My parents are not vaccinated, and refuse to mask going forward. They said that if it bothers others [vaccinated people], they can wear the masks if it's so important to them. So, yeah. This is a thing. OP, sorry about inlaws. Some people will be difficult about anything, and when given an already-difficult topic it's like a field day.

We did Chemistry 2nd and 4th grade, using Creek Edge Press cards as the spine and MEL Science kits. Finding books that covered chemistry for them use use for reading/research was the hardest part, but a few encyclopedias and a few other books gave enough depth to do the cards well. Online videos and a few apps, the kids really enjoyed it, got a lot out of it, and the cards were easily flexed to their grade levels.

Sequential Spelling has this, yes. I guess I didn't pay attention to the first levels since I didn't notice any errors lol, or they updated it, but you can buy a DVD that plays the word, gives an example, a pause, and then shows how to spell it before moving on to the next word. My kids like it well enough, it suits our purpose well.

This makes sense to me. I guess for the few people in my life who I know use these labels, they don't treat it as a part of their personality, but AS their personality. It could be the new-convert zeal though: like when you find something you really like or just fits, you have to tell everyone about it and kind of obsess for a bit. As time goes on maybe it will become more balanced and just a part of their sexual (or whole) identity. Like I said, tho, I don't mind if they find it helpful. I just hope it's a help and not a limitation in understanding themselves longterm.

It's a little weird to me, because by giving these labels to "better explain" or "identify" themselves, it seems they have to ignore the complexity of themselves. So, to deny in order to fit a label. I guess it's helpful to weed out potential partners with a word, but it seems limiting when the whole idea is to be able to be your "true" sexuality, so I don't understand why this has caught on. I mean, I guess I'm a sapiosexual, as I've only twice in my life seen a physical body as attractive before I spoke to the person, and I definitely choose guys who are brain-heavy. But, I'm not usually sexually interested without an emotional connection, so I could see being called a demisexual. Also, I tend to go for the artistic or creative types, where it's not really about their smarts but more about their perceptions and producing of things, but Google tells me this isn't a thing I can identify as (I feel minimized!), it's probably just sapiosexual. But also, I really do tend to have a physical type -- or maybe a physical type tends to like me?, because all of my relationships the guys are 5'11-6'0, slender build, similar coloring, similar ethnicities, but I wasn't attracted to them (especially the first 2) until I got to know them, at least consciously. And a "criteria" that seems to be there is that they enjoy cooking; once I find out a guy can cook (or not), it instantly shifts my interest in them. So through my navel gazing, I am a hetero-creato-sapio-demi-subconscious[ethnicity]-slender-cook-sexual. But this doesn't really capture the full picture, especially as a potential romantic partner, and I don't know who else would be interested in this label other than potential romantic partners. --> Far more useful would be to tell about myself, not my turn-ons. Like a business card to give in a bar when meeting people, "Hi, I'm a hetero-introverto-smartish-creato-partner with a minor-subset of gluttony-movie-hiking traits." But maybe this is old-fashioned, in advertising myself instead of putting up a "Please Only Apply If..." sign. Anyway. I don't mind if people find it's useful to them. I will mind if my kids are forced to pigeonhole themselves as they grow older, but I guess in every society you choose some label or another. If I'm going to be bothered by labels and names, I'll keep my ire for "Latinx" honestly, but that's a different story altogether.

I hear ski'ing is also a creme de la creme sport (and I checked, there are ski teams at ivy leagues), but to meet the right people you'll have to stay at the nicest resorts for the entire season. Shucks.

I'm mostly okay with this; there are a few things that I think are too leading but not enough to throw out the entire concept. I'm assuming this isn't the only education they'd be getting on US history, rather, that this is supplementing their history studies with readings during Language Arts, like an integrated curriculum approach, where they ask these questions. I read the Themes of Concern and feel like I'm missing something. Maybe I would need to see the whole curriculum. "Sexism towards white males"? Maybe pointing out that the founding fathers were white and some owned slaves and got land from Native Americans is sexism towards white males? I don't see it. "Bias of political perspective"? Unless that just means that teaching about how minorities have been treated in the history of our country is political. Which it shouldn't be. Because it's factual. "Lack of pride in our country?" Well, yes, this one I get, because America has done things it shouldn't be proud of: this doesn't mean we pretend it didn't happen. It's concerning that people actively think this is a reason to not teach history. Maybe they'd say, "of course teach it, but at the 8th and 9th grade levels." ie after American pride is indoctrinated. Idk. This could be valid but makes me a bit suspicious about *when* the right time to teach this stuff is according to the nay-sayers. The Law of Club and Fang example sounds a bit stretched. But I read Call of the Wild recently (January?) and was struck by a different theme entirely so it could be just a knee-jerk reaction to something different from my interpretation. But, Half the book talked on that the dogs loved the work they did and Buck was exceptional is many ways, so the comparison to slavery rubs me the wrong way. It could be extrapolated to "Slavery is bad, but at least they got to do what they liked, and were taken care of, so long as their owners didn't beat them it wasn't too bad." Some stretches like this make me think that a serious relook at the curriculum is needed, but not throwing out the entire thing for being "lacking pride" or "political." Some of this I'd say is more 7-8th grade level than K-5, but these all seem to be Grade 5 examples which I think is close enough. If this was for 1st grade I'd say too much, because at that level the focus is on *how* to read, not *what* you're reading. But saying this type of conversation shouldn't happen before college (Theme of Concern) is anti-intellectual and anti-thought, which is slightly ironic since another Theme of Concern is that they think the curriculum is indoctrination. My concern about making these things "elective" at either a high school or college level is that you are signaling this isn't an *important enough topic* to be required to learn about, that it's optional to be aware of racism, and that your time is equally/better spent learning about any other elective or taking a study hall and going off-campus to do what you want for a class period. Overall I don't see how this curriculum would distract from an education. Are we only allowed critical thought about puppies and rainbows? If they are reading these books, having discussions about implications and the world/time period in which they were written, and the author's perspective, this doesn't seem to be doing the kids an educational disservice. If this was their only class every day, then yeah it would be. But it isn't, and I don't know why we are acting like integrating bias-recognition into already-existing reading time is somehow going to make the kids miss math. If it was done with advertisements and marketing examples, would there be a similar outrage? If we really were concerned about it, we'd get rid of testing, or only testing once a year every other year, or something similar: teaching to the test takes up far far more time and attention from actual education than this curriculum would. [Not saying that you can't dislike both, obviously, but that testing hasn't gotten the outrage this stuff is, while it is an *actual* problem and not just a *potential* one. If the main and only concern was "keep to the basics" we should see similar levels of concern about both.] I'm interested in the demographics of the school district, and I should look at more examples to form a better opinion but I'm already behind a deadline lol. Thanks @Plum for the screenshots and the background information, it's good to see what level of discussion people are objecting to.

Ok, glad to hear. I didn't want to make a total assumption, so thanks for clarifying. It's hard to cover "everything" but I agree with you that teaching about the systemic racism, from slavery to the post-civil war laws and bias found in both schools and courts (before and up to today) are necessary for them to better understand their history and their society. Along with the pitfalls of other systems. Yeah, we are more socialistic than we'd like to think. But the point wasn't communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs democracy vs monarchy or anything, but rather my-system vs different-system: that's where most of us have our bias.

A very long time ago. I should probably revisit, but probably won't get back to it for many more years. Interestingly, apparently since 2009 it's required reading in Russian schools. So they do seem to have at least some "critical" approach to their history in schools before post-secondary education. (wiki reference) Which seems just a interesting side note to this whole conversation.

I agree, that was my entire point. I guess I did not express it correctly. I was addressing the idea that OP first said communism is evil, but would not teach it was evil [ie a value judgement about it], but would just teach about the facts about communism in the USSR and China. And that's fine with me, but from the phrasing I didn't think the OP would necessarily bring the same critical eye to the systems she doesn't see as evil. I could be wrong about that, hence the "carry on if this is ok with you" at the end.

I'm sorry for what your family has been through. DH has similar family stories from Russia, China, and Cuba, so I'm not actually inclined to be rah-rah these -isms, but the blind eye we are willing to turn to our own faults because whataboutism seems to be a central and silent theme in this thread. Deregulation does kill people, I'm thinking specifically about pharmaceutical industry and chemical industries. You may say that's not as bad as having people dragged out of the houses at night and never seen again, or the state having the power to kill simply because it wants to, but I do think deregulation could be something to discuss in this context. But that's besides the actual point I was going for. My entire point was that if you are saying you're only teaching to give the objective look at things we don't like, we should also give the objective look at things our bias says are good --> it doesn't have to be to show all things are equally bad, but to achieve the stated objective of no-judgement-just-facts the OP said they were advocating.

I've been staying out of this thread for so many reasons. But I don't think this is the way you want to go with this, because then we should also talk about how many people have died because of capitalist-driven societies, how deregulation and/or corporation-favorable policies have led to deaths or financial ruins or whatever. Or how democracies or republics allow for corruption, with examples. Unless you're okay with covering these things as well, in which case carry on.

DH is anxiety-prone, I didn't want to distract or worry him needlessly. I figured it didn't need to affect him unless I was actually offered. He is taking it kinda hard but agrees after looking at the details that this is a great opportunity that I can't pass up. Homeschool is going to be much harder now but I looked at our local schools online last night and...yeah, no, it's just not a good fit. I'll do the prep for the next year over the next couple weeks; DH can supervise during the week and I'll do reviews on Saturdays (2 oldest are already semi-independent by choice, so it's really just M that needs active help). It won't be the breadth I would want but I'm confident they won't suffer on the core subjects. Formally accepted this morning!! I asked for a start date of July 25th to close up my current employment on a good note and they accepted that date.

So! Monday went well, formal interview, 3 hours. I crushed it, if I do say so myself. They called me about 15 minutes after I left and asked for 3 references, gave them on Tuesday afternoon. Today around 4pm they called with an offer. They are offering the highest $ that was on the $10k range on the listing, so yay! It's actually a government admin position so the benefits are top notch, too! Overall it seems like a great fit in terms of culture, personalities, etc. I'm overall very excited. I think. lol Now I just need to tell DH that I applied for a position....and had 3 interviews....and got offered the job..... But anyway, yay!!!

OMG. I'm a foible.

Thanks for the help! Monday went well, I got a call Tuesday morning asking me to come in for a final round interview. That'll be next Monday afternoon, they told me it will take about 3 hours and gave me an itinerary for the afternoon. Any prayers appreciated.

Thanks everyone. Took the advice and drove out to the urgent care. By the time I got there (50 min drive) the red was a farther onto my foot. It's an infection and I've gotten antibiotics started.

Didn't wear shoes yesterday. I thought about spider bite but there is not obvious circle or "worse" part except when it's been elevated a while the left looks a bit redder, but not by much. its the entire toe and has just started to creep into the foot proper about half inch in the last 20 minutes (while I was up and making lunch). I'm vaccinated but I suppose it could be Covid toe? I'll look at photos online to see if it matches. eta: Covid toe seems to span more toes and start at the top, and look a bit more blistery to me. This is just the one toe and it's the entire toe, all the way around (both sides, not just top).

Last night my 4th toe on my right foot started to swell up. It is visibly red and at least 1.5x its regular size. I can't flex it anymore, it has a burny itchy feel. If I put my feet up, the color and swelling both lessen greatly, the burn/itch feel stays but gets much better also, and I can flex it like normal. But after about 15 minutes of sitting or walking, it gets swollen again. I don't remember dropping anything on it or stubbing it in the past 24 hours, this started maybe around 7pm or 8pm last night. There's no visible bite mark or cut. It seems reddest on the left side of the toe when its elevated, but when it gets swollen you can't tell a difference. Is this something you'd go to the doctor for? It doesn't *hurt* hurt, but I don't like the idea of leaving something so visibly wrong unattended to, unless this sounds like a common issue I've never encountered before.

I agree there's a lot of progress about what we accept, regarding mixed-race couples, etc. This is probably also dependent on where you live, where I am it is mostly accepted, at least between certain races. I think, though, some of the progress has come from an erasure of some cultural/ethnic heritage. Not necessarily accepting others for being different, as much as ignoring unchangeable differences so long as they try to conform as much as possible. But I guess that's the truth in most societies and cultures. To answer your question, I don't think on the whole it will set back our society and it's progression on race topics. This could actually be seen as a positive symptom of how we are progressing, even: that we are at a place where we can openly address these issues and understand that these issues are important enough for our children to understand. I think it has the potential to improve things even faster. I wouldn't make the jump to it will automatically paint an us-vs-them position to make the parents look bad in the mixed-race scenario. Teaching history and racially-charged historical events doesn't have to be taught in a us vs them way. Being able to abstract from the particular is an important part of education: I'd expect (hope?) that not making an individual equal to an universal would be understood by the point they get into the grittier details, and enforced by the teachers. My kids are so mixed I can't talk about one part of their heritage in relation to another without some bloodshed: but that's okay, because we are talking about history and how it's shaped the present, not how they are individually 1/8 monstrous for something that happened 60 or 100 years ago. And by bringing up problems head on instead of letting them fester and taboo'ing their discussion in an academic way until potentially college (which a lot of people don't go to) we're allowing for earlier comfort in solving the issues and stopping a segment of the population being ignorant of its existence. And their ignorance is a huge factor in its continuation. Plus, if teens/young adults already are able to critically assess how systems are flawed, there is greater chance to correct these things as they grow and become a part of the system. That seems a net gain from a societal view. On the personal level: some teachers will bring their own bias to it. It will go both ways: those that over-emphasize the tension as being insurmountable, and others who pretend it didn't really exist and things like colonization and slavery were purely economically-driven. I mean, this was/is already being taught in some schools. So I understand the concern about how it will be implemented and impact your personal family; but you're probably already be concerned about that so it's not changing anything. And yeah, teens can take just about anything and turn it against parents regardless of how it's presented, and if they know that race is a sore spot with their parents for whatever reason, I'm sure they'll weaponize the information. But that doesn't mean that the information will be presented in a way to encourage that reaction. And it doesn't mean the reaction is permanent, and that they won't integrate the more useful parts as they mature. Teens are dramatic and can take on a victim mentality from anything so no matter how well it's taught there will be some kids who internalize the wrong message; but they are also growing up and are members of our society and it's better for them to have as good an understanding of the society they will be entering soon as adults. I assume you can ask to talk with the teacher or see the lesson outlines if you think your particular teacher could be biased. Since you're concerned about the bias even though we're still in hypothetical territory, I'm guessing you are already concerned about just their history classes in general, and would be asking these questions either way and checking how history is being presented by the schools you can correct/enhance as necessary. So since you're already doing that, I'm not sure if going from currently-biased curricula to CRT-influenced curricula would really change what you're doing as a parent, as much as it might change the information you have to make sure you supplement to them for a better picture.

@Catwoman and @katilac It is a full time position. The business would definitely suffer; I'd max get 2-4 hours on it a day plus the weekends. This isn't even looking at the homeschool side of the equation. They have put a $10k range on the job posting; benefits are mentioned in the job listing. The bottom end of the range would be unacceptable, the top more in line with what I'd consider; but I am wondering if the top of the range is just to pull in prospects and the bottom of the range is more likely what they're expecting. I've had a short informal phone interview, about 15-20 minutes, on Friday; towards the end of the phone call is when they asked if I could do the Monday official interview. It's a panel of 4-5 people, via Zoom.

Okay, so I got a call on Friday asking for an interview for a full-time position, close to where I live. This is a surprising turn of events: I had applied for it in May on a whim, and then when I didn't hear back after a few weeks I figured it had passed me by and frankly had been grateful I didn't have to make any tough decisions about it. So I've looked at a bunch of blogs/articles about questions to ask in your job interview. But few touch on how to discuss salary, benefits, etc. They are all about culture fit and expectations of the job, which are important, but I haven't been to a job interview in 15 years: do you not discuss salary until a second interview, or do you wait for them to bring it up? If they don't bring it up and then get to the, "And do you have any questions?" part, do I pretend I don't care about the pay and only about the wonderful opportunity to work for them? Then bring up that stuff on a second interview so as not to seem presumptuous? (Prayer request as well on this. I don't know if I actually want the job, it would be a big upheaval just when it seems things are getting back on track, but I don't want to close myself off to a good opportunity either.)

Plum, this isn't directed at you; I just want to clarify why I am not wanting to engage on this particular thread. It's not the topic as much as the original intent. Yeah, a lot of us are piling on the intent aspect of this, that's true. But since the OP hasn't given us a real definition, purpose, concern, or much more than some links, what are we supposed to talk about? I don't want to get into a whole conversation and then 35 posts down OP comes back with "but that isn't what I meant" or "that's not what CRT is" when they refused to give that in the first place. It gives them an out of the conversation and a way to turn the conversation into an example of being misunderstood or "but I didn't say that" and I guess that'd be true because they didn't really say anything. I guess I'm more suspicious of traps right now. I have participated in good faith on other threads so it's not like this is a default reaction for me; this one in particular feels too incomplete to trust though. Also, I don't have the time for 4 links, including a video that I can't listen to but am told I need to see, in order to get a glimmer of what we're actually talking about. "But did you even read the 3rd link?" is not something I want to come back to later. eta: I agree the board can be intimidating and I still only post maybe 1/3 of what I write. But for me it's not because I'm afraid the battle, or offended by it, as much as I don't have the time and half of what I write out are ramblings as I work out my own position myself based on other posts (and I try to only post if I feel I'll add to the convo, so that rules out a great deal of what I would say, LOL). I don't agree that the answer to this is preemptively telling others that if they object to a source (especially when the source is the bulk of my post) that they need not reply or dismiss others' views so summarily. That only adds to the problem, if the problem is in fact that they feel intimidated, since they are indulging in the behavior they are saying is the problem: intimidating others who dare to think differently.

I think if you were looking for actual conversation, saying things like "I'm sure some will, as usual, attack the source" and "I am sure there will be claims that..." isn't the way to go about it, because you are preemptively dismissing objections as being based on bias or "claims". Now, you can of course reply to me and say that you were just trying to skip the first round of objections and get to the meat of the issue, but the tone used is dismissive of any contrary opinion so that plausible deniability isn't worth much. If you don't see it, I think you may not be ready for actual in depth conversations. Starting off with a link and a vague poke at the bear is not a conversation starter: if you have a position, spell it out yourself without relying on a link and have the rest of us making assumptions of what we're actually discussing. Links are for reference or further reading, not a bulk of a conversation opener. So, I don't see this as a genuine conversation starter, as much as a controversy stirrer. Which can be fun, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather get into a lively debate over the best type of frosting or if we're responsible for putting random stray carts into the the cart corral at the store. I'm sure some will, as usual, think that fondant is actually edible but it certainly isn't... 😛 eta: had a sentence fragment. plus added a sentence.

You know the more I think about it, it's just adults' projection. They know *they* would feel guilty if they learned more about the history, because they are (passively or aggressively) perpetuating the thoughts and systems that are allowing them to profit off of past wrongs. I don't know how conscious this is, it would vary from person to person, but letting their children know the truth and even seeing that maybe, just maybe, they aren't successful all on their own would be too big a blow to their ego. So it's easier just to legislate the truth into a box they can't teach at school, and since that's the largest sphere of influence they don't control in their kids lives directly, the problem is mostly solved to them.