Thanks for these. I just have an old ipod nano from 6 or 7 years ago, so it's not really compatible with a lot of stuff. However, I did find the following podcasts, too! Lotto ist 3 Locomo | Spannende Hörücher und Podcast für Kinder und Familien NUK Gute-Nacht-Geschichten NUK Traumreisen Kinderradio im WDR 5 - Radio zum mitnehmen Figarino Flinte, Floß und Abenteuer We haven't listened to a sampling from all of them (so it's possible they're no good), but they look promising, even if not "classic". :)

Have you tried the Leserabe for first grade? I know that I was just perusing for "early readers" a while back (not that my son is anywhere close, but...) and I found that there are "early readers" in German, but they're nothing like "early readers" are here, where we have two to four words on a page, and they don't make full sentences most of the time. My guess (I've no idea if this is actually true) was that it was because most Germans do learn to read in school (as opposed to earlier), and the language is just so phonetic, that once they know the basics of reading, they can jump right into text that's much more advanced than our early readers. Just a guess, though. :)

Dangit! I was really excited by this post, at first... mainly because I mistakenly read "ipod" instead of "ipad", and I was hoping these were podcasts. (Since I don't actually have an ipad or android.) But it makes me wonder: are there any good German podcasts for preschoolers that you can recommend?

Thanks for all the ideas! It's been eight or ten years since I read the English version Inkheart, that I didn't remember anything of violence. I just remembered him reading a story to life, and then an adventure ensuing. Whoops. And the music in between chapters really is annoying. :)

Do you have any additional ideas for the younger kids? I went ahead and got the audible membership, only to get Tintenherz and find out it's WAY too far above my 3 year old right now. I'd been hoping to challenge him, but this was so far above him that I don't even know that he registered *anything*. :(

What do you mean by this? If the letters are the same, why teach penmanship separately?

Are you all still having this problem? Did it resolve on its own, or did you have to do something "tricky" to get around it? I'm thinking about audible.de but am not sure if we might have issues downloading...

This is a great thread, and I'm definitely interested in the titles mentioned so far! I'm wondering if anyone has any more suggestions? I've been considering a subscription to audible.de, but wonder if it's worth it if I'd only be buying a small number of books. I'd really like books that aren't translated from English -- so originally German is great, but I'd also be happy with good books / classics that weren't originally in German or English (I'm thinking of things like 1001 nights, Homer's stuff, etc.). At their current age, I think my kids would be most interested (and get the most out of) in books that are like... Oh, I don't even know what to call them... Classic children's literature? If it were English, I'd say comparable to stuff like Just-so stories, Charlotte's web, the Chronicles of Narnia, etc. A little under that level would be fine (though preferably not *too* far), but over that level is probably a little out of reach for now. I'd still welcome the suggestions, so long as you tell me what level they are, and I'll just start a list for things to download in a year or two! :D The books that I'd planned on getting first were the Tintenherz set, but that's mainly because they were one of the few that I knew was originally German! There's a lot of other downloads that look somewhat interesting, but I'm also trying to get the most bang for my buck by not getting too many really short ones (18 hours for 10 Euros seems like a much more/better exposure than 30 minutes for 5 Euros, you know?) My son (almost 4) just loves listening to stuff while looking at books and playing with toys. So far, I've not done much but rip the audio from all of our German movies, but he's pretty much bored with them, since he listens to it at least 2 hours, most days, plus in the car...

I think I agree with what you said, regarding counting being a terrible *habit* to start, but I don't think I agree that beans and other items like this are manipulatives to be avoided, because I think they really can help communicate the concept of addition, subtraction, etc. I see a lot of value in what you said about lengths, and understanding the relationship between different numbers based on that (like 9 is less than 10), and I think that's a great benefit to the suggestions you gave! But I've known plenty of brilliant math people (or at least, I think they're brilliant :D) who started off by counting. They didn't have to break a bad habit, because it never actually became *habit*; but it was a good way to help them understand what was going on in the very early stages. Yes, counting to 18,000 would be rough, but so would laying out that many rods, dots, or tick-marks... :D)

So my boy is not in K yet, so it's *conceivable* I'll change my thoughts by then, but I've absolutely no intention of doing formal math with him when he is in K. My main reason is just that I don't think it's necessary. I can teach him to add and subtract, recognize patterns and shapes, dabble his feet in fractions while cooking, money, etc. on my own. And if he's not interested, I see no problems waiting until 1st grade to "start again". But that's probably my own background/philosophy coming out, in that I really don't see any "need" to do formal academics before 1st grade. (Not saying there are no "reasons", just no "need".) I believe that they can pick up whatever they're "behind" in whenever they start 1st grade (though I'm not sure I think a 1st grader can really be "behind" academically). Disclaimer: My own experience was without any formal academics before grade school. When I did start academics, I think my brain was just "ready", so things that I might've slaved over for a month or two at a younger age only took me a week or two, and I was advanced in most subjects (especially math) by 3rd or 4th grade.

While I think there are a variety of good reasons to hs a kindergartner (and you've mentioned a few), I think my two biggest reasons are: (1) I just hate the idea of institutionalizing my kids 8 hours a day at the age of 5. Hardly any time to play, run, jump through puddles, climb trees, chase bugs, etc. that I feel like 5 year olds should really spend more time on. :) And then when you get them home (a good friend's experience this year...), you get the worst of them, it seems: they're tired, hungry, cranky, clingy, and frustrated at missing out on all the "fun" things you did that day (zoo, park, museum, play-dates, etc.). My grade school didn't last more than 4-5 hours a day (and that was all the way through 4th grade), and we learned enormous amounts during that time anyway. (2) Shaping their heart. For us, that definitely has a religious/spiritual side, but even if it didn't, I feel like they're still so open and innocent, and I see so much of that being lost in early elementary years. Maybe it's selfish, but I want our family members to be the most important people in each other's lives, and I want to teach my kids the values that my husband and I share and find important, and I don't want to miss those moments of opportunity where my child needs encouragement, support, love, etc. and I can be there for them.

This made me laugh (in a "too true" sort of way), just because, even after teaching for years, I'm still generally disappointed when my "numbers" on my evals aren't super high. I get really great comments about my teaching, but my numbers always run lower than I'd like, and I know that that's what's being "tracked" (because you can't really "track" comments, of course).

I should clarify, because I realize it may sound like I'm coming down really hard on universities: I really love my uni. I feel like the faculty do genuinely care about students, rather than just their research, and that the department genuinely encourages and supports excellent teaching by their graduate students too. I've just seen a lot of schools where this was very much not the case, as well.

I don't know much about it, so I'll check it out. Thanks! I'm pretty new to the board/forum, and my kids are still young. So, while I've been doing math for a while, I confess I don't even know most of the abbreviations used here without googling them. :)

That's unfortunate to hear. I knew the earlier classes were full of repetition and poor passing rates, but it always seemed comparable to me to what I've seen at uni (for the same level of course, that is). I guess I've just been lucky with my CC experiences and what I've heard in my circle of acquaintances. Or maybe I've just been lucky to be around fairly quality CCs. :)

Can I ask what sort of classes you had this experience with? From what I've seen, the repetition is pretty standard in most of the entry level courses -- so in math, that would be stuff like algebra, trig, pre-calc, and even calc 1 and 2, to a degree, but I would guess the first 5 or 6 classes (depending on where you start, of course) -- are like this. Unfortunately, that's been true whether they were CC or 4 year or uni's, though it was much less true of the calculus courses at some of the larger uni's. It's just an unfortunate part of the current system, where the post secondary education system is getting students who, quite frankly, are not prepared for it. I know I found it especially painful as an undergrad, and I usually just brought other homework to work on quietly in the back of class during those classes because I could never quite bring myself to ditch. :) So they have my sympathy! I found my CC to be better at this, and not quite so repetitive, but I'd guess that's only because I took Calc 3 there (rather than something earlier), and I also took it as a condensed summer course (so there just wasn't time to repeat as much). On the other side of this, I've been super frustrated teaching classes like trig and pre-calc at my uni, because the students want (and some of them need) so much repetition! Often, the core problem is that they can't learn the material I'm presenting because their previous foundation (in algebra, for instance) is just too weak. But I always feel bad for the few students in my class who "get it" and are bored, because I've been there, and it stinks.

Wow! There's so much content on this thread!! :) I won't try to respond to everything, but I'll give my experience as a mathy person (not in a braggy way, but I was just always gifted in the area) and also as an instructor who has taught math at a variety of levels (including graduate level courses, and courses for math teachers). As far as the "how it's done", I strongly agree with other people that you shouldn't just skip large chunks. Instead, just let them go at their own pace, however quick that is. If they feel like they get it after just a few practice problems (choose the later/harder ones to make sure it's not just the easy ones they can do with ease), certainly let them move on without all the drill (because that'll just kill them!). Just take periodic quizzes or tests to make sure you really are getting it and not missing things. I know that I was able to teach myself the concepts just by doing a few of the problems. I would review the section as I did the problems, and it was usually easy enough for me to do each lesson in just a fraction of the time that it was supposed to take. On some of the other things that have been discussed: I'm not sure I agree that this is true. Our uni gets to proofs and theories pretty quick, but doesn't require them of students until later years (closer to Junior). However, if you test out of calculus, you can jump right into the theory classes. At the uni I attended as an undergrad (fairly small state school, truth be told, and it probably worked in my favor), I was able to get "special permission" to jump into the theory classes as soon as I'd tested out of calculus, and was taking graduate level classes by my second year. My guess is that a school like Stanford/MIT wouldn't make these sort of "allowances". Now, maybe they're not necessary at those schools, but I just thought I'd throw out there that there may be pros to some of the non-super-technical schools, too. I think this just depends on what level the kid is at. I've seen people become mathematicians without being the super talented/gifted student that we're talking about, and in that case, I think a CC can be a great option for getting the basics (Calculus, diff Eq, etc.) done. Those are courses that you'd be taking under a grad student (who may or may not have any experience teaching) or with a faculty phd but in a class of 100-200 (and see the grad student for half the week anyway) at a uni, whereas at a CC you get a someone with at least a masters, if not a phd, who definitely wants to teach (as opposed to the possibility of having someone teaching when what they really want to be doing is research...), and you have smaller classes. Now, I don't think all big uni's are bad, but I figured I'd paint a picture of it that may not generally be considered. Just so you know, later math is almost always typed. :) I was doing it in half my classes halfway through undergrad, and in all my classes in grad school. There's actually a pretty cool program called LaTeX that you can look into. It's pretty easy to learn and really helps later in math, when you realize you forgot one line in a proof but you don't want to re-write the entire proof... You just open the document, insert the missing line, and typeset it again. I agree with this. We were doing algebra in grade school, but not calling it algebra. It was in the form of word problems that you had to set up with variables and then solve. I moved a lot in middle school, and kept getting put pre-alg or alg at that point, and it was terribly boring for me because I'd done it already. :p I don't know of any research concerning this particular comment, but I can say that I know that there is research showing that really complex abstraction doesn't usually start until the early 20's, which is beyond when we usually push the really abstract stuff. So it'd make sense to me if, in general, we are asking students for too much abstraction at earlier ages as well. On the other hand, I wonder if the research is skewed, because we don't start teaching kids to abstract well-enough and early enough. Most of the high school math I've seen (not just my own, but from teaching hs math teachers) is very procedure oriented, rather than focusing on concepts, so I also wonder if people would learn to abstract earlier than 20's if they were taught how to do it well earlier. I don't know which way I lean, but it's an interesting topic to consider, especially when you consider other cultures where more abstract topics are usually taught earlier. I really agree with this. There's actually a ton of interesting math that's accessible to kids that's not on the standard "calculus track". This is actually a big beef of mine in normal schools, especially for kids who are *not* math-inclined, actually. Get into combinatorics and other discrete math, like graph theory, coding theory, number theory, probability, or higher level algebra like group/ring theory, etc. and the *majority* of these (with the exception of the higher level algebra, which relies on some of the earlier fields mentioned) require no special or technical knowledge beyond solid algebra and the willingness to think about things in new ways. Moreover, they're really INTERESTING (but maybe this is my own bias towards non analytical type math :D), to math people like me, but even (and maybe especially) to people who think they don't like math because all they've ever known of math is algebra/pre-calc based. (Aside: I had a student in a graph theory class like this who had failed every math class she'd ever taken and had been diagnosed with some catch-all disorder claiming she just couldn't do math. Turned out she aced my course, because it was just completely different and allowed her to use her abstracting skills in a way that didn't rely so heavily on pre-calc type math. She was *elated* and I felt great to be able to offer her that experience.)

Thanks! I confess that I don't read as much as I'd like on here (something about staying home full-time with a 3 year old and 1 year old, a baby on the way, and working nights and naptime when they're sleeping... :D), so I miss a lot of math conversations amidst all of the other conversations that happen here. If there's ever anything you (or anyone else) see that relates to math (not specific curriculum, though, since I've no experience with that yet), feel free to message me a link. I'm always happy to throw out my 2 cents! :)

sorry. duplicate post!

I know you've already had a ton of feedback, but I just wanted to encourage you that I think this a great response / outline / priority list or whatever it is called. We feel similarly in several areas, and I know I've found it really hard to do what *seems* like (even if it may not actually be) going against the flow. Our main focus right now is shaping their hearts, and for us that means biblical character training and then learning responsibility / how to be a team player at home (helping with chores, cooking, appropriate ways to play with a baby sister, etc.) For me, academics come after that (and is pretty much nonexistent for my almost 4 year old). I also wanted to add just one more comment about accelerated math: I, personally, found math very easy and had absolutely no problems with Algebra and calculus early. I even ended up with a phd in math. *However*, research shows that many/most people (might be limited to our country, but I don't remember the details of the study) are not able to abstract things well (like you'd need to really understand the calculus concepts, even if not for the calculus procedures and plug-and-chug sort of methods for solving calculus problems) until their early 20's. Everyone is different, of course, and people some people certainly abstract things more easily and earlier than others (and I believe I was one of those, which is what drew me to math in the first place). It's possible that this is not so much a maturity thing so much as a fault within our current system to prepare the student to reason abstractly earlier -- I honestly don't know. But I see a whole lot of students who are completely unable to grasp math concepts in an abstract form (even just putting algebra or trig problems in a different light) when they enter college. It's been my experience, teaching at a fairly large university for the past 9 years, that a well-prepared (i.e., taken Algebra, Geometry, and Trig and actually understand the *concepts*, rather than just being able to follow a given procedure) student who's never seen calculus before generally does better in a Calc I course at university than the students who have *already* taken Calc I in high school (even ones who got A's). I won't even suggest theories on why that's true: there are just too many of them. :) Granted, going slower won't get you into Ivy League schools, probably, but you said that wasn't a high priority anyway (a very wise friend once reminded me that my God is bigger than a resume builder while I was making those sorts of tough choices about grad school -- and it's always stuck with me)

Great! I'm glad to hear that it does work out well. With the 1st and 3rd being 4 years apart, I didn't really want to mess with the rotation, since it seems like it'd work out perfectly with them. I just didn't want to short-change the in-between child! Can you tell me how SOTW works? My WTM book is the old one that doesn't have this as part of the history plan. When I looked it up on Amazon, the "look inside" looked like it was way longer per story than the 1 or 2 page spreads it talked about in the Usborne book recommended in my version of WTM.

My kids aren't quite to elementary school yet, but I've been thinking ahead to how we're going to do things when we get to that point. We'll have three kids, in two year intervals (plus any more that happen to grace us in the future...) I guess I'm just a bit confused on the suggestions given in the WTM with regards to history and science. I read where it says to go ahead and do the same topics in those two subjects with all your kids, if you have multiple kids, and this seems great to me! However, then I also see a big emphasis on always starting with the ancients in history, and clear indication that the sciences are best done in order as well (younger kids understand biology, older kids can start to think about the abstractions involved in chemistry and physics.) So this leaves me confused as to what to do when my second child is entering first grade while my oldest is in third grade. Does it work best to have the 1st grader just do history and science "with" the 3rd grader, even though they don't have the "background" of ancients and medieval and chemistry might be too abstract for them? I wouldn't want to start over with the 3rd grader (especially given that we'll have the exact same issue two years later when we have kids in 1st, 3rd, and 5th grade), but it does seem like an awful lot of work to do to be running separate time periods and science with them, and I also really like the idea of them being able to talk about things together as they learn them together, even if it's on different levels and they're each doing different work. I know this would a lot easier if we decide to go with more of the pre-packaged curriculum that a lot of people use, because then the workbooks take care of different topics on their own for each kid. But I'm just wondering what other options there are, and what people have tried and liked (or not liked!) Thank you very much!

I had a similar experience but with a different background. I grew up bilingual German-English in Germany until I was 11, but then moved to Colorado and spoke exclusively English from that point on (minus the last two years where I've been trying to "recover" my German and pass it on to my kids! :D) By the time I was in high school, I could understand most any German still, but was hard pressed if actually asked to speak it. Nonetheless, I usually spoke German in place of Spanish when I couldn't recall Spanish words. It took us two years to figure that out -- until I got a Spanish teacher who also spoke German -- because I never registered that I was doing it, and my first few Spanish teachers just assumed I was butchering parts of my oral presentations or mis-remembering words. (The latter, of course, was more accurate than they realized!) It was suggested to me that maybe German and Spanish were "living in the same place" in my brain, but that never settled quite right with me, since my German is mainly instinctual (even if weak), just like my English. I really thought it was what you suggested above, Nan, in that my brain just operated on a "not English" mode when I was learning Spanish. Once I realized what was happening, I think I just changed my thinking to "not English and not German," and I no longer had issues with mixing Spanish and German. But I really think that may have only worked because both English and German were so instinctual (I don't really mean that, but don't know what other word to use) for me.

This is a good point and really made me think today, because my son has really shown an interest in Spanish lately. We arranged for him to visit a spanish speaking friend once a week to start learning, but when I picked him up today, the mother shared with me that he's getting pretty frustrated at his slow progress (1 hr a week just isn't cutting it for him!) So I've been brainstorming with my husband how to get him more exposure and how we can find a good, trustworthy spanish speaking tutor/babysitter to come in a few times a week without breaking the bank. So much of our motivation to homeschool comes from me being incredibly frustrated in school once I started middle school (and had moved back to the US). Even in advanced classes, I remember just being bored to tears, and I remember thinking that I could do the same amount of learning (maybe more!) in 2 hours a day if they'd let me, instead of 7... So my husband and I thought, if we can give our kids a comparable (possibly better) education in half the time and then have them run and tumble and climb trees with all their extra time, later even learning things that they'd never have opportunity to learn in school, we're gonna do it! :D It's interesting to reflect on how our decisions reflect on our own experiences Thanks for the encouragement! I think I've decided that I just need to refrain from "perusing" all old posts. I'll search for something or start a new thread when I do have a question, but I really don't want to fall into the comparing trap with my kids. It's just bad for everyone involved, it seems. Our kids are all special and different, and there probably infinitely many good approaches and techniques, because there are all different parent/child relationships. :)

I'm guessing that what she means is that each language has their own "mathematics" of how often letters appear. In english, for instance, everyone knows E, S, T, N are all common letters. But you can actually break down "common" english as to what percentage of letters used in "common" english are most likely to be E, S, T, etc. (i.e., the frequency distribution of letters in english text). So when playing word games in English, usually there are more of the most "common" letters, and less of things like z, q, etc. In other languages, however, the frequency distributions are almost certainly different, and it would make sense to have more and less of different letters.