Ack!!! No wonder I feel that the "guidance counselor" part of my homeschool mama job description is the most challenging. Some days I just wanna be an ostrich and find a nice, warm hole in the sand! 😎 Monica

Galore Park's So You Really Want to Learn Spanish 1 worked well for us for Spanish 1. Dd is now in Sr. Gamache's Spanish 2. She had no trouble at all jumping in to 2, so the SYRWTL Spanish was more than adequate.

We used levels 1 and 2, but switched to a modern language so didn't get to 3. The content and teaching presentation/style are consistent through both levels. We thought they were not only effective, but thoroughly enjoyable.

Although this is an old post, the op asked about the Liberty DE courses. The only exposure I have is when an acquaintance asked me to give feedback on her son's final paper for his DE English 101 class the night before it was due. (Ack!) Given the time constraint, I focused on eliminating passive construction, punctuation, parallelism, etc. I didn't touch the huge structural issues (no clear thesis, superficial and weak evidence/support, etc.). The student made the mechanical changes I had flagged but no changes to the structure or substance. He received a 98 on that paper from his professor. I was shocked. I would not have accepted that paper as a rough draft by a 9th grader leave alone a college student. If that is the standard for a freshman English class, it is a distinctly low standard. There is no way I want my kids spending time, effort, or DE funds on coursework I wouldn't accept at home.

In my experience, it is not work load that kills the love of learning. It is the lack of appropriate fodder for the mind. By this I mean that the information is either too basic, too advanced, too sterile, too unconnected, too ....something. We are in our third rotation through the four year plans of Tapestry. During times of intense work load, I have offered to have her read a textbook to lighten her load. She has repeatedly refused because she insists that now she knows the difference between reading to absorb information and reading to compare, contrast, and critically analyze what she reads. She can't do that without multiple sources and primary documents. She's also pointed out how she recognizes author bias by reading a variety of authors. I'm not saying that textbooks are inappropriate at all -- they have great value in a wide variety of situations. I just want to point out the value that the Tapestry approach can have. Dd is equally committed to Tapestry lit. It's beautiful to watch a child delight in what they reap from their hard work! Just my 2 cents overall. I am not qualified to recommend what you should do or not do since I am obviously biased. Just know that potential work load, customizable or not, isn't a reason to avoid a curricula. 😃

This thread explains what we thought was aberrant college guy behavior on the beach. The group of college guys next to us on the beach this spring spent hours rolling a watermelon in the surf. They tossed it in, made sure it didn't drift off, and occasionally rolled it back out into the water....they took turns melon sitting while the others played frisbee, etc. They were still doing this when we packed up and headed back to our camper for dinner. We thought their behavior had something to do with what was in their can coolies, but now I suspect they were salting their melon!

I'm in a virtual co-op and have been delighted with both the teaching I've done and the experience my kids have by participating. From a teaching standpoint, you do get to know the kids by their participation over time. When they do mini reports or other presentations, you have an even bigger insight into their personalities. Our co-op assigns grades at the R level in all subjects, but only for writing at the D level. We teachers try diligently to draw out quieter students and make sure everyone gets a chance to discuss. If they still don't participate, it is reflected in their grades. The moms in our co-op are fabulous. Many of us use the same virtual classroom to do a weekly Bible study together. We cheer each other on, offer encouragement or advice when needed, pray for each other, and delight in serving each other's kids. In other words, it's very similar to an in-person group...without the rushing around to get out of the house. Of course there have been days I've been grateful no one could see me as I taught-- in my pjs, with clown hair and probably oatmeal stuck in my teeth! For us, this works well. YMMV.

When we did WttW a couple of years ago, I didn't follow Jill Pike's syllabus, but I did have my dd write the characterization essay on the Odyssey. We did do the exercises in WttW first to be sure she clearly understood the concept. She then applied them to her Odyssey essay.

Oh. My. Goodness! The dedication to do something like this is truly what I want for all my kids. Just let your imagination run wild, and work like a fiend to figure out how to do it. Wow.

This discussion has been lovely, everyone. I have to bow out now to get on with a busy week. I apologize to any other YE adherents that I have not done a better job of explaining my views. I do appreciate being able to discuss controversial issues without worrying about being cyber bombed. :)

1. While I agree that scientists endeavor to remove personal bias and provide repeatable results, it is impossible to be completely objective in interpreting those results. They cannot remove their individual body of knowledge, past experiences, and everything else that makes them who and what they are. I am not saying that they look at a set of raw data and declare that they can only interpret it according to their personal belief system--that's ludicrous. But the established fact that various scientists can look at the identical raw data and interpret it very differently indicates that the human mind is not a constant. 2. Who said that YE is a testable hypothesis? Who said that long term evolution is a testable hypothesis? There is no way to scientifically recreate conditions for either and set it up against a control. We can make observations on current conditions, and we can extract observations recorded in human history, but we can't test and prove either YE or long term evolution. 3. As far as curriculum goes, I can't speak for others. But in our home, we supplement and teach where needed in order that our children learn how to discern truth. We read extensively in history, literature, and science. There are many, many ideas in classic literature which do not agree with Scriptural teachings. But if we don't encounter those ideas, discuss them, and evaluate them in our homeschool, we'd be sending our children out into the world unprepared to evaluate anything. While we may use Apologia materials, we also use other materials when needed. 4. When did I say that all Scripture should be interpreted plainly and literally? I firmly claim that it is inerrant, but it contains a huge variety of genres and literary styles. Yes, some sections are intended to be plainly and literally read. Other sections are filled with symbolism and imagery. Some parts are just stories used to teach (parables). That's where diligent Bible study comes in to know the difference. Educators routinely teach the importance of understanding genre, form, and literary devices in order to approach pulling out meaning of all nonfiction and fiction writing. I've been clear in saying I believe the Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. I've also said in a pp that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. So discussing these things with an overwhelming number of posters who disagree with me doesn't change either of those things. I fully realize that those who disagree with me think that I am just another naive quack. That's OK. :) My hope is found elsewhere.

Although this deviates from the topic the op presented, I'd like to respond. Of course human interpretation can vary widely...as you stated, humans are fallen and imperfect. However, all Scripture is inspired by God. So while translators, commentators, teachers, pastors may make mistakes of interpretation, Scripture is inerrant. That's why we go back to Greek and/or Hebrew word study to help make sense of some things. I'll also say if you don't believe that God is who He says He is, you don't have a reason to believe Scripture is inerrant. One last comment, I do not believe that in order to be Christian, one has to be YE. Salvation is not contingent on your stance on YE or OE, but on faith, repentance, and personal trust in Christ as Lord. My adherence to YE grew out of that, but was not responsible for it. So in no way am I insinuating that one has to be YE to be Christian. It is one of this stumbling blocks that the apostle Paul warns us of when he wrote that we shouldn't let things that are not part of the gospel divide us. Now I won't hijack the original intention of this thread any more. :)

That's kind of cute! However, I don't think that my personal beliefs should be formed by who has the most popular opinions. ETA: I linked the AiG list not because of the length or brevity of the list, but to point out that there are scientists who proclaim themselves YE. It's not as if there are only 3 in the world...as much as we hear from those 3!

Good question. I personally know several PhD chemists, a PhD geologist, and a PhD meteorologist. A mom in our coop is a nuclear physicist and clearly YE. I don't personally know any PhD paleontologists or astronomers. I also used to work with PhDs in specialties of animal nutrition, veterinarians, lab researchers involved with the federal Food & Drug Administration, quality control technicians (talk about precision as a priority!), and so on. But these are simply my personal acquaintance. I don't expect that list to affirm or deny anyone else's convictions.

Your husband at least looked into it instead of passively going with the flow. I may not agree with where he landed, but I do applaud his willingness to figure it out for himself. The Bible doesn't claim to be science. As a Christian, I believe it is God-inspired and inerrant. Of the books in the Old Testament, the first 17 books are the history of the Hebrew people (which includes Genesis), the next five are poetic books, the last 17 are prophetic. Likewise, the first five books of the New Testament are history while the balance contains instruction to churches and individuals. There are multiple literary genres within each category, but peer-reviewed science journal isn't one of them. :). As another poster pointed out, the language usage can seem archaic especially in light of the cultural and historical contexts in which the books were written. However, once one studies Scripture, does Hebrew and Greek word study, and has a reliable source of grammar help from experts on Hebrew and Greek grammar, you can reasonably discern what is figurative language, what is literal narrative, what is instructional, what is poetic, etc. (Of course, there are lots of commentaries to tell you those things if you don't want to investigate for yourself.) While none of this mentions science, Christians acknowledge that a perfect God created an orderly universe. The laws of science were created by God. If one chooses not to believe that, they aren't likely to see God in science at all.

I don't know the answer to that question. However, there are scientists who were previously atheist or at least secular who changed their minds upon their own investigation and review of the body of data. Dr. Jay Wile is one of them. Those who dismiss him because of the title of the book I'd mentioned should read the book before criticizing him. I realize that many will throw rotten tomatoes at me for mentioning Anwsers in Genesis, but here is a link to a list of self-proclaimed YE scientists. https://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds. This article is also interesting. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm#footnote1 And this article from the University of California - Berkeley affirms that the same scientific data is often interpreted differently by different scientists. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_09

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :) However, I also think we ought to know how and why we decide what is truth and what isn't. Some people, not necessarily the above quoted poster, take as truth what they hear most frequently or what the status quo is in their peer group without looking into it themselves. I am a product of the public school system and hold a double BS/BA degree from a state land grant university. I had never really questioned the mainstream belief in long term evolution since that is all I had ever been taught and had heard. I came to a point a number of years ago when I wanted to find out what this YE stuff was all about. I asked a lot of questions of knowledgable people, both scientists and non-scientists, read well beyond my college textbooks or coffee table science books, and purposely wanted to either confirm my passive acceptance of OE evolution or make an informed decision elsewhere. Isn't that what education, including self ed, all about? I don't marginalize the viewpoint of anyone who has deliberately looked sincerely at various "sides" of an issue...even when I don't agree with them. Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back. The people I know who adhere to YE include instruction on long term evolution as well as young earth dating to their children with the intent to help their children learn to parse, analyze, and synthesize information. I have met few OE people, homeschoolers or otherwise, who have made any attempt to see where YE adherents are coming from. I'm sure they are there, but it is more frequent to hear that they don't need to look into YE because they just know it's nonsense as it disagrees with everything they've been told. Well, how do you know whether something is nonsense or not unless you look into it yourself? (For the record, I've looked into some of the flat earth, UFO, and astrology quackery, too, just out of curiosity. I, um, rejected making them part of my worldview.). Having said all this, I will gladly admit that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If after careful study I believe that something is contrary to Scripture, it is not part of God's plan for us. But determining that still requires me to personally invest in examining what the Bible has to say. It's not a passive belief. Nor is my YE conviction. Anyone interested in a beginning level of investigation into a YE, I would recommend a short book by Dr. Jay Wile called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. He recounts his own journey of looking into matters himself and ends with a charge to everyone to actually go out there and do the same.

But they do teach religious material in public schools all the time. They teach the Greek and Roman myths you previously mentioned. K12, the curriculum provider to a significant number of public charter schools, uses Bible stories, stories about Muhammed, stories about Confucious, and others in their elementary history studies. Religion is interwoven into everything we "know,". We just don't always label it religion. I'm not taking a side for or against formal religion classes in public schools, but but there is no way to be an informed, educated adult without understanding the religious context out of which people's actions come. A quick glimpse into the newspaper will yield a myriad of examples of actions which were based on religious beliefs or understanding. So, if we say we deny public school students the basic knowledge they could use to understand the world around them, we do them a disservice. I think that should include YE material. Also, I do have a solid understanding of scientific methodology. I understand very clearly the steps all scientists take to isolate variables and create reproducible results. My point is that their interpretation of the data has to be somewhat influenced by their personal experience, training, abilities, and worldview. That's why research is repeated, and that s why many studies are peer reviewed. None of us can isolate ourselves and be totally impartial. That's why learning about a variety of worldviews makes sense. So, yes, we all ought to have a basic understanding of multiple sides of an issue -- including YE or OE or evolution or whatever.

Of course we do -- there is no way we can do justice to Greek and Roman classic literature without a reasonable familiarity with their mythologies...that's religion. One cannot understand, analyze, or interpret classic literature without understanding the many allusions to many types of religious beliefs. We also spend a good bit of our time in educating our children in history. If you delve into the history of modern science and the multitude of scientific disciplines, you will find that history steeped in religion as well. Wishing it weren't so doesn't remove it from being a part of a well-rounded education even when you disagree with the specific beliefs. Finally, everything we encounter is filtered through our own particular world views. When we read and analyze litrature, it is extremely helpful to determine the author's worldview in order to properly discern what he/she wants to communicate to us. When we study history, it is enormously helpful to have at least a basic understanding of the cultural/temporal worldview to understand how that history came to be. All scientists have a worldview, too. I'm not saying they share the same worldview, but each one has a worldview that does shape his/her perspective. I know they diligently strive to let the data drive the conclusions...but there is no such thing as complete impartiality.

I think that any two consecutive year plans would work very well. Fwiw, the y2 government elective is an excellent overview of the foundations and structure of US government. Add in a bit about state & local government and you'd have an outstanding stand alone government course. As I'm sure you know, y1 is ancient civilizations (world), y2 is the fall of Rome to about 1800 (mostly world, but explorers, early colonies, American Revolution, and establishment of US government are typically covered in US history), y3 & y4 are each about half world and half US in context with world. So, it depends on your ultimate goal. If you want to have a solid history credit, any year plan would work. If you want to cover everything in a one-year survey course of world history, you'd have to just skim the surface of y1, most of y2, and roughly half of both y3 & 4. Survey courses are quite limited in how deep they can go. As a Christian, I find y1 to be very valuable. Studying in depth the ancient civilizations that shaped the culture into which God entered history as a man is invaluable as context for lifelong Bible study. Were I limited to just two years, I'd definitely include y1. For the second yr, I personally would chose to go deep into whichever units from whichever year plans I chose rather than try and go a mile wide and an inch deep. Just my 2c.

Cultural differences? Probably. But a good journalist writes to the level of his/her intended audience. I've written freelance articles for a variety of newspapers and magazines. Each one has it's own demographics and own style. Daily newspapers vary greatly! I have always taught that clear, concise language is more important than a certain vocabulary level. While I would use a word like eponymous in an editorial in our local daily newspaper, I probably wouldn't use it in an entertainment piece in the same paper. Learning to adapt your reporting and writing to your audience is part of learning journalism. A fun semester would be for her to explore all the various writing needs in a newspaper or magazine -- hard news, editorials, local news, ad copy, etc. she could mock up her own newspaper and fill it with her own work illustrated with her own photos and political cartoons. :)

The newest version of TT geometry has part f the proofs with multiple choice selections. We used the older version and did all the proofs from scratch. The TT guy I talked to said the multiple choice format is designed to teach kids how to do proofs and get them started. He recommends that when the student is handling the multiple choice ones easily, he/she should simply do the proofs themselves on paper and then check them against the answers. At what point in the curriculum the student switches from proofs in the computer to paper proofs would be up to the user. I personally thought TT geometry was very solid. My oldest dd found algebra and algebra 2 easy, but she struggled with geometry. She ended geometry feeling confident in what she understood...a major victory in my book!

She says that she plans to finish the series when they are set in about the year 1800. MOBY still only gets to the late 1770s...er, how many more books will she need? I've always enjoyed reading this series, but I will be an old, old woman before we get to the end.

I'm another one who has ordered multiple times each year for 8 years now. Occasionally there is a back order, but I don't mind that they hold it a week to wait. The back ordered item almost always comes in during that week and they ship. A few times, they just shipped the in stock part of the order after waiting the week and shipped the back ordered item when it came in. I rarely order during the summer, though. I love RR because they've always been so prompt to deal with any questions or damaged items. They've sent replacement parts quickly without a hassle. They are my favorite homeschool supplier.