There's no such thing as too much thinking and reasoning. In addition while I would guess there are some children who might need even more math facts practice than are available in the Singapore written curriculum, they must be in a tiny minority. If you add in all the texts and workbooks, it's a lot of practice. And for a kid who needed even more practice, I think it would make more sense to add extra practice than to take a few bits from Singapore and use it to supplement CLE Math.

I don't know about the OP's printer, but this is all highly printer-dependent. Our two HP inkjets both print double-sided just by making a selection when printing from the computer.

I have a high opinion of low- and mid-grade Brother laser printers, but you can print quite cheaply using a modern inkjet as well. We bought an HP Officejet Pro 8600 recently, which has under 2 cents per page printing costs, double-sided printing, etc. as well as high-capacity cartridges available. And it prints in color. Total including shipping and a next-business-day replacement plan for three years was $200. Printer costs in general have come down so much that I would say that anyone with a printer 4+ years old should look at buying a new printer-- it would probably save a lot of money.

DS really liked "Here Be Monsters!" and couldn't put it down. It doesn't have a Lexile score but is not too tough reading-wise.

Richard Dawkins.

I don't know about the Student's or Teacher's Quest books, but DS also has very much enjoyed the first book in The Story of Science. He's also loving The Magic of Reality, another book I might not have bought if not for this site. They're both gorgeously made, in addition to being well written. I think National Geographic has done a wonderful job with their modern book lines.

My son took the DORA a while ago, but some of what you and EKS are saying is sounding familiar to me. I remember the same concerns about the reading comprehension. If remember correctly it was multiple choice, and I thought that DS's memory and problem solving abilities were helping him to get a lot of the answers correct, even though I wouldn't have thought his reading comprehension was as good as his DORA scores showed at the time. I used the DORA mostly out of curiosity and to give him a chance to get familiar with test-taking in general, but in the end I didn't have much confidence in the results. Spelling-wise I remember he was spelling words like "chauffeur" on the test, but there's no way I would have asked him to spell such things back then, with no exposure to French spelling rules and likely never having read that word at the time. I know some schools use the DORA as a reading assessment, but I would guess that your daughter is outside of the range where the results can be considered to be accurate (at all). Test-taking ability does seem to be a huge influence.

Is that like a bibliographic howitzer?

You misunderstood me. My point was that no PARTICULAR prescription of reading material is mandatory in order to become well educated.

No, that's not true. What a lousy case-- sounds like the DA should have been quick to simply voluntarily dismiss it.

Other ideas were introduced in the course of the discussion. It happens. The OP's post included a question whether her children would be "permanently messed up" if they didn't read certain books, and I continue to think that they'd be fine if they read neither "The Iliad" nor "The Odyssey", as those are only really necessary to becoming well educated by a very narrow definition based on certain personal opinions. I don't see classical homeschooling as the only correct way, or that any specific books, out of millions, are crucial. What's important is making a selection of high-quality materials that encourages the development of thinking ability, not so much reading of specific books, regardless of versions.

I agree. Do you think that the OP's children would be "permanently messed up" if they didn't study such stuff before college, though?

I dunno, it seems to me that the latest trend towards classical homeschooling tends to be incidentally both Christian and educationally conservative (not trying to turn this into a political or religious thread), though I realize that that may have little to do with its origins and there will be many exceptions. And of course it's perfectly fine to be educationally conservative, just as it is to be Christian.

I don't know; if bell-bottoms come back in style, it seems like it is a renewed fad to me. In any event I meant no offense by the use of the term (substitute "sharp rise" or "trend" if you like), I have no actual data on how fast classical homeschooling is on the rise, and my perception may be skewed by reading this board. I wouldn't doubt that classical homeschooling in general will continue be around for a long time to some degree, but the part that I am mostly guessing is experiencing a swell of support that will eventually fall off is mostly the very heavy focus on reading ancient texts, especially in the original languages; reading abridged or children's versions or summaries of ancient texts seems a lot more mainstream to me. I would also predict and hope that certain delayed-academics aspects of certain flavors of homeschooling will diminish over time, and in this category I include a delayed focus on science which is apparently part of the "multum non multa" concept.

Whether my son is currently in public school has nothing to do with my observation that a fad is a fad. This is just another in your long string of personal remarks aimed at me, which are quite transparent. It will please you to learn that I've announced my intent to homeschool my child next year! Or maybe not, eh? You'll have to start using some sort of logic to attack me in the future. So to be well educated, it's fine to be relatively ignorant of world cultures, though those cultures do have value. Sounds like a recipe for world peace if I've ever heard one. ;) I'm still not getting how reading "The Odyssey" prepares a person to be a better participant in modern Western culture, but I will remain receptive to any showing of such a link.

Some of my comments are aimed in a general way at previous comments made in this thread, not necessarily by you. We've had many different justifications for the idea that reading Greek works etc. is necessary (the OP's question, remember), and none of them make sense to the extent they explicitly or implicitly deny the validity of other points of view, nor have any been given any real proof. As such I see clearly that they reflect particular sets of value judgments, but also that many other valid ones are possible. And it's fine to make personal judgments that works from antiquity have great value. It's simply not been shown that reading them is necessary to become well-educated, successful, or fulfilled as a human being. Today many people become those things without a specific focus on ancient Greek books, because any void that is created by their absence can be filled with many other sources of cultural enrichment. One can certainly define the term "well educated" as only applying to an education including some specific works, but of course I am free to define the term in a way which excludes those same works, or sees them as only one possible way of becoming well-educated. That's my message, and I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me otherwise. I consider the move back to classical education as a current fad, to be honest. Other fads have been on the rise lately: immersion schooling, learning Mandarin (never referred to as Mandarin Chinese, just "Mandarin", by the proud parents), and many others. In my opinion all of these trends are based on something real-- there is certainly a lot of educational value in learning foreign languages, for instance-- but what's without basis is the idea that if one's child isn't learning according to the latest fad, the child is going to be poorly educated. With classical education the old is new again, but I still see it as quite similar. I believe that some in this thread have included the idea that there is much more of value in spending years studying the Greek language and literature, by references to The Latin-Centered Curriculum, Climbing Parnassus, etc. I view the entire classical schooling movement as incorporating many subparts, which I see as arranged on a rough continuum from more... intense (for lack of a more descriptive but less offensive term) or perhaps intensive to less intensive. While I'd agree that there is much of value in "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", as in a vast number of other works, at one end of the spectrum I'd see the focus as blown way out of proportion to the actual value. In a similar way I'd view an exclusive focus on science and math without humanities as way overdone, or an exclusive focus on eighteenth century British literature at the exclusion of all other written works as ill-thought. In addition I doubt that there is a single piece of anything taught as cultural enrichment that cannot be done without. There's just such a wealth of value that it seems unlikely that whatever is present in one work cannot be found in many others. Critical thinking skills developed in reading texts from the ancient Greek, no matter how condensed or in what language, can be developed while reading other works as well, whether similarly condensed or in a different language. I reject the idea that one must read all precursor works in order to comprehend a given work; that idea is worthless in the real world, unless we're prepared to recursively read all works of "importance", or restrict ourselves to only reading ancient works. What I see lots of in this thread is value judgments-- and notice that they're all over the map. We've got some saying that learning summaries of a work is fine; that enough of a familiarity to get in-jokes is fine; that in-depth knowledge is important, with some variance as to how in-depth and regarding how many works; that studying the works in the original language is key, or not; etc. What I see objectively here confirms what I already knew: that no one can actually prove why reading ancient Greek works, or any other selection of particular works whatsoever, is necessary to become well-educated in general, though they can state their opinions and point to some opinions of other people that agree with them; and that there is great disagreement among advocates of learning something of ancient Greek works as to how much must be learned, and how. Value judgments. Ideally, a child would graduate from high school having a good understanding of the full historical development of culture and ideas in all major cultures of the world. However, this is almost never going to happen. By focusing on Greek and Latin texts, one focuses less on Chinese and Indian texts, etc. By including more of one thing, one must exclude or include less of another. I wonder how many who have responded in this thread have a deep grounding in Chinese culture, philosophy and history, for example? By declaring that familiarity with Greek works is necessary, the ones who are not equally familiar with Chinese works are merely revealing their own biases. The ones who feel that works from other cultures would suffice as well-- perhaps only for other people from other cultures-- are actually in agreement with the idea that no particular works are necessary to become well-educated. I read "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" long ago, in English. I don't feel enriched by them in the slightest. I don't feel that studying them made me into a better thinker; I certainly don't remember them in any great detail, though I can certainly go refresh my memory on the web if ever necessary. From what I remember, they are not even close to what I'd consider to be the pinnacle of the storyteller's art, and neither introduced me to any great philosophical concepts that truly enriched my life, or made me more well-educated. Am I really richer for having read them, or did they just appear on a reading list at some point in my education out of force of academic habit? I can point to more modern works that impacted me quite deeply, and which I consider to exhibit much more of the storyteller's art. Additionally, I know a good deal more of Greek (and other) mythology than an ordinary person. I can't see that this makes me any more well-educated in any way, except that I have memorized some facts that have no relevance to modern life. Since the old days, I am sure that my knowledge of mythology has fallen off somewhat. I derive no real satisfaction from my extra knowledge today, and I can't remember a time when I discussed mythology with anyone. Am I really more "well educated" if I experience more flashes of recognition when watching a Percy Jackson movie than the average person? In my opinion the classical movement, to the extent its adherents insist on particular works to study, particular languages, etc. is really just more or less extreme conservatism applied to education, and heavily dependent on memorization of a particular bunch o' facts. Education is a field particularly rife with unproven theories adopted as gospel, unfortunately. Classical education is great in the sense that the world is enriched when it is filled with people of all different kinds, who hold different things dear and keep different sorts of human knowledge and endeavor from going by the wayside. However, it is annoying when adherents of any particular type of schooling claim without any basis that theirs is the only way, especially with such easy evidence to the contrary. I would scoff in a similar way on any other discussion board devoted to a different type of schooling, if its adherents overstated the case in favor of their own value judgments.

Not at all; it's an example of chronological anti-snobbery, if anything. The risk, eh? :D Maybe you should think about a logical justification for your position, that there is a certain critical mass of ancient texts that one needs to be edumacated-- though it doesn't matter which specific ones one picks...

It contradicts your statement to which I replied, of course. I didn't think that was unclear, but I guess it must have been. I'm not engaging in the "Great Conversation" in the sense meant by the article (reading the "Great Books", especially in the original dead languages as is generally meant by the term "Great Conversation" in these threads), or used previously in this thread. Score one for critical thinking not learned as part of the classical "Great Conversation"! ;) See, I need not have read any of the "Great Books", in any language, in order to debate whether they're necessary; I can easily point to many facts in support of an argument that they're not necessary. Of course I freely grant that one can argue over education, citizenship, etc. in a more general and modern context, without any necessary references to works of antiquity, which predate all modern research on and theories of education. The vast majority of Netheads who debate on such topics will not have a deep background in ancient Greek or Latin. I can't remember the last time a discussion of"The Iliad" or "The Odyssey" came up in an important way in a debate over current events. A historical summary is going to be more than sufficient to understand in-jokes and other references to ancient works; for readers lacking even that, Google and Wikipedia will resolve any difficulties within a matter of minutes or seconds. As civilization advances and new accretions are made to our bodies of cultural, historical and scientific knowledge, there will necessarily be a compression effect, where older works (as well as everything that came after) will tend to receive a more abbreviated treatment, unless a student out of interest chooses to pursue a deeper study. This is a healthy symptom of a civilization that is progressing instead of standing still; an advancing civilization will by definition be moving on. An insistence on an in-depth study of antiquities at the expense of everything that came after contains an implied statement that all those more modern advancements are somehow much less important. I don't see a rational basis for this, any more than I do a suggestion that one can only learn to think logically at a high level by reading ancient texts in dead languages. Applying these ideas to my own life, I will probably expose my children to Greek mythology during a study of history. My older son has already picked a lot of it up through osmosis, without once cracking open "The Odyssey" etc. (ETA: I was not planning to teach Latin at all, until he expressed an interest in it because of his general interest in Roman history; I will support him as long as the interest lasts, but not force him back to Latin if he drops it. In the meantime we will learn Spanish as well, which is my own pick.) If I ever read a compelling argument that reading works of antiquity in the original dead languages was necessary to proper or full intellectual development, I would change. In the meantime, I will take all of that time saved and devote it to other areas, perhaps formal study of science, which for example the "Multum Non Multa" concept instructs should start no earlier than high school. There aren't enough hours in the day to study all areas of human knowledge and endeavor deeply during the homeschooling years; something's got to give; and I simply make a different set of value judgments from those people that insist that classical studies are necessary or very important for everyone. I see some value in studying the "Great Books", just as I see value in studying everything else of value. :) I just have never seen a compelling argument that classical studies are necessary, but that's exactly what the OP was asking for. The obvious answer to her question is that no, one can be just fine without any study of antiquities at all, and that in modern times an abbreviated treatment of them is more than enough. One certainly need not study them deeply in the original languages in order to understand them enough to succeed perfectly well in modern life.

Nah. It certainly allows one to sprinkle conversation with references to Greek and Latin classics, but it doesn't as far as I can tell actually confer any benefit in rational thought that is not able to be gained in a number of other ways. Most of the highly intelligent people I've known have not studied ancient Greek and Latin in any depth; more have studied modern languages and the great works written in those languages, but I doubt that it's necessary to study any foreign languages at all in order to be a highly intelligent, successful human being in today's society. Most people in the U.S. who study foreign languages in high school and college seem to let those skills fall away afterward.

Let's put it this way: prove that the Great Conversation is necessary to be a successful, intelligent, fulfilled human being, and maybe you'll have something. Until then, you've merely overstated the benefits of learning ancient Greek and Latin. Self-serving opinion pieces won't suffice; you'll have to disprove the value of every lifestyle not engaging in the Great Conversation.

Obviously. However, I will freely admit that in-depth knowledge of Greek mythology confers some benefits in a modern "Cash Cab" context, and perhaps several others.

That about nails it. There are now so many great books to read, that there is not time in one's life to fully appreciate them all. Works from antiquity are certainly not without value, but they're not the only ones with value either.

Yes, I am sure that just about anyone can find a webpage to support their deeply held convictions. Nonetheless, for each successful person one can find who studied Latin and Greek, engaged in the "Great Conversation" or whatever is the catchy term of the day for historical works of art from long ago read in their original ancient dead languages, etc. etc. etc., there are scads that didn't do those things. The only logical conclusion is that the "Great Conversation" is in no way necessary to be a fulfilled, successful, intelligent human being in modern times, no matter how much some of us may like to study these things.

I personally think that's a silly standard, without much application to modern life. Similarly to the way we need not discuss cave paintings and all the other products of the human mind that led up to what you call part of the "Great Conversation", we need not even know of Homer's existence to discuss great works of more modern art which don't explicitly refer to Homer or directly incorporate his work. And in-jokes and cultural references do not need actual in-depth knowledge of the source material to understand either, if they even constituted the most important part of a later work (if they did one could fairly call it derivative and worthless). I just don't buy it, sorry.