I guess that's what I'm confused about here: why not? Again, we're talking about young children. Sure, you can't be everywhere at all times, but in the times when you're young child is playing with another young child, why not be there? I mean, the way people are talking, you'd think that a parent simply turning their back is enough to have one 4 or 6 year old corrupt another; I don't see any basis for believing that. Yes, leaving two children that age alone for longer periods of time could lead to play that a parent might be uncomfortable with (although, quite frankly, that's probably not nearly as damaging as people seem to be assuming). But what is going to happen in a setting where a parent is supervising the play most of the time? (Again, I'm NOT talking about a child with very extreme behavioral issues.) Kids aren't as dumb as we think. My son has had friends use swear words around him. He knows that he is not allowed to use those words. It didn't cause any confusion. In fact, his friend who was over last night kept saying "freaking"--which isn't a forbidden word here, but one we prefer he doesn't use, and he knows that--and he didn't join in; he told her that she was using the word a lot and she should find a new word. He's had older friends bring over video games to play, and he's told them, without my even needing to say anything, that they can't play it here because it's rated T and he's not allowed to play T rated games. He's 6, and he already understands that 1) we have house rules, 2) not every house has the same rules and that is okay, but 3) when somebody is in our house, they follow our rules and 4) we set the rules for him, no matter what anybody else is or isn't allowed to do. If anything, honestly, he's better at enforcing house rules with his friends than he is with following them himself! I'll often catch him telling a friend that in our house we need to put something away before we take out something else, which is something I have to remind him of all the time. You can set clear boundaries with even very young children. Because, yes, kids can play in ways that make adults uncomfortable. One of the reasons I stopped letting my son play at one of his friend's homes unless I'm there was that, after he was there one time, his friend's mom called me to say that her daughter had admitted after my son had left that she'd tried to get him to show her his penis. Now, really, this is not a huge deal; they were both 4 at the time, and 4-year-old kids are curious. Generation after generation of children has played doctor, and no harm was done. So, we weren't worried about it doing permanent harm. However, it did indicate to us that this particular girl was not somebody we wanted our son playing with without supervision, and that the supervision at her house wasn't enough for us, so after that they played at our house or at her house with me there. And it also provided an opportunity for us to reiterate for DS guidelines about privacy and boundaries and when it is and isn't okay to show people the private parts of his body. It was a good learning experience, not a scene of corruption or loss of innocence. I can't imagine what good would have come from my son simply being forbidden from playing with this child. Two-and-a-half years later, they're good friends, they play nicely, DS has learned lots about getting along with people from playing with her, and I'm very glad that they are in each other's lives. And there are innocent mistakes, like the time I thought that it was safe to bring the laundry down while DS was playing with a friend, only to come up five minutes later to find them in my bedroom with our then-six-month-old DD on the bed, handcuffed with toy handcuffs and with DS and his friend pointing toy guns at her, because they'd apparently decided to involve her in their game of cops and robbers, and she was the robber. No harm was done, but I did have to make it very clear that baby sisters are NOT props for play. Yes, it's more work to supervise your child's play with friends who might have different values or rules than your child, than it is to forbid your child from spending time with kids who might say or do something you don't like so that you feel like you don't need to supervise. But, for one thing you never know--the most outwardly compliant, obedient, respectful child could just be really good at putting on a show (I've known a few kids like that) and still be trying to lead your child into trouble the minute you turn your back--and for another it's going to mean missing out on a lot of friendships. I just don't think that what Proverbs has to say about friendship--advice, after all, given to a young adult son--is relevant to small children. Yes, the peer group of a preteen and teen does to a large extent define them. For small children, though, their friends DON'T define them; their family does. Their friends won't corrupt them. It's just very different. Young children still derive their identity almost exclusively from their family, not their friends. Because of that, it seems to me to be an ideal time to teach the child how to spend time with people who are different from them or even extremely difficult, and what to do when they are around somebody who is behaving in a way that they aren't allowed to behave in. And, they are going to face that at some point, no matter how selective you are about their friends.

Thank you, I was starting to think I was crazy. I'm sorry, but if the 8 or 6 or even 4 yo child your child wants to be friends with is so "corrupt" that you don't feel your child should spend time with them, as an adult, you have a responsibility to be a part of that child's life and love them and help them. You should make that child more a part of your life, not less. If we're talking about extreme behavior, like violence that goes beyond normal childhood fighting/outbursts, then obviously you might want to be involved without involving your children, but those situations will be few and very far between. I cannot even imagine, personally, feeling that a child in my neighborhood was so disturbed or neglected or "bad" that my child couldn't be around them AND feeling like it was fine for me to just do nothing about the situation. I live in an inner city neighborhood. There are a lot of neglected kids. There are a lot of kids who get no positive guidance at home. And, unfortunately, after a certain age it IS really hard to change things for the better. No, I wouldn't let teenage children hang out with many of the teens in our neighborhood, but that's mainly because those neighborhood teens would not be okay with spending supervised time at our house. But little kids? They are yearning for a positive, caring adult presence. Yearning for it. Most are completely willing to abide by house rules that differ from the rules in their home, and if they aren't, they go home and can try again another day. There's only been one child I've had to say could not come over, and she was actually an older girl (15 at the time) with some developmental disabilities. We tried, but she simply would not abide by house rules, and because she was so much older it was a problem for the younger children (both my kids and the other kids we'd have over). But other than her, I've never had a situation where a child wasn't able to play nicely at our house at least most of the time. I'm certainly a bit biased on this issue, not just because my son is difficult, but also because I really feel called to open up my home and family to kids in our neighborhood, and that's something we've done since my DS was quite small. In the summer, it's not unusual for there to be half a dozen kids hanging out in our yard. The librarians at our local library branch always joke when I come in, because I've almost always got random kids with me when we go to the library. I usually don't open the doors until about 11:30 or so, so we have time in the morning to do things like cleaning and school, and everybody who isn't mine has to be gone by 4:30 so that things aren't totally chaotic when DH gets home and my kids can wind down at night, but I spend much of our summer afternoons playing day camp. My kids have a great time, the neighborhood kids have fun (and often help me out with things), and I have fun. Sure, it does get a bit annoying at times, but I reserve the right to send anybody who I didn't give birth to home any time I want to, so if I get overwhelmed, it's fine. I just feel like God put me in this place, and these children in my life, for a reason. The reason is not so that I can decide that they are going to be a bad influence on my kids and so lock my doors to them. If we're talking about a child who poses a real threat, then by all means keep your family safe. But if we're talking about little kids (under 10s, particularly) who have bad attitudes or use bad language or have parents who don't share your values, then I honestly do not see any reason to bar supervised play where the child is expected to abide by your house rules, and I think it's a very sad thing for that child if they aren't given that chance.

Would you think the same thing about a native English speaker taking a course that reviewed English grammar? Because at the level of study we're talking about, she'd be doing a lot of advanced grammar work, and I'm not sure anybody here would argue that it's a waste of time for a student to study (or even review) the grammar of a language they are familiar with. Once a student can speak and read English fluently, I'm assuming most here would recommend that student still cover grammatical concepts, including concepts they've been learning since their early years in school. If she was taking Spanish 1, I'd totally agree about it being a waste of educational time, although I'd still not be inclined to think that was necessarily a horrible thing, depending on the other courses she was taking and her attitude in the class. I took French 1 my senior year in high school, and having taken 5 years of Spanish, it was a really, really easy class for me. (Which is another issue to consider: many schools only offer romance languages, and taking a beginner's level romance language course would likely be no more challenging--if not less challenging--for this student than taking an advanced-level Spanish course.) There was a native French speaker in the class who was also a senior, and he was great to have in the class. It was a blow-off class for him, but having a native speaker in the class (the teacher wasn't a native speaker) actually did add to the learning for everybody else. And beyond that, I just don't think that reviewing the grammar and vocabulary of a language you speak fluently at a more advanced level is a waste of time. I think it's a shame that this school won't open up another class for students who want to it, but it's not this student's fault, nor her responsibility to drop the class and make room for another student.

You can just tell her she can't sleep over there. Kids get that. My son's very best friend lives in a home that I don't feel has anything approaching adequate adult supervision. His mother is a nice woman, but she has some sort of cognitive impairment, and there are several uncles/older cousins who I frankly think are sketchy and probably involved in some sort of criminal activity who are frequently at the house. My son is not allowed over there. Period. I don't feel like it's a safe situation, and safety issues are where I'll put my foot down. He used to sometimes ask if he could go over, but I would just say that he and this friend play at our house. At this point, he doesn't even ask, and it's not an issue. I was really, really careful to not say anything negative about this boy's home or family, but I also made it clear that he could not play over there. At 4, I'd just say she's too young for sleepovers, and leave it at that. I certainly think that being picky about what adults are allowed to supervise your child, particularly in a sleepover situation, is a very different issue than being picky about what young children are allowed to spend supervised play time in your own home.

I'm going to admit it: I'm not picky at all. My son can be friends with whomever he wants to be friends with. I'm not going to bar him from playing with a neighborhood child just because I don't like the kid or the kid's behavior. I am picky about whose homes he can play at. I'm picky about who he can play with without my supervision. But, at 6, I'm just not picky about who he can play with when I'm supervising. Honestly, this makes me a little sad, assuming we're talking about little kids. Preteens and teens, sure. If another child their age is involved in drugs or crime or other seriously destructive or anti-social activities, then I can totally understand telling them they can't hang out with that person (although I still might be inclined to let them spend supervised them with them). But, kids who are 4 or 5 or 6? How is that child going to learn how to get along with other children if they are denied opportunities to practice? Plus, kids need to learn how to get along with difficult people. As long as there is an adult there to guide the behavior, it can be a good learning experience. I guess this just hits home because I really, really struggle with my son's behavior, and have since he was born. He's a difficult kid. And the things the OP describes--bad mood, yelling, etc.--can describe him on many a rough day. It would both break his heart if he wasn't allowed to play with other kids, and also mean that there'd be many less chances for him to practice better behavior. You can't always teach things in theory or in abstract. I'm so grateful that my friends who've seen him on many a bad day haven't cut him off from playing with their kids, because he's gotten much better in the last year or two, particularly with playing with younger kids. My son has one friend I didn't particularly like for a long time. She's his age, and was very sneaky and manipulative. (My son can be a handful, but he's an in-your-face handful; he doesn't sneak and lie.) And she could be very mean and petty. For a while, they had to be VERY closely supervised when they were playing. They weren't allowed out of sight or earshot, and I didn't let him go over her house for a long time because I didn't feel like they were appropriately supervised over there and it always seemed to end with my son coming home in tears. I also had to have really strict rules about how they could play at our house, which I didn't have with some of his other friends. But, at this point, the two of them play really, really nicely together. She's grown up some, he's grown up some, and just last night after dinner the two of them were out in our yard by themselves for over an hour, and did great. So if we were talking about older children who were involved in truly dangerous or self-destructive or anti-social activities (crime, drugs, etc.), I'd absolutely tell them they could not spend time, particularly unsupervised time, with that person. And if seeing a friend was something that required a lot of time and effort, like having to drive a while to get him there, I'd probably not be very inclined to make the effort if I really felt the kid was a bad influence. But, if we're talking about neighborhood kids who stop by our house or walk by our yard or who my son can see/hear playing when he's outside, I really can't imagine a situation where I'd forbid even supervised play in my own yard. I've had to set limits--when I was late in the pregnancy with my DD, and my DS and the friend I was talking about were not getting along well at all, there was about a month when she wasn't allowed over unless DH was home and willing to supervise because I just did not have the energy or patience to provide the guidance they needed while playing--but I can't imagine an out-right ban, at this age.

I don't normally order household products online, but I love Mrs. Meyer's All-Purpose Cleaner, and I ended up using Amazon's "subscribe and save" for a six-month supply. Much cheaper than buying separate bottles, and this way I'll be sure to have more come when I need it.

I'd probably go with lettuce, because it's super easy to grow, and it's something we use a lot.

I think technology has changed things for us; we now expect to be in 24/7 contact with people, and get worried when we're not. I don't know, I do think that's had a pretty profound impact on our sense of security, even moreso maybe than the media. I'm a pretty easygoing parent, I think, but I still can't believe that, back in the 90s, my (pretty overprotective) parents would let me go out at night without any way to contact me. I mean, of course they did: cell phones weren't common then, and that's just what you did. But, given that I get worried if my DH is a little late coming home from work and doesn't answer his cell phone--because, of course, if I can't get in touch with somebody right away, I assume the worst, since most of the time I can immediately get into contact with anybody I want to--I can't imagine I'd be cool with my kids going out as teenagers without any way for me to contact them. It's just become an expectation that we can always get in touch with people, and when we can't, even if they're not that far away, it's disconcerting. I just try my best to consider the real risks. Driving is probably the most risky thing we can do with our children; they are far, far more likely to die in a car accident than to be abducted by a stranger. And yet I don't know any parents who refuse to drive their kids around because of the chance of an accident, because we consider it a necessity. But isn't playing and exploring just as much a necessity? So if I can justify driving my kids on the highway to buy groceries, then I can justify allowing my six-year-old to walk three houses over to his friend's house by himself to play (although I do expect him to go into their yard and give me a shout when he gets there) or to play in the yard or in front of the house with friends his age or older without my supervising. So much of it is that our expectations are conditioned by what other people do, though. I really struggle with this. Tonight my DS wanted to eat his dinner on the porch, where he'd been reading. Nobody else wanted to eat on the porch. Reasonably, I know that he's statistically more likely to choke on his sandwich than to be abducted by a stranger, and yet of course I wasn't worried about his choking without anybody around. Nope, I was worried that I shouldn't let him eat out there alone because other parents don't let there kids that age be alone on the porch in the evening because the child might be abducted, and does that make me an irresponsible/neglectful parent if I don't do the same?

What's funny is that I would NEVER have considered my mother "free range" when I was growing up. She wouldn't have, either. She was a very uptight, overprotective mom. But, back then "overprotective" meant something very different than it does today. I was still allowed to walk to school (about 3 or 4 blocks from my house) alone from the time I was in second grade. I was allowed to ride my bike around the immediate neighborhood (probably a 1-mile radius or so) with friends when I was in 3rd and 4th grade. By the time I was in middle school I was allowed to go anywhere within walking distance, with friends, that I was willing to walk. I didn't know anybody, honestly, who wasn't allowed to do those things. I thought my mom was overly protective because she wouldn't do things like drop me at the mall and let me shop with friends without adult supervision until I was in high school (many of my friends could do that in middle school). So the idea that so many parents today seem afraid to let an 11 or 12 year old even walk a block or two alone just seems totally out there to me.

I know that Open Court is required in many of the schools, or at least was several years ago. If a school is deeded "failing," as per NCLB, they have to use an approved curriculum. There's only so much leeway they have, and nearly all of the approved literacy curriculums are phonics-based (if they aren't all phonics-based).

That is still the case. DPS is not full of hippy-dippy whole-language proponents, at all. The education the students get is VERY old-school: phonics, basic math, lots of drills, very few frills. In fact, many of the schools are required to use scripted, phonics-based literacy programs. It's still not working. I don't know, I tend to think that is a detriment to the students. The percentage of students with LDs of various kinds in the DPS system is pretty high, and IIRC from my literacy courses, for kids with certain LDs, phonics is the least effective means of literacy instruction. There's a reason, after all, why schools moved to whole-language. It wasn't because they just felt like trying something new, it was because while phonics is a fantastic means of literacy instruction for many if not most children, for some percentage of children, it does not work at all. They simply cannot learn to decode through phonics. And, public school teachers aren't expected to teach many or even most of their students, but all of them. Whole language may produce less proficient readers, overall, than phonics, but it tends to work at least a little for every child. There will be some kids who will leave a phonics-based classroom unable to read at all, but almost no kids will leave a whole-language classroom without any ability to read. That doesn't make whole-language better--I'd say that for most children phonics will lead to more mastery more quickly, and is preferable--but it does make it more utilitarian, especially as classrooms were mainstreamed and more and more teachers were left to teach reading to students who were unable to learn via phonics. That's neither here nor there, but I tend to think the practical reasons why whole language temporarily came to supersede phonics (I don't think that's the case any more, and a combined approach seems most common) get ignored by many phonics proponents.

But why should a culture value education if, historically, they were barred from getting one? If getting one yielded them nothing much of the time? If the school system often denigrated and was actively hostile to the child's home culture? You can't just get people to value education in the abstract; you have to show them that it will actually have value for them. In a city with a 30% (almost 50%, by some estimates) unemployment rate, where I, a white woman with a good work history and a master's degree, had to spend two years on the market to find a job (and ended up working a part-time minimum-wage job for over a year), is it even honest to say that education is going to make much difference? The opportunities have to be there, and in Detroit (and many other poor areas), they just aren't. This isn't simply an issue with inner-city blacks. The same thing can be seen in rural white areas, like Appalachia, where for a very long time the school system set itself up as the saviors of the children from the terrible, impoverished cultures and families they came from. That creates an animosity between school and family that can run very, very deep, and I think we still see the fall out of that in many poor communities, even when the school culture has changed quite a bit. There is still a sense, I think, that the schools are at odds with the families. And, to some extent, they might be. All the pushes for longer school days/years do end up seeming like attempts to get children out of their homes and families (which are seen as a bad influence) and into the superior environment of the school. That's obviously something a lot of homeschoolers bristle against, so it shouldn't be too surprisingly that many minority communities, who have often borne the brunt of that attitude, should feel it, too.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Yes, it's more than SES; I think parental attitude and involvement makes a huge difference. But, I don't think those can simply be put down to outlook or good examples. Many immigrants, while they were poor, were well-educated in their own countries. I have many students in my college classes whose parents are Middle Eastern immigrants. And many of their parents are poor here, but that's because they took a big cut in prestige and salary when they moved here. Their parents were professionals in their home countries, and came from professional families, and see taking service or working-class jobs here as a temporary situation. They see the value of education, and push their children very hard to get a good education. But they see the value because it has actually paid off for them. It's not a theory for them, that education can help people get ahead; they actually have had that experience themselves, even if it didn't translate into success here. When we're talking about immigrants who don't have that background, I'm not sure we see the same educational successes. One of my grandfathers emigrated from Italy when he was 5; his family was poor in Italy, they were poor here, and he dropped out of school after the 7th grade, because he had to work. If you look at the educational outcomes of the children of poor immigrants from Mexico, they aren't good. The graduation rate is extremely low. In the case of Detroiters, I think a big part of the issue is that many parents--not all, but many--either don't see the value of their child getting an education (and, honestly, reasonably so: the economy is so bad here that pretty much the only thing a college degree is guaranteed to get you is debt), or they are actively hostile to the school system (which a history of racism makes understandable as a cultural phenomenon, even though the situation has changed a lot), or they are dealing with other very serious issues (addictions, disabilities, imprisonment, etc.) that make investing time and energy in their child's education impossible for them. So these kids have NO positive support at home for their education, and the same is true of most of their classmates. Honestly, while I obviously don't blame homeschoolers, charter schoolers, or private schoolers, Detroit is a city where you can see how these things can hurt the public schools. Because, as I mentioned, the situation in Detroit, at this point, is such that every single concerned parent I know who hasn't moved to the suburbs has pulled their kids from the public school system for an alternative. You're now left with public schools that are pretty much filled with students whose parents don't care (or are unable to care) about the education their children receive. There's a few public schools that are exceptions, but those tend to be specialized public schools that parents need to make an active effort to get their children into. But the regular, local public schools are pretty much filled with the students who have parents who do not care or are unable to provide their child with any educational support or guidance. That just makes it that much harder for the teachers and the students who are left, and then that makes it even less likely that parents who do care about and are involved in their child's education will enroll their kids in the schools. Even more than SES, family involvement is key (although family involvement is highly tied to SES). And that's something that is very much lacking in the Detroit public schools, for many reasons. That's a nice idea, but has there ever been a society where the educational system, on a regular basis (not an exceptional one), took in students from the lowest classes of society and turned out people who made it into the highest classes?

It's not simply mismanagement; it's an extremely difficult city to manage. Detroit is a huge city, in terms of area. The amount of just vacant land in Detroit, IIRC, is larger than the total area of San Francisco. And it's also spread out. So, yes, the population has declined, but it's not like entire pockets of the city have been entirely abandoned; they've just been almost-entirely abandoned. You have blocks that have one resident left on them, but that resident still needs water, electricity, police and fire services, etc. So you're left maintaining an infrastructure meant to support twice as many people as actually live there (and meant to support a much larger tax base than it currently does). I'm not a huge fan of Mayor Bing, but I do think his consolidation plan--to relocate people in nearly-vacant areas so that the infrastructure and services in those areas doesn't have to be kept up, and resources can be focused on the populated areas--makes sense. The problem is that, while it's practical, it's certainly not ideal. Removing people from their homes is never ideal. It seems like one of the few viable solutions for Detroit at this point, but I can see why it would be an absolute last resort.

That doesn't make any sense, though. Later ages of onset of puberty have been associated with societies that had much shorter life expectancies; if "premature puberty" (which I assume means, "earlier than this author thinks is good") were really associated with "premature aging," we'd see life expectancies falling as onset of puberty came earlier, but we're seeing the exact opposite. I just don't think his conclusions line up with the facts. HuffPo has a huge bias towards the kind of organic, "whole foods" diet that is so in vogue with the upper classes. I'm not saying that's a bad way to eat, but there are huge cultural assumptions behind that that do need to be unpacked. I think that's what we're seeing here.

I'm not sure that's true in Western countries; I think most have managed to provide sufficient social support services so that widespread starvation and total lack of access to medical care (especially in Western countries other than the U.S.) have been largely eradicated. Sure, the health and nutrition of the poor in the U.S. could stand significant improvements, but it's still much better than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

I think the thing we need to think about is, what was life (and health) like for the average person living in Europe in 1830? There was widespread poverty and starvation, child labor, tons of industrial pollution, unsanitary living conditions, etc. So I'm not really sure we should be assuming that the age puberty was beginning then is somehow the best or most healthy or most natural age to begin. I don't know the stats for Europe, but in the U.S., the average life expectancy in 1830 was around 45-50 (depending on where you lived). I don't think we'd point to that and somehow assume we must have been doing things just right back then.

I don't know, I disagree with the conclusions. We seem to want to blame EVERYTHING on obesity, ignoring the fact that people today are, according to all evidence, healthier and better nourished than ever before. I'd probably say we're seeing younger ages of onset of menstruation because of improved nutrition and health care across the board. We're seeing averages, after all; if you have a significant portion of your population that is desperately poor and malnourished, and not menstruating until 17 or 18, that's going to drive the averages up. If you've ensured, as a society, that nearly all of your members are being sufficiently fed and cared for medically, you're going to see less of that, and averages will go down.

I'm kind of agnostic about ghosts. I lean toward being skeptical, but I know enough intelligent, reasonable people who truly believe that they've seen/experienced ghosts to totally write off the idea.

I think for me the issue would be whether my disagreement with certain church/denominational teachings would be considered acceptable--or at least tolerated--or if it would be something I'd feel the need to hide. It's not like I go around discussing theology with my church friends much, but if I felt like there were "heresy detectives" out there waiting to catch people who disagreed with the church's party line, then that would not be a situation where I'd be comfortable. But if the church/denomination had official teachings that you weren't required/expected to completely agree with, and I disagreed, then I don't think it would be an issue. I wouldn't be comfortable in a church/denomination that expected complete agreement from members anyway, though, so it would be kind of moot.

I like the idea of encouraging redirection. I wouldn't recommend turning around and being equally confrontational about this girl's schooling choices. Honestly, I think this kind of thing happens all the time. I can remember, when i was in high school, private school students asking public schooled kids how they could stand being in public school, and vice versa. So I don't think it's exclusive to homeschoolers. I'd just encourage saying something like "It works for us; public school works for you. Let's play soccer," and moving on. If she brought it up again, I'd help your DD come up with a polite but firm way to make it clear that this was not a topic she wanted to discuss. If this other girl continued to bring it up after that, I'd talk about it with the coach (or have your DD do so), not because it was questioning about homeschooling in particular, but because continually pestering somebody about a topic they've made it clear they don't want to discuss is very rude and disrespectful.

I think it's probably pretty common, unfortunately. I've been on a few boards where it's just seemed really, really obvious to me (and I'm not a particularly cynical person, I don't think) that somebody was, at the very least, exaggerating things to get sympathy. I find that annoying, but unless they move into actually trying to scam people (and I've seen people either explicitly ask for money or go on so much about their dire financial woes, in such detail, that it's obvious they're hoping people will send them money) I mainly just think it's sad. Because if you need to make up that kind of drama to get emotional support from people, then you probably are in need of emotional support, you know? Pregnancy boards seem particularly rife with this, probably because you've got new batches of posters coming in every month. I felt like the birth boards on Babycenter were probably half filled with people who just make up relationship/pregnancy traumas for fun.

My DS's is decreasing: it was 37 the year he was born and 62 today. My DD's has dropped a lot over the decade. It was 417 in 2000 but 940 in 2010, the year she was born. Soon-to-be-DS2's name was 3 in 2000 and 16 in 2010. All of our kids have been named after our grandparents.

With my DS it was Boston Market's creamed spinach. I could not get enough of it. I think there were 3-4 months where I'd have my DH pick some up for me every night on his way home from work. With my DD, it was salty stuff, mostly oven fries. This time, I haven't had too many cravings, but I did have about a month where I wanted Combos (the pretzel kind with the cheese inside) a lot.

For me, it just seemed awfully time- and manipulative-intensive for something that my son really didn't need that much work on. I will say that my son found a lot of it fun. He liked using the chips and magnets; I'm the one who got frustrated having to deal with all of those pieces when my son already knew all of the words for the week. I don't know, I think the teaching style just wasn't right for me.