I have been pondering how I am going to work homeschooling next year. My very bright intuitive/creative almost 5 y/o will be kindy. My equally bright methodical/logical oldest will be 2nd grade. The only thing I attempt to do with a bit of structure is language arts and math. They both learn so differently and are at such different places I see them both needing separate direct instruction here. My methodical one really needs direct instruction until she is a solid reader, which I don't see happening for another year at least. My younger one actually picks up a lot independently (and curriculum wise is past K requirements), but she makes a lot of creative leaps so she has holes and errors in her learning without guidance. I am not a very structured person, so assigning specific times to each kid doesn't work well. Right now I usually just find about an hour and a half sometime throughout the day to work with my oldest. Oh and the other problem is my oldest is not good at alone time. (Youngest likes alone time) Anyway I am sure I will eventually figure out some kind of rhythm, but I find so much good info on this board, I thought I might see if I can gain some wisdom from the more experienced.

I definitely struggle more with the opposite extreme. I tend to have too little schedule, and too much "life". I generally use my materials as a guide, not a schedule. And though there are definite benefits from that approach, I need to regularly remind myself that actually using materials somewhat close to how they were designed can sometimes be helpful. One has to be careful to balance. Too much unstructured just "life" can turn into "chaos" instead of poetry. Too much "schedule" can turn into "tyranny" instead of education. It's that whole balance thing. I also try to avoid trying to "make memories" for my children. A few years ago I wrote memory book for my parents about things they said and taught me. The stories/memories that meant the most to me were often random unintentional incidents. They had nothing to do with the setting or activity we were involved in and everything to do with my parents being who they are and sharing that with me.

So you are arguing that people who believe evolution is a fact, are not debating that it is a fact? And it is only the people who don't believe evolution is a fact who find problems with evolution being a fact. So therefore the theory of evolution is a well documented fact, because the people who believe it is a fact have written that it is a fact. And the scientists who don't believe it is a fact just don't count, because they already didn't believe it was a fact? There are plenty of fully credentialed scientists who find holes in evolutionary theory. But they are creationists, so you would discount there observations? Of course I am sure you are mistaken and there are actually some credentialed scientists somewhere who are agnostic and unsure whether creation or evolution is correct, though I doubt they would be out there loudly debating their lack of a position. For surely if we have scientists on both sides of the debate there are some in the middle. Although that is just a statistical assumption. There really isn't much debate inside the creationist community as to whether creation occurred or not, it is a well accepted fact. The debate is only about discrepancies in some explanations of creation. So according to your logic we creationists can say creation is a well documented fact. :) And I am sure you are not asserting that their is no debate in the evolution accepting community as to how evolution progressed.

I have greatly appreciated the overall civility and helpful discussion in this thread. It has really enlightened me to the actual viewpoint of much of the YEC opposition on this board. I will be honest, in the past I have pretty much perceived that the sentiment of many (not all) was, "If you believe in the possibility of a "recent" date for creation, then you are a thoughtless idiot" I have done some independent study into Ken Ham's positions since I last posted and I now see how others could be highly frustrated with those who embrace the political/social positions of the most vocal YEC types. (Really I just need to come up with another name for my personal position ;) ) I have always enjoyed intellectual discussion and pleasant verbal jousting, but it does get tricky when you don't actually know the other person you are jousting with well enough to understand the background of their point of view. Thanks for the conversation.

My oldest (6) has finally started to make real progress now that I have started using Logic of English. I am currently using Essentials modified to her level. We tried a long list of programs, OPGR, phonics pathways, progressive phonics, 100 EZ, alpha-phonics. She hated (shockingly my calm, quiet child had "violent" reactions) all of them except progressive phonics, and she wasn't really making progress with progressive phonics. She desperately needed a program that made reading as much like math as possible. LoE has been great. We will probably take a break from essentials, and drop into Foundations as I am planning on starting it with my almost 5 y/o. The hope is that they can work together through foundations (starting around b) and then go through essentials together. My dd4 is very different from her older sister and actually is a more fluent reader. She is pretty much learning to read without direct instruction, she just occasionally hangs out while I am working w/ big sister. My 6 y/o is capable of sounding out more complex words, but struggles with "easy" words at times. my 4 y/o easily reads words and word patterns she has exposure to.

Ok so here is my question: Can someone who believes in both the natural and supernatural, and believes that time has only existed for a relatively short period, because of the intervention of the supernatural, still make credible contributions to science? I may be talking you around in circles, because I am far from a Ken Ham expert. What little I know His style, and some of his theological positions doesn't impress me. I apologize if I have taken this thread on a confusing tangent because of my lack of knowledge of Ken Ham's specific position. I am speaking as someone who accepts the Genesis account as "literal" (quotes because literal means careful thoughtful reading), and also has some possibility of become involved in scientific research in the future. (Actually involving some of the diseases mentioned by Albeto. Though my area of expertise would not likely be in the genetics lab). Which is probably why I tend to get all into these threads. I guess I have perceived a sentiment - from some non-creationist posters- that someone who accepts a relatively short existence of time as truth, is somehow anti-science. I perceived the dichotomy as coming from non-creationist, kind of a "you can only participate in science if you leave your religion outside the door".

We'll I am glad to hear that. I am sorry, I have truly misunderstood you for a long time then. You have always seemed so opposed to people teaching their children creationism, as if people who believed the creation account would somehow be unqualified to be scientists. I guess things aren't what they seem. Bu I am confused as to why someone who sincerely believes that the Jacob story is an example of genetics, as opposed to a miracle, would be a danger to science? How could they rise to a position of influence in scientific research? I mean there are plenty of non religious types who actually do believe stuff like that as well (ever read suggestions of how to influence the sex/ attributes of your child ;). But those who believe such a thing hopefully don't become scientific researchers. The world is filled with scientifically illiterate people of all stripes creationist, atheist, agnostic, apathetic.

This thread is so entertaining :) How many states actually require you to have a school name? Do some states require logos too? I assume mascots and colors are optional ;) Fortunately, for me, I have no need to come up with a school name. I am not creative that way. However since our last name is actually a fancy sounding title of aristocracy, "our last name" School or Academy would sound like a real school name.

Quoting Isabel :) " But it is analogous to the fear that Christians who are scientists are just waiting to be able to replicate God's miraculous intervention as a scientific principle. What on earth does that even mean? I have no idea how a scientist (or indeed anyone) would be able to perform a miracle. Anyway, how could a miracle be a scientific principle? Isn't the whole point of miracles that they transcend scientific principles (ie the water turns into wine even though there is no known chemical reaction that would make this happen)? Also, I have no issues with Christians who are scientists. (That kinda sounds clumsy, but I get that you're distinguishing between those people and actual Christian Scientists, or indeed Christian Scientist scientists lol)" That comment was in response to Albeto's post that people who believe in the Bible shouldn't be allowed to influence scientific research in diseases because a Genesis account(regarding Jacob and sheep breeding) inaccurately explains genetics. This account is rather clearly divine intervention and not sheep breeding instruction. But it was implied that someone who claims to believe the Bible, or actually the Pentateuch, as truth would not understand that and think it was some type of scientific observation that should be use in genetic research. Basically, people who believe the Bible is true will have a negative impact on science and therefore are a danger. Obviously this was not a "scientific" observation on Albeto's part since there are many Bible/Pentateuch believers who have contributed positively to science.

I think I should clarify. I do not think that those who don't believe in God are automatically going to be horrific. Actually because I believe in God I don't think he can be removed from science because his very existence reveals himself and even most non believers will have some awareness of worth. I do understand the definition of the "the fittest". The whims of the compassionate can be as scary as the whims of the tyrant. I was not aware that science is considered more "ethical" now than in the past? I think that could be easily argued both ways. Though my instinct would be that on a whole it is relatively unchanged as far as level of ethics and corruption. But it isn't pertinent to the thread really. I really just wanted to say that I was not saying that atheist scientist are just waiting to commit atrocities. But it is analogous to the fear that Christians who are scientists are just waiting to be able to replicate God's miraculous intervention as a scientific principle.

Yes of course us Christians think we could solve world hunger if we could just get that recipe for those barley loaves that little boy had in John 6. :lol: I realize you don't believe in the supernatural, but the thoughtful and educated who do are usually able to understand the difference between supernatural intervention and scientific endeavor. Your random biblical reference was amusing ;) But you actually hit the nail on the head as to why Christians will fight to keep God in the world of science. "impact the way in which we as a society research and address such diseases and conditions as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Cerebral Palsy, autism, spinal cord injury, and all kinds of cancer. " Yes the impact, if individuals are stripped of their intrinsic worth and value endowed on them by a creator, and subject to the whim of the "fittest", Science has the potential to become a horrifying spectacle indeed.

That is really interesting. Another demonstration of how regionally varied the US is. We studied evolution extensively (for high school) in public high school biology in NY state. We also had a moderate amount of evolutionary theory in 7th grade bio when I lived in California. Granted much of what they taught us I learned later in college was no longer the current thinking in the field. (I studied a lot of biology at a secular university)

While science may be all about "being proven wrong", I don't think that many "scientists" are all about being proven wrong. I know many scientists ( real PhD ones), and they are as human as the rest of us. But that is somewhat beside the point. :) The 2+2=5 argument has a logical flaw, if it is in reference to my comments. First of all 2+2=5 is a piece of mathematical data, not an explanation or prediction so it is analogous to "both primates and humans have opposable thumbs" not "humans and primates have evolved from the same ancestor". Regardless I am not saying that my beliefs tell me that 2+2=5, I am saying that I believe that it is possible for a supernatural being outside of the rules of our universe to make 2+2=5. That doesn't mean I reject the rules of common mathematics. I am not going to walk around paying for 2, $2 items with a five dollar bill and refuse change. I simply believe that the rules of common mathematics are limited to time and space, and therefore it is possible that there have been instances when 2+2=5 with supernatural intervention. I don't think most who believe in the supernatural are being dishonest. Most will freely tell you that they believe science is limited by the time/space continuum and therefore an incomplete explanation. (We'll they might not put it that way exactly ;) but even Ken Ham freely states he is biased) But being honest about the belief that there is something beyond the time/space continuum shouldn't bar one from participating in science. Just as the bias of not believing in existence beyond a time space continuum should not bar one from participating in science. (Which was a common problem in the past) Interesting discussion. :)

I always wonder if I shouldn't define myself as YEC when I read some responses on this board. I have never thought by believing that creation likely happened less than 10,000 earth years ago means that I am demanding scientific evidence for my faith. Or that I am somehow anti-science. So I do begin to wonder if there is some official YEC statement that I am unaware of. ( I am not being sarcastic or anything BTW, I really am interested in knowing if Young Earth is an official position, or just a generic description) I came to what I call a young earth view independently, so I may be using the term wrong. My religious beliefs are melded with everything in my life. So it is rather impossible not to meld them with science, since science, especially biology, is a part of my life. My issue is not that science needs to prove my faith, rather if science contradicts my faith than one of them has to be wrong. In my case, commonly held "scientific" interpretations about human evolution contradict my beliefs about the relationship between God and man. So either those scientific interpretations are wrong or my understanding of the relationship between God and man is wrong. I have concluded that there are possible interpretations of the scientific evidence that don't contradict my understanding of God and man. After I realized this, I realized that I did not need to believe in an "old earth", even though that doesn't so directly contradict my beliefs. A more recent age of the earth makes more sense when I consider my understanding of theology/philosophy/faith/science as a whole. I can't compartmentalize any of those things, they must function in my intellect as a cohesive whole. So I must meld :)

I had never heard switching used that way either. I thought it was "swishing" tails

No where in the article does it say that this is a recommendation for most kids. In fact the article is clearly discussing the fact that different kids learn in different ways so need different types of schooling. Also the list of great works posted earlier is not even remotely the norm for high school. And it doesn't seem that this student is planning a lit major. There are lots of kid who could read 4 books in 3 weeks and do the work involved. There are also lots of kids who couldn't and wouldn't want to. This girl works 3 days a week in tv production and historical research. So we could say that her courses in communications, history, and probably writing are going on year round, hardly taking the easy way out. Not everyone needs to study every subject in depth, and really most people can't. But you do need to cover the subjects necessary for a high school diploma. And that frequently requires you to demonstrate mastery of material you might already know, if you are going through traditional schools or online programs. The whole point of the article is that there needs to be a large variety of options available. This is one excellent option for some people. I actually could envision my older daughter doing very well with it. Maybe that's why I might sound a little fired up :) she is young so it may not last, but she focuses on one subject at a time already, and yet seems to have great retention when she returns to a subject after a hiatus. I could easily see her covering her humanities courses in this manner and then focussing her other time on some methodical logical studies like math, economics, computers etc... That really tickle her. I wish I could have done high school that way.

I doesn't say she fit a years worth of learning in 3 weeks. It says: " She finished a year’s worth of work in one class in three weeks of intensive effort instead of little dribs and drabs along the year the way they do in public school. " Work implies that she completed all the class requirements. Assignments, tests, essays. Not that she started every class as a blank slate.

Ok I read both articles and I think people are really reading a lot into what he is saying about the 3 week class thing. 1st of all, the rather well ranked university I attended offered several 3 wk classes every year between semesters. Commonly known in my area as "J" term and May term. These were the same classes as offered for full semesters. And while not very class works in this format, many do. 2nd, these were likely 1/2 year and not all full year courses. 36 weeks of school divided by 3 weeks, gives you 12 classes. If we don't include PE, the average high schooler takes about 6 classes. 3rd, where do people seem to get the idea that this girl did one class and then never thought about it again, never read another book, and turned off her brain afterwards. In the second article mentioned it says that she worked 3 days a week for a production company doing research for history and biography documentaries. So it sounds like she spent a lot of time involved in humanities studies outside of official "schoolwork" My take is that these parents chose this online program so she could meet the general high school requirements, and not miss anything "required". Then she had the time to pursue her actual education without letting school get in the way. I don't think he is implying that these online courses are the sum total of her education. FWIW I certainly could have completed almost all of my high school classes (with the possible exception of lab sciences) with 3 weeks of focused work. And I probably would have had equal retention.

My 6 y/o is doing well with essentials. I do a lesson a week with her and don't cover everything. I plan to go back through the curriculum with the advanced lists later on and I will pick up some of the stuff we missed. I still am planning to do foundations with my almost 5 y/o. But it will be my only major curriculum expense for k and 1st for her.

Thank you for this list. The only 2 "names" on that list I have ever had any involvement with are Institute for Creation Research, and Hobby Lobby. I had heard of very few others before this thread got me interested in the issue, though I do remember people speaking in hushed horrified tones of cult leader "Bill Gotthard" back in the '80's. I think that list is and example of the issue for us other homeschoolers. I have known hundreds of homeschoolers and had close friends who homeschooled for the last 25+ years. But I have never known people involved in the Christian Patriarchy movement. We have a huge homeschool population in our area, and though some of them are more "conservative" than others, none that I know are following the tenants of this movement. It is hard to know how to help, when you don't have any contact with these type of homeschoolers. The only reason I know they exist is because of encountering them on the internet. I think that is the case for a lot of people. Christian Patriarchy just doesn't have much presence anywhere I have lived. Because of this thread I have been doing a lot of reading and studying about the Christian Patriarchy Movement. I do see how some of their teachings infiltrate circles I move in slightly. But a lot of that is semantics issues. When I say things like modesty, purity, and courtship; I actually mean something very different than Christian Patriarchy, but because I didn't know much about them I didn't realize we were using the same words with significantly different meanings. So I do see the opportunity to use better discernment and point these things out to my friends as we come across some of their materials. But that doesn't really help those trapped in the abusive situations. I strongly believe legislation is a waste of time. Yet, growing up as a child of cult survivors, as a homeschooler, and as a Christian I would like to help. I am just not sure how.

Not rude, you are going out of your way to accommodate. :)

My 4 soon to be 5 dd already reads at an early first grade level. She just kind of picked it up as I have been working with her older sister. She hasn't done any formal writing program yet, but uses a mix of self taught capitals and lower case. I am thinking of doing LoE foundations (loving essentials with her older sister) with her and am deciding where to start. I understand that her reading skills are beyond level A. But since she picked it up intuitively I think there are lots of holes in her phonics understanding. And I think level A does handwriting. Would foundations level A still be appropriate for her?

We find them to be awesome because they are random and weird. :D I can see why some wouldn't like them. I generally like random and weird though, as do my girls, so they work for us.

This is a fascinating perspective. Thank you for sharing, I have learned something. To be honest it never occurred to me that someone might think it rude to tell someone they don't believe in Jesus. My children are very aware that people don't believe in Jesus, even though I am fully assured that Jesus is God incarnate. I have no expectation that non-believers would reinforce our belief. In fact I would prefer that those who don't believe in Jesus would be honest with my children about it. Maybe it does explain the irritation I tend to have about the Santa thing. It is not an innate reaction for me to be offended when people share differing beliefs with my children. It is a bit irritating that I have to forbid my children from speaking about Santa. So it is an insight for me to realize that some people do feel it is important to protect children from divergent beliefs in general, not just Santa. Realizing that helps me to be more understanding. :) As far as pressure, I have felt a lot of cultural pressure. My parents grew up in a religious group that didn't celebrate Christmas at all. They left when I was a toddler they made Christmas up as they went. So mom explained about St Nicholas and we had fun pretending about Santa. This all came crashing down when I innocently explained to my fellow kindergartener that Santa was dead. After an irate phone call from the child's mother, my poor shaken mother had to sit me down and explain that I was not aloud to tell other kids what I knew or surmised about Santa. It was a rather traumatic experience for me. After that he was not nearly as fun. It irritates me a bit that Santa can't be pretend, he has to be real or "dead". We try to pretend about Santa, but I have had to sit my girls down and explain to them that other kids think Santa is really real so they can't discuss him with others, that kind of kills the magic of pretend.

Homeschooling has many aspects of community, but it is definitely not a cohesive whole. There can be local homeschooling communities, online communities (such as this), state "communities" (such as forms when dealing with legislative issues in the US). Not everyone who home schools has a connection with all aspects of homeschooling community. However many do have community connections, and it is those who have some responsibility to at least consider what these "homeschool abuse" groups are saying. Now there seem to be 2 angles to the homeschool abuse thing. 1. Abusers who use homeschooling to get away with there abuse. This does not have anymore to do with homeschooling than it does with the duct tape industry (duct tape is a common restraint in many of these cases as well). Some of these homeschooling abuse sights actually site the Elizabeth smart, and Jaycee Dugard cases as examples of homeschool abuse. (Famous US kidnapping cases, where the abductor forced their captives to say they were homeschooled on the rare occasions they took them out in public). There is a similar situation with the current Ohio controversy. It is ridiculous to place any responsibility for these horrors on homeschooling, unless things like duct tape, hair dye , door locks and window shades are going to take there share of the blame. 2. The second group seems to be homeschool families who are or become involved in philosophies/religious groups that use control and isolation. The frequency of what is called "spiritual abuse" is quite high, and other types of abuse are more easily hidden. The specific one that seems to be prevalent is the "Patriarchy" movement. I do believe this does deserve some response and dialog from more mainstream homeschoolers, especially Christian homeschoolers. As far as I can tell, the Patriarchy movement has roots in the southern United States, and actually has some relationship with confederate ideology. But many Christian homeschoolers have been influenced by it in subtle ways and have unwittingly defended and supported it. This is the homeschool community who I think has some responsibility to become educated and if possible address the issue. I think this would be more effective than legislation. I actually appreciate this thread. I don't personally know any families in the patriarchy movement, but I do know families influenced by it, and have read blogs of some who are firmly in the patriarchal movement. And because of my personal experience with Cult survivors, I do feel like I as an individual need to research the situation more and see if there is something I should be doing.