Thanks for the inspiration, Jane. Maybe one of these days I'll drag a couple of kids along and we'll all learn together. My "fat chance" comment was probably just due to the fact that right now (with five kids under 10 constantly in tow) I don't see it happening. :tongue_smilie:

I'm pretty sure that the most beautiful thing my mom has ever received is a crooked dishcloth that my dd labored over for hours (knitting) and proudly presented to her last Christmas. But since we're talking visually beautiful here...I guess I'd have to say that I'm still searching for my niche. I've always wanted to learn to throw pottery...but fat chance of that ever happening. I can do a mean scrapbook album and sew, knit, letter, and play the piano fairly well, but, alas...true beauty has eluded me. I have dreams of my own children far exceeding my own abilities in these areas. To me, these children will be works of beauty in their own right, as God molds them into the people He wants them to be. Then maybe I can claim to have at least helped to make something beautiful.

:iagree: I'd simply remind her that we don't talk that way...and have her apologize to whoever she "talked ugly" to, even if it means apologizing every few minutes. (I love living in the South; I've found the word "ugly" to be very useful in many contexts!) This is how we deal with disrespect among the other siblings. Disrespect to parents is more serious, of course. My dh is an actor in a weekly comedy show--all good, clean humor, but words like "idiot" and "shut up" are used. I generally don't let my younger children attend, but as they grow and understand the comedic context, they are allowed to see more. They know they are not ever to use these words, and they've never done so.

Have you tried doing "helping hands" things throughout the day--unassociated with consequences for misbehavior? Perhaps a positive, proactive approach would help. Maybe sit down with him and brainstorm about ways he can help others...then write those things down, cut them apart and put them in a jar to be drawn (one or more each day). It sounds like your ds needs to develop "helping habits" (not to sound cheesy or anything, but you know what I mean). I know my kids absolutely LOVE to surprise each other (and me) by secretly doing chores, cleaning bedrooms, or whatever. They know how fun it is to be surprised, and having good deeds done for them makes them want to return the favor. Maybe you could surprise your ds by doing something for him that is normally his job...and use it as a jumping-off point to explain how we can use our hands to help and encourage others. He could do things for his dad, or whoever else you can think of. It's fun to deliver fresh, warm cookies around the neighborhood, or color pictures for an elderly friend, or sort clothes to give to the Goodwill. Maybe if he's so busy (and having so much fun) doing constructive things, he won't have time to be destructive! Just a few thoughts, FWIW.

I really haven't thought a whole lot about this issue...My dc don't seem to have strong opinions about their hair. Anytime they start hankerin' for a change, we discuss it and then most often do it. Ds likes his hair buzzed, especially in summer; he's still all about ease and comfort. (I KNOW I'd buzz my hair if I were a man; I really hate fixing it.) Dd's seem to be like me: no fuss. The oldest one (age 9) cannot yet fix her own hair, so she is really not allowed to complain about how it looks when I fix it. (I do try to please her, but I'm not about to spend hours on it.) I have told her that she may choose to grow it out when she is able to care for it properly on her own (which includes shampooing, conditioning, combing out, and drying/styling). All of my dc really hate to have tangles combed out; they're all tender-headed. So, it's easy to convince them that they really don't want long hair. :tongue_smilie:

Our church seems similar to yours. It is the norm for families to worship together (although we do have SS and nursery available). I think you have to keep in mind that "homeschooling" doesn't always mean one-on-one instruction between parent and child. We've got co-ops, DVD classes, online instruction, etc., all used by "homeschooling" parents. In each of these venues, someone else is doing the instructing. The parent has indeed "delegated" the educational responsibility to someone else. I am actually the teacher of my dd's Sunday school class. (Our church is comprised primarily of homeschooling families, so you might call it a kind of co-op.) Also, if religious instruction is taking place ONLY on Sunday, and the parents aren't taking advantage of the other six days to train their children in the ways of God, then a different kind of neglect is happening. Our kids get the bulk of their spiritual training at home. Church is where we all get to sit back and listen to someone else teach us about God. (We as parents aren't doing any "instruction" on Sunday, anyway, except for modeling what worship looks like.)

Erica, I tried to rep you for this thoughtful answer, but apparently I've repped you too much (?) before. I think you've nailed it. "Preferences" are different than "convictions," but the line between these two ideas is not always clear, even in the person's mind who holds the preference or conviction. I know that in my own mind, what I like to call "preferences" might really, deep down, be "convictions" (and vice versa). Our family worships together, but we're not "against" those who choose not to. We do think that worshiping together best follows the model given in Scripture for the church, BUT we also understand that we don't have a "corner on truth"...Nowhere is it spelled out, so it seems to be a matter of parental discernment and liberty to choose. So...Is my perspective on this a "preference" or a "conviction?" :tongue_smilie: I will add that when we visit my FIL's large church (he's a pastor), I do allow my children to attend the kid's Sunday p.m. program with their friends and family there. So, maybe I'm just inconsistent!

Interesting stuff, Kathleen. I'm glad to say that I've never had to experience any of that kind of junk (in the p.s.), although I don't doubt that's the agenda at many, many public schools out there.

Wow! What awesome mommies y'all are!!! I stand in awe! I'm not nearly as "artsy" or organized with art projects. We find ourselves digging around all the time, trying to make things work b/c we don't have the item our lesson is calling for. Something we have done is to save the middles of toilet paper and paper towel rolls, which are useful for a lot of projects, it seems (noisemakers, candy holders, limbs for paper mache projects, etc.). Where do you keep all of your art stuff? Maybe I could see myself keeping more supplies on hand if I had an easily accessible place to organize it. :bigear:

I have also wondered this...I remember being forced to "write" in elementary school, and hating it. Now, I enjoy writing (and have actually written a book that is due from the publisher next week!), but it's not because I was "trained" to write--at least not until high school and college. I've never used a writing curriculum with my dc...They do book reports, and they'll do the obligatory state reports. I think assignments like this are great for showing them how to organize thoughts, but the creative part, IMO, has to come from inside, after vocabulary and expression have developed to the point that they are able to express what they want to, not what someone else wants them to. I believe that developing a love for quality literature is foundational to good writing ability...So far, so good, since each of my readers can't seem to get enough books to satisfy them. Dd has composed a few poems and stories completely on her own. It has been really neat to see what's percolating in her mind. I felt guilty as I passed the writing textbooks in the store the other day. But when I went back and leafed through them, I just couldn't see myself using any of them. I keep going back to the thought that "writing" (at least the kind of writing that isn't pure dictation or copywork) falls into the "rhetoric" category. We'll have plenty of time for that later on. In the meantime, we'll just keep storing up life experiences, classic stories, vocabulary, and grammar skills, until the dc just can't contain themselves and burst forth in eloquent expression. (O.K.--getting a little carried away here. :) )

We did very little Rod and Staff orally this past year. Dc (2nd and 4th grades) seemed to get the hang of it early in the year and were actually independent with it most of the time. I did take the time regularly to drill them orally on word lists ("be" verbs, prepositions, pronouns, helping verbs, etc.), but they did most of the exercises in writing--mostly on paper, but some on the white board. (On most of the lessons, I would have them complete maybe just two out of the three written sections.) I checked their work daily/weekly to make sure they were on track. They've never done anything else for English, so they don't think of it as too hard/busy.

Hee-hee...Good question. I guess I think that I've always thought this way, but, yeah, my opinions could be "solidifying" as I mature. I sure can't blame A.F. for that post! :tongue_smilie: Another way of looking at it is that I've never had strong opinions either for or against "homeschooling for all." I believe it is a personal/family decision that looks different for everyone.

While I have always appreciated the benefits and blessings of homeschooling, I've never thought it is for everyone. I honestly think that some people have no business homeschooling...Not trying to be harsh--it's just my opinion. I'm talking about the people who don't take the job seriously enough to see that their children actually receive a quality education...and the people who don't have enough underlying passion and motivation to see a very daunting task through. (Yes, there are days I have absolutely zero passion/motivation/patience/vision...so I'm not meaning to sound judgmental or anything.) I just think that there are some wonderful, loving, nurturing parents out there who simply lack either the motivation and/or confidence, desire, ideal life situation, or whatever else, to be able to homeschool their children. These parents, IMO, make the right decision to put their children into school. They know themselves and their situations well enough to know that they just aren't cut out for homeschooling. Now, I know there are parents out there who haven't even considered homeschooling who I think would do a fabulous job. Whenever I get to know people like this, I usually encourage them to consider it. Maybe they just need a nudge to boost their confidence, or a little pep talk to push them over the edge. These people generally say things like, "Boy, I'd sure love to homeschool, but I don't think I could do it"...OR..."I don't have enough patience to homeschool." To sum up, I think homeschooling is ideal for my family, and would be ideal for many others who aren't currently homeschooling. But I don't think it's for everyone.

I meant to say this before...but if you do use PP, be sure to throw in some "readers" for variety. We've used the Bob Books, the Innovative Kids series, and the Moncure series. We get to the "real" stories (I Can Read books) as soon as we can. Some that all of my dc could read during the first year with PP are the Little Bear books, The Fire Cat (well-loved!), A Fly Went By, Watch Your Step Mr. Rabbit, Are You My Mother? and other "level 1-2" books. We liked to read the same book for several days or even weeks in a row, until dc could master it well enough to read it fluently.

I've also used it for three children so far. It has worked great for all three. Like Michelle in TX, I don't use it for writing practice or spelling...just as a resource for learning and drilling orally. I like to skip around in it...I don't like the fact that it introduces long vowel sounds so late in the book. The nice thing is that you can order things however you want (within reason, of course). I think I've done it three different ways.

Phred, then why "duh?" Have you perhaps betrayed that you actually do believe in absolute morals after all? Or maybe you've just now realized the obviousness of it all. Or what? Your silence on this point is resounding. In case you've forgotten what I'm asking, here are your own words about numbers 5 (honor father and mother), 6 (do not kill), 8 (do not steal), and 9 (do not bear false witness against your neighbor) of the Ten Commandments. Peek a Boo mentioned that you missed my other point about the Christian perspective (see below). I'd love to get your take on it (but not until you answer my question above :)).

Transylvania County...love being in the mountains...and the waterfalls! :) We're really close to the SC state line...do music lessons in Greenville, SC, and go to church in Hendersonville.

Our kids generally do not watch any TV. Occasionally (maybe once a month) we do a family movie night. Dh likes to unwind at night by watching sports. (Yea for TiVo!) I watch very little TV myself--maybe a total of 2 hours a week. (I watch one HGTV show while I do my daily half-hour treadmill run.) I have mixed feelings about how we use our TV. I have a feeling that as the kids mature, we'll want them to watch more, if for no other reason than to get a (supervised, guided) education in "American culture." In our case, we would be attempting to "inoculate" them against the materialism, bawdiness, violence, godlessness, and sexual attitudes of the culture they will be living in, as well as just simply helping them to understand the general mentality and direction of American society as a whole. IOW, we don't want them to be judgmental, but we do want them to be aware of the dangers. Also, we don't want TV to be such a novel thing to them that they find themselves unable to converse with someone else when there's a TV on in the room.

I am a Saxon user...My dc have had plenty of experience with manipulatives while learning their math facts. We don't do any recitation of the facts, but the kids do a daily fact sheet (with related facts, like the "doubles" or "plus 2's") and have regular flash card practice. I let my kindergartener use her linking cubes to fill in the answers on her fact sheet, but she didn't need them after a while. She has the doubles, plus ones, plus twos, and doubles plus ones down cold. She has to process a subtraction fact a little longer before answering, but that doesn't bother me. My main concern is that she understand the operations, not just spit back memorized answers to facts (although I do want her to be able to do that eventually as well). Don't worry...Your dc will get it in time! Just keep plugging away, and make it fun!

...Spelling Workout!!!!!!! I love the fact that the kids can do this completely independently. It is challenging, but not too hard...I've always started SWO A in kindergarten, which puts them a year "ahead"...but they've never complained and have always done well in spelling. The format is predictable enough that, once they're good readers, they become independent with this program quickly. One drawback: some of the writing assignments seem kinda lame to me...but that just might be me.

Good idea. Since I have five ravenously hungry kids, very little food goes to waste around here. I keep snacking to a bare minimum, and usually a "snack" means cereal pieces, a few crackers, cookies, or a piece of fruit--not something that requires fixing/wasting. My 5yo dd has minor blood sugar issues and needs more regular intake than the others, so I let her snack a little more often. As a result, she eats less than the others at mealtime. Like you, Sue G, we don't allow desserts if a reasonable amount of healthful food has not been consumed.

Yes. I don't think that I ever used the words "ingrained morals." I did say that all men since Adam and Eve's fall know the difference between "good" and "evil," and, as the book of Romans says, instinctively do at least some of those things which are written in God's moral Law, and indeed judge themselves by that Law which is written on their hearts. I never said that the moral sense does not have any effect upon our behavior. In fact, the whole point of the Romans passage I quoted is that the moral sense does indeed affect behavior. I merely stated that behaviors alone are poor indicators of whether or not there are "absolute moral standards," given the other prevailing conditions of men's minds which also affect behavior (depravity, malleability of the moral sense, tendency to stifle the moral sense, etc.). Human behavior, as complex, subjective, and unreliable as it is, is the wrong place to start in analyzing this issue. Phred, I have answered your questions. Care to answer mine?

Phred, I think you may have missed (or misunderstood, or purposely glossed over) this part of my previous post: Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense. In any case, you have not addressed those points. The Christian perspective has an answer for why a person can break the moral code without remorse (although I don't believe for a minute that you actually sincerely "worshiped" the Play-doh idol you made). You didn't really expect the figure to hear, answer, or accept your "worship," did you? That they are not moral according to your personal definition of morality (whatever that may be) does not mean that they are not in fact moral. The fact that you assume "religion" and "morality" to be mutually exclusive ideas reveals a certain carelessness on your part in understanding, or at least defining terms. You have proved my point exactly. Even you, a Gentile who, as Romans 2 says, [does] not have the Law [does] instinctively (I believe your word was "duh") the things of the Law. My question for you is this: Why "duh?" I would venture to guess that if you killed someone in cold blood, your conscience would bother you. What do you think? But here we are again talking about behaviors, which are, as I said, poor indicators of the presence or absence of a moral sense, given the condition of men's minds. You again exhibit carelessness in assuming that I attend a church that "remarries people" (I assume you mean divorced people). I have never witnessed at my church a marriage of divorced persons. I know that our pastor does not even believe that divorce itself is right, let alone the remarriage of divorced persons. There are, of course, Christians who interpret Jesus' and Paul's words differently. Did I say that it does apply? "Apply" is not the word I would choose to describe how God's moral Law relates to nonchristians (see Romans 2:14-15).

We own both CD's (Beethoven's Wig I and II). My kids think they're hilarious! How old is your ds? Mine are nine and under. I think these recordings are good; they're fun and silly, but they sure do stick in one's head. After all of the "silly" renditions, each of the songs is played sans lyrics, so that you can hear what they really sound like. A funny "downside": We were at a wedding at which two of the Wig songs were played. Our pew was shaking as we all sang in our heads, "Please--don't play--your violin at night..." and "All together, kings and queens of Eeeeeengland!"

I'm sure there are some behaviors that we all should agree are wrong, but, due to the depraved, "tampered-with" condition of men's souls, we may not ever be able to find across-the-board agreement throughout all history/cultures, let alone individual people, on this. As I said, I think behaviors are the wrong things to begin with when analyzing this issue. Behaviors are not good indicators of moral sense, given that men can suppress that sense, and, indeed, are bent toward defiance against it. You expressed agreement with this statement when you said: I think this question is a much better one than the one about human behavior. Now we're getting somewhere. Again, I'll answer from the Christian perspective. The Creator made humans "in His image." Most theologians over the ages have agreed that this phrase at the very least means that humans are like God in that they possess mind (cognition), will (ability to choose), and emotions. It probably means a lot more than that...It's an interesting topic to toss around among Christians. At any rate, we read in Genesis that men were created (like God) perfect or "innocent," not having experienced evil--indeed, not yet knowing the difference between "good" (alignment with their Creator) and "evil" (rebellion against their Creator). All was perfection. Earth was a paradise. Certainly, you are familiar with the story about the fall of man. It is interesting that the object God put before his human creatures to test them was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (exactly our topic here). When the humans chose to disobey their Creator, they then had knowledge of "good" and "evil." They felt, for the first time, "shame" at having done "wrong." Instead of following their regular routine of walking with God in the cool of the day, they tried to hide from Him. Their lives, and the lives of all of their offspring, were drastically altered. All men that were born into this now-fallen world knew the difference between "good" and "evil"...IOW, they knew the difference between alignment with the Creator and rebellion against the Creator. They were "moral" creatures. BTW, I think another manifestation that man is made in God's image is that every person has a "sense of justice." (According to the Bible, God is just.) For example, let's take the action of punching someone in the gut. A guy who has just cussed someone else out feels differently when the other person punches him in the gut than a guy who is just walking down the street and gets punched in the gut by someone out of nowhere "for no reason." The first guy would admit later on that he had had it coming; the other would feel a sense of outrage ("righteous indignation") at the unjust treatment. Now, does this little example encapsulate the "definition" of morality? Not by a long shot; it's just one piece of the puzzle...a common sense throughout humanity that (to the Christian) is evidence of a common Source. Now, as to the laws which are written on our hearts. Here's a quotation from Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." The "capital L" Law that Paul refers to here is the moral law given by God, aka the Ten Commandments recorded in Exodus 20 (not to be confused with the Jewish ceremonial/civic law, which fills the pages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So, what this Scripture is saying is that even the people who are not of the Jewish tradition--that is, people who have not been given the written moral law--show that they know the Law in their hearts. Not only do they know this law, but also it informs their consciences, and they judge themselves by it. Here are the Ten Commandments--the moral Law to which Paul refers: 1. You shall have no other gods before Me. 2. You shall not make for yourself an idol...to worship them or serve them. 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy ("holy" here means "set apart"...IOW, we should rest from labor on one day of the week). 5. Honor your father and mother. 6. You shall not murder. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10. You shall not covet. Now, can one tear apart the Christian perspective because, "Well, I certainly don't have these moral sensibilities"...or..."It's manifestly obvious that not everyone has these sensibilities, because not everyone even believes in God!"...or..."After all, cannibals enjoy missionaries for dinner without compunction." Before one can so easily dismiss this viewpoint, he has to understand the whole Christian perspective, which, as I mentioned before, adds to the morality of man the depravity of man, and affirms the malleable nature of the moral sense. ETA: I have a really busy day tomorrow, so I probably won't be around here. As it is, I'm already going to be burning the midnight oil for a lecture I'm giving tomorrow...WHY do I get involved in these discussions????