I don't know very much about Sonlight at all, and Sonlight in particular is not the issue for me, since I don't use their curriculum, nor do I share many of their narrow beliefs. BUT, as a Christian who is concerned about the mentality I'm witnessing on this thread I can't resist responding to some of it. I don't see the difference, unless you consider Amazon, for example, to be in the latter category. There is big difference between Sonlight and Amazon! And I don't see why those labels are necessary or relevant anyway - what's a "true Christian" company, and why does it matter? "True Christian" as opposed to what? "False Christian"? There's a false dichotomy here. Secular does not mean "non-Christian". My math program is secular. It is not "non-Christian". It is perfectly compatible with a Christian/Biblical worldview, as are my other curricula, whether they contain references to God/Jesus/Bible or not (most do not). Be careful about your terminology. From what I've read on this thread, nothing Sonlight is doing or selling is "non-Christian", nor are they changing their beliefs just because they're omitting explicitly Christian content from a version of their curriculum that doesn't require such content to be an effective tool for teaching/learning certain subjects. A company that claims to be Christian does not cease to be so as long as their curriculum is compatible with the beliefs of Christianity. Frankly, I am shocked that many of you who like Sonlight aren't happy about this development. Considering the amount of material used in many public schools that is not compatible with the beliefs of Christianity, the fact that there's a public school system in existence that would embrace a quality curriculum that is secular but not actually anti-Christian in its approach and content areas is great, in my opinion. I think that the public schools should be entirely secular and leave religious instruction to parents and churches, but Christians whose kids go to the public schools that use the SL curriculum will have an opportunity to learn those subjects without an obvious bias against their faith. Can you try to look at it from that perspective? Amen.

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: This is exactly what I was thinking.

This is correct. I was at the Greenville convention last Friday and the lady at the RS booth said that since they print in-house they will always have the "old" versions available.

Yeah, it's a lot of money just for spelling, and I'm loathe to fork it over, but I looked at the WRTR manual at the convention and about fainted. I know, I know - there's just a big learning curve at the beginning, and I'm sure I'm capable of figuring it out, but I don't want to, frankly, especially if I have to wrap my head around the whole program just to use it for spelling. The LOE method/lesson format looks very straightforward, and I think the extra expense would be worth it for me in that regard. I'll be using it for three kids eventually, and right now I want as user-friendly as possible while I'm still getting used to homeschooling.

Yes, I would definitely do the dictation as part of spelling. So, you're saying that I could go through the lessons in order, as written, and just extract the spelling and dictation part? That's something I'd be interested in for sure. Could I do that with just the teacher manual and a notebook? I'd rather not buy the student workbook if it's not absolutely necessary, since it has a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use (especially the D'nealian-ish manuscript font).

I am looking at LOE for DD5 (almost 6). I saw the Essentials curriculum at a convention last Friday and I bought Uncovering the Logic of English and read it over the weekend. DD is reading pretty well (she is more than halfway through OPGTR) and has very good manuscript handwriting, which she practices with copywork now. We also plan to start FLL very soon, and we'll do WWE starting this summer (for first grade). So, I don't need the reading, grammar and handwriting portion of LOE, but I absolutely love how the phonograms and spelling rules are done - I want to give my children these tools for figuring out our language rather than taking a pragmatic approach to spelling in particular (ie, memorizing lists with minimal rules). I'm a linguistics freak and enjoy getting into how it all works, and as much as I've been pleased with the results of OPGTR so far, it is - by design - lacking in that regard. I just feel like the all-encompassing method of WRTR, SWR and LOE is overkill for what I want, though LOE looks like it does a great job of organizing the method. It's quite impressive! I am also planning to start teaching DD4 to read soon, but I don't want to mix up reading instruction with handwriting and spelling, so I doubt I'd be interested in the LOE Foundations series for her. I prefer SWB's philosophy of teaching reading as early as possible, and teaching handwriting and spelling as separate skills, though of course the thorough, rules-based phonics will be helpful for reading as we go along. Since I have such a good handle on it myself, I think I can use the detailed phonogram and rules instruction for reading as needed, and save the more intense phonics for spelling. So, does anyone use LOE for spelling only, especially for a younger child who is already reading and handwriting well? Would it be easy to extract or adapt the spelling portion? Is there a way I could make this work with the phonogram and spelling rule cards, plus the spelling lists and games book, without buying the method book and doing the whole shebang? Any advice on incorporating this concept into what we're already doing would be great!

Just chiming in to say that it is very hard to homeschool with a 1-year-old underfoot. My little one sometimes sleeps in (which is nice on one hand) but then she doesn't nap in the morning during school time (which makes school that much more chaotic). Once she drops her morning nap completely I'm going to be up the creek and will need to do some tweaking in order to function. She is into EVERYTHING. :grouphug: Awww, I'm sorry you were worried about that. We all need lots of grace!! You've gotten some great input - some of which I'll tuck in my hat for when I'll need it myself! I'll share something that has brought sanity into my days. After lunch (and clean-up, which the kids help with) I have my older girls tidy up the living room while I put the baby down for her nap. Then my older two girls go into their room for a one-hour quiet time. They can whisper to each other and read/look at books and play with their stuffed animals, but they have to stay on their beds and be quiet. That way I can get some time to myself in the middle of the day, which is golden. It's also better for them to slow down a bit at that point in the day. It doesn't always work out perfectly - sometimes I have to deal with arguments (or especially my 3yo getting off her bed and tormenting her sister!) or the baby wakes up early, but most days it's an hour of rest for me and I love it.

Yes, kids that age have tantrums, but I also think that your husband's deployment must be affecting him, especially if he was becoming more attached to him before he left. He may be acting out in the only way he knows how to cope with it. I remember how my then-2-year-old was acting out after I brought her newborn sister home. She LOVED the baby and doted on her, but her overall behavior was atrocious for a while - frequent tantrums and whatnot - it was awful and I cried about it every day. She just needed time to adjust to a new way of life and once she did she was back to her normal sweet self. I'm sorry this is a hard time for you. I wish I could give you some advice on how to help your DS deal with his father's absence, but I have no experience with that situation. I hope someone else will chime in on that.

HUGS HUGS HUGS!!! I'm so sorry. My kids have multiple food and environmental allergies but nothing at all like this. Wow. First thing, take a deep breath. You're on the way to getting your son healthy and thriving, so try to focus on that most of all. Next, I would make a list of the things he CAN eat - I agree it's depressing to look at what he CAN'T. Sounds like chicken, rice, and most fruits and veggies are okay. Plus beans and corn. That's a start. Since he's allergic to olives(!) then using olive oil is out, so I'd use coconut oil for cooking (refined for tasteless, unrefined when the mild coconut flavor is okay). It's a very healthy fat. Avocados are super food and so yummy - do you have easy access to those? Maple sugar, though pricey, would be a good substitute for cane sugar when you want to make a sweet treat. Cane sugar isn't healthy anyway, though I understand how inconvenient it would be to have to avoid it all the time. You will have to get used to eating only whole foods and cooking entirely from scratch, if you don't do that already. But it's much healthier for your whole family, so try to look at the positive. Also, if you can, take a break from HS if you need it, or cut back some. This is a huge adjustment and you'll need some time to work through it. Give yourself the grace to do that. :-) One other thing: using ghee (clarified butter) has changed my life. Since my girls are allergic to milk, I can use ghee in place of butter and the taste is awesome. I make my own since my kids can tolerate trace amounts of the milk protein (in case every speck doesn't get strained out) but I know that there are companies that guarantee theirs to be totally allergen free. Check it out - a google search will turn up a bunch of options. And yes, I agree with the title of your post - ALLERGIES SUCK. :grouphug:

Unless you have already done this, the first step would be talking to him about your need for an uncluttered space. If he is a good husband, as you say, he should at least validate your need in that and be willing to do something about it. On the other hand, it's important for you to understand and validate his need to have some mess and to maintain control over his own stuff (even if that need seems crazy to you - it's just how he is and only he can change that, and he'll do so if/when he wants to). So, if you can get to a place of mutual understanding and acceptance of your conflicting needs, the next step is to come up with a practical compromise that allows you both to get your needs met on some level. One idea would be to designate a laundry basket or other such place that's out of sight where his stuff can be put - as is - if it's in your way. He needs to be responsible for his stuff, and if he leaves it lying around, then you'd have some recourse for getting it out of your way. If the problem is that he hoards things (as opposed to just leaving clutter around), then discuss with him how much space he thinks is reasonable - considering the size of your house - to be designated for stuff that only HE wants to keep (maybe a closet or something?). At the same time, if you agree to not throw anything away - including stuff that looks like trash to you - then he can't get upset about that, because you can say that it's all there but he just needs to be responsible for dealing with it. The hard part would come if the basket/closet is full and he still hasn't gone through it, in which case you and he need to decide what will happen then. Perhaps ask him to agree to clean it out if it gets full or you will do it for him if he doesn't keep his end of the bargain (since you'd only be doing that because it directly affects YOU and your ability to get his stuff out of your space). The most important thing in a situation like this is to NOT try to change him or control him. That is not your job, and validating his needs (however irrational they seem) and loving and accepting him in spite of this thing that annoys you will be a huge boost to your marriage. Ask me how I know... ;)

I should clarify that I'm recommending the NLT if you want to read to young children directly from the Biblical text, which was my assumption based on your OP. If you're open to using a children's Bible for the younger ones, then we're in different territory, and I'd probably recommend the NIV instead for the older ones (though the NLT would still work well). I don't have much familiarity with children's Bibles - we love the Jesus Storybook Bible, but that would not fit the bill for a non-Christian family. :-)

It depends on what characteristics you're looking for. Bible translations run the gamut in terms of how readable they are, and how closely the translation reflects the language and concepts of the original manuscripts. If you're wanting something that balances readability with faithfulness to the intent of the original manuscripts (which is what I'd personally recommend) I'd suggest either the New International Version or the New Living Translation. I find both of these translations to be very readable, and the method is called "dynamic equivalence" - which not an attempt at word-for-word translation, but a thought-for-thought translation that seeks to use contemporary language and idioms wherever possible to reflect Ancient Near East concepts that are otherwise confusing to modern readers. I use both the NIV and NLT for my kids' scripture memory, and for my own reading. Definitely avoid the King James Version for your purposes. The New American Standard Version is probably the closest word-for-word translation available in English, but I find the syntax to be very awkward for reading (simply because word-for-word translation of anything, in any language, would be awkward). I often get to the end of a sentence in the NASB and say - huh? I doubt you want that for your younger ones especially. If you want something to look up the meanings of specific words you come across (more of a reference book), bypass the English translation and get an Interlinear Bible (or better, use an online version), which goes straight to the original Greek and Hebrew words and translates them directly. And then do your reading-through from a very readable translation. All that said, if you want only one Bible version to deal with, I'd use the New Living Translation for your purposes. As much as I like the NIV (it's my favorite translation for most things) I think the NLT is best if you've got young children in the mix and want them to understand the readings.

Here's a good read on this topic at the Simple Homeschool blog - just posted today, actually: http://simplehomeschool.net/critics/#more-23320

Extra virgin olive oil - straight up. God's perfect moisturizer. Seriously, it's amazing. Make sure that you're using a mild cleanser that will remove makeup but that doesn't strip too much natural oil from your face, or your skin will get mad and start overproducing oil to compensate, and then it will break out, and then you'll treat it with harsh chemicals that make it feel dry, etc. and the cycle continues. Story of my life until I started using EVOO. EVOO has literally transformed my skin, which is acne-prone, combination skin. If I don't use anything at all, my skin gets very dry and tight after washing, but then develops oily patches later. BUT, just a little bit of EVOO all over makes it look and feel so good - very soft and supple, and I almost never get zits anymore, and when I do, I can usually attribute it to allowing too much junk into my diet - or, committing the cardinal sin of skin care: going to bed with makeup on my face. I only put on the EVOO after washing my face (I use a mild, fragrance-free cleanser for sensitive skin - by Clean and Clear). Since I wash my face at night and put on the EVOO before bed, if I don't shower in the morning I don't need to put anything at all on my face - it still looks and feels wonderful from the night before. You may have to experiment a bit to find just the right amount - it shouldn't really feel oily after you put it on and wait a few seconds - just soft. If you put on too much, just gently wipe off the extra with a dry washcloth. And do be sure to put it on right away after a shower, or after washing your face. You don't want your skin to start feeling dry and then overproduce oil. And FWIW, I am 41 years old and I don't think my skin is anything exceptional (I have a somewhat ruddy complexion with freckles and few minor acne scars), but a couple of weeks ago I had a stranger tell me that I have beautiful skin. I told her I just use EVOO on it and she was shocked. :-) DH is also amazed and thrilled at the difference. If the smell of EVOO bothers you, just add a few drops of essential oil to whatever bottle you use. I use sweet orange in mine and it's lovely. Anyway, I'd suggest trying it. You probably have it in your pantry right now, it's cheap as dirt (I fill a 2-oz squirt bottle and it literally lasts for months) and even if it doesn't work like you want it to you at least won't have wasted any money.

Yes, I'm totally with you on starting with the cheapest version of something rather than assuming I'll need the bells and whistles (especially if said bells and whistles are expensive!). If AAS really does work as well as people say it does and there's a cheaper (and simpler) way to teach the same concepts I'm all for it. I really have no idea what's what with spelling curriculum - it's very confusing, even after browsing this forum for a while searching for answers. I don't know which programs take which approach, etc. - I didn't know that WRTR would be similar to AAS in any way, for example. You say that WRTR is inexpensive...what would I need if I just want to use WRTR to teach spelling? I'd really like something that's divided into lessons for me rather than having to do my own lesson plans (as a newbie I prefer open-and-go right now and I'll tweak as I need to). And I agree that it's too early to tell what kind of speller DD will be. I just have a hunch based on her personality and the way she processes phonics in reading. She is very intuitive and creative - and non-detail-oriented...like her father. DH is very intelligent and has a wonderful command of language in general, but it amazes me how he misspells words at times - nothing really bad, but it leaves me shaking my head. :-) But maybe DD will surprise me with spelling - I hope so!

Yes, that was the list I saw - I'll look it up. Thanks! I'm happy with what we're doing for reading and handwriting at this point, and I'm inclined to keep spelling separate (per SWB's suggestion). But since I'm new at this I'll keep my mind open about it and continue looking at my options. I'm really in a quandary over spelling, because I've heard very mixed reviews about pretty much every spelling curriculum - I know there's some trial and error involved and a lot of it depends on the child. But, I've got to start somewhere... I'll be going to the Greenville convention next week and will be able to check out some of these programs first-hand, so if there are other suggestions, fire away! If you could say WHY you think a particular curriculum would work well for my situation that would be great.

My DD5 is doing K this year, and we're on lesson 120 of OPGTR. She's reading well, but based on how she has processed her phonics instruction, I'm suspecting that she might not be a natural speller like her Mama. But before investing money in a spelling program like AAS on that assumption, I'd like to start out with something cheap and simple in case it does work for her. Something like CLP Building Spelling Skills. Even if the spelling curriculum itself doesn't explain all the rules and exceptions in detail for the student (which I understand is overkill for some kids anyway), I still want to know them myself. That's partly because if I feel like DD needs some extra help with the concepts I'd have the tools to try to deal with it myself before chucking the curriculum and going to something more complicated. It's also because I am a language/grammar/spelling freak, so the "why" of spelling is fascinating to me, and I actually want to know - LOL! But being a natural speller myself, I haven't learned or applied spelling rules in over 30 years and I'm pretty clueless about that. In another thread a while back I saw a link for a list of 29 spelling rules, which I assume are at least the major ones. Is this what I need? I don't know if I could find the link again so if you know what I'm talking about, please post it! And if you have additional thoughts about how to approach this, or if I should consider another curriculum, I'm all ears. Thanks!

Well, that's true if your church uses hymnals and regularly sings unfamiliar hymns. Many churches no longer use hymnals, though. I am a classically-trained singer whose career was primarily as a church worship director, and I'm not a fan of using hymnals, one of the reasons being that I like my hands free to raise them in worship to God, and/or to hold my children. I also think that having words projected on a screen is one of the best things to happen to worship music, frankly (regardless of the style of the music - our church does all types of songs and they're all projected). I understand that there are those who vehemently disagree for various reasons, but my preference is to have people looking up to sing to God rather than having their faces buried in a book. I've found that a congregation generally picks up the tune to a song pretty quickly if they've heard it more than once, so I don't consider the inability to read music to be a real problem in that regard. But of course, it depends on the church. Yes, if you like to sing and want to participate in a choir or other kind of ensemble, knowing how to read music is an invaluable skill. Sure, you can pick up the melody if it's taught by rote, but that's the long way around, especially for the choir director. Oh yes, I sympathize with this. As a church worship director who desperately wanted my praise team members to sing harmony, it was a frustrating and tedious process to deal with people who couldn't pick up a piece of music and read it. And as a voice teacher, I will not teach a student who doesn't read music (unless he/she is learning to do so by concurrently studying an instrument). All that said, for the average person in our contemporary society who has no interest in doing anything other than singing songs/hymns in worship along with the congregation, I'd say the ability to read music is irrelevant. I believe there's inherent value in learning music (both to read it and appreciate it), and that some level of music instruction should be part of a well-rounded education (like many other things), but on a purely practical level, I don't see that it's all that useful for the average person.

This is exactly what I do - just say it's reading time and let them choose a few books. If all they have to choose from is quality literature (whether they're library books or ones we own) then it doesn't matter to me which ones, or if they choose the same ones over and over. It's actually wonderful to see my kids falling in love with particular books and reading them a zillion times. I've read Pride and Prejudice about 20 times (I'm not exaggerating...LOL!) I also agree that we'll get to history and science later. Right now I'm not concerned about content at all - just quality, enjoyable literature to encourage a love of reading and an appreciation for the beauty of good illustration. DH and I love books and are thoroughly enjoying sharing that love with our kids - we both read to them every day and it's a wonderful thing for our family. :001_smile:

What's she allergic to? Has she been diagnosed? If you've already addressed the root cause as best you can and just need relief from allergens she can't avoid, I'd try Zyrtec.

This. And, it's no one else's business anyway. Respond as it comes up - broken record is the way to go, imo. Whatever standard response you're comfortable with - she's having some health issues that we're getting resolved, etc. and please don't ask her about it, etc. Something like that. You also might discuss with the therapist what the best way is to handle this with nosy (or even just concerned) family. I am so sorry. :sad: I can't imagine your daughter's pain, nor yours as her mother. :grouphug:

This, exactly.

I'll state right at the beginning that I dislike all labels for myself except Christian (meaning a follower of Jesus, period), but I will nevertheless acknowledge that my beliefs fall into a conservative Presbyterian (but not ultra-Reformed) branch of Christianity. My DH is a pastor/theologian and while he has firm convictions about the major tenets of Christianity on which he will not budge, and also has less significant beliefs that identify him as Presbyterian, he is passionate about encouraging unity in the body of Christ (and yes, that includes Catholics!) by calling the church at large back to focusing on the essentials of the faith rather than all the secondary issues which divide us. That said... Amen. JESUS is the Word of God (John 1:1). The Bible is the divinely-inspired written Word of God, which is the testimony of God's self-revelation that is ultimately found in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe that every word of the Bible is true and inspired. And that we interpret the Bible (to the best of our knowledge and ability) according to its meaning for the original recipients, and then apply it to our own time and context. All of it is important, all of it is relevant for us today, and most importantly, all of it testifies to the LIVING WORD - Jesus Christ. Really? That's never been my understanding of an evangelical at all. That sounds more like a "fundamentalist" to me (you gotta love all the throwing around of terms here without one agreed-upon definition for each - ugh). I prefer the list of four points quoted later in the thread (which I quote below). Anyway, I'm not sure you can interpret the Bible as "literal" and be an old-earth creationist. As far as I know, those who espouse a literal interpretation of Scripture require belief in six 24-hour days of creation. I could be wrong about that...maybe those who believe that the days are of indefinite length (and are therefore old-earth) consider that to be a literal interpretation as well. I know. This makes me crazy. DH and I marvel at the fact that a particular interpretation of the creation account is now the litmus test for who belongs to Jesus. Seriously? A 24-hour-six-day creation is the central belief of the Christian faith on which the whole Bible and everyone's salvation stands or falls? Sure, the Bible is adamant that God is the Creator, but it's pretty clear from the two different accounts of creation (written for different purposes!) that God is not really concerned with the age of the earth or the science behind how it happened. He is concerned with revealing Himself as the all the wonderful things that He is (which I cannot possibly list here!), and revealing His plan of redemption in Christ. How about making belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ the litmus test instead? [by the way, I wonder what literalists think of God calling the moon a "light" (see Gen 1:14-18). The moon is not a light. It merely reflects the light of the sun. We know that now. Moses didn't know that - he only wrote what he understood according to his worldview, which was limited, of course. It doesn't affect who God is or what He requires of us or his plan of redemption, which is what the Bible is concerned with communicating. This is a fundamental hermeneutical (interpretive) principle that is crucial to understanding the Bible.] I don't think that anyone really knows what an evangelical is anymore, if anyone ever did. In my experience in the last couple of years, what is now considered to be "evangelical" is a brand of Christianity that I am increasingly uncomfortable with...and it's not because I have changed my beliefs. As recently as several months ago, I would have considered myself firmly within evangelicalism as I understood it (see the list below). But seeing how the church culture is going, I think the term is being taken over by people whom I would consider to be "fundamentalist", who insist on making secondary issues primary ones and are less than charitable to those who don't share their beliefs. I'm not so sure I like the first statement much, but I would agree that the four points are within my definition of an evangelical as I understand it. This is more to the point. I have always understood evangelicals to emphasize the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. (Romans 1:16) And lastly, I forgot to quote the post (and it would take me too long to find it again!), but a big shout out to whomever recommended making the Nicene Creed the required statement of faith for Christians. GREAT idea.

Another vote for the basics!! I got a chance to talk with SWB in person a couple of years ago (when DD5 was just turning 4) and she told me to keep it simple before first grade and to do this: 1. Reading, reading, reading (phonics) 2. Handwriting 3. Math in K year 4. Lots of read-alouds 5. Lots of free time to play and be creative So, I followed her advice and just took a relaxed approach. We were already doing read-alouds daily, so we started OPGTR right away, and I waited until a year later (last summer - starting her K year) to do handwriting and math. I could have started handwriting sooner and wish I had, because she was already figuring out how to write letters on her own and she learned some poor habits that we're having to correct this year, BUT... It was great advice from SWB, and I'm thrilled so far. I don't feel like DD is behind or missing out on anything, and believe me, we keep it VERY simple around here in terms of formal academics. DD is reading like a champ, her handwriting is good, and math is mostly games and manipulatives, which she really enjoys. We have the mindset of learning all the time anyway, so really, "school" is just our formal learning. We've always done scripture memory every morning at breakfast, and reading and read-alouds are a big part of our family's life - DH and I both read to our girls every day, and DD5 can now read simple books to her little sisters. DD loves to draw, listen and dance to classical music, help me cook, run around outside, and just play with her sisters. She's learning plenty if you ask me!! It's been a great K year and I'm excited to do more in first grade, but for now I love that DD has lots of time to just be a little kid and enjoy her family life. What a blessing it is to homeschool. :-)

Wow. That is some gorgeous handwriting!! Love the ZB font, and I'm so glad I chose it.