This is so true. My mother tells a story about how she tried to teach me how to make coffee after my sister was born, because she thought I was certainly old enough. I was 3. She said she came to her senses in about 30 seconds, but during those 30 seconds I just seemed so old, and she was annoyed with me for not pulling my weight when she was so tired! And I definitely had some thoughts like that with each new baby I brought home about the older one(s). (And it's telling that my mother's story is basically about being exhausted...) So I think that this is very common.

That is a fascinating theory, that I don't think I've read before. But it would explain so much about my kids, LOL. I never really took birth order seriously until I had three kids... basically thought that it was a joke. And now I see it. And I am absolutely a believer. I had 3 kids in 3 years, and they are such the stereotype of the "responsible, high-achieving" oldest, the "slightly insecure, but socially very wise" middle, and the "wise-beyond-her-years-yet-totally-babied" youngest. I do feel like having them so close together made this more extreme... I had my youngest when my oldest was just barely 3, so she's been responsible for way more self-care and I had much higher expectations of her (which I think isn't fair, but I was exhausted and remember thinking how OLD she was, compared to the toddler and the baby) from a much younger age. She was completely dressing herself when she was 2.5, whereas I still help my 5yo figure out which way is the right way round for her underpants. I also freely admit, though I'm definitely not proud of it, that I have high expectations for my oldest, and really cling onto them as best I can for my middle, and then by the time I get to that stage with my third, I'm too exhausted to care... this would explain why I let her order a pile of turkey with bread on the side at a restaurant today (the waiter totally judged... "you don't even want some tomato slices?")... with my oldest, I would have judged the snap out of any parent who did that sort of thing ("if you don't insist that your child eat real meals, they'll never learn!"), with my middle I would have insisted that "we don't do that, we order a real meal" and then allowed the tomato slices to be served on a separate plate, lest any juice touch the main plate, and with my 3rd I just want everyone to sit quietly at the table for long enough for me to finish my meal... Someone earlier mentioned that the youngest gets dragged along to stuff for the older kid(s), which makes them more mature... I have to say that in my experience, what really happens is that the older kid(s) are left to participate on their own (even in situations where the parent is supposed to be helping them, which is more common than not up to early elementary), while a disproportionate amount of time is spent trying to keep the youngest quiet and non-disruptive... I know this happens in my family (it happened today, when I took them all to an art museum), and I can think of many times I've witnessed this in other families, so I know it's not just me! For example, there's an older sister in my youngest's Suzuki group class who gets sent into the class alone, although parent participation is expected... the mother has two younger kids with her, and they all stay out in the hall (I, on the other hand, have two older children, who sit out in the hall with my computer watching a movie). This girl, in typical oldest child fashion, totally lives up to the expectation that she can figure it out, while every other kid in the class has a parent to help. I also see that my middle child is very socially savvy, much better at compromising, really good at playing different types of games with different groups of kids (kind of a code shifting for play), whereas the oldest gets annoyed when she can't run everything, and the youngest gets annoyed when she can't have her way in everything. At the same time, I also see that he is often the afterthought... I think of "big kid" things for my oldest to do, and then decide whether he should participate, or I think of "little kid" things for my youngest to do, and then decide if he should participate... the result is that he participates in an awful lot, but often as more of a tag-along to the other kids' interests and developmental levels. And then I feel guilty, so I make special experiences for him, and the result is kinda that he gets 3x the experiences of anyone else, LOL. So, basically, I believe in birth order, and I totally take responsibility for creating the situation, and I definitely don't say that proudly... but it is what it is, and they all have strengths and weaknesses, and I think they'll all be okay in the long run. And thus ends the profound thoughts from someone who has basically just admitted that she's a terrible parent, on a whole long thread of people saying that they treat all their kids exactly the same. :001_unsure:

Honestly, whenever I hear about the Robinson Curriculum, I think "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Parents need do nothing, just hand a giant pile of 75+ year old books to their child, who will sit and read them for the next 12 years and then learn everything they need to know in life? Easy peasy lemon squeezy! Except that when that complete lack of effort on the part of the parent is the major selling point, maybe it's worth stepping back for a minute and considering whether curricula (and, frankly, homeschooling) should be selected primarily because the parent doesn't want to really have to do anything? FWIW, the little I know about the actual Robinson family, I gather that it was a large group of kids, living in an isolated environment, with access to lots of books, lots of physical exercise, no TV or computers, and a father who drilled them at dinner. And I can definitely see how, in such a situation, said kids grow up to be intelligent, educated, interesting people, a la the Mitfords, Kennedys, Brontes or other famous members of large families with high intellectual expectations, who didn't have much to do as kids but read books and use their imagination for creative play. I do not think that this is the situation for most families nowadays... and I think that if this IS what your family is like, you could make your own book list out of MUCH MUCH MUCH better books.

No, I don't think we have that. At least, I haven't heard of it. There's PayPal, but that's a bit different, and I only ever really hear of people using PayPal for online transactions through ebay or small stores.

I got that, and loved it, and I still have many of the books I received, and my children love them, too. They had a special binding. When my kids were younger, I went looking for it, to order it for them. All I could find was some sort of Scholastic book club that would mail out Dora books every month, or something like that. Sad that it doesn't seem to exist anymore... seems like it would be a more popular subscription service than ever if they actually offered high-quality books!

Yes, whenever I hear people say that they never use checks anymore, I always wonder about this! I write a few checks a week. Not to stores (which usually don't take them), but to individuals that I want to pay. I had to write a check for a lawyer today, will be writing a check for scouts this weekend, and one for swim lessons next week. And as a Girl Scout leader, I deal almost entirely with checks. Parents write me checks, I deposit them, I pay for things on my credit card and write myself a check out of the troop account... nice, clear, simple paper trail in case anyone ever has suspicions I'm skimming off the top or something. I guess what I don't really understand is that credit cards make everything more expensive. They charge fees, which the service providers pass on to you.

I think that in the trooper's account, he said that he and the grandmother decided to wait to tell them until she got there. I don't know if the grandmother requested it specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some official, or at least "best-practice," protocol about having another family member in the room when young children are told such terrible news, so that they can have immediate support from a loved one. If something happened to me, I would want my kids to be told with a familiar face to hug and comfort them immediately, instead of a strange policeman and social worker (who I imagine are probably discouraged from touching and cuddling kids they've just met? And you try telling a 4 year old that they'll never see their parents again without offering some serious cuddles.). And now DD wants to know why I'm crying...

I cried when I read this story. It's just so awful. I actually wanted to post here if anyone knew them, through a homeschooling group or something. They sounded like they'd fit in on this message board. I'm glad that they're receiving so much support. I read that in one interview, the 13yo said that he knew when the trooper invited them all along to hang out, but went along with it. I'm sure he was in shock, holding on to some hope that he was mistaken, and wanted to protect his younger siblings.

My son is using the Primer, and my daughter the Third reader, of the revisits 1909 edition. I bought them at a library book sale years ago, before I had kids, because I thought that they were funny. Now I think they're surprisingly useful. There's definitely a lot of 19th century classism, but I think the stories are so removed from their modern life that it just seems part of the fairy tale? I actually think my kids find the emphasis on good and bad behavior kind of OTT and funny, rather the way I always reacted to Goofus and Gallant.

I don't think that's what he was saying. He was saying that he lives in a large city where racism is very much part of everyday life, and his kids have personally witnessed it. Personally, I can't imagine that teaching modern racism through poorly written, hundred year old books is any more useful than teaching molecular biology through a 100 year old kids book about plant identification, or teaching about modern relationships through a 100 year old shlock french romance novel. Modern racism is far more sophisticated than anything that appears in a Henty book, and constantly evolving in its own special little way, and is best taught by reading about it, calling it out, and talking about it with your kids.

We're doing read-alouds from the revised McGuffey's (as recommended in the WTM) and so far I haven't seen anything, though I admit that we're only about 12 lessons in. I have been pre-reading each lesson. It's mostly just kind of boring and really preachy.

My daughter is 8, and has been taking lessons for almost 3 years. This year she is in 3rd grade, and the public school in our town offers an after-school strings class for 3rd and 4th graders that is kind of absurdly cheap, at least so far as music lessons go... $300 for the whole year, including instrument rental. Now, it's a 45 minute a week class, and they teach violin, viola, and cello together, so you kinda get what you pay for, and I was in no way expecting her to become a virtuoso through this class... she's just been asking to take a string instrument, and the price is right, and her friend is in the class. I was talking to her teacher today, who said that DD is miles ahead of all the other kids already. It's only the 5th week of lessons, I think. But having the piano under her belt is definitely a huge part in why she's doing so well. I admit that I think it's also in part because my other two kids take string instruments, so she's been hearing me talk about bow holds and whatnot for 2 years now. But thanks to piano, she can already read music (viola is in its own clef, which I thought would be confusing, but she figured it out immediately) and understands tempo, and has her own practice strategies. So, I am in no way a musical expert, which I know that plenty of people here are, but I wanted to throw my own experience in... I personally would continue with piano, and then if/when she decides to add an extra instrument, I think that it will be much easier and more enjoyable. It's also worth noting that most band instruments are pretty hard for young kids to play... most of the schools around here (music or public) don't really let the kids start anything you need breath to play until about 5th grade.

That makes sense. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you feel you have good reason to protect this other teen from her parents finding out. But I also don't think that it does her any favors, in the long run, to completely let her refuse to take any responsibility. Can you say "Hey, I understand why you don't want your parents to know, but you guys made this decision together, and I can't allow my daughter to pay the full amount for something that was a mutual decision. It's not a big deal, and everyone gets a ticket for something they didn't know about or understand at some point, and it sucks, but you just have to chalk it up to a life lesson. I know that you don't have the money right now, but I was going to hire a someone to (do some sort of small chore). How about I pay you $25 to do it, and you can put that towards your share of the ticket?"

Honestly, I don't know how invested I'd be in encouraging my kid to do whatever it takes to maintain the friendship of someone who refuses to take personal responsibility for a pretty minor mistake.

My older child learned to read on her own, in preschool. I did no reading instruction with her. Sometimes I ask/strongly suggest that she read certain books that I think she'll like, and which I consider high quality, age-appropriate literature... I don't force her to read something she really doesn't want to, but I would prefer that she she read certain books. She is, however, an absolutely abysmal speller. It was suggested to me that one of the benefits of a strong phonics program is that it really helps with spelling. So for my second child, who is pretty much average/slightly-behind-target, I'm doing a dull public school style phonics curriculum, in the hopes that wen hees in thered grad his speling dusint look lik this. (she knows look.)

Since English is clearly moving this way, and copy editors are starting to expect it, I actually think that you're doing a disservice to your students by telling them that it's flat-out wrong.

And yet other sources disagree. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-they-be-accepted-as-a-singular-pronoun-1428686651

Yes, actually it is, and has been for decades now. I learned it in high school, and in college. If you taught my child that it wasn't correct in one of your writing classes, I would seriously question your credentials.

It's always been a thing. It's what I was taught to use decades ago. It's really not that hard or complicated to get used to.

I agree with this, but OP is talking about 5th and 6th graders. I think she's going to have a hard time finding anything that says that it's developmentally inappropriate for 5th and 6th graders to write a simple research paper. Even the neoclassical trivium (WTM style) is all about how 5th grade is the start of the logic phase, where kids are supposed to be able to critically read different sources, and put them together into a larger framework. I would like to know more about why OP thinks otherwise, though. I think that there's "too much too soon" in many subject areas at most schools, but I have to say that 5th and 6th graders writing simple research papers as part of a science fair project doesn't phase me at all. I'd like to know more about why OP thinks this isn't appropriate, and when she thinks that it's more appropriate to start.

FWIW, my first research paper with a bibliography was in 3rd grade, done as part of a pull-out "gifted" program... we did a few of those in 3rd or 4th grade. Meanwhile, book reports based on a single non-fiction book started in about 3rd grade... I remember doing one about Helen Keller. Then I think in 5th grade we had to start doing reports with 3 sources... I remember doing one about Monet. In elementary there were always very specific rules about the number of sources we had to use ("3 books, 3 encyclopedias, 3 magazines," or some sort of similar mix). By junior high (then 7th and 8th grade) we were expected to write papers with as many resources as reasonably possible. I dunno, from a developmental point of view, this seems about right. Do you think that kids should wait until high school to do this kind of research and writing? I guess I don't really see that... I think they should wait until they're mature enough, and experienced enough a reader, to be able to properly identify the important information and until they're old enough to have the vocabulary to succinctly put things in their own words, but I think a kid in upper elementary school should be able to do that, even if it's not exactly American Book Award-worthy. And I think that there's value in telling an upper elementary school kid who might be interested in science "this is how real scientists work, and now you're going to be a real scientist." And if you're going to teach them how to do a bibliography, you may as well teach them the right way from the start... no point in having them make something up when it's easier to tell them the format and have them fill in the blanks.

This is just my wild and crazy opinion: They cut most grammar and writing instruction out of schools, because the idea was "you become a good writer through practice"/"you learn to be a good writer just by reading"/"you learn to be a good writer by experimenting"/"what is a 'good' writer anyway?" and because this theory (as well as most progressive educational theories) work perfectly fine when done at lab schools and expensive private schools (and in plenty of homeschools) where kids have really high academic expectations and parents who will make sure that they meet those expectations. Then it turned out that it didn't really work this way with a wider population. And then Malcolm Gladwell started going on about 10,000 hours so it was decided that clearly the problem was just that the schools didn't require more writing. So to get your 10,000 hours of writing research papers in, you now need to start in about 1st grade. The best argument against it, and for more grammar composition instruction, and less "figure it out by being forced to do it a lot," that I've seen is the intro to the WWE instructor guide that I think you're talking about. But I haven't searched extensively. (Also just my opinion, but I think upper elementary... which is 4th and 5th grade here... and definitely middle school... which is 6th grade here... is when kids should start doing this sort of thing, and the assignment you describe sounds age-appropriate to me personally. I just think it's kind of absurd to have 1st graders doing 5-paragraph "research papers" with bibliographies, which I know get assigned in schools around here.)

While DD was reading Charlotte's Web, I spent days worrying about whether I should warn her, and preparing for the waterworks. She came down to breakfast: "I finished Charlotte's Web last night." "Was it sad?" "Not really." "Oh. What happened?" *shrug* "Charlotte died." "And that wasn't sad?" She stared at me like I was from Mars, and said "Everything dies eventually, Mom." Okay. Well then.

My oldest child's name starts with an L specifically because that's the most fun letter to write in cursive, and I always wished my name started with L. I didn't want to be too Duggar-ish, though, so the other kids start with different letters.

I love the content, but the searching and organizing are a nightmare. It didn't go down cheap enough for me at the last HSBC sale, so I didn't repurchase it, but I'm regretting that... I loved the content. I just don't understand why it costs so much, and they can't hire a decent UI designer to make a decent website.