't work), to something that was very manageable.

I like the IVP Quiet Time Bible studies. They're available daily online. http://www.ivpress.com/bible/study.php

I'm pretty sure the first glucose test they do is just the screening. I had mine at 28 weeks this pregnancy (I can't remember when the other times), and in all three pregnancies they haven't asked me to fast. I've just had to go to the lab, drink the drink, and then get my blood drawn an hour later. If the numbers for that test come back high, then you get sent back for the three-hour fasting test where they do multiple draws. Thankfully I've never had to go for that one, because I really hate getting my blood drawn. If you're really concerned about going, I don't see a problem with asking your doctor if you could share the readings you have been getting at home with her instead. S/he might say no, but I don't think it would hurt to ask.

I agree that 10 minutes per grade level seems reasonable. But, that is just not what is happening, as you say. Most kindergartners I know are getting 30-60 minutes of homework a night, and by the time kids are in second and third grade, they are doing 2-3 hours of work per night. I see nothing wrong, at all with a middle school student doing an hour or an hour and a half of homework, or with a high school student doing an hour and a half to two hours of homework. But I know kids in fourth grade--not kids who are inclined to dawdle or who have particular academic issues--who are getting 2-3 hours of homework per night. That is not productive, and it is such a huge intrusion on the family's time that I think it's entirely unacceptable.

A lot of it really depends on her, I think, and figuring out what works. It could be something that reading up a bit on anxiety disorders and doing some work at home could help. It could be something that requires the assistance of a therapist trained in cognitive-behavioral therapy. It could be an issue that is greatly helped by medication. There is extremely effective drug treatment for anxiety disorders, and I know that in my case taking an SSRI reduced my symptoms, almost immediately, in a way that years of attempting cognitive and behavioral changes didn't even come close to. There are a lot of books out there on dealing with anxiety disorders. One thing that many people find helpful is leaving their "comfort zone" in controlled steps. It's really, really unhelpful to push a person with anxiety issues into a situation they are anxious about with no skills, and just expect them to get over their fear. That does not work. Once you have a good base of skills for managing anxiety, and practice using them, then, yes, entering really scary situations can be a good thing, but until those skills are there and well-practiced, all you are doing is increasing somebody's anxiety if you force them into a situation they are really anxious in. I know that my parents thought that was the best way to handle my panic disorder (we didn't know what it was at the time): no matter how anxious I was, I had no choice but to do the thing I was supposed to do. It did not help. All it did was make me fear and try to avoid those situations more and more. But, at the same time, allowing somebody to always avoid situations that they find anxiety-producing isn't helpful, either, because that also increases the fear. Every time you are supposed to do something and then don't because you are anxious, you are training yourself to fear and avoid that situation. So it's really a very fine line. I think ideally you'd figure out ways to get her to enter into situations that make her anxious, and to push her a bit out of her comfort zone, but in a way that lets her know that she is in control and that allows her to gradually become more comfortable. Like, if she wants to go to story hour, the first time, maybe you go with her. Then, go to the library, but stay outside of the area where story hour is. Then, maybe go with her, but stay in the car. Let her know that you are there and that if she wants to leave, she can, but encourage her to sit through uncomfortable feelings as long as possible, because they do pass. That is just an example, not some sort of process you'd need to follow. But the basic idea is that you help somebody to enter situations that make them anxious in controlled ways, and then, in baby steps, help them to move further and further out of their comfort zone.

I have to disagree. Most people out there--like the vast, vast, vast majority--were traditionally schooled. And, they vary wildly in their ability to interact successfully with others. Just being around lots of people doesn't mean that you will know how to successfully and positively interact with them, especially when we're removing more and more time for relaxed social interaction from the schools. Plus, it kind of sounds like what this person is saying is that learning how to manipulate people is an important part of life. And, maybe that is part of being "successful" if we measure success using a certain set of criteria. But part of why I homeschool is that I do not want my children measuring success by that criteria. I have students when I teach my college classes who are indeed very skilled--or think they are--at trying to convince people to do favors for them. What they aren't so good at is actually doing the work they're assigned to do, at taking initiative, and at taking responsibility for their own learning. (In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I think for many students there's an inverse relationship between how skilled they are or try to be at procuring favors, extra time, and special exceptions, and how hard-working, creative, and independent they are.) So, while it's very important to me that my children learn how to interact with people who are different than they are, and that is a priority for us, what I'm not interested in is their learning how to influence people to do what they want (rather than knowing how to make a convincing argument for something and how to present it in a kind, respectful, and persuasive way), to convince people to make exceptions for them, or to use "charm" to get what they want. Those, for me, are exactly the kinds of things I do not want them thinking they can use to get ahead.

Right. I do wonder how much of that is the motivation behind things like more and more homework, longer schools days, extended school years. The idea seems to basically be that schools/the government think that parents cannot be trusted to provide an educational, enriching environment for their children--all parents do is sit their kids in front of the TV and stuff them with junk food, right?--so they need to make sure that they have more and more control over how children spend their time. I don't think that's the role of the schools, at all.

Okay, this is a bit of a tangent, but this is something that drives me crazy. I feel like we've taken the very good and true idea that parents need to be involved in their kids' education to somehow mean that parents are supposed to be co-teachers of the academic subjects their children are learning in school. Sorry, but I do not agree. As a homeschooling parent, I've decided to take on the responsibility of teaching my child academic subjects. But, if I had my child in school, I'd believe it was 100% the school's responsibility to teach my child the academic subjects covered in the school's curriculum, and not that it was my job to somehow co-teach this material or even to reinforce the teaching at home. I see the involvement of a parent with a child in school consisting of having a positive attitude toward education, encouraging the child to work hard, providing an enriching environment, supplementing the child's school education in whatever way the parent sees fit, and probably also teaching study/organizational skills like preparing for a test and establishing good work habits. I do not think schools should expect parents to re-teach what was taught in school that day, and yet that does seem to be the expectation more and more. I know that if my child was in school, I'd be pretty annoyed if I was expected to spend part of the few hours we had together as a family after school teaching them stuff that should have been adequately taught in the classroom.

Right now, I'd say that math is probably the core of our formal homeschooling. If we could pick two, I'd say math and grammar, but if I had to pick one, math. Mainly that's because DS doesn't have the natural facility with math that he has with language so I do make sure that we focus attention there, and because, being an English teacher, I'm far more comfortable teaching language arts stuff informally and seizing on opportunities to talk about it when it comes up in everyday experience than I am doing that with math, and because DS and I are both readers so we spend a good deal of time outside of school reading for pleasure. So we spend more time on language arts over the course of the day--more time reading, more time talking and thinking about language--but in terms of where the focus of our formal school time is, math gets top priority.

I just started texting last fall. My college students taught me how. ;) I don't have a keyboard, so there was a bit of a learning curve in figuring out how to use the numeric keypad to actually produce the words I wanted it to produce. I'm actually really, really glad I do it, because I hate talking on the phone. Well, there are a very select few people that I do enjoy talking with--my parents, my best friend, and my DH, and I think that's it--but other than that, I just loathe using the phone. I just want to convey information and then get off as soon as possible. I don't know why, because I will totally talk your ear off in person, but I do not enjoy talking on the phone. So texting is a nice way to get information to people without having to get into a long, uncomfortable, unenjoyable phone conversation.

This happened to my DS in preschool. Yes, his preschool assigned homework, as a way to prepare them for kindergarten. :001_rolleyes: He would work fast, and he'd get extra worksheets. And, the students brought home the same worksheets they did in school to redo as homework, so he'd get those extra worksheets added to his homework. So, he basically ended up getting twice as much homework as his classmates. It was just ridiculous.

In elementary school?

My son was coming home from a full day of kindergarten with 30-60 minutes of homework each night, and he's a really fast worker. His friend who was in 1st grade at the same school routinely had 2 hours of homework. That is simply ridiculous. If a school can't manage to teach lessons and practice/reinforce them in 6-7 hours of instructional time at the elementary-school level, then either they are trying to teach too much, they are using extremely inefficient and ineffective methods, or they are wasting tons of time during the day. I found that DS's homework fell into one of two categories: busy work that was basically a waste of time but something he had to do, and projects that were far too complicated and time-consuming for a kindergarten child to do on his or her own, and so basically involved the parent taking charge of the project and the child helping out a bit. From talking with my friends, that seems to be the case with most homework assigned in elementary school, especially early elementary school. It's either busy work that seems to serve no real purpose other than making sure homework was assigned, or projects that are just too large, complicated, or difficult for the child to take charge of and so end up being things that the parent ends up doing the bulk of the work on.

I used to tell DS that I didn't realize we were having a grumpy contest, and that he was going to win. He just had to make sure that he did not smile or laugh, no matter what. And then I'd try to be as grumpy as possible. Almost every time, within minutes, he'd be laughing.

I would consider the possibility of an anxiety disorder, possibly panic disorder or social phobia. I have panic disorder, and I used to have similar reactions when going places at times. It might be less that she's clingy, and more that you are a "safe person" to her, so that when she's in a situation with you, her anxiety is greatly reduced.

I saw Derek Webb's tweet about it, as well. I'll have to check it out.

Without these specific forums, yes. Without any online homeschooling community at all, I don't know, honestly. I don't know any homeschoolers in my neighborhood, and I think I probably would have thrown in the towel early on if it weren't for the support of other homeschoolers I know online.

I missed that, too. That was actually a rough transition for me with DS. He was 5 when I was pregnant with DD, and suddenly dragging him to his room wasn't an option, because he was just too heavy.

I pound chicken breasts nice and thin, then dip them in olive oil, and then dip them in a mixture of bread crumbs and parmesan cheese (about 1/4 cup cheese to each cup of bread crumbs). Then I bake them at 400 for about 15 minutes. Then I pour pasta sauce over the breasts, and then cover with cheese (mozzarella or an Italian blend, with some parm sprinkled on top) and bake for another 5-10 minutes. That's it. It's one of the few things that everybody in my house loves.

I had the same experience. I actually feel like I got a really good U.S. history education in high school, but we had to take two years of U.S. history to graduate, and then I took AP U.S. History, and I took a Government and Law class on top of that. So I ended up having four classes focused on U.S. history and government over my four years of high school. The downside was that I left high school with very, very little knowledge of world history. I took a Global Studies (mainly geography with a bit of basic cultural stuff thrown in) in ninth grade, and that was the only world history class I took. I still feel like my knowledge of world history is severely lacking, and I'm learning a lot along with DS. I remember thinking how true that rang for me when I read that book. My AP U.S. History teacher had actually had all of us for U.S. History II, and we'd only gotten up to about the Industrial Revolution. We spent about 3/4 of the AP year going over 20th century U.S. history, which none of us had ever actually gotten to in school before, and then the rest of the year study very early colonial history, which we'd also never studied.

This. Or, at least, aren't being taught it in a way that leads to any real retention or understanding.