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. :)

It seems to me that the use of the word "aggression" in this context implies that it is about intent. It's that the comment was "micro-hurtful," but that the person speaking it is assumed to be aggressive, even if only in a small way. If a comment that a person has no idea could be a problem and the person does not mean in any hurtful way is presumed to be aggressive, that does in fact impute intent. If there is nothing wrong with it and we all agree that you might mean it completely innocuously, but someone might be unhappy about it, that does not make it aggressive. It make make it a matter of conversation, but the whole term "micro-aggression" presumes that the person saying it means harm. That's what "aggression" means.

There was an actual conversation about the watermelon--I don't remember the details of what started it, but I remember a huge forum discussion (not here, elsewhere) where people were yelling at someone because they had been so racist as to innocently offer a black person watermelon. The act of doing so was seen as inherently racist whether anyone actually knew of any racial connotation or not. There was quite a pile-on to a person who had no idea anything could be construed wrongly about it. I've thought about this a lot, and I came up with an example that made sense to me. Let's say that only 1% of Americans are racist. (It could be higher, of course, but lets suggest a really low number for illustration.) Then let's change it from racist to prejudiced against me because I am tall. Ok, I run across about 300 people in any given week. That would mean that 3 of them would dislike me because I'm tall. 3 people per week--that winds up being quite a few. It's easy to see that pretty soon, I'd be wondering, "is this one of the three for this week?" Any little comment, any cross look, and I'd think, "Is this the one?" It would be easy to interpret anybody's bad day as "they don't like me because I'm tall." Seen this way, it does become understandable. This reminds me of something I've told my kids about physical hurts, too, like when your sister accuses you of deliberately kicking her. There is really only one response that is reasonable, "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you. I didn't realize I had touched you."

The problem many people have with the term is that it can be used for just about anything and often has more to do with the person calling it a microagression than with any harm meant or implied. Eg, I have seen a conversation wherein someone was hugely bawled out for offering a Black friend watermelon. This person was simply sharing what she had brought to a picnic, but apparently stepped into a huge no-no that she had no idea of. The whole conversation made me afraid to ever offer to share anything, because I had never heard of such a thing being an insult. Similarly, the question above of "where are you from" is a basic conversation starter with a new friend or neighbor, but apparently has been used differently against someone in this thread, above. So if I used that, she might consider it a microaggression, while I might just be trying to be friendly. It's a pretty nebulous term, and I do think it's often used in an aggressive way, to imply that a person is tainted by aggressions even if they don't realize it. I can understand saying that someone may be deliberately making aggressive statements that seem small, but the intent of the term from the way I've seen it used is to presume offence and especially racism or gender-ism against people who truly have none.

I would say there should be a balance here, as with most things. If it's pretty simple to leave out, such as serving veggies without butter or with butter, then I'd say it's considerate to season them some other way. Or refrain from putting the flour in the turkey bag that the bag box recipe suggests. It's not a huge deal to leave it out, so why make it inedible for someone? If it's hard to figure out, such as gravy, or there is a big taste/texture difference, such as rolls, it's ok to have a couple kinds, or to say, "we want to have regular rolls for people, so if rolls are important to you, please bring some gluten free ones." Many people with allergies will be glad to bring the gravy or to make it from clean turkey drippings at your house, so they can eat it freely. Also, BE SURE TO AVOID CROSS CONTAMINATION, whether you are a guest or a host/hostess! There are few things more frustrating than to have carefully made a food others can eat, and then someone swipes the gravy ladle across the mashed potatoes, and suddenly, someone can't eat the gravy any more. :( For most things, people with food allergies know that it's hard for others to understand. They usually just want understanding and if possible, very simple changes. They don't usually want people to go to a huge amount of work. My dd has multiple food allergies, and we just expect to bring our own food.

Growing up in Guatemala, it was said there that all babies' eyes were blue at first. (I would say they were a very dark blue.) My 4 kids all had dark blue eyes, too, though not as dark as the Latin American babies I grew up with. Then my babies' eyes lightened over about 6 months, but they were not hugely different, still a grayish blue color.

Try googling "top engineering colleges" or "top computer science colleges." Several organizations put out detailed lists for various careers or other parameters. For my dd, she wanted a Chrstian college that offered dance. You can guess that there weren't a large number of choices. :)

We have had a pretty steady 5-10% insurance cost raise over the 20 years prior to ACA. We also had pretty steady coverage, sometimes better or worse depending what job dh had, but they pretty much covered everything with a pretty standard cost structure. Our copays were the same for many, many years. Since ACA, dh's employer has done a lot of things to try to keep costs down. For the most part, they've been able to do this, though there have been some paperwork headaches. Last year was the first year it went up a fair amount, and they told us that 4% of the increase was specifically due to ACA mandated fees. HOWEVER, the amount that has been covered has changed dramatically. Specialist co-pays have doubled--it used to be that the majority of them were just standard office fees, now few of them are. Some medicines have halved the quantity covered per month. Many things are not covered now, and our deductibles have gone up considerably. ER visit fees went up by 50%. More things are on the "not part of the office visit" list and more things are "we only cover part of this particular procedure." We also lost some of the peripheral coverages, such as orthodontic care, which cost us $4500 over the past 3 years! It may be that "insurance costs always go up." I presume that is true. But for us, at least, we have never in our 25 year married life seen this degree of cost increase and loss of coverage, not by a long shot. This, I think, is a big part of the issue. Part of the selling point is that they were going to reduce costs. They have not done this at all. Medicare seem to me to be the only government healthcare system that works reasonably well. Perhaps it would be something to possibly expand.

One thing I'm not seeing on the first page, at least, is the pressure that is on primary care drs. I have a friend whose dh is a dr. He has recently switched jobs, but had a hard time finding a job which did not demand that he see patients at a rate of no more than 10 minutes each. If he couldn't keep to that timetable, his pay would be docked significantly! One place he looked at allowed under 20 minutes for a "medium/high complexity" visit! There is no way a dr can do an adequate job under those conditions, and it doesn't surprise me that they might want someone to come back for a lab follow up, then for another, just so they have 30 minutes to actually deal with your problem! But that costs you 3 co-pays, too.

When I was growing up, only in California did pedestrians unquestionably have the right of way. There, many people did cross without looking, and you could generally get away with it, but it still seemed unsafe to me. When I moved to my current state, most drivers did not think they had any reason to stop for pedestrians, but shortly thereafter there was a lot of publicity about pedestrians having the right of way. Over the past 20 years, people here have pretty much adopted the CA idea when they are pedestrians, and cross without thinking, but cars sometimes do not. The worst I've seen here are the teenagers, and they do get hit, a couple times a year. Most adults do watch before they walk.

I have no idea how many people my actual town has. I don't think it is significant, though, because for any real-life purposes, we are part of the whole metropolis of about 2 million people. Nobody I know draws lines and doesn't go over them for almost every purpose, every day--shopping, work, church, sports, play, parks...... all are more likely to be in any other city of the 20 or so within half an hour than in my own bedroom community.