is something like this what you seek? http://biblicalhomeschooling.org/classical/celoop/1000.html This is the old Classical Christian Homeschool site; the owner is moving everything to her new site, biblical homeschooling. She also wrote a book called All Through the Ages that might be helpful to you.

I thank everyone who weighed in to help me. I see that I was not completely clear, and just to alleviate any consternation out there that my child is neglected, let me add a few things:) I was good at math in school myself, but remember distinctly my pre-algebra teacher getting tired of me asking "why" in class, as I wanted to delve into the layers, and everyone else, including him, just wanted to know how to work the problems and be done. I also have taught math in 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th grades--so it isn't an intimidation. I spent four years teaching from Saxon 54 2nd edition (to 4th graders) and loved that the children had the ability to help themselves in the practice problems, because of the lesson reference number. I think that math is extremely important--students entering college often decide what they will study based on the amount of math required, so I do not want my children hampered by an intimidation in mathematics. I don't understand the all-or-nothing condemnations from a few of you--the success of Robinson Curriculum and ACE evince that children, if supported appropriately by a text, can teach themselves. That said, I also read and was influenced heavily by Teaching the Trivium by Bluedorn. There is a lot to say for not spending precious time in the young years (geared for language acquisition) in teaching abstract mathematics that can be easily assimilated about 9/10 years old when the brain is ready for more abstract concepts. So, when I say we didn't make RightStart a priority, it was because in the back of my mind I knew as long as we were doing what we WERE doing,I didn't need to let math push other language activities out of the way. This particular child is mildly dyslexic and our days were spent focusing on language. The idea that I have been "lax" with this child is false; she has consumed large quantities of time in one-on-one work, while the other children have taken a backseat. Now that she is reading happily and well, and has caught up to where she should be in math in one year (just like the delayed formal math studies suggested she could), it is entirely fair for me switch resources to something that she can do happily and well, allowing me to now turn needed attention to younger children. (This idea of delayed formal written math curriculum was confirmed to me, by the way, this year with my 1st grader. I have her working through Rod & Staff 1st grade, and she became so frustrated at the quick transition to abstract. We have backed off of it--she is doing small lessons orally from Ray's, subsitizing with household objects, and she enjoys math again.) I also want to clarify that I wasn't speaking as a convinced person that spiral programs would stop a person's love for math; I was speaking as a deer-in-the-headlights reeling from Kern's talk about mastery, and his condemnation of spiral programs. I promise! :) I put off asking for a few days because I know some posters seem eager to make others feel small, if they can, and I cringe when I read it aimed at others, and cringe more when it is aimed at myself! It is strange, kind of, because other homeschool forums tend to have much less of this. Thank you especially to Onestepatatime, Ellie, WoolC, shinyhappypeople, and Tibbie Dunbar for thoughtful, respectful replies. I will definitely take all you say into account.

I was all set this time last year to start my soon-to-be 3rd grader in Ray's Arithmetic. For background: We were not consistent with RightStart her K,1, and 2 year (finally barely got into B), but I wasn't concerned because we reasoned mathematically on long commutes into town, and she could do money, time, and calendar. So last year, when I finally admitted to myself that I put off math because I didn't like RightStart, I switched to Ray's, which I had picked up in a used book store. -- It got her through addition and into subtraction, but as you know if you have tried to use it, it is quite a departure from the way most of us were raised--I had her make flashcards, I had her reciting the tables of facts, I had her writing them on a cute little chalkboard, I had her copying them on paper--and eventually I felt like she could handle writing the answers to the questions on paper, too--trying to mimic the textbook approach I was most familiar with, I think. But also because she is the eldest of three, and what she can do independently, she needs to. So, I was going to rush her through the rest of the first book her third grade year. I used to teach 4th grade, and I spent four years using Saxon 5/4, 2nd edition. I always planned to put her in Saxon once she got to fourth grade, but then at Circe Institute, there was a discussion about how spiral programs might teach how, but they would never lead a child to actually love math, etc. etc. Then we sold our house. I scrapped Ray's and put her in Rod and Staff 3, and yes, it has been great for her. Absolutely. However, I don't really want to continue with it because as good as it is for arithmetic, if I don't teach those lessons and she just works the problems, I can see that she is missing the opportunity to understand--I can see how others condemn it. Now I am facing building a house starting this summer and into her 4th grade year and trying to be realistic. Can Ray's be independent? My concerns: the actual teaching seems to be missing (but I understand it is from the principal approach?), and the small font-- and just the logistics, really--is it meant to be oral from the second book on? There is still stuff in the first book that she won't have been exposed to-- And so I looked at Strayer-Upton, as well-- Help! I am drowning in Math! :confused1:

I will take a stab at it, even though this is a bit old-- DDwS is using The ABCs and All Their Tricks is a reference for the "why" behind spelling. I opted to buy the student book, as I already had The ABCs book. However, you see that there is an instructor guide that is optional instead. I felt like DDwS was a good choice for us. The first one, "Haste makes waste" had us look at the pattern of -aste words, and choose a few others. My daughter chose paste, baste, toothpaste, hasten. A different day we looked at VCsilentE words, like "makes." She chose to also practice bake, brace, bracelet. I looked at Spelling Wisdom, Book 1 recently at a friend's house. I liked, it, too. It is based on the Ayers list, if I remember correctly, so basically it is going to expose the student to the most common words, with extras included. And I am not knocking it; it looks really good. However, for us, I chose DDwS because my daughter does not naturally make connections, and I don't want her working hard to memorize "I am, I can, I ought, I will" and then down the road not recognizing that "bought" is something she has seen before, from "ought." DDwS connects those dots. I didn't see where SW ever actually taught anything--any learning about patterns in words will be inferred by the student, or not at all. I think of DDwS as a safety net. It is dictation, with the safety net of actually teaching a spelling pattern, but better than the traditional lists because it is in context. However, I don't want to steer you away from SW, either! If you are looking for independent work, maybe Spelling Wisdom would be simpler to implement.

As for letters, Word Mastery by Florence Akin introduces letters one at a time, and you simply stop forward motion until each page is mastered. My six-year-old resented it this year, but she was having trouble with consistency in sounds, and we did it. I think it helped; I don't know-maybe it was just maturing. I also have her reviewing Webster's Syllabary. Both can be had for the printing from Donpotter.net. Your daughter iis blessed to have a parent looking out for her--good job, Mama!

I could be totally off-base, but has she been counting from a number line mostly? Maybe she isn't actually looking at the correct digit when she is saying that number. That might account for her calling a 7 either 6 or 8...so she knows them in order but not individually. Quick fixes for this: have her write the number as she speaks it-paper and pencil, dry erase board, in a pan of salt--whatever. Or the little magnetic numbers we tend to get on our refrigerators--have her counting as she transfers the appropriate magnet--it would force her to be associating the correct form with the number, if that is a problem.

I am not familiar with AAS, but I am using Webster for multi-syllable work. The explanations for stressed syllables and organized words based on how that affects pronunciation is so helpful to my children. Conversations with my third-grader go something like this now: "Mom, how would I spell 'about'? "How many syllables do you hear?" (Sometimes I have to clarify for her) "Two. Uh-bout." "Ok, which syllable is stressed?" "Bout." "Ok, so 'how is 'uh' usually spelled in an unstressed syllable like that?" Third-grader: "a!" That's just off the top of my head, but that just shows how these lessons have given her the tools to figure things out. HTH, whatever you decide!

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/readinggradeleve.html http://www.nrrf.org/reading-competency-test/

Well, you can have this for the cost of printing, so it might be something to try. Webster's Syllabary, available as a free newly-typed pdf from donpotter.net. http://www.donpotter.net/education_pages/spelling_books.html Oral spelling doesn't wear a person out the way writing does, and I think there is a place for each type in helping our struggling spellers. Directions are not given for how to really use this, because it is so old, but there is a great example of this in one of the Little House books,[ is it Little Town on the Prairie or The Long Cold Winter?] where the town has a spelling bee. Wilder talks the reader through the exact way they spelled by syllable, and we have begun incorporating that into oral spelling around here. I no longer have my third-grade struggling speller try to write new spelling words until she has followed this procedure: say, spell, say, cover and spell [check oneself]. When that is successful, she covers and writes it, then checks herself. We are only three weeks into it, but she is starting to ask, "Mom, is this how I spell _____?" which is great, because she is starting to feel some control, I think. It is working for her. Time will tell whether it actually bears long-lasting fruit. I have seen many, many people say that somewhere around eleven years old, all the spelling work finally paid off, that it finally kicked into gear in the child. So, there is hope! lol

I believe Homeschool Torah might use MapTrek to go along with them. Also, there are suggested/extended reading lists in the appendix of the books!

Memoria Press has their own revised edition of Guerber's Thirteen Colonies; it is not Christine Miller's version, so their guide isn't going to match up perfectly, I am afraid. Simply Charlotte Mason and Homeschool Torah both schedule Miller's versions, at least in part. I emailed the contact info at Nothing New Press within the last month asking for full curricula that scheduled her works and received a prompt reply. They might have some suggestions at the source! I learned so much from her revision of The Story of the Ancient World, and we are now reading The Story of the Greeks. Cheers,

When I say "I started young" I mean I started my children when they were young.

I love languages and am having so much fun learning with my children. I started young with a modern language study, but honestly, without being able to teach a grammar way to young children, and not being fluent myself, it has been disheartening to keep it afloat. I tried classes with a native speaker, co-op class with a fluent speaker using Charlotte Mason suggestions, DVDs of TPR methods, phrase-a-day, etc. I am giving up until later when they can learn with grammar and then practice speaking. I don't know what else to do! I really am hoping Latin studies help with other languages.

I am curious where the Latin-centered movement Hunter mentions went! Did it fizzle out? Did it work and those parents graduated these students? Are they not hsing 2nd generation? Or is it impossible to keep going with high school transcript requirements looming?

I am currently using mp with my 1st and 3rd graders, but I am having difficulty resting in the curriculum into high school because I am uncomfortable spending so much time on Greek/Roman/Middle Ages history to the almost exclusion of all else. I am just getting my feet wet with Norms and Nobility, but already I found the germ of what is bothering me--paraphrased, the author states that "classical" is not based in a certain time, but instead should be a method that is based on inquiry, curiosity, etc. So, I am hoping to see some more ideas where others before me have used a broader range of books, with good results. I do think that would have repercussions in all areas, Hunter--math and science included. However, I have no idea what that would look like right now beyond murky, muddled thoughts. What I WANT is to focus on Spelling/reading in English, then begin Latin Grammar, get us reading in Latin beginner stuff in two years, and then begin Greek grammar while we read Latin originals to study history.Then, in a few years, we would begin reading in Greek. Rather than spending ears in English translations that everyone who can read theboriginals swear are inferior, just do the hard work and get to the originals--and then actually freeing time in high school to read important works in English, also--. Is this a pipe dream? It is how the Grammar schools used to work in this country...I like delaying math formal work until 9years old, to make time for skills in observation (science) and speaking and reading proficiency, and handwriting fluency. I think Bible memorization and poetry should be huge chunks of our week. I look at Ambleside reading schedules and drool for high grades--

good to know! I have a Rod & Staff Sound and Structure grade 2 lying in my stash of curricula--I bought it used to look at in hand. I really liked it. Let me ask you a question, though--as good as the exercises seemed to be, did the sheer amount of words on a page boggle the mind of your little ones, or did you have to sit down and lead them through each set of directions? I hesitate for that reason--

I began the year dabbling with MP. My child was using Storytime Treasures, and the math, and I just didn't think it was going as well as it could. A few weeks ago I shelved the hodgepodge we were doing and put her on the entire MP1 core curriculum. (Well, not the enrichment--that is handled in a co-op situation for us). I have been amazed at how it all fits together. The Phonics Guide for Reading and Spelling has integral teacher-led word study, syllabication, etc. I just started over in everything to do with language arts, because it is all so nicely woven together! I am a fan of Rod and Staff in general, and if one were just putting R&S Spelling against Spelling Workout, I don't know exactly which one would win out--but because all the reading and phonics and spelling are woven together in the MP core, if you are going to try any of it, I heartily encourage you to try all of it together! The StoryTime Treasures has really good little exercises in it, as well. I hear you on narration, but honestly, I wouldn't give up the exercises in STT. The first day is pre-reading word exercises. Then you read. On the second day, she rereads, then I have her narrate orally before she sees the comprehension questions. I like this, because I think she is still having to do the hard mental effort of narrating, but then uses what she has just narrated to form a cohesive answer to a specific question. She grapples with composing one sentence for me to write. Then she copies it from my model. HtH!

Hunter, thanks for chiming in and the links! I read the first part of Hoenshel's Chart Work (Language Lessons and Elementary Grammar), but I wouldn't use his methods that are outlined there. He is using what came to be known as the look-say method, or whole language, to learn to read. The problem with education books written in this time frame is that they are being influenced by the work being done to teach deaf persons to read--I find this same problem with Charlotte Mason's recommendations in early reading. What seemed a good idea at the time has not turned out to be so. Now that we can track what parts of the brain are firing when tasks are being performed, there is an observable basis for not creating the habit of seeing the word as a whole. His suggestions to notice where the tall letters are and that sort of imaging is dangerous, according to the reading research I have seen, and fits with my own experiences within a public school classroom. I look forward to looking at the other suggestions, though! We do begin cursive first, so I am particularly interested in the one you earmarked for that. ETA: I figure nothing I said was new information to you; I am just trying to further the conversation. :) I always read your posts with avid interest.

mshanson3121, yes, Don Potter has been gracious enough to create this: http://www.donpotter.net/education_pages/spelling_books.html

MistyMountain, Here is the jumbled mess in my mind of how these books were implemented: Spelling was considered prerequisite to reading. If you can spell it, you can read it. The converse is not necessarily true--just because you can read it doesn't mean you can spell it. Even as the readers, such as McGuffey's, were being used, the first step was learning to pronounce and spell the new words in isolation before seeing them in context. I was setting the timer and working for 15 minutes a day,with my K'er, per prevailing homeschool wisdom. Gentle, methodical, etc. There is no pressure on the child to learn in a certain time frame. Well, we never really got anywhere! Now, as I look back at Laura Ingalls Wilder books, it seems like there was an expectation that what the teacher set the pupils for a lesson that day would be MASTERED, either by when he/she called for recitation later that day, or studied at night to be ready for class the next day. Students were expected to devote themselves to memorizing that amount of set work, no matter how long it took them. This is completely missing in my home, and most others' if forums and bloggers can be used as a mirror of what is going on in our homeschools across the board. So, I wonder if this is one of the reasons we are not getting the same results with the same materials that generations ago did. Thoughts? If one takes the idea of mastering a syllabary, then focusing on words with long and short vowel sounds in all their spelling patterns (one syllable words), then beginning two syllable words consisting of long and short vowel sounds,(albeit also learning about accented syllables getting their natural sound, unaccented syllables getting their reduced sound), and continuing to longer multi-syllabic words, that student still can't pick up a book and read it. Why? because he is still missing instruction on oa, ai, ow, ou, au, etc. I ended up making flashcards from the chart in The Writing Road to Reading and teaching these so my child could begin reading--otherwise she would have been incompetent in the eyes of everyone judging homeschoolers under a microscope--but it was such a hodgepodge that eventually I feel like I stymied her progress just by having too many irons in the fire. If I were to pick up Webster's again with a beginning reader, I would still start with the syllabary. Then I would progress through the one-syllable words as written. I would begin two-syllable tables when I got there for reading fluency, but skip to other one-syllable tables that deal with digraphs, plurals and such for spelling. If a child has done all the work of mastering those syllables, I think it would be refreshing to see how they would work to build long words. However, in a world where the beginning reader is expected to conquer all one syllable words (even ones like young, old, out, boat, brown, snow,) I think this might be a solution. Webster's progression is kinder to the beginner, but, in my experience, no one in my daughter's first-grade Sunday School cared that she could spell, but they were embarrassed for her that she couldn't read. It affected how she began to see herself as a reader, and honestly, I wasn't immune myself. I felt pressure to get that girl reading, and I quit emphasizing spelling in order to do it. Sigh. Now I am having to back-track on spelling. All that to say, I was excited to see these more detailed instructions at the link. It appeared to me to go something like this: "Baker. B-A, ba. K-E-R, ker. Baker. Long a in accented syllable." "Nation. N-A, na. T-I-O-N, shun. Long a in accented syllable, tion pronounced shun." "Graceful. G-R-A-C-E, grace. F-U-L, ful. Graceful. Long a in accented syllable, c pronounced like s." Another thing I didn't do for my first attempt to use Webster's was dictation. I didn't understand it then, and there were no directions I saw to do so. Now, I realize those sentences are in there to be studied for dictation exercises. However, they seem to often have words with phonograms in them that haven't been introduced yet. How should that be handled? To address your concern about being able to determine where the accent lies in an unfamiliar word in a book, I would guess maybe Dr. Webster saw a need for that as well, and that was part of his motivation for his dictionary? I don't know. Maybe being explicitly exposed to different tables of words accented in differing ways made one aware of trying out accents on unfamiliar words until one sounds familiar, or as a last resort going to the dictionary.

So many of us want to use Webster's Speller, and I have studied over ElizabethB's and Don Potter's sites, trying to glean every last grain of instruction on how to do so best, as it was done in its hey-day. I know, I know, we are all trying to do that-- For background, as I was researching phonetic reading instruction for my then-four-year-old (who I had already began subjecting to sight word flashcards-cringe), I was also reading the Little House books to her. When you read those, you eventually get to the spelling bee in--hmm-either The Long Cold Winter or Little Town on the Prairie--sorry, momentary lapse--anyway-- The townspeople are bored and organize Literary meetings to amuse themselves. One night it is a spelling bee, and Laura, Pa, and another man end up in the dramatic finale. Well, Wilder recreates the scene by quoting the actual spelling, and what I noticed then was that they were spelling by syllable. Don Potter's instructions for the syllabary outline this same process. B-A spells BA. I used this with said eldest all the way through mastering the syllabary and the one-syllable words before the first table of two syllables (BAker, SHAdy, LAdy). She hated it. I dropped it at two syllables and took to writing spelling instead. She was older, it made some sort of sense... And since then I have tried all kinds of other things, but I keep going back in my mind and late at nights to researching how to effectively use Webster's--because in the meantime my second child detested Webster's also through Kindergarten. So, tonight, this popped up: https://archive.org/details/10309476.4087.emory.edu Setting aside the objectionable purpose of the revision, look closely at page 23 where the teacher is given actual directions! And, if you continue to glance through the pages, intermittently there are reminders to have the pupils not only spell by syllable, but also to give the vowel sound of the accented syllable. Later, even adding things like "tion as shun." wow. Is anyone else excited by this? I had never seen the added step of giving the accented syllable vowel sound, etc. Anyone knowledgeable on the subject want to weigh in on when that was added, or is this an example of what we have all been seeking--the "how they implemented this" stamp? Thanks!

I jumped on this thread because both my children so far learning to read have had trouble with this exact problem. I have been using the oh-so-helpful-and-technical phrase "roll your mouth around a little until it sounds like we say it." :confused1: To the original poster, my eldest now reads like a champ, so I do think it just comes eventually, but I am so glad to have a better answer for the child currently sweating through "ab, ac, ad, af, ag, . . . am-aim-ahm-aym (Frustrated huff or forlorn sigh)-am."

Piggybacking off a couple of helpful suggestions already offered, you can use Webster's Syllabary/Speller at donpotter.net. The version I use has two-syllable words organized in tables by accented syllable--so we read through an entire table of accent on first syllable, then switch to a table of words accented on the second. All multi-syllables are handled the same way. The accented syllable is emboldened, also. It helps my child catch the pronunciation, and has helped in spelling. For example, she will begin to spell a word like "across" with a u bc she hears a short u, but I can say, "That is an unaccented syllable" and she knows it will be a schwa a-- Hth:)

Since your situation isn't long-term, maybe watercolor painting? Or even those little books where all you use is a wet brush--the color is actually on the page already. Have any sidewalk chalk left lying around?If not, get some real school chalk. Buy a small chalkboard. A sock goes on one hand for an eraser (non-writing hand) and I bet she would enjoy that for at least 30 min. You could even prep her ahead of time to really enjoy this by reading Little House in the Big Woods to her. Then she would have ideas percolating how to amuse herself playing with simple things for awhile. Maybe have a "school" box for her on those days-- magnetic letters (reading) and cards with simple words on them for her to build. AT, CAT, HAT, MAT, TOP, BOP, etc. You could even use the actual letters to build the words, take a picture, and print those pictures so it would look exactly the same==she could build her word right on the photograph like a puzzle. watercolor books (art) playdough (working on strength in those little hands so she can hold a pencil well) popsicle sticks, clothespin games, file folder games for math ideas. Search "math center" ideas for little independent things she can do herself, but right beside you at the table. You can sit between them as needed and answer little questions for her or direct while you converse with him. But also, cherish days with her. She is learning, too. A middle-schooler can work independently enough to allow you lots of little pockets of time to read with her, play with her, incorporate her into helping you fix lunch, or clean up lunch, or help fix snack, or fold a load of clothes, etc. Can he read to her, outloud, from his work? And remember, they are learning more than just academics--they are also picking up how we value needy small children , which will probably influence how they parent our grandchildren. That thought stops me cold lots of days when I get irritated with our preschooler and his distractions from academics. You can do this!!

Truth: I lost my well-written post while trying to pull a quote. That just knocked the stuffing out of me on a Saturday morning:( This video really helped me understand some of nuances of EC. First, we weren't voting for Trump, Clinton, or a smaller name. There were 51 popular elections that day--not one. Those 51 elections were for each state (and DC) to choose a slate of electors. Why? See the Hamilton quotation someone pasted in a few pages ago. Those of you who have brought up valid concerns about the electors not voting the way they are supposed to in December--you have made me question why I don't even know the names of those electors. Honestly, according to the Hamilton quotation above, I am supposed to be voting for representatives who are going to reason well. Maybe they should be under more scrutiny? Some of you want to do away with EC because "votes aren't equal." I propose you are looking at the US as a direct democracy. I know you "know" we aren't one. I know you "know" we are called a representative democracy. I think logically, however, you are assuming things that are true of a direct democracy. Let me explain: Someone questioned why an Iowa farmer's vote weighs more than a NYC cab driver's. The answer is: technically that is an invalid question. They aren't meant to be compared. The cab driver's vote counts as much the governor's--in New York. That is democracy. The farmer's vote counts as much as the governor's--in Iowa. That is democracy. But to lure Iowa into the republic and protect Iowa from being overpowered by New York, in the federal system, they have to be closer to equal. Hence, the Senate. Equal representation. There is validity to the argument that in the government more populous areas should have more weight. Hence, the House of Representatives. And the compromise is that a bill has to pass both Houses before it becomes law. The EC is kind of like the bill having to pass through both Houses. A few posters made half an argument that because we have the Senate, the rural states are equally represented in Congress--and somehow they reached the conclusion that in the presidential election there didn't need to be a safeguard for those same states. Huh? Was the rest of your argument that you want to disband the House of Representatives, thereby giving rural people the power in the Legislative Branch while handing over the Executive Branch to the urban populations? Of course not--the EC is the compromise reached in the Executive Branch. And those of you that insist the Founding Fathers didn't foresee things as they are so we should just chuck their restrictions, I just want to humbly point out: I am a product of Progressive education. Presumably, we are drawn to this forum with the intention of acquiring a classical education, for ourselves and our children. That is us acknowledging that a classical education was for free men. Progressive education has been all about producing a population that can be led easily. The Founding Fathers were classically educated. They disagreed vehemently over all this, reasoned well, and came up with a solution. I am all for discussing--I love it!--but I feel humbleness. I think it the height of hubris to expound my opinions on such matters as "the way things should be." I would have to read every bit of the debates of the early republic before I thought I had a real handle on the issue. Don't you? To the question of why European republics don't need the EC, my off-the-cuff response would be: size. I had the privilege of studying Economic Education in Latvia about ten years ago, and it was a surprise to me how well the Nationalized education seemed to work there--but all those countries are the size of our states, roughly speaking. So what works in a smaller region, won't necessarily transfer to a larger. Can you imagine Europe (all languages being same) having one popular election? I agree that this is not a great argument--communication is faster now, people are more transient, and we see ourselves as a nation first, statehood second, if at all. Many of us have no state loyalty at all--but the regional differences still apply, even if only from an economic and infrastructure standpoint. (I don't concede these are the only differences, however.)