Jack Frost, both the one with Michael Keaton and the animated version.

We *just* discovered Holiday Inn (Bing Crosby) and Christmas in Connecticut (Barbara Stanwyck) and loved 'em both! A few others we like that I didn't see mentioned above: Christmas with the Kranks (Some families may want to skip the scene where they go to the tanning booth.) The Christmas Box and its sequel Timepiece Little House on the Prairie Christmas episodes Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Not the one with Jim Carrey -- not a fan, sorry.)

http://www.charlottemasonhelp.com/

:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

Well, of course. But it's when that someone (or those someones) make/s a judgment call on whether the program works for everyone else that it becomes a problem.

Okay, I think this is a very fair post.... except that I would argue against "needing" to worry about the parts to whole learners who "can't make the leap". If a student truly needs and wants to make that leap based on their post-secondary goals, sure... let's find 'em the help they need. But not everyone wants or needs that. (It's like the argument about whether Apologia science includes "enough" human anatomy in its basic Biology course or not.) Aside from that, though, I appreciated the parts to whole description of Saxon. That explains why my youngest dd gets it, and my other two did not. (Actually, I think middle dd could've gone either way.) My oldest who is definitely a global learner, however, nearly DIED using Saxon. She's a big picture girl.... and she's never been good at memorization.

YOU might do that, but not every mom would have any idea what it is they're "supposed" to be interpreting, or exactly what results they're "supposed" to be studying. Not every homeschool mom is a mathy person and knows what to look for, or what they're "supposed" to consider to be a "weakness", and what isn't. (I put "supposed" in quotes because it's going to vary widely from one family to the next depending on one's goals, learning style, etc.) If my child is doing fine (regardless of the subject/curriculum) and I start comparing it with other programs without knowing WHY one program is doing this and the other is doing that, and I find a discrepancy, I'm going to lie awake at night worrying about it.... just because someone told me I'm supposed to? There may be absolutely no reason at all to worry, since it's already been established that many intelligent people have succeeded in life after having done Saxon for many or all of their "school years". I *detest* both the grass-is-greener syndrome and the competition. That has screwed me up sooooo many times over the years, so now as an older mom/veteran homeschooler, I'm inclined to steer others AWAY from those diseases if at all possible. If one is naturally competitive and desires to take on as many challenges as possible, fine, go for it. But if one begins to question their curriculum choices just because some people say they should (rather than the fact that their child is struggling), then I'm going to push back against the competitiveness. (That's not personally directed at you, Wendyroo. It's a general statement and is my current philosophy in life, which happens to apply directly to this thread. :001_rolleyes: ) Wrong compared to what, or whose standards? (I have never seen Math Mammoth, but insert any two different publishers in that sentence, and I'll ask the same question.) Listen, I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that Saxon is the best math program in the world. (I've had my own issues with Saxon in the past.) :tongue_smilie: But for SOME people, it really is FINE. That's been established. So to say that it isn't, or to imply (or boldly state) that no one can succeed with Saxon alone is just wrong. (And evidently there are plenty of people who CAN do math outside of the Saxon program, when all they've used is Saxon. I know a few of them personally, and so do others who've posted in this thread.)

OTOH, since rarely do any two math publishers follow the exact same scope & sequence (which concepts are learned in which years, even if they all come out at the same place), then mom may worry unnecessarily if she finds that her Saxon student (who's doing well) places "behind" in a different program. In fact, the more spiral a program is, the more likely a student coming from a less spiral program WILL place "behind" in the more spiral program. You could likely give a kid the placement test from several different publishers, and they'll all place in a slightly different position in every one of them.

This is why Saxon didn't work for my two oldest. They are not math geniuses by nature, and neither are their dad and I. They (we) need more than one way to learn how to "do" math, and the meaning behind it all. BUT.... My youngest "gets" math and is a little quirkier than the rest of us. She gets annoyed with all the different methods taught in Singapore, and often comes up with the right answer before I have a chance to even teach the lesson to her. For her, she's doing well in Saxon (so far), and I expect it to continue. And I feel better able to teach her when she gets stuck because of what I've learned from the ups-and-downs of math with my older two. ;) (My own math education was abysmal.) Something with more of a mastery method like Rod & Staff or MUS is completely BORING for my youngest because they move too slowly. She understands math better than that and wants to move on, and yet, she needs more repetition and a little slower paced than something spiral and fast-moving like Abeka. Saxon falls somewhere right in the middle and seems to be her "sweet spot".

Are you asking because you really want to know, or are you asking because you don't believe it can be done and don't believe anyone can raise their hand in the affirmative? MFW recommends Singapore through 6th grade, then a switch to Saxon for the remainder. I know at least one of the MFW author's children went on to engineering school.... and I know I've heard other similar stories, too. Perhaps -- if you're truly interested in knowing -- you could ask over there, or call the MFW office and ask for some numbers?

Our pastor is a computer programmer by trade. He taught middle school math (using Saxon) in public school for several years before heeding his true calling. He won't allow anything but Saxon in his house for his homeschooled children. His firstborn is a nursing student -- full ride at college. His oldest son is pursuing mechanical engineering. Not sure where his second son is headed, but he's brilliant, too. His 9yo is in Saxon 6/5. Obviously, Saxon hasn't hurt their very scholarly and mathy family.... and his kids are NOT pursuing liberal arts/social science majors.

And I think they have an Ancients package which includes Augustus Caesar's World (ACW). The Foster series begins with ACW, so there wouldn't be any others prior to that.

Well, one good thing is that since AHL uses such a small portion of the Notgrass spine, you won't have missed much (or maybe I should say, you won't be repeating much) by switching to BJU for 10th grade. :)

I would go with MFW WHL, too, primarily because because it "completes" what she's already done in 9th grade. They kind of go together, kwim?

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 of the Bible outline it very clearly. (Chapter 2 is not a separate event; it's expounding chapter 1 in more detail.) Science (astronomy) confirms the events of Genesis 1 and 2.... IOW, there are no contradictions. Unless of course you believe that once upon a time the days were much longer than 24 hours, and that the sun, moon, and stars have nothing to do with the 24-hour day OR the changing of the seasons that occur at the same time every 365-day year. ;) Every climate around the world has its own "season" which occurs at the same time every year.

I *love* CTGE! My language-challenged child made more progress doing books 1 and 2 of CTGE than she did with any other singular program. Surprisingly, the dictionary respellings didn't bother her at all... in fact, they were helpful for her to be able to *see* how to pronounce words and make sense of some odd spellings like "bought". The ONLY reason I didn't continue with CTGE was the font. :001_rolleyes: But I also realize that that's one reason the curriculum is so inexpensive.... they've sacrificed aesthetics for affordability, without compromising the quality of content. I like Abeka for the colorful pages and its "steadiness". I like R&S for its thoroughness. I like both of those programs for their stellar reputation. I'm not concerned about writing instruction because there are many different ways to make that happen, and my two older girls are living proof that I don't need an expensive stand-alone writing curriculum to turn them into good writers. I've always alternated between parts-to-whole and whole-to-parts learning with my girls, which I believe is a good balance. We get copywork, narrations, and dictation through many different means, so to me, this isn't about "traditional" vs. CM or WTM, because we do both. We've been having a hard time financially this year, as we had four major events back-to-back between March and July which really hurt (two of which were pre-planned, but suddenly became burdensome after dh had to take a $20k pay cut at the end of March, and the other which we knew would have to happen eventually and got to where it couldn't be put off anymore), so we're still catching up. All of which means that spending more for Abeka isn't an option right now. I have R&S borrowed from a friend, but am finding that it takes more time than we have this semester for me to teach it, and it's too wordy, and the lessons too long, for my language-challenged child to do it independently. Which leads me back to CTGE and that font issue... and I'm realizing that for ME, my avoidance of it isn't just because WE have to look at it, but because CTGE isn't as well known (nor as popular... possibly because of the aesthetics?) as R&S or Abeka. IOW, maybe it's just a little bit of pride that's prevented me from continuing with CTGE all this time. :blush: But if it's truly effective (and it is), my dd can do it independently, and it fits our budget, then why shouldn't we use it? I wonder how many curriculum decisions we moms make because of pride? :001_unsure:

Jens2sons, you might be interested in reading this other thread about CTGE... One poster there mentioned how CTGE and WTM style writing complement one another. I've found that to be true as well, and that's what I was trying to say in my previous post. It doesn't have to be exclusively one or the other.... you can incorporate both quite easily into your homeschool over the long haul. I think of CTGE (or any other "traditional textbook" style of learning) as being a parts-to-whole method, while WTM or CM style is whole-to-parts. They complement one another.... and I believe most kids do well with both, whether simultaneously or alternating between the two over the years. Anyway, here's that thread: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/530196-i-love-climbing-to-good-english/ Hope this helps. :)

I'm a firm believer that the other skills taught in both CTGE and FLL lay the foundation for good writing. I've never used a formal writing program with a child that young, but both of my older daughters are excellent writers. My oldest has had her college profs request to keep her papers to use as examples in future classes, and she's been top student in all of her classes so far. The jury is still out on my youngest because of her speech and language issues, but I'm hopeful. I've also never had to come up with my own ideas for narration training or assignments because those are included in other resources we've used over the years: MFW, HOD, Five in a Row, Primary (and Intermediate) Language Lessons, the Bible, Where the Brook and River Meet, etc. The Well Trained Mind, as well as many Charlotte Mason and Ruth Beechick how-to books, also offer instruction for how to do it (and what to use). It's never been an issue at all. My girls have done copywork, narrations (oral and written), and dictation across the curriculum for their entire lives.... and WWE is one thing I've never purchased. ;) I don't know what other resources or curriculum you are planning to use, so my posts thus far have been specific to the three named, FLL, WWE, and CTGE. But there are many different ways to go about building a child's writing skills over time, and my children are living proof that they're quite effective. :)

If you use both CTGE and FLL this year, I think you'll find that you don't need WWE 1 next year. ;) But since you already own it, I think I would probably just set it on the shelf for now, and re-evaluate later. I'm thinking she should probably be able to go into WWE 2 next year, unless you decide to stay with CTGE for another year.

I'm "sort of" using HOD with my dd this year (mixing it up with MFW and doing our own thing -- don't ask :p ), and I'm using BJU Reading with my dd. This is partly due to her challenges with language skills, as well as the fact that she just doesn't love books. She's getting enough book reading from the main HOD program and from MFW (not both at the same time), and sometimes it's like pulling teeth to get her to do that much, so I'm not going to try to force her to do more book reading in a "reading program". The excerpts/short stories in the BJU text are a nice change for her. She does love poetry, however, so I'm capitalizing on that, both in HOD and in BJU. But you know, with MFW we've always done a "Book Basket" with an extensive reading list from the TMs, anyway, so maybe that's why DITHOR has always looked like overkill to me. :001_unsure:

You really don't *need* scripted teaching instructions in CTGE at this level because it's self-explanatory. :) They start using a separate teacher's manual in 2nd grade, but it doesn't contain much more than the student book does. I would use the TM later, but not in 1st or 2nd. And like I said, CTGE 1 is very different than FLL 1, so you could use one or the other, or both, and you won't have lost anything in the big picture. ;)

I've used both. Here are the differences, and what I would do if using both at the same time: -- CTGE for more phonics and spelling work. It doesn't get into the names of the parts of speech much at this level, but FLL does; however, CTGE is strong in phonics reinforcement. -- FLL for the names of the parts of speech, copywork, poetry memorization, and dictation. At this level, it can be done mostly orally and/or with the white board. The edition I have of FLL is, I believe, the very first one where 1st and 2nd grade were combined in one book. We did it almost all orally. A few things were done on paper, but not much. Most written assignments were done on the white board. So that being the case, I wonder if you could skip the student workbook part of FLL now (assuming you have a more current edition than mine)? -- Between the skills taught in FLL and the skills taught in CTGE, you don't need WWE at all. Either that, or if you already own it and just really, really, really WANT to use WWE, then just do it maybe twice a week, and CTGE the other three. But not on the same days. (But my educational philosophy would not have me start a 1st or 2nd grader in a formal writing program, anyway, particularly if they're doing a lot of copywork, narrations, dictation, and notebooking in other subjects. And CTGE gently incorporates writing skills throughout the program, so....) If you do CTGE for 1st and 2nd grades, then don't do a spelling program, either. Between the skills in CTGE and the copywork and dictation in FLL, doing an additional lesson for "spelling" would be unnecessary until 3rd grade.

No worries. :)

To the bolded.... MFW Adventures isn't just for 2nd or 3rd graders... it's for families in which the oldest child is in 2nd or 3rd grade. ;) So you could actually use it with both your children, obviously keeping them each in math and LA at their own level. That said, even though I've (mostly) used MFW since 2004, I'm not sure I'd recommend it for your current situation. At your kids' ages, and for this momentary season of life, I would seriously just pick something solid and doable (without bells and whistles) for the 3 R's, and read a LOT of great books. If you have the time and energy on occasion to whip out some supplies and do a single hands-on activity or short-term unit study, then go for it, but I wouldn't buy a full program that *depends* on that method right now. Watch educational (or even semi-educational) videos for both science and history, read books, let your kids collect bugs and get dirty and attempt to build things (with supervision as needed... maybe Dad or Grandpa can jump in for that?). Make sure your children understand the rules of the grandparents' home, of course, and establish some level of structure for your children so that you don't wear out your welcome before your new home is available. Remember that even this is a "life lesson" for your children. :)

Yes, exactly. I was not "commenting on a show having not watched it". I shared another opinion (not mine... I thought I made that clear up above) and asked for follow up on that, with my mother's opinions and comments in mind. I was curious about what the documentary actually did say.... or not. (I think you may be right, Space station... my mom heard what she already believed.) Thank you, Aggie, for the additional insight. I think I'll look around for the DVD and watch it with my daughter who did research on some of FDR's policies and the Depression for her college history class.