Since the official name of Mexico, translated into English, is also "United States of Mexico," we obviously should not use "United States" or USians, either! How self-absorbed of us to act like we are the only ones who are "United States"! What are we supposed to call ourselves, "of"??? (Where is the sarcasterisc when I need one?) I have only ever heard of Latin Americans thinking people from the US ought to be called something else. I once asked about this on another forum, and people from Canada said, "We are not Americans, though we live in America. That term is for people from the US, only." People in Europe said, "What on earth else would we call you? Americans are from the US. Anything else would just be crazy!" However, some Latin Americans do feel bothered and left out by it.

I skip the detailed reading of each word. The idea of "this is what it says, what does it say?" did not work for us. I did order the workbook, and dd enjoys that.

(The next is also a quote, but I'm not sure how to do them on this forum. Sorry.) 8FillTheHeart, on 11 Nov 2013 - 05:57 AM, said: Absolutely!! It is a manipulation of admission standards that has become a sort of sport in and of itself. The actual losers are the kids who do care to think deeply yet don't play the sport. (end quote) This is rather unfair. Kids who really understand the material will generally get high scores, and even gaming the system can usually not produce the very top scores. Games can help, and lots of people do play the games, but it's unfair to classify all kids who do well as only doing so because they are gaming the system and claiming they are not truly deep thinkers. (next quote) regentrude, on 11 Nov 2013 - 05:15 AM, said: Lastly, I do not believe that large scale examinations with millions of participants can effectively be graded in a full response format. Essay readers on the SAT have 1-2 minutes to evaluate an essay, making an in-depth evaluation impossible. (end of quote) UGH! Don't even get me started on the SAT essays! The best, most creative writers are heavily handicapped by trying to do it in 30 minutes, and even the rubrics do nothing to reflect what makes writing truly shine. The vast majority of today's best selling writers and an even higher percentage of classical ones would do abysmally on these tests. (next quote) Teachin'Mine, on 11 Nov 2013 - 4:34 PM, said: You're right that SAT/ACT math is high school math and doesn't include calculus. But IMO those who score well - as in ivy level - on those tests, took a calculus class (as it's a pre-req for calculus based physics) and did well enough to go onto the physics class, shouldn't have a problem with applying the calculus to the physics, unless they're just not used to used to hard work or haven't learned to ask for help. (end of quote) Again, this is not necessarily accurate. My dd has a 2240, within range for Ivy League from what I understand. She has at least been heavily courted by these schools and others such as Cal Tech, University of Chicago, etc. She has had neither calculus nor physics, and didn't need them to get her 800 on Reading, nor the 690 she got in math--probably not enough on the latter to be an engineer or physicist at a school like Harvard, but enough for any of the humanities, I suspect. It is very possible to score very, very well on these tests and not have taken calculus. That said, it does not negate the OP's point, which is that our kids need to learn to solve problems, and not just to spit out answers. At the same time, there is a basic level of competence that is needed as background to the problem solving. From what I see, the pendulum seems to swing back and forth, and very rarely hit the balance needed for real success.

I made a deliberate choice with my kids that we were NOT going to do this. I don't want them learning to be work-a-holics. I want them to learn to be well-rounded. It has paid off well, for the ones that have hit college so far. This is very true. It is, however, one of the reasons for some kids to do extra-curricular activities. My current 13yo is definitely top 1%. (She took the ACT as a talent search contestant last year, and scored college level in every area.) There is no non-college course that would adequately challenge her, but she is a bit young for the typical college system. So we challenge her by requiring her to do things that come to her less easily, such as piano lessons. We told her, "It's not about the piano lessons. It's about learning to do things that are hard." This is one of the things I really like about Life of Fred. He requires the kids to work with the problems, in ways they haven't learned a formula for, yet. Some parents have a fit about this, but we've found that it really helps my kids. The simple answer is, no, they don't.

I have very sensitive ears. The big problem for me is nickel, and surgical steel does usually have nickel in it. Sterling silver is not usually alloyed with nickel, so I'm usually OK with that. It used to be that I had to get earrings that were specifically nickel free, but it seems that at this point, most earrings labeled "hypoallergenic" also now are nickel free. (Three of my kids also share this nickel problem, but the fourth does not. I got this from my dad, who always had trouble with watch backs and could not wear his wedding ring, and my brother and sister also have it--it is highly heritable.)

Re. shipping--contact the company. They have been willing to work personally with other people I know to ship via Media Mail. There is no tracking, of course, but it costs just under $4.

Most of the comments have addressed the question of "how do you deal with this?" I'd like to address the "why do they do this?" instead. Public schools typically see the "failures" of homeschooling. There are some kids who are put into ps in high school, as part of a specific plan, but most who go to ps later on do it because hs is not working for them. This leaves public schools feeling that the results of homeschooling, as they see them, are not good. Kids who go straight to college from homeschool may not be easily visible to professors, so some are not even noticed. But the ones who are noticed typically stand out for being "under" the standard or for being "different." Also, some states have always had onerous requirements, usually because they wrote these laws quite awhile ago, before there were many studies done about homeschoolers. I used to be very unhappy about these laws. Having now met a few really poor-quality homeschoolers, I can understand them a lot better. (I know these people well. They have no learning disabilities, but they are not getting a decent education.) I don't think a state having excessive regulations actually solves this problem, but I can understand why some states are concerned.

When my 2nd dd was in a private school in kindergarten, one of her big complaints was that they would not allow her to dance while in line! I am laughing about the "clumping" statement, though--so true!

I can't even get MYSELF to keep a planner up to date! I use a preplanned curriculum for some subjects and do others like math on the "lesson a day" plan. At the beginning of the year, I make a check-list, which I tuck into a plastic sheet protector. After a few weeks, they are used to their daily rhythm, and we go with that. For my own personal calendar, I have finally managed to make it work with a smart-phone--totally worth the money, imho!!! It's the first time I've EVER been able to make a calendar work, because I almost never forget it.

You may already know this, but in case you don't--if cost is a factor, do not go to the hospital for a proceedure unless it's really necessary. (This is true even if you have insurance!) Free-standing facilities are much, much cheaper for just about anything. MRIs, sleep studies, etc may cost 1/3 as much at an independent clinic, and for those who have insurance, insurance may also pay substantially more. Eg, I called around a few years ago when I had a sleep study. If I got it done at the local hospital, it would cost $3000, of which the insurance company would pay 80%. If it was done at the free-standing clinic, it would cost $1000, which they would pay 100% of! The insurance company saved enough money that they were happy to give me the incentive to go the cheaper place, and I was happy to do it! It can be a pain to find out what the proceedure codes will be, then call several places for a quote. But it was definitely worth it.

I have done multiple cores, but I didn't do a lot of that until my kids were older. Most of the time, my oldest 2 (2 years apart) and my youngest 2 (3 years apart) each shared a core, but the two groups (4 years between 2nd and 3rd) did not do the same thing. When my third daughter was old enough to use the preK materials, I put them on a shelf. I didn't "do" a preschool core, but when we needed something to read together I would pull off one of the preK books. I did want to do some reading with her, and the preK books don't take very long. In this informal way, we did most or all of the preK cores with all my younger children. I knew they were getting really good books, but I didn't worry about whether we were "doing school" every day. As the kids all got older, I did more formal things with my younger kids. We did basic things like math and reading lessons every day (or close), but history reading did not always happen for the younger ones until they were in about 1st and 4th. By then, the older 2 were in upper cores, so we did not have read-alouds and they were much more independent. The oldest did not do all the cores, but my second will have done them all. We often saved books for the summer, especially if I could get them on a CD from the library. We've often had one we are working on while we drive around town (recently, it was Great Expectations), and we usually take some on vacation as well. It has worked out very well for us. This year, my oldest is going to college, my second will be a senior doing the new core 400, and my younger two will be in 8th and 5th grades, with core F.

I think that depends on what area they are gifted in. My dh is highly gifted in math and science areas, and was "advanced" in just about everything else. When he reads, he reads pretty heavy books. However, he does not read tons of books per year--he just thinks more deeply about the ones he is reading.

Is it possible that there are too many questions for her? I haven't done much with Singapore, and it was a very long time ago, but most math programs offer far more problems than any child needs. This is why most teachers assign only the odd problems, most of the time. Also, if she can do all the work, she may be extremely bored with it. Perhaps you could cover the new material briefly, and then let her skip ahead without all the review. (Most of us find would find being sent back to 5th grade math extremely difficult, just because it's so repetitive and boring to us. Your dd may feel similarly.) If you think the problem is being watched/pressured, you might give her a short time assignment, maybe 15 minutes, and when that's over, have her do the rest of her schoolwork. The rest can be "homework," and done later. Some of my kids have responded well to this, doing the work in half the time, later on. Don't forget, too, that she is working 2 full years ahead, already. Kids in Singapore do not start first grade until 7yo, so they would be 8 by the time they start 2A. This may mean that there is too much handwriting for her in her math course, in which case you can let her do it orally and you play scribe for her. Or you could let her do math 3 days per week, or half a lesson per day, if you feel she needs a bit more time to mature to it.

I read a fascinating study the other day. The kids in the original study were Head Start kids, disadvantaged in the early years, then ahead at the start of kindergarted, then at a more average level by 3rd grade. (There appears to be only one primary study they use to "prove" this point, over and over.) This study took place in the 1960s, so the children in it are around 50yo, now. They were able to find quite a few of them, and compare them with siblings and with other kids in the same schools at that time. They found that in every major sociological measure, there was a noticeable difference. They were more likely to have been employed long-term, had more stable marriages, and had achieved higher education levels in the end. Though they had been "average" learners in 3rd grade, they had more ability to stick with things when they were tough, and accomplished far more over the years. Re. the original question, it seems to me that the biggest issue is this: take a bunch of preschoolers and give them intense training (well done, from all I've seen, not just pressure), until they have progressed several years above their peers; get them to the 2nd or 3rd grade level, before kindergarten; put them in a school setting, with other kids who have not had any prior education; teach basic grade level materials, with little or no differentiation; low and behold, by the time they get to third grade, they haven't been taught anything more, and they are now about like the other kids. It has nothing to do with what these kids *could* learn. It has everything to do with what they were actually exposed to--most kids, if not consciously exposed to information or skill, will not learn them. Head Start is good for getting kids started, but if we want them to progress, they have to keep being taught, not just sit around bored until the other kids catch up.

Learning does not take place evenly. All children will have spurts and stalls, some longer and some shorter, especially in skill areas like reading or math. However, over time, a child who is generally 2 years ahead in a subject will, given appropriate teaching and exposure, continue to be generally 2 years ahead of peers. (The exception to this would be if they have a disability--some kids, eg, can learn to read easily with phonics, but may stall out when reading changes from decoding to comprehension.) A child who starts adding at 3yo may fly through arithmetic by about 10yo. Then they may get stuck on algebra, and "stall" there for awhile. However, chances are, they'll also be ready to start algebra by 11 or 12, still 2-3 years ahead of the time most kids are ready to tackle algebra. The parent may think, "oh, they are not as gifted in this area as I thought," but in reality, they may still be very far ahead, just needing a little break at their current place for awhile.