I have been reading up on “colors” lately.  That is, what groups of colors go together in “palettes” to best suit individuals with various types of coloring.  I’ve been somewhat familiar with this concept for years, but never given it sufficient thought to figure out what “season” I am.  As I’ve begun reading, analyzing, etc., I’ve decided it’s no wonder I never did this before; I’m not sure I fall easily into a category, so I’m having trouble “placing” myself properly.

Interestingly enough, researchers discovered many, many years ago that most people are drawn to those colors in which they look best.  So if, for instance, you were designing birth announcements for your newest addition (and weren’t just going with traditional blue or pink), you would be very likely to choose a color scheme that you would look good wearing.  So your preferences can sometimes be a helpful indicator of what colors are best on you.  Unfortunately, conditioning can override this, especially if your parents have very different coloring than yours.

Do you any of you already know “your colors”?  Was it difficult for you to identify them?  How has it helped you?

Filed under: Family and Femininity by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]

…on the internet.  I’ve heard of Branson before.  Never knew anything about it, though.  In fact, I don’t even remember where it is.  Missouri?  And then I became a regular part of the online community, and started hearing about all of these Branson vacations that friends were taking.  Who would have thought that someplace I’ve barely heard of before is actually a pretty “big” vacation spot!  It’s still an awful lot of a drive for us, though.

Filed under: Uncategorized by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]

There has been some discussion on one of my message boards this week about the teaching of high school science in our homeschools.  The general consensus seems to be that at least three, preferably four, upper-level science courses should be required of every student, regardless of need.  (For instance, if the student has no intention of attending college, or if the college only requires two science credits, three or four are still required.)  I disagree.  Apparently I’m the only one (well, my husband, my parents – who educated/graduated me – and I), but the real issue, to me, is not “science,” and I believe it’s an important one.

There is a radical difference in philosophy between the two perspectives.  The science requirements are merely an application of the perspective.  (By the way, just to be completely clear, I am by no means opposed to teaching science – or even lots of it.  I am opposed to requiring every student to study the same thing to the same degree, regardless of aptitude or interest.)

With the possible rare exception of a radical unschooler here or there, by the time a student is in high school, all basic skills will have already been covered.  Anything necessary, at a fundamental level, to function in society, is done.  Our students can read and write, they know how to figure, etc.  Even informal logic, which I consider essential for everyone, can readily be taught to most students well before high school.  Where our basics probably looked very much alike, high school should be a time of specialization. There are a limited number of hours in a day, and any time spent studying “A” is necessarily time not spent studying “B” (unless, of course, “A” and “B” are closely associated).  These facts provide the background for the philosophical differences I’m going to present.

The first philosophy says (whether by verbal acknowledgment or simply through action) that every student (or at least every student except those with severe mental disabilities) should have a cookie cutter education.  The sprinkles on those cookies might be different colors, but the cookies are essentially the same.  In other words, every student should study the same things.  While I appreciate that most of these parents are striving for excellence, and I understand that pushing our children to study things they don’t enjoy is sometimes necessary and can be a good opportunity to teach them to pour their full effort even into things they don’t like, I believe that it communicates several undesirable things.

1. It communicates that they should do things just because they can, that a “good thing” should always be done when an opportunity is present.  At first glance, this is a good thing, but it’s actually a major downfall for many adults.  How many people do you know who can’t say “no” to anything?  These individuals have never been taught to be selective, to differentiate between “a good thing” and “the best thing” for them.

2. It communicates that we should all invest our time, energy, and efforts in the same things.  This denies the uniqueness with which God has made us, and assumes that the preparation which will best serve one person is the preparation which will best serve every other person.

3. It often communicates that the standard of measurement we should be using is the same one the world is using.  Do you have a degree?  Did you take “A,” “B,” and “C” classes?  Can you check the right boxes?  That’s not the standard God uses.  God wants to know what we did with what we had.  He tells us to develop our gifts, not to get the best college-prep education available.  (For some people, an excellent college-prep education may be part of developing their gifts.  But what if it isn’t?)

I prefer an alternate philosophy, one that may not be visible as different for a science-minded student, but which would become readily apparent with a non-science-minded student.  See, I believe that God has beautifully created us to each be unique.  He has a specific plan for each one of us, that uses each one’s particular combination of gifts, strengths, abilities, aptitudes, and interests.  He has given us passion for different things.  If we are to fully develop these unique gifts, then each student’s education must necessarily be different.  I’m not talking about “the sprinkles on the cookie are a different color” different.  I’m talking about “the difference between a Fig Newton, a ginger snap, or a chocolate-chip cookie” different.  When I asked why my friends require so much science, part of the answer many of them gave was, “The time is now.” I agree – the time is now.  To help that young man or young woman blossom into exactly who God created him or her to be.  Not to force him to pour hundreds of hours in something that he has no aptitude for or interest in.  Those are hours that can never be regained for things he does have interest in or aptitude for.  Tailoring a student’s education – by what it includes as well as by what it omits – to the unique abilities and passions planted in him by God, communicates several things.

1. It communicates that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that God has a plan for each of us, and that He has gifted us perfectly to complete those plans.  We are to seek to identify those gifts and develop them.  Just as the exercises that will best develop the lungs are not the exercises that will best develop the biceps, the education that will best develop one set of gifts is not the education that will best develop another.  (As with exercise, there may be some that are “okay” for both, but we don’t want “okay,” we want “best.”  That is, we don’t want to settle for mediocrity; we want excellence!)

2. It communicates that we each have a limited amount of time available and we cannot do everything.  Just because something is a “good” thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right” thing for a certain person at a certain time.  We should be seeking to invest the majority of our time into things that fall into our area(s) of strength (as well as those things that are purely needful).

3. It communicates to our children that we see them as individuals.  (I don’t believe that those educating by the first philosophy are communicating the opposite of this, necessarily, but I do believe that educating by this second philosophy communicates it more effectively.)

The beauty of homeschooling is that we can tailor the course of study to be a perfect fit for each child.  What a shame to fail to take advantage of that!  May we all be counted faithful at training up each child in the way he should go, so that we might ultimately have a fully-functioning Body and not be missing arms or legs or have weak lungs.  (1 Cor. 12:14-22)

Filed under: Babies & Parenting, Hard Topics, Homeschooling by Rachel
[Comments (2)]  [link]  [TB]

I was really upset – I mean really, REALLY upset – to learn that the so-called “health care” bill had passed.  This is more because the American people overwhelmingly didn’t want it (even those I know who are in favor of national “health care” did not want this bill) and our “representatives” passed it anyway.  That they would so blatantly disregard our wishes really, really angers me.  But I do happen to also be opposed to the concept of socialized medical care in general.  I believe that its very foundations are in opposition to Biblical principles.

There are two sides to the perceived need for this sort of medical care plan.  (I really have a hard time with calling any medical insurance a “health care” plan.  They generally cover little-to-nothing by way of preventive care, so they’re really sickness plans.)  First is our perceived need to have our own care covered.  That is, we believe we have needs that this will address.  Second is the perceived need to ensure that others who are needy are taken care of.  I believe that the Bible addresses both of these points, and God’s solution is not the government, on either count.

God did institute government.  But the purpose of civil government is to maintain law – that is, to punish evildoers and to protect us from infringement upon our persons or property by others (either others within our society, or an attack from an outside nation).  That’s it.  The role of government is not to educate, or to provide jobs, or to offer child care, or even to make sure we eat.  It is to protect us from each other and/or outsiders.

It is not within the realm of appropriate governmental authority to provide medical care.  For us as believers to expect this demonstrates a grievous departure from the Biblical worldview.  The Bible makes it very, very clear which Source we are to look to for the meeting of our needs.

“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matt. 6:33)

God is the one who is to meet our needs.  But that’s not all.  God communicated great displeasure at Israel’s depending on a human government to fill this role.

“‘Woe to the rebellious children,’ says the LORD…’who walk to go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!  Therefore the strength of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your humiliation.’” (Is. 30:1-3)

“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD!” (Is. 31:1)

The second side of the medical care issue is one that can readily be made to be super-spiritual, because it’s centered in concern for others.  This is the question of caring for those who are needy.  As the Church, this is our problem, too!  Biblically, who is supposed to take care of the needy?  Not the civil government.  God’s people!

“For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.” (Deut. 15:11)

Even in the planting of their crops, the Israelites were to leave some for the poor to come and glean and eat.

“And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 19:10)

“…the seventh year you shall let [the land] rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat…” (Ex. 23:11)

If God’s people are to feed the poor and clothe the poor (as seen elsewhere), I think it is not a stretch to think that it is also our responsibility to make sure any other needs of the poor are met.

So if we’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing – trusting in God for provision and meeting the needs of those around us – we should not need the government to play nursemaid to us.  But when they do, as with this “health care” bill, it is done by way of theft.  The very principle on which anything taxpayer-funded like this, that’s supposed to “equalize” the population, is designed to work, is by taking money from certain individuals (generally, some of our hardest workers) by compulsion, and giving it instead to others of the population (which includes those who have simply fallen on hard times, but will also generally include those who are just plain lazy – what motivation is there to work if you don’t have to?).  There is a big difference between my deciding to give $100 of my own money to help Joe Schmoe because I see he has a need, and someone else taking $100 out of my pocket and giving it Joe Schmoe, because he thinks it’s a good idea.  (For one thing, there just is not the same accountability when it’s a huge government program and not a person-to-person thing.  Chances are, I can tell whether Joe is having a tough time of it, or whether he’s a lazy bum who would rather take a handout than work.  The government cannot say the same.)

Please renew your mind to God’s Word.  As a people, let’s get back to trusting God and taking responsibility for our own lives.  And please, please, please, come November, fire your so-called representatives if they betrayed you by voting for this bill.

Filed under: Hard Topics, Health & Safety, Politics/Current Events, Uncategorized by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]

I think I first learned of Rosetta Stone at our state homeschool convention a number of years ago.  I’m not sure if they had a booth at that point or just a flyer in the promotional bags, or what, but I remember being intrigued by the first description I read of the program.  The idea of learning a language by immersion really appealed to me because it made sense.  That’s how we naturally learn languages.

So far it seems to be working well for Ariel.  We’re very inconsistent about using it, but she’s still learning.  And she’s developing a greater interest in it, as well.  She frequently works the bits of Spanish that she has learned into our everyday conversation, or eagerly shares it with her daddy.  She doesn’t always get it quite right, but she’s getting better.  Her familiarity is definitely growing.  And her pronunciation is getting much better!

Filed under: Book Reviews - Homeschool by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]