I am currently using LoE Essentials with my 6 y/o. I can't see how it would be overkill. The lessons are easily adapted to be short or long depending on the needs of the child. (I take 1-2 weeks a lesson for my non-natural reader, but they could easily be covered in 1 to 2 days for a natural reader). The lessons also include grammar and composition skills which you can choose to use or not. If your 7 y/o struggles a bit with spelling Essentials would be an excellent program. It is really easy to use and modify. I am actually planning on "switching" to foundations and using it with both my 4 and 6 y/o. 4 y/o is a natural reader, but I want her to have foundational phonics knowledge covered. My 6 y/o will participate in the foundations lessons and the games with us, so we will take a break from essentials for a few months now that 4 y/o is ready to start doing lessons on a regular basis. Since you kids are similar age this may work for you. A 7 y/o would likely find the lessons and games in foundations to be "fun", and may pick up the phonograms and rules easily. To be honest I think the phonograms and spelling rules are very basic and structural to the English language. Now that I have "discovered" them I have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn't desire for their kids to know them. And they are not difficult or time consuming to teach. (At least I have not found LoE to be difficult or time consuming) :)

I confess that I occasionally tell my 4 y/o to "just shut up" (in a smiling but firm manner). She has been speaking in paragraphs since she was 1, and it seems like she never stops talking. She is fascinating to listen to, but sometimes I just need to be able to think in peace. I also confess I remember being the same way as a child and my mom telling me to "shut up". I think I need to go buy her some flowers ;)

Ok that sounds better, like they have limited availability, as opposed to limited involvement. Those are 2 vastly different situations. I imagine when the dual income parents are working someone will be caring for the kids? So that person might be able to assist with school work to a certain degree, and the parents could review the work with the child when they are home. (I assume they had to spend some time on homework with the child during the school year anyway). Probably some of the online/computer/or open and go "boxed" graded curriculum would be appropriate. The low energy mom situation is different. I am assuming she is going to be home with the kids in the day, and if she has 3 elementary at least one of them is at an age to need a good bit of interaction in someway anyway. A boxed graded curriculum would probably not be a great idea for 3 kids. She might be better off to combine the kids for most subjects, and only use "graded" curriculum for math and language arts. So she might need a combo of open and go. Of course that is just my guess. Really I agree with the previous poster way up thread. If they aren't pulling the kids until next year, they have plenty of time to research and pick what most suits their needs. It only takes about 2 wks to get curriculum in the mail in the continental U.S. There are so many options. Especially, low energy mom. It would really be best for her to take some time, there is likely something out there to meet her and her kids needs, and she would likely do better if she finds a good fit rather than just picking whatever and getting frustrated with it. There are so many factors, are the kids ahead, behind, good at math, science oriented, arts oriented. Is the family of a particular religious persuasion etc....

I also want to add. Although I don't have a "curriculum" I do print off my local school districts science learning targets for each grade level. I don't use it to plan or do science, but I do make sure my girls are exposed to all of the concepts listed, to avoid missing foundational concepts. I never have been missing anything. But it does occasionally stimulate me with some ideas for impromptu science lessons.

I am also wondering why they are pulling them "because of common core". I know different states are implementing it differently. For example I understand it is a horrible disaster in much of New York State, but this has more to do with the testing and constant changes in curriculum implementation. (I am hearing this from public school teachers there specifically). In my state it seems to be having only a limited effect, because the actual list of common core standards aren't really that big of a deal. So if they are actually opposed to the list of standards, they may have issues with a lot of open and go curriculum, as several "align with the common core". If they have issues with the implementation in their area, then a common core aligned curriculum would be an option.

I think clarification of the phrase "low parental involvement" is needed here. If it means: "Doesn't require a lot of planning and prep work," then there are several options. If it means: "Doesn't require devoting much time or attention to my children," then homeschooling might not be a good solution.

I have kids of similar ages and we don't do a formal science curriculum. However we talk about science a lot. I am a science nerd so I tend to explain everything like a previous poster. We do a lot of science lessons when cooking. Lots of biology and chemistry in that. Also we talk about matter, solids, liquids, gasses when we boil water, melt butter etc... We have a large garden, so my girls get lots of plant science, as well as some earth science. We also talk about thinks like weather all the time. We do a lot science while on walks and even driving in the car. My 4 y/o knows ROYGBIV, from discussions when we see a rainbow. We watch a lot of pbs specials, (NOVA etc...). Anything can turn into a science lesson. When runoff from a fast snow melt washed away part of our driveway we went outside to examine it and learned about erosion. One thing I think is important is being knowledgeable about science yourself, or being willing to look for accurate answers if you aren't. And then you need to use your opportunities. For example when I say we learned about erosion, I didn't just say that's erosion, we actually looked at it, discussed it, compared it to the creek down the street etc...

One problem with these two women is their "Homeschooling's Invisible Children" website. While there are a few actual cases that involve abuse and homeschooling, many if the cases homeschooling is completely incidental. There are several kidnapping cases listed, such as the famous Elizabeth Smart case. If a kidnapper on the run from the law tells a random convenient store clerk that the child with them is homeschooled, said child makes the list of "Homeschooling's Invisible Children". I also saw cases of acts of sudden random domestic violence, murder/suicides that had nothing to do with the families educational status. IMO including those types of cases as "homeschooling abuse" really damages their credibility. Although it does serve to support the idea that many of these homeschool abuse cases involve people who are already breaking the law, hiding from authorities, and are willing to break additional laws - so creating more laws likely wouldn't help. It is too bad, I think there is a numerically small, but significant on an individual level, issue with abuse in some homeschooling families. But once you try to tell me that Elizabeth Smart was an abused homeschooler, I am going to have a hard time believing to the rest of what you say.

I have "Math Bingo" on my iPad. It has really helped my daughter.

While I do realize ag Is a tiny sector. It is a sector that has still been hiring, and has many good jobs. And that percentage reflects percentage of GDP, not geography. There are actually ag jobs in many if not most places, everybody has to eat :) And actually to relate to the topic. This is an area where I could make an argument, about limiting options based on competition. An internationally competitive educated city kid who is interested in an ag field has a clear disadvantage compared to a smart farm kid, who grew up in 4h and FFA. It really isn't possible to have our kids be competitive in everything. But that well educated city kid, though disadvantaged can still succeed in ag, they will just have a lot of catching up to do. We make assumptions about what education our kids will need, based on our preferences and the world around us. Hopefully we will look closely at our kids' abilities and preferences, and educate them accordingly whether that is "competitive" or not.

Wow! How can they advocate no advanced classes? I went to a very average school in upstate NY. I didn't realize until I was a senior that my school wasn't considered a "good" school. It is literally average, I have seen it ranked from 49 to 54 %ile. But we had access to AP classes. I didn't realize that some schools in NY state don't have any access to AP classes. That is ridiculous. I haven't lived in NY for a long time though.

This fascinates me. If we make the assumption that Germany somehow has it "right". Then at least 50% of our students should not be pushed to get an international "college-prep" level of education. (Not saying that there 10th grade education might not be more than many 12th graders here, but I imagine it is less that what is available to a 12th grader by graduation from an average public school) As far as I am seeing an internationally competitive secondary education includes: math to calculus, all 4 basic sciences + advanced study, foreign language(s), and broad/deep exposure to literature and world history. ? Are there other required elements? With the possible exception of "multiple" foreign languages this is what I have always assumed my girls will have. It is what I had in high school at my mediocre public high school. So it never occurred to me that it is internationally competitive. But I realize now that I chose that education, it was well above the minimum requirements to be considered college bound.

What are they missing out on? We do a hybrid. The bulk of our schooling is Sept, Oct, then Jan through May. We school "lightly" in June, July, August, November, and December. This is partly because my part time job involves covering others vacations so I am busiest in June, July, August, and Dec. and dh's job is busiest in sept, October, and Jan through May, so the kids and I have lots of time on our hands.

I hope this makes sense...but I am wondering if everyone is talking about the same thing when they say competitive education. I just kind of accept as a matter of course that people would have the equivalent of 4 years of math, science, lit, foreign language, and history at at least high school level before "graduating". I wouldn't have thought of this as a internationally competitive education. But on further reflection, I guess that wasn't actually required at my high school, just by my dad. ;) When I hear "internationally competitive" I haven't been thinking about depth and knowledge, but pushing high achievement, as in competing. But maybe that isn't what others mean.

I know lots of people who have gone, are going to graduate schools. I also know many PhD's etc... I haven't seen that the competitiveness of their elementary, secondary, or even undergrad education have mattered significantly. It is important that they don't have a bad education but... The whole internationally competitive concern is foreign to me. Of course it is important that a STEM major study science and math all years of high school etc...but I went to a mediocre public school district and I have several friends from high school with PHd's, who are gainfully employed. I live near three "not top tier" universities and many of my friends/acquaintances have gone to those universities and then gone on to graduate school etc... I do think there are lots of regional values issues that play into this. Even though I live near universities, nobody around here really cares if you went to a "top tier school". People are pretty practical and pragmatic and top tier schools seem like a waste of money for undergrad. Of course there is little urban influence in our area. Life around here is pretty family/land centered. There are lots of smart educated people, but most prefer not to be involved in a high pressure/high stress competitive world. So most aren't pushing our kids that way. Of course we also have relatively low unemployment low cost of living so our average standard of living is pretty high. (Not many super rich, but not a lot of severe poverty either.) I imagine it is different in urban/suburban areas.

I use Singapore PM as a spine. We eventually do most of the problems in the workbook, but not all. We also do a lot of "life" math. I grab opportunities to use the stuff we are working on in Singapore. We also read Life of Fred when we are intensely focussed on another topic. (My daughter is ahead in math but really needs to work on reading right now, so we are on break from Singapore for a month or so.)

Not necessarily unique to only our area, but different from my, and many childhoods. My kids have been riding in tractors and/or combines since they were a few weeks old. They see farm animals, cows, sheep, goats, horses,almost every time we leave the house. They are used to working and playing in fields and a very large vegetable garden. We can go to our friends house and "help" milk cows anytime, or gather eggs from chickens. I realized my kids had a bit of a unique childhood when I realized that "a compartment used to change floors in a building" was the second, and less used, meaning they learned for elevator. And they've been to "the big place where you store grain" more often than they have been in "a compartment used to change floors"

The big Mother's Day celebration was like twisting a knife in my heart, almost literally, I would get a sharp pain in my chest. I usually volunteered to work Mother's Day Sunday before we finally had kids. Even though now it is not an big issue for me, I love that our pastor emphasizes all women in our church on Mother's Day. I do need to remember to have patience with younger moms. That's a good reminder. Even when I had young kids I was an older mom, I think that gave me more perspective. I can see where basically going from being a student to being a mom in just a year or two could be tough. I need to remind myself to be gracious. Someone said something about saying "look at me, I'm amazing". I think saying that is just fine. I can celebrate with people. The problem is when you say, "look how much more amazing I am (or we are) than other people"

My autocorrect frequently prevents me from typing we'll. literally :)

I have always wondered how people view motherhood as so "underappreciated". I mean we have our own HOLIDAY for goodness sake. There are major commercial campaigns focused on motherhood. I spent many years not being a mother, but wanting to be one, and believe mothers are celebrated and appreciated. I also discovered that being a mother isn't MOST important. I wasn't lesser because I wasn't one. I think it is the needing to be validated by comparison that bothers me. It is not saying "being a mom is great", or being a mom is important. It is the one that say or clearly imply that being a mom is more important, or most important. And the ones that imply that moms somehow don't get the appreciation they deserve, as if most of the rest of the world does. I see this in some careers as well. The idea that teachers and nurses are somehow under-appreciated. They might try to make a case for underpaid, but there is lots of recognition. I mean try being an accountant and see how celebrated you are. Yet they are critical to our society. And many work extremely long arduous hours, dealing with frustrating government regulations, but hallmark isn't making cards for them. People who do their work well are not more or less important than others.

My girls are 4 and 6 I get up when dh is getting ready to leave for work, 6:30 ish right now. I usually don't go back to sleep, unless I was up in the night. Girls get up between 7:30 and 9, usually 8ish School starts whenever I get around to it, I am not a morning person, depending on what is going on that day. Often that is around 9-10, sometimes it is more like 1pm to 2pm. Most of our "school" would be direct instruction, so I try to make sure both of us are bushy tailed. Mid afternoon is actually good for us, but often we have other things going on. Obviously on time varies for me, but Each morning I think about what we have to do and decide what time I must start school by at the latest to have the time I need. Then I make sure I start by then, if it works out before then, then that is great.

This is one reason why I avoid "Christian" labeled homeschool materials. I just don't trust it unless I know the author very well.

I don't think the blogger is necessarily meaning not learning math when she refers to not finishing the math book. We don't do every page in the math book, but my daughter is proficient in the topics in the mathbook, often because of math we do in "life".

Well, I don't have an older like yours, so take this for what it is worth. But I think of "boundaries" instead of limits, or "concepts" instead of rules. My girls have no set limit about that type of thing unless the limit makes sense. For example, no electronics at family dinner, no individual electronic use when friends are over. If you have been sitting for 2 hours doing nothing but a screen and you are not ill or injured, I am probably going to tell you get up and do something active because it is not healthy for your body to be inert that long. If you whine when I tell you, then you obviously have become too attached and a hiatus (rest of day, rest of day and next day depending on situation) is necessary. If you look at or do something harmful consequences will follow. I try to only intervene in "free time" activities when there is a reason. This is how my parents generally raised us. I remember being really frustrated when a rule was imposed "just because". Blessedly most of the time my parents made us follow, what I as a teenager called, "concepts", not rules. Of course I did understand that if I failed to grasp the "concept" then an arbitrary rule might have to be temporarily imposed. So far this seems to work with my kids even at their young age. Of course when they are older they may disagree, and say they got so tired of my mom explaining why to me ;)

I think stripe has an excellent point. I am not a kinesthetic learner. So things I did don't have much meaning to me unless they are contextualized by something I read or heard. The chapter on waterfowl would be way more meaningful to me than the Swan on the lake. Though seeing the swan would certainly excite me after I read the chapter.