When the kids want to do history "out of order"

[Annabel Lee]

What would you do? I had been planning all this time, all these years, to start back at Ancients when older ds is in 5th grade, which is this fall. This way he can get a good, solid, 4-yr. cycle done in 5th - 8th grades. Little brother would tag along on the same topics at his level.

 

Now they're both pleading for Middle Ages, which we've never covered. "We want swords, castles, knights, and battles!", my older son says. Younger ds replied, "As long as it's not more Egyptians or mummies and that stuff." :confused::001_huh::glare: WHAT?!? What about the nice, neat 4-year cycle? One ds has a very strong preference for middle ages, and the other a strong distaste for ancient times.

 

If we don't start with ancients, then how will we discuss any connections or parallels to those times/people/civilazations? Would it be detrimental? What do you think about doing Yr 2, then Yr 1, then Yrs 3 & 4, in that order, if we keep a really good timeline?

 

Should I just do a quickie Middle Ages study over the summer and wait to see if they're still into it come August? Or should I do that, but still plan on beginning Ancients in August? Is there a good reason not to let my kids study what they're interested in? What would we lose by doing it out of order? The interest might wane and never return if I ignore it. FTR, I don't have any more resources for Ancients than I do for Middle Ages, so money isn't the issue.

[elegantlion]

We started classical in 5th grade. My goal was to do two four year cycles. We messed it up. My ds wanted to learn Asian history this year, so we did Asian history. It has been a wonderful year, he's interested and engaged in the subject.

 

I believe fifth grade is a beautiful time to study the middle ages. We did our study in sixth. It was an awesome year, King Arthur, Robin Hood, smoting off of heads. It lends itself to perfect adventure for that age.

 

If they are asking for it, I would change the cycle. I love ancient history, but I would NOT drag unwilling participants through a study. Middle Ages is just so much fun, if a child is asking, they'll be more engaged.

 

If do you want to cover some ancient before fall I would suggest:

 

Famous Men of Greece

Famous Men of Rome (simply read through them, maybe picking a few)

 

A retelling of The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid, if you haven't already done so.

[Susie in CA]

I would just start in the middle ages. You must have covered some ancient history already, otherwise they wouldn't say no more mummies, right? It will be just fine.

[regentrude]

I found that my kids learn best if they are passionate about the subject. So, if they plead for Middle Ages, I'd do Middle ages.

Especially since you already covered Ancients, and never medieval. And they'll get Ancients once more for high school.

I prefer to take philosophies like "classical history cycle" as a guideline and not as a prison.

[Capt_Uhura]

What would I do? how about listen to SOTW1 Ancients straight through over the summer? Then start Middle AGes in the fall. They'll be more engaged. Or they could read Gombrich's history, it's all in one book. I'm not sure about an off-color references since it's an older text. Or how about read through Kingfisher up to middle ages over the summer. Something like that will put Ancients fresh in their minds. You'll be happy, they'll be happy. Throw in a some historical fiction from Ancients over the summer and call it done!

[Ester Maria]

I would do Ancients as planned and treat their interest in Middle Ages as any other out-of-box interest, which means that I would be willing to provide for it financially, encourage it and facilitate its learning, even discuss it with DC if they wish; that would not be "school", it would be "free time". I do it all the time with my kids and it has always functioned beautifully - I get my "box" done, as well as the progression of content which makes sense to my educational framework, while they get their interests done and encouraged.

[Farrar]

Perhaps not the prevailing view on this board, but having taught middle and high school history back before I started this homeschooling deal, I think it's more important that in the logic stage and above that kids learn analysis and thinking skills with history than that they learn it "in order." The order and the flow of history is important too (I like the suggestion of just doing SOTW as an audio listen in order to help with that). However, learning how to ask questions, make connections, do research, read and understand, etc. are all things that are more important than doing it in the right order, I think.

[PeterPan]

Well just out of slight curiosity, how did you do so much ancients and american and miss the middle ages in the first place?? Seems to me you've already gone out of order, and their goal is to go fill it back in. Kids this age have NO NEED for order. The order doesn't matter. To them it's just a bunch of stuff, which they will start arranging logically, get this, in the logic stage. And you don't really have to do it FOR them to have that happen. They start to figure it out for themselves.

 

So while it's perfectionistically neat to cover history in nice 4 year cycles, it doesn't matter a flying fig if you don't. Not one bit. No, don't rush the Middle Ages. You've never done it? Sounds like this is your year! And really, they're at a great age for it. They can go deeper, do more projects, understand the more interesting things that went on then (who was burnt or axed or ousted and why). So you're at a good age to do it.

[momto2Cs]

I've basically given up on the idea of chronological history in this house, at least for now ;)

 

I have found that my kids learn SO much more if we follow their interests. There is less resistance, and more excitement.

 

So, if your kids are really interested in the Middle Ages, go for it!

[Lori D.]

Having 2 DSs who are less than thrilled with any form of schooling (lol), I definitely lean towards the posters who suggest "go with the enthusiasm"!

 

But here's another reason -- and it's a bit heretical to a classical model of education, so hopefully this will neither lose me any "cred" I may have accumulated, nor get me tossed off this board (LOL), but here goes...

 

Much of the Middle Ages that we study tends to come from either the native Celtic (non-Greek/Roman influenced) sources, or Norse and Viking sources -- not the Ancient Greeks/Romans. Because there is less connection than you might think, it is not such a big deal to do Middle Ages now, and then go back to the Ancients later on. You tend to see ancient influences on Western civilization in these areas:

 

- ancient Greek form of democratic government and modern U.S. form of republican government

- ancient Greek logic and the logical methods of math and science enquiry, lost in the Dark Ages, rediscovered in Europe around 1500 as one of the triggers of the "rebirth" (Renaissance) of Western European cultures.

- ancient Roman occupation of Southern Britain for about the first 400 years AD -- this did lead to Roman influences and new developments in agriculture, urbanisation, industry and architecture -- and while there was certainly some intermixing and blending of the two cultures, ancient Rome was more of an occupying force, always on the defense from native "barbarian" and later from Germanic Saxon attacks; as a result of the determined resistance of the ancient Britons and the invading Saxons, much of the indigenous culture was retained, with Roman culture blending in, and then Saxon and later Norman cultures blending in

 

 

All that is just a big rationalization to say -- it's OKAY to study history out of order. It may help us logical/sequential homeschooling *moms* keep it straight by dictating chronological order, but it's not necessarily needed or even the best method for children. There is good argument for actually doing history *backwards* -- start with younger children close to home, with what they know, and then slowly reach further out, and further back, which allows them to see the connections between what happens in their own world/time, and their causes in the past.

 

Also, bear in mind that *none* of us will ever be able to cover ALL of history, and what is very helpful for our children is to create "coat hooks" in their minds of key people and events, which will stick out and allow them to "hook" new information every time it presents itself throughout their lives. And note: enthusiasm in a topic (high interest) is a super "coat hook", and hard to pass up when it presents itself!

 

 

BEST of luck, whatever you decide. And may you all enjoy your history journey together! Warmest regards, Lori D.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Lori D.

[Annabel Lee]

Well, I've got to decide before ordering next year's stuff, and you all made good points. I like the idea of covering SOTW 1 (audio or book) and a few main classic literature retellings over the summer. I'm feeling a lot less :banghead: and much more :chillpill: now about what order we go in. As long as we get all 4 time periods done, and keep a very good timeline, we'll be fine.

 

Yes, we did part of Ancients with SOTW 1 when my sons were 2nd grade & K5. That's when I learned of this classical homeschooling thing. I felt very off-schedule and since we all (self included) wanted American History, we tossed it halfway through for that. My plan all these years was to start again w/ Ancients when older ds starts logic stage, and do that perfect, nice, neat 4-yr. cycle. Well, we'll do it, but we might not do it in order.

 

My only hesitation now is I worry whether the interest in Middle Ages is very deep or if it will prove fleeting. If it's the latter, then I'll be stuck w/ kids who are just ho-humming along in history as usual anyways, and I'll have messed up the progression for nothing. I was going to begin ordering for next year in a week. *sigh* I guess there's no rush.

[Susie in CA]

My only hesitation now is I worry whether the interest in Middle Ages is very deep or if it will prove fleeting. If it's the latter, then I'll be stuck w/ kids who are just ho-humming along in history as usual anyways, and I'll have messed up the progression for nothing. I was going to begin ordering for next year in a week.

 

 

Above statement is why most often we do what EsterMarie suggests; which is to facilitate any interest-led learning during non-school hours, and continure our regular schedule otherwise. Now that you have posted a bit more I would go with that. FWIW, with my own children their interest in history and science is not really dependent on which period we study, but on how we study it. Generally, they like anything in any topic if it doesn't include any writing. LOL

 

In short, in my experience it's he the "how" not the "what" that counts.

[Ester Maria]

I am not sure I agree with you, Lori... I think the need for chronological clarity goes much further beyond what you list.

 

We start Middle Ages somewhere about the barbarian invasions - in order to understand the starting point, therefore, there is a whole world before that to understand: the one of Rome, its rotting and fall, how and why, i.e. what brought about that starting point from which we advance (which basically means having a firm background in Roman history, which basically goes back to a firm background in Greek history).

 

The next reason why you need Greek antiquity is Byzant, East Roman Empire, and Arab civilizations in Middle Ages (and Jews, and Spain, etc.) - all of that will be pretty much incomprehensible without that background. You cannot study the rise of Islam without the context of antiquity (Biblical, pre-Christian, as well as Greco-Roman and Late Antiquity / Christian), and that is an extremely important point in this time frame, also in context of preservation of the Greek antiquity. The misunderstandings of Greek antiquity in the Medieval world also directly stem from that, you cannot even begin to understand Dante (the "blueprint" of the whole Medieval civilization) without that note, without a firm understand why his Ulysses is not the Greek Ulysses, etc. Basically, the interwoven nature of the second-hand contact with Greek antiquity is the cause of a lot of stirring and mess in Medieval civilization.

 

Furthermore, from Charlemagne Europe to the oddities such as Venice to the schism and the whole religious context... all of that directly stems from the context which stems from the decay of antiquity. To ensure a full understanding, you just need to have that part down. Humanism and Renaissance society is even more messed up to study without a background in antiquity.

 

I cannot imagine studying Middle Ages well without a background in antiquity, honestly. :confused: Yes, students' enthusiasm is important and nice, but there are so many "tacit assumptions", things that one is "supposed to know", to approach such a complex world well, that it just becomes completely overwhelming without that background. I am not sure I would venture to do that, unless in cases where, maybe, students' background in Latin / Greek / Judeo-Christian early context included enough of culture and history to be able to serve as a basis for something like this, even if not a formal history course has been covered before. But without that, I just cannot imagine it, with even half the necessary connections.

 

 

ETA:

A few more random thoughts. Medieval civilization is in large part the transformation of antiquity - antiquity which never "disappeared", only transformed. I cannot fathom accessing such a complex world without the background needed in light of the fact that much of the further European civilization will essentially be a dialogue of generations and texts stemming from particular sources. As it is a complete transformation of one whole world we are talking about, I find it crucial to have a background in what that world was - from it beginning, what we mark as its "classical" period, as well as how and when it started to dissolve. The tension and the ambigous relationship of early Christianity and the already-post-classical world is fascinating and it produced the initial situation of Medieval world. The semantic shifts in culture brought about by the adoption of Christianity, the change in symbolic self-representation of the Roman word, is just mind-boggling, and impossible to really access Middle Ages without it. Literture goes back to the orality stage, there is a total, complete confusion in terms of poetics and genre division, a fascinating view of theatre and its forms (impossible to consider without considering both Greek and Roman theatre first), and then after troubadour poetry between Provence and Federico II Svevo's court on the Italian South, you get a major surprise: a national literature beginning with its formally and linguistically perfect masterpiece, Dante as a constitutive moment of one whole other world is something which never before and never again happened in world literature and he synthesised the Medieval world in a true poetic "encyclopaedia". What brought about Italy as a centre of Renaissance later, what changes on organizational level society went through, how did the national model redefine, how did the population shift... forget about setting a good ground for Renaissance studies without both antiquity and Middle Ages, pretty much impossible.

 

I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of not studying History strictly chronologically, but it just totally escapes me HOW than can be done and result in the same type of clarity and inter-connected knowledge as a chronological approach.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Hunter]

 

My only hesitation now is I worry whether the interest in Middle Ages is very deep or if it will prove fleeting. If it's the latter, then I'll be stuck w/ kids who are just ho-humming along in history as usual anyways, and I'll have messed up the progression for nothing. I was going to begin ordering for next year in a week. *sigh* I guess there's no rush.

 

I know I say this same thing over and over and maybe people are tired of my repetitiveness...but...It is more important to match mom's teaching style, than children's learning style. YOU need to wake up excited to start each morning. YOU are the driver. You cannot let the passengers, sitting in the back seat, who aren't even really paying attention to the road, direct you.

 

If they are interested enough in the middle ages, they will pursue the interest in their own time. If they are that interested-and it doesn't sounds like they are-then you could do a one week unit study on the middle ages, as a treat. If the middle ages isn't enticing enough to be viewed as a treat/prize/reward, then I certainly would not disrupt a 4 year plan over it!

 

I drove myself nuts trying to match my younger son's learning style and interests and it was a BIG mistake!!!!! In so many ways!

 

Develop YOUR educational philosophy and teach it. Your children have their free time and the rest of their lives to pursue whatever interests they develop. Their current pet interests should not disrupt YOUR plans. Homeschooling is a LOT of work, and makes it impossible for you to pursue so many other interests and activities. You have the right to teach according to your style and resources and strengths.

 

I personally choose to use the Bible as my core, instead of history, but a core helps us organize and plan. If History is a comfortable core for you, then stick to it.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Hunter

[calandalsmom]

History can absolutely be studied at this level without embracing chronological study as the only way.

 

I really think children do best when they are interested.

[PeterPan]

My only hesitation now is I worry whether the interest in Middle Ages is very deep or if it will prove fleeting. If it's the latter, then I'll be stuck w/ kids who are just ho-humming along in history as usual anyways, and I'll have messed up the progression for nothing. I was going to begin ordering for next year in a week. *sigh* I guess there's no rush.

 

Ok, I'm going to ask this again. Why is it "messing up" the oh so important history progression to go back and DO the time period you skipped the first time??? Why should your kids have to suffer through some rush job of SOTW1 (which they've pleaded and begged not to do) when they've already covered ancients? Why is it a problem to do the Middle Ages now? It's not. You missed it before. You do it now. And you know what? After that you might suddenly realize there's this fabulous geography program calling your names. Then you go back to ancients, start a 4 year cycle, and everyone will be fresh, no one bored.

 

Life isn't perfect, and you don't have to cover things perfectly. It doesn't MATTER if the kids' interest is a years' worth or not. You said you didn't cover the Middle Ages before, and that alone is a good enough reason to go do it and do it properly. They don't need to do SOTW1, and I wouldn't guilt-trip yourself into that. They've done that before. They're ready for the Middle Ages.

[calandalsmom]

Plus, do you really want to have to wait to watch Monty Python's Holy Grail and pretend its school?

 

Life is so much richer when you ask your kids to do a chore and they yell "ELP! ELP! Im bein repressed!"

[AngelBee]

What would I do? how about listen to SOTW1 Ancients straight through over the summer? Then start Middle AGes in the fall. They'll be more engaged. Or they could read Gombrich's history, it's all in one book. I'm not sure about an off-color references since it's an older text. Or how about read through Kingfisher up to middle ages over the summer. Something like that will put Ancients fresh in their minds. You'll be happy, they'll be happy. Throw in a some historical fiction from Ancients over the summer and call it done!

:iagree:I would probably just read SOTW1 outloud for fun. That way you "cover" Ancients and they can get the connections without having to really study that time period.

[Annabel Lee]

I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea of not studying History strictly chronologically, but it just totally escapes me HOW than can be done and result in the same type of clarity and inter-connected knowledge as a chronological approach.

 

I'm afraid that even if I went in order, unless I were reading some heavy history & literature books myself, I wouldn't come away with those sorts of connections & understandings. Maybe you can come teach my kids (and me)? :D For self-education alongside the kiddo's topic of study, do you think SWB's histories for adults and a study of WEM would be sufficient?

[Colleen in NS]

I would do Ancients as planned and treat their interest in Middle Ages as any other out-of-box interest, which means that I would be willing to provide for it financially, encourage it and facilitate its learning, even discuss it with DC if they wish; that would not be "school", it would be "free time". I do it all the time with my kids and it has always functioned beautifully - I get my "box" done, as well as the progression of content which makes sense to my educational framework, while they get their interests done and encouraged.

 

This is what I do, too.

 

My only hesitation now is I worry whether the interest in Middle Ages is very deep or if it will prove fleeting.

 

And this is why. My kids have declared many things to me over the years - "I am sick of reading about mummies!" "I want to read about Hitler!" "I'm tired of reading so many stories about the Jews in Germany!" "I hate school!" "I don't want to study chemistry this year!" (and guess what - that was said many times this past year - and now the culprit is checking out chemistry books from the library, and declaring a love for the elements - the culprit LOVES reading about each element, in the World Book encyclopedia)

 

I know I say this same thing over and over and maybe people are tired of my repetitiveness...but...It is more important to match mom's teaching style, than children's learning style. YOU need to wake up excited to start each morning. YOU are the driver. You cannot let the passengers, sitting in the back seat, who aren't even really paying attention to the road, direct you.

 

If they are interested enough in the middle ages, they will pursue the interest in their own time. If they are that interested-and it doesn't sounds like they are-then you could do a one week unit study on the middle ages, as a treat. If the middle ages isn't enticing enough to be viewed as a treat/prize/reward, then I certainly would not disrupt a 4 year plan over it!

 

I drove myself nuts trying to match my younger son's learning style and interests and it was a BIG mistake!!!!! In so many ways!

 

Develop YOUR educational philosophy and teach it. Your children have their free time and the rest of their lives to pursue whatever interests they develop. Their current pet interests should not disrupt YOUR plans. Homeschooling is a LOT of work, and makes it impossible for you to pursue so many other interests and activities. You have the right to teach according to your style and resources and strengths.

 

I personally choose to use the Bible as my core, instead of history, but a core helps us organize and plan. If History is a comfortable core for you, then stick to it.

 

Boy, does this ever make sense to me! It puts into words what I've apparently thought for years, but couldn't quite put into words, for fear of hearing, "Go with interests!" Well, sure, we do go with interests in so many ways. But I do that *within* my chosen yearly topic - this year it's late modern history/literature, and chemistry for science. And once we dive into the spines for these, and start seeing all the topics contained within, interests start showing themselves. There is something interesting in ALL of the history periods, and something interesting in ALL of the science disciplines. Even if one or the other kid never specializes in chemistry or late modern history/literature, at least they will have learned *something* from them, that caught their attention. I never expected my supposed chemistry-hater to spend weeks writing outlines and narrations on individual elements, but that is what is happening. An interest was sparked because of my overall insistence on a chemistry study this year.

 

That doesn't mean they never read about other parts of history or science - they are more than welcome to do so! But for the relatively few hours of "official school" each day, I stick to my general plan (that includes a lot of reading/topic choice - and we definitely do not cover everything that could be covered in each history period or science discipline).

 

If I spent my official school hours just going with what each child's individual interests were, outside of an organized plan, I'd go nuts; and I'd feel I was doing them a disservice by not taking them sequentially through a general plan each year.

 

One of my children has said to me many times: "Mom, I wonder about thus-n-such a topic. I wonder what blah blah blah about it." I'll say, "Well, why don't you go look it up in the encyclopedia, or search for some books about it on the library website?" (This child knows how to do these skills) Many times s/he will say, "Nah. Not important." And then I know s/he doesn't really care. But they will look up/reserve books about what they really do care about (dolls/horses/Legos/Star Trek/knights/novels/elements/etc.), in their own free time. I think the discipline of official school time study has helped produce this pursuing of interesting-to-them topics in their free time. Which is one of my big goals in classically schooling in the first place.

[Colleen in NS]

I'm afraid that even if I went in order, unless I were reading some heavy history & literature books myself, I wouldn't come away with those sorts of connections & understandings. Maybe you can come teach my kids (and me)? :D For self-education alongside the kiddo's topic of study, do you think SWB's histories for adults and a study of WEM would be sufficient?

 

I think that's an excellent start. You can also keep a timeline (and when your kids get to middle grades, show them how to keep a timeline) that will also help you to start making connections in your mind.

[Capt_Uhura]

I think it really depends on the kids and the patterns set. If the kids have a habit of jumping around from topic to topic, then I'd treat Middle Ages as an outside interest. If they have covered Ancients extensively before, why put the kids through it again when covering new ground could make history exciting for them? We're doing history chronologically and my DSs study WOrld War I and II on their own time. My DS7 had done some Ancients sporadically so when I brought him home, I wanted to start from the beginning w/ Ancients. My older had just done a year of Ancients but had some gaps. I gave him the choice of moving on to Middle Ages or doing Ancients w/ his brother. He decided he wanted to be on the same time as his brother. I got Human Odyssey which has added a new level to Ancients for him and he has focused more on his writing while using content that is familiar. So it has worked out well letting him choose.

[Annabel Lee]

A funny thing has happened: since my boys found out that 2 of our family friends will be studying ancient times this fall, they want to be on the same track. We have tossed around ideas of getting together for history projects/activities, which my boys are giddy about. So, just like *that*, they declared "We'd like to do Middle Ages only during the summer, but then drop it and start Ancient Times when our friends do."

 

Ha! Well, that settles it. Fleeting their desires are. Lesson learned for me, again, but it nails that peg in more firmly. We've begun our Middle Ages light-hearted summer fun, and are treating it as such. We'll still cover Middle Ages deeper after Ancients.

[Capt_Uhura]

:001_smile:

[Hunter]

This is why we need to stick with OUR plans! Children will do this over and over again.

 

Imagine if you had just spent a lot of money on things you were uncomfortable with AND had to teach something they were not motivated to learn. A double whammy like that makes for LONG days.

 

I'm so glad it has now worked out that both you and the children are motivated to do ancients :-) But if they change their minds AGAIN, as long as YOU are motivated, you'll be able to drag them along for the ride.

[Pamela in VA]

...but here are a few thoughts based on what we've done and what OP said.

 

As much as I desired to cover history in three 4-year chronological cycles, it just didn't happen. Dc will be 8th and 9th next year and they have a pretty good grasp of the full scope of history and can make many connections, but certainly not at the depth described by E.M....YET.

 

Take a look at our disjointed history record (no gasping allowed). The grade is based on ds (oldest). It's fair to say that from 2nd-8th (current) we have really only done 1/2 year of history each year:

 

1 - SOTW Ancients

2 - SOTW Medieval (moved from LA to VA so spring history suspended)

3 - SOTW Medieval: in-depth projects on Renaissance/Reformation and Explorers (we started lapbooking/notebooking and did WAY too many projects)

4 - SOTW Medieval (finished in fall) and SOTW Early Modern: in-depth notebooking on 13 colonies

5 - SOTW Early Modern: finished in-depth notebooking 13 colonies, then began Amer. Rev.

* we skipped most chapters on other parts of the world

6 - SOTW Early Modern: finish Amer Revolution projects plus non-American chapters in first 1/3 of book

7 - TOG Ancients until November...we were in a co-op (tree fell through house...no more history or much else for that matter)

8 - SOTW Early Modern: we are currently finishing this book

 

GASP!!! I have never really written this down and it must look appalling to many of you (and me too...on the surface). We have NEVER formally studied 1800 to present day. Do my dc know what has happened? ABSOLUTELY! We watch LOTS of documentaries and read lots of books. Dh loves to discuss military strategy and political intrigue with them and how it relates throughout all of history. They love talking to him about it.

 

Here's what I have had to "resolve" within myself...the NEED for a tangible work product. Dc have BEAUTIFUL notebooks from the in-depth studies described above and they will be treasured for years, but obviously nothing from 1800 on. I also have to resolve that we haven't studied a big chunk of history formally. But I know they know as much or more than their counterparts in the system. I am confident that in the next four years (which will be full years of history, not 1/2 years) we will cover the whole cycle and they will be able to make plenty of connections. They have always narrated well and had a good understanding of concepts and relationships. It's just not down on paper. You know, it just doesn't matter. We didn't even start formally writing until a couple years ago, but did lots of narration, copywork, and dictation in the early years. They can now write well across the subjects with just a couple years of IEW.

 

Next year we will be doing 1850-present day for two reasons. First, they ASKED for it. More importantly, we have not studied it formally. It seems, for the OP, that these are the same two reasons why studying Medival next year might be the choice to make. JMHO.

 

Do I want them to have a grasp of the scope of history and all the connections to be made? Certainly. Do I care when it all falls in place? To a certain extent, yes; but I am willing to make concessions when I keep in mind that what is most important is where they are at the end of the journey. Life has happened in this family (you only see the digested version) and this is what it looks like. It wasn't what I intended 8 years ago, but I can be ok with it. In the end, the puzzle looks the same, even if I didn't do the edges first, then added the middle (hope that analogy makes sense).

 

Hope this helps shed another perspective for you to consider. Have a blessed day,

PameLA in VA

Edited June 8, 2011 by PameLA in VA