I did this, and I have NOT regretted it. My 2nd child really struggled with handwriting, but was an advanced reader and a good speller. I finally decided that spelling wasn't worth it--the books for her age had nothing she didn't already know, and the ones for older kids had way too much writing. I did get the big Spelling Power book with word lists through 12th grade. Every year, at the beginning of the year, we did the intro tests. As long as she stayed above the end of the year she was in (which was always true), we didn't worry about spelling that year. My older 3 all did no spelling, ever, because of this. The oldest is not a great speller, but she spells reasonably well for an adult, as do I. The middle 2 are fantastic spellers--I will ask them how to spell a word if I can't remember, and they take after their dad in this. My youngest struggled with spelling and has actually had to study it! She's doing better now, in 8th grade, finally. But if your son is only 5yo, there is no reason to worry about it at all, even if he is a horrible speller (which you already said he is not). Spelling is the back side of phonics, so by studying phonics he actually IS studying spelling. Some programs do spelling in 1st grade, but it's not uncommon to wait for spelling until phonics is finished, and start it closer to the end of 2nd grade. If you use a program like Explode the Code, the last page, where they write the words they've been working on the phonics for, can easily be counted as a spelling test, too.

We haven't had negative comments from kids, but twice in the past few months, my middle schooler has met kids about her age who talk eagerly with her until they find out she is homeschooled. Then they abruptly stop and just walk away. I have no idea why, since they were obviously doing just fine together a minute ago, and there isn't much that can be said in response, since they have just left. :(

They will need the SSN to do the FAFSA, because it's based on both your and their tax information. However, I don't know why the school is doing it. Perhaps they have a lot of first-generation college kids, so they are trying to give them extra help. If you will do the FAFSA yourselves, you should be able to just tell them you will handle it, but I don't know what your teen will do during that time.

About three years ago, I went to a Susan Wise Bauer workshop on middle schoolers at a Great Homeschool Convention in CA. It was the best thing I've ever seen on homeschooling middle schoolers, or even on dealing with them on any basis! (I had already lived through 2 middle schoolers, so I had been looking for such a thing for a very long time.) Does anyone here know if she has made this workshop available anywhere else, either in auditory format or preferably in written format? I have often wanted to recommend it to people, but haven't found it so far.

Maybe I'm a bit oversensitive because of some of the things said on the microagression thread, as well as some things I've heard elsewhere. However, here is one example of why I feel she is saying this, "These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium." In other words, it could be that racial defensiveness is manifest by anger or fear, or it could be that a person argues (disagrees) or is simply silent or has a desire to leave the place where they are being accused in this way. This says that if a person disagrees verbally or is simply silent, they are thereby proving that they are racially defensive. The only possible answer is to agree that, yes, I'm being racially defensive. Further, she goes on to say, "White ... fragility and privilege result in responses that function to restore equilibrium and return the resources “lost†via the challenge." In other words, the overriding motivation for any white persons response is presumed to be a desire to push the non-White person back to a lower status. There is no acknowledgement that a person may simply disagree with the presumptions or conclusions given and no possibility allowed that a person might agree with some of it but not all. (Eg, a person might say, "yes, I know that racism does sometimes still exist, but I think it would be more helpful to deal with the challenges in this way, instead.") The entire article seems to presume that her way of looking at it is the only way and that white people's disagreements are dishonest at best. Eg, she says that discussions of "good schools" inherently implies that they will have no non-whites, "Yet, while discourses about what makes a space good are tacitly understood as racially coded, this coding is explicitly denied by whites." Here's an example of her presuming what she is trying to assert. If I deny it, I am falling into the typical error that white people fall into. Yet I have NEVER heard anyone say or imply that any school should be rated on the basis of racial mix--what makes a school "good," imho, is simply whether its kids graduate able to read and write and go on to whatever career they are interested in. But in saying that, I'm just a White "denier," not willing to admit that really, what I mean is that the school should be all White. I don't know how to answer that--I'm not defensive. I would love to see every school in the country mimic the racial percentages of the country as a whole, and more than that, I'd like to see every school in the country turning out kids who are ready to succeed. But I'm just denying the truth, I guess--my viewpoint means nothing because I don't agree with her assertion. Or here's another one: "whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information." In other words, I should not ever debate someone about this, because I have obviously not "thought complexly about race." (But from the above, I'm also not allowed to just be silent, I guess.) It is possible that a person has thought complexly about the issue and might still disagree. It's also possible that someone is dismissing and just spouting an opinion, which often happens in any discussion (not limited to Whites or to any given topic of discussion). But in this case, the implication is that any White person who disagrees has not thought complexly about it and have an uninformed perspective. I do think there are some valid points in the article, but I also do think it's dismissive of those who might have a more principled disagreement than she is aware of. There are a couple stories I've been able to tell over the years which have gotten the point of current racism across very well. One is of a friend of my dd's, who was turned away at a birthday party because the parents had not known when she was invited that she was Black. (This was only about 10 years ago.) When I tell my White friends this they are shocked and horrified. I think this type of story telling is important if we want people to understand the other side.

In my state, private citizens are apparently allowed to take a gun to a gun show and sell it there, without being required to document it. They are discussing closing that loophole by requiring people who want to buy a gun at a show to get some sort of certificate ahead of time, and then show that to buy a gun from an individual or collector, as well. (My state is one of the most conservative, with a lot of gun owners but very little violent crime.)

Between the ages of 10 and 12, I stole from my mom a lot. I think it is normal behavior for the age group, but something that obviously should be addressed seriously. It's part of the experimenting about life that a lot of kids do but they need to learn that it's not acceptable before it progresses to bigger things. It seems to me that the best answer would be some sort of restitution, usually a couple of times the worth of the article stolen. Though a lot of kids enjoy helping the teacher, most do not like to be forced to do so, especially for a longer period of time. It seems to me that this would be a logical consequence, of "paying back" what she took. A discussion of trust and broken trust would be complimentary to that, and knowing she will be watched more and not allowed in the room by herself for awhile can also be useful. ("I'm sorry, you can't go back to get your book because nobody is there right now," would reinforce it for many kids.) That does require more teacher attention, perhaps. At home, the ability to earn money towards something she wants might also be helpful, teaching that there are alternative ways to get what she wants. But separately from that, the suicidal issue ought to be addressed with a counselor, as well. It may be that there are emotional issues playing into the stealing (for me, I wanted to be able to "buy" friends by getting them treats I could not afford on my allowance), but the suicide is a much bigger deal, imho.

Ok, it's been explained here how saying, "no, really, where are you from" can be a problem. But could you explain how asking someone "where are you from" in a general, everyday sense, enforces sociological norms or interpersonal power dynamics? Does carefully *not* asking it reinforce sociological norms and power dynamics more, or less?

I've read this before. It seems to me that being told over and over that if we disagree it proves the opponent's point, that we are inherently oppressive, and that nothing we can ever do will ever change anything, followed by being constantly ranted at over this topic for years, might conceivably lead to people acting a bit stressed about it.

The one thing you didn't put anywhere on this poll is support for better enforcement of the laws we already have. Almost every serious suggestion I've seen even from liberal politicians about how to increase limitations on guns (which always are short of a full ban on them, as they know that's political suicide) turns out to be things we already have in place, but they aren't always well enforced. The only one I've seen that isn't already in place is applying background checks to places like gun shows.

I would be uncomfortable with anybody open carrying around me. If they were following me, I would call the cops! I do believe in the 2nd amendment, at least theoretically, but it seems to me that anyone carrying a gun around like this ought to know that there is an implied threat in their actions. In the case of following this woman around, it was sheer bullying.

So, basically, we are all supposed to agree, and if we don't, we are aggressing? That really doesn't sound like discussion to me. I'm very willing to say, "if I know something hurts you, I will try not to say it around you." But I still think it's important to discuss whether such a thing can ever be taken too far or whether it is equally harmful to people to have to go so far the other way. And the whole, "if you don't agree, you are already offensive, because you don't agree" is pretty aggressive, too, imho. A respectful discussion has to cut both ways, where I say, "I'm sorry you've been hurt by what people have said in the past" and you say, "I know you are expressing a positive interest in my life."

It seems to me that in many cases, both sides may be guilty of responding with stereotypes. A person could ask "where are you from" and mean "you aren't like me so I'm marginalizing you." Or they could mean "You might have story worth hearing." Or they could even mean, "I grew up in a foreign country and am always looking for people who might be from there." (I've used it myself this way a lot. Guess I'm not supposed to do that any more.) And a person could hear that and think, "they really want to know." Or, "finally, an American who cares about me and my background." Or, "they are so offensive, presuming I don't fit in." But in the responses, as well as in the question, there may be biases and stereotypes. A person who presumes an aggressive intent is just as guilty of stereotyping as one who actually has an aggressive intent, and has just as much need to respond with courtesy. One of the saddest things to me in this whole conversation is the statement that there are many people from places like Cameroon or Mexico who are hurt and feel uncared for because nobody is giving them opportunity to talk about their homelands. The fact that one person might misinterpret my genuinely meant question leaves me not asking the very thing that would make another person feel appreciated and cared for! The one who loses the most in this discussion is the lonely immigrant, who shares the same ethnic background as the person who feels aggressed against where none was meant. I have a really hard time with this, too. It seems to me that there is an inherent lack of honor for people who are different if we cannot notice, voice, and applaud those differences. Whatever happened to acknowledging that people are different, and different is a good thing? Whatever happened to presuming that most people mean well, and being willing to build from what we have? The idea that because a person is in an "oppressor" category, they will never be able to relate to or really care for those who "aren't" both dehumanizes and tears us apart. Usually, for most of us, a question is just a question. Usually, for most of us, a conversation is just an attempt to connect, not to get power over another.

I don't remember how it started. If this is the way it started, then it does sound not just "microaggressive" but downright offensive. What I do remember is the very heated conversation that ensued and the way other people in the discussion were accused of being racist because they did not think that watermelon in and of itself was racist. (FWIW, I never saw the mailing, either, though I would not have understood it at that time if I had, until after the conversation. I also don't remember fried chicken in the conversation.)

I also heard another person say she had been piled on in this discussion. As with many things over there, I suspect there are varying opinions of how much negativity it takes to constitute "yelling," but it made me afraid to say anything, and apparently at least one other person also felt yelled at. One can do with that what one wishes. :)