Hi, my son is hard working, a great reader, a decent writer, and has a great grasp of science and history. What he does not have is a thorough grounding in math (or a love of it). When he was younger he was ahead of grade level in math, but it gradually became the one area of our homeschooling where he has struggled and even rebelled a little bit. He made it to Singapore 5a in the fall, but I regret to say that I allowed his math pace to slow (and we had illness in the family) to such an extent that he came to a standstill. It is now apparent that he has lost a lot of his math knowledge (equations with fractions, some parts of his multiplication tables, and almost every bit of geometry). He doesn't want to continue with Singapore, and I feel he needs review, and possibly a different approach. Above all we need to get our rhythm back and he needs to experience some math success (and retention!). At our co-op, he has a younger friend who had a Beast Academy book and he was intrigued. Would it be crazy to go to the beginning of BA to firm things up and see how a different approach to math works for him? If you think so, do you have any other advice? ;) Thanks!

We have limits on screen-time in our house (although I'm a single mom and I'm pretty sure my ex (in practice) does not, but the kids are only there 2 days a week at most). My ten year old DS was always a really sweet guy, very imaginative and creative. He could talk with people about what interested them, and he would play games other kids suggested ("let's be spies!" or fairies, or what have you). In the last year he has really changed. I'm not sure if it is normal ten year old stuff, the divorce (although we are three years out on that), or something else. He ignores kids who want to do something that doesn't match his narrow field of interests, even kids he has been friends with for years, and to the point that it hurts their feelings.. He complains of boredom a lot, except when he has access to Minecraft or other video games or movies (which is, most days, half an hour, although on Tuesdays he is allowed to get up in the morning and play until breakfast is served, which can be as much as an hour and a half because I do other chores too in the AM, and on Thursdays no one in the house is supposed to use screens (this is a new thing we are trying)). His one non-screen interest is basketball, and I'm really glad that it is physical and more social. We play together every day. All I would like to do is find a way that he can still meet other people half way in conversation and play, and maybe find a few other things interesting on occasion. Am I fighting a losing battle? Is this just his personality? :confused: Has anyone else been here? Thanks for reading! --Katie

hmm. i meant to post this in the general forum. i'll do that now... can this be deleted?

Derrick Jensen's Endgame (because any future civilization needs to understand the perils of civilization) with a side of My Antonia by Willa Cather.

We have limits on screen-time in our house (although I'm a single mom and I'm pretty sure my ex (in practice) does not, but the kids are only there 2 days a week at most). My ten year old DS was always a really sweet guy, very imaginative and creative. He could talk with people about what interested them, and he would play games other kids suggested ("let's be spies!" or fairies, or what have you). In the last year he has really changed. I'm not sure if it is normal ten year old stuff, the divorce (although we are three years out on that), or something else. He ignores kids who want to do something that doesn't match his narrow field of interests, even kids he has been friends with for years, and to the point that it hurts their feelings.. He complains of boredom a lot, except when he has access to Minecraft or other video games or movies (which is, most days, half an hour, although on Tuesdays he is allowed to get up in the morning and play until breakfast is served, which can be as much as an hour and a half because I do other chores too in the AM, and on Thursdays no one in the house is supposed to use screens (this is a new thing we are trying)). His one non-screen interest is basketball, and I'm really glad that it is physical and more social. We play together every day. All I would like to do is find a way that he can still meet other people half way in conversation and play, and maybe find a few other things interesting on occasion. Am I fighting a losing battle? Is this just his personality? :confused: Has anyone else been here? Thanks for reading! --Katie

:001_wub:

wow, most people drive that much over? makes you wonder if we should ban all cars. :tongue_smilie: :001_smile: i had no idea about the speedometer freezing in the case of an impact... i wonder if that is in all cars or just newer ones? that is such a good idea! --katie

i don't question that there are roads like this, but i question the safety of driving those speeds on the roads you specifically complained about (narrow, windy, blind curves, little to no shoulder, etc.). i lived somewhere with the sorts of roads you are describing (in Northern California) and no one i knew drove fast on the sections that were as you described. when we would let someone pass and they were driving that fast on a section like that we all thought they were being reckless. if the roads are straighter or wider, sure, i would drive that fast safely. i did, and there were bicyclists on those roads very frequently. (sometimes i was one of them) --katie

but why do you get to decide that? Legally bicycles are vehicles and not pedestrians and there are already laws that apply to people riding them. People are ticketed while riding bikes in Oregon, for instance. I'm wondering why you, as someone who doesn't bike, get to decide how people NEED to be able to move in order to use the road, especially when there is already legislation on this issue. am i missing some portion of the country of which you are a monarch? --Katie

:iagree: :cheers2:

i don't know how you go from this to saying that bicyclists haven't earned the right to be respected on the road. that would be like me saying that since some drivers drive drunk, all drivers have not earned their place on public roads. you are taking some peoples' behavior and tarring the reputations of a group of people who are actually more vulnerable than you. i'm sure most bicylists would love some investment in seperated bike infrastructure that goes somewhere. --katie

that's a rude assumption. i do appreciate that. i have lived (and biked) in rural America on just the kind of roads you are talking about, as well as in cities (both bike friendly and unfriendly. the issue isn't that i don't understand what the roads are like where you are, the issue is that i think your attitude is rude and ones like it directly contribute to a lack of respect, safety, and infrastructure for people who ride bikes, many of whom are children or parents of children. --katie

this is all reasonable to be frustrated about, but when cars pull out in front of people, we don't decide that people in cars all need to earn the right to respect on the road. and those bicyclists were in more danger than people in a car doing that. as for going against the flow of traffic, it is dangerous and illegal everywhere i'm aware of. it is sad when i see teens doing it with no helmets. :( --katie

http://blog.tmcnet.com/green-blog/2010/05/cars-sprawl-are-killing-us-american-public-health-association.html you may call this opinion piece biased but the statistics are solid. i stand by my death machine comment, from air quality to climate change to the 40,000 people killed directly by cars every year in the US (this is more than all natural disasters combined in an average year), driving is one of the most dangerous choices anyone in this country makes. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98055567 another fun read about car accidents being the number one cause of death for kids. i refuse to kumbayah with you while you are making unfair requirements of people on bikes before they deserve your full respect on the road (your words). you clearly know that there are situations where someone on a bike cannot go as fast as drivers tend to go. and there are a lot more people on bikes in most areas than driving tractors, and it is safer for people in tractors to pull over to allow passing. and really when you are forced to drive at the speed of a bicycle you are much safer, since the extent of injuries you will receive should wreck in that moment rather than when you are going quadruple the speed (around 13 vs. apparently 50+, although i wonder how often you are really driving that fast on roads that legally accommodate bikes). --katie

:glare: yikes. i seriously kept reading and waiting for one of you to advocate scaring some sense into the people on bikes with your car... some of you seem to have rather large chips on your shoulders about bikes. it is very ironic to read the posts of people who drive cars (which kill and injure so many people every year) talking about the dangers caused by people on bikes... and even some people complaining about pedestrians crossing the street in "their" lane! (at least here in Oregon, cars must stop for pedestrians regardless of whether there is a crosswalk present or not... pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way because those of you in your cars can so easily kill them) when did owning a polluting, resource wasting death machine give you full ownership of the public built environment? also, as was mentioned elsewhere, biking on the shoulder is less safe for everyone than taking the lane and is actually illegal in many places. if there are no bike lanes you'd better believe my kids and i will take the lane so we are visible. all it does to hug the side is encourage drivers to pass you dangerously close. geez. --katie

thank you both so much! i have to remember also that we will be better off closing on this house that is big enough and in a good neighborhood etc. than continuing to rent our current run down, moldy, too small house... and our mortgage will be less than our rent! i can't have everything... hopefully i can make the best of what i will have though. i'm already imaging how to landscape the front yard to make it beautiful and fun for the kids... and i guess i will be living my values if we spend a lot of time out front, since i think cities and towns need more eyes on the street and conversation! ;) thanks again. just knowing other people freaked out is oddly comforting to me. --katie

i'm a single mom of two kids (ages almost-10 and almost-6, and i hope to have another child someday soon through adoption), and i've never owned a house. we've moved around a lot, mostly in apartments. we like the city we live in now (Portland, OR). a consortium of family is helping us buy our first house (including holding the loan for us). we are extremely lucky. that said, we are supposed to be closing in less than a week and i can't stop shaking the feeling that i'm making a mistake. i've gone back and forth about moving somewhere nearby where we will have a more "country" or wild setting, or at least closer to the edge of the city where we can have a really big yard (defined as a quarter acre or more, for the purposes of this discussion). the house that we are getting is big (over three thousand square feet and four bedrooms with a finished basement) and in good shape. it is in a safe neighborhood that, while not central to everything, will allow us to walk to a library, a second run movie theatre, a coffee shop, a few good parks, Mt. Tabor, and a large Asian grocery store (yum!). the lot isn't tiny (it is around 6000 square feet, although most of it is in the form of front yard... but we have had 7700 square feet of backyard for the last three years). the thing i am worrying about the most is that i will wish we had a bigger yard or that our yard was in the back... we like to garden and have animals (we have chickens now and want to get a dog and have had goats before, which wouldn't work at this place), but we also like to have space to play in/for the kids to build things (they have a grandfather who is a carpenter;). a little part of me also feels shame/guilt about receiving this help, even though i know it will be very good for my kids. it's just that we know so many others who have had to work harder to achieve home ownership, and whose houses are smaller/in worse condition... anyway, i have heard that buying a house makes on temporarily insane. i'm hoping that is what's going on with me... thoughts? --katie

thanks for all the advice!

Hi! My children are almost-10 and almost-6. We have been "relaxed" unschoolish (the kids have chores and I have expectations, but almost all of our learning has been a natural extension of our lives) homeschoolers for their entire lives. We have always read challenging books out loud, and have read for hours every night. As my older son has matured, I have become increasingly disenchanted with our totally informal homeschooling. My son seems to read well on his own (he reads Harry Potter books, the Chronicles of Narnia, etc. as well as occasional non-fiction books aimed at roughly his age), but will not read out loud and is disinterested in writing anything for fun. He is one of those kids who talks constantly about Minecraft (his computer game obsession), even though his screen time is limited. It occurred to me recently that he might be extremely bored... Maybe his brain doesn't have enough to chew on and that is why he doesn't talk about anything else! When I give him assignments in spelling or math, he is excited. His younger brother is incredibly interested in a more formal approach to homeschooling. We are gearing up for trying some different curriculum (SOTW, and other recommendations from the Well-Trained Mind, which I have recently begun reading), but I am wondering about how to structure things for the two of them, in particular in regards to the cycle (from Ancient to Modern, Biology to Physics, etc.;) suggested in the book. I know that part of the plan is for the cycle to repeat itself three times, so that their learning will build on itself and they will bring newly developed skills to bear on information with which they have already been presented (in a simpler way). My kids are four years apart, so ideally I will keep them in sync (i.e.-ancients in the same year, biology in the same year, etc.) in the subjects where this is possible. But will my older son be ready to tackle the middle years version of this cycle? I'm guessing i will need to ease him into the more advanced work and sometimes have him doing work aimed at younger kids. Anyone have experience with coming to the table late with one of your kids? How did you adapt things for them? Thanks for reading! --Katie