Articles and Information - updated whenever . . .
Home
High School Overview
Favorite Links
Weekly Checklist Examples
Homeschool Confidential 1
Homeschool Confidential 2
Homeschool Confidential 3
Homeschool Confidential 4
Homeschool Confidential 5
Articles and Info
My Albums
Book Lists
More Articles and Info
Yearly Studies - Topics and Materials
American History videos 1
American history videos- Revolution
American History videos - expansion
Then Just Quit Already!
I was trolling through some of my fave websites this morning - most are either education or homeschool related, but some are just fun, like facebook. However, one of the education websites I read provided some information that truly shocked me.
Let me preface this by a bit of history. My son was in full time day care for all of 9 months, and it was the longest 9 months of my life. It was also one of the costliest. We paid $150/week for full time care ten years ago. That would come to, on average, $600 a month, $750 for a 5 week month. OUCH. It was also one of the reasons we wanted to get me into a stay-at-home mom position, or at least, part-time working position. And once my hubby landed a job that paid as much as I made, and I found a part-time teaching position for a local college, we were able to do it.
Basically, we figured that I could make almost $800 a month LESS than what I was making full time, since we would no longer have day care costs. Since my take home pay was only $1600 a month, that was TOO easy. I taught 2 classes each semester and made more than that. We were set; I quit my full time job and we never looked back.
Let me also put out here that I am an advocate of the stay at home parent. If you manage to work part time and only have the kids with a sitter for a few hours a week, that is a different situation altogether. There is still one parent that is the primary caretaker. I firmly believe that if you have kids, YOU should raise them. Not some stranger that you found in the phone book. Not some distant relative who is "helping you out" to the tune of $200/week or more. YOU. YOU. YOU. That is your kid. Take care of him/her already!
I actually feel badly for those moms (and their kids) who say they can't (or just won't) stay home with the kidlets. They don't know what they are missing.
Fast forward to this Sunday morning, and my reading of Ed Report at eagleforum.org. They published an interesting article about the high costs of day care, specifically this line which almost knocked me out of my chair: "the average family with two children in Google day care would go, under the new plan, from paying $33,000 a year to paying over $57,000" (2008). WHO IN THE HELL WOULD PAY $33,000 A YEAR (let alone $57,000) TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO DAY CARE?!
Are you kidding me? Are you FREAKIN' kidding me?!
My take home when I worked full time was less than $28,000 a year. When the hubby started making the "big bucks," he made $32,000 a year. Essentially, if we had to send the kids to day care today, it would be cheaper for one us NOT to work instead! And if these are the costs of day care, then why in the name of all things Holy, does the second parent work? Unless that parent makes more than $40,000, they are PAYING to work. This does not include any other costs like lunches, clothes, car upkeep, gas, etc. That is the straight up babysitter fee.
Even if that same second parent made $50,000/year, then after taxes they are really only making about $6000/year after day care costs. 40 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for a measly $6000. Sell Avon instead. Have a bake sale. Either of these would net the same amount and you would be at home with your kids! No boss, no worrying about getting a sick day off, no missing the school play or that soccer game. No 95% of your pay going to a babysitter.
I guess I never really looked at the numbers. For those families who don't have the second parent, obviously this isn't an option. For those who have grandma watch the babies for super cheap or free, obviously this doesn't apply to you. But for those of you in two parent households, unless you make, and let's be realistic here, $70,000 or more, EACH, then one of you should quit. You will be richer in the long run.
Let me preface this by a bit of history. My son was in full time day care for all of 9 months, and it was the longest 9 months of my life. It was also one of the costliest. We paid $150/week for full time care ten years ago. That would come to, on average, $600 a month, $750 for a 5 week month. OUCH. It was also one of the reasons we wanted to get me into a stay-at-home mom position, or at least, part-time working position. And once my hubby landed a job that paid as much as I made, and I found a part-time teaching position for a local college, we were able to do it.
Basically, we figured that I could make almost $800 a month LESS than what I was making full time, since we would no longer have day care costs. Since my take home pay was only $1600 a month, that was TOO easy. I taught 2 classes each semester and made more than that. We were set; I quit my full time job and we never looked back.
Let me also put out here that I am an advocate of the stay at home parent. If you manage to work part time and only have the kids with a sitter for a few hours a week, that is a different situation altogether. There is still one parent that is the primary caretaker. I firmly believe that if you have kids, YOU should raise them. Not some stranger that you found in the phone book. Not some distant relative who is "helping you out" to the tune of $200/week or more. YOU. YOU. YOU. That is your kid. Take care of him/her already!
I actually feel badly for those moms (and their kids) who say they can't (or just won't) stay home with the kidlets. They don't know what they are missing.
Fast forward to this Sunday morning, and my reading of Ed Report at eagleforum.org. They published an interesting article about the high costs of day care, specifically this line which almost knocked me out of my chair: "the average family with two children in Google day care would go, under the new plan, from paying $33,000 a year to paying over $57,000" (2008). WHO IN THE HELL WOULD PAY $33,000 A YEAR (let alone $57,000) TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO DAY CARE?!
Are you kidding me? Are you FREAKIN' kidding me?!My take home when I worked full time was less than $28,000 a year. When the hubby started making the "big bucks," he made $32,000 a year. Essentially, if we had to send the kids to day care today, it would be cheaper for one us NOT to work instead! And if these are the costs of day care, then why in the name of all things Holy, does the second parent work? Unless that parent makes more than $40,000, they are PAYING to work. This does not include any other costs like lunches, clothes, car upkeep, gas, etc. That is the straight up babysitter fee.
Even if that same second parent made $50,000/year, then after taxes they are really only making about $6000/year after day care costs. 40 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for a measly $6000. Sell Avon instead. Have a bake sale. Either of these would net the same amount and you would be at home with your kids! No boss, no worrying about getting a sick day off, no missing the school play or that soccer game. No 95% of your pay going to a babysitter.I guess I never really looked at the numbers. For those families who don't have the second parent, obviously this isn't an option. For those who have grandma watch the babies for super cheap or free, obviously this doesn't apply to you. But for those of you in two parent households, unless you make, and let's be realistic here, $70,000 or more, EACH, then one of you should quit. You will be richer in the long run.
Why Rainbow Fish is a Blowfish by Michelle Dalrymple
My two and a half year old daughter, Kaya, loves all things fish. She got on this Little Mermaid kick a few months ago, and loves everything thing under the sea. After reading a Rainbow Fish sticker book to her, she was hooked. The only problem was we did not own an actual Rainbow Fish book, and the sticker book fell apart real quick.
Being the industrious sort and of limited means, I logged onto Half.com and purchased a Rainbow Fish board book for a buck and a quarter. It is a simplified version of the original story, and I thought if Kaya liked that, maybe Rainbow Fish would visit, in full book form, for Christmas.
We received the book on Monday, August 12, and she was very excited. We sat together on the big chair and I read her this beautifully decorated book, and that is about all I can say for the book. After reading the story, I seriously wondered if it was put out by the public schools or something, because the story was so poor and propagandized that I was sorry I wasted the $1.25.
If you are unfamiliar with the story, it is the tale of beautiful Rainbow Fish, who has the most beautiful, glittering scales. When other fish ask if they can have one, Rainbow Fish answers with a resounding, "NO!" and then wonders why he doesn't have any friends. He is advised that he could obtain friends if he shared his scales, so he does, and while he loses his beautiful scales, he gains valuable friends. Now, I see the lesson here is on the importance of sharing, or that material things (scales, in this case) are less important than people, but the layout and presentation of the story bespoke of other ideas. Essentially, I saw three plausibly propaganda/problem elements in this story. First, is the issue of having to "buying" friends, or give people things for them to like you. Second is the issue of appearance, and no one wanted to be Rainbow Fish's friend because of how he looked, which ties into the third element, the propaganda that every one must look "equal"(a la the socialist mentality). No one can have bigger, better, different; or more, because it is unfair.
The first element of "buying friends" friends, or giving someone something to be a friend, is problematic just from the basic premise. I do not want my kids to think that they have to give their toys, clothes, or shoes to someone else just to have a friend. It cheapens the idea of what friendship is and puts friendship on a very superficial level. It equates friendship with materialism, and can cause kids to think that someone will only be their friend if they give (not just share) their toys away. What a terrible way to have to make friends.
Secondly we have the issue of appearance, and because Rainbow Fish was so beautiful ("The most beautiful fish in the ocean," according to the book), no one wanted to be his friend. Only when he sheds his scales to make himself and others look alike is he accepted. This not only bashes everything the multiculturalists have worked so hard for, it tells children, if you are too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, or too green-eyed, no one will want to be your friend. Again, it cheapens the idea of friendship by placing it on a superficial level, asserting looks over "what's inside." Since Kaya (and her younger sister for that matter,hell, even me, at %'10", a woman taller than most guys in high school) is a healthy (read, really tall and prettily chubby) two year old, the last thing I want is for her to think that someone won't be her friend for how she looks. We teach children to value how people act and how they treat us to make friendship judgments, and this book contradicts this idea by valuing appearance over character.
Finally, there is the socialist innuendo within the text, which my husband pointed out to me as I was proclaiming my dislike for this book. Seen from this viewpoint, Rainbow Fish is promotes the idea that, for the best society (one where everyone is a friend) every individual must look the same or have equality (in the case of Rainbow Fish, it is that every fish in the ocean must have a glittery scale so they are more beautiful, and Rainbow Fish, losing scales, is less beautiful, so every fish is equally beautiful-- for more on this read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut). This smacks of denigrating individuality, which even now is on a downward slide, and asserts to each according to their needs (see Marx). My children should feel proud of talents and abilities, even their appearances, that make them special and unique, that make them individual. For a preschool text to show that this individuality is problematic at best and will mean that certain children should be brought up or down according to their "needs" per society is tantamount to socialist indoctrination.
As a college professor and home educator, I must admit that this is the first time a primary text (as in education) has truly set me off. While I like to complain and can find issue with nearly any type of theory or idea, especially in regards to literature and education, this is the first time I have read something so blatantly obtuse and contrary that I felt compelled to write about it. Needless to say, I don't think Rainbow Fish will be visiting our house soon, and I think the books that we do have right now will find their way into the next garage sale.
ON BEING TOLERANT-
Shortly before Christmas, we were at my Mom-in-law's house, and I heard the most obtuse statement uttered by a self-proclaimed "expert" on tolerance. I can't remember who it was, but I believe it was a news excerpt from either FoxNews or MSNBC. I will paraphrase here; but what he said amounted to: we can't show Christian perspectives of the Christmas holiday, because it is intolerant of others who celebrate different religions and holidays. Is this circular logic or what? "We can't be tolerant because to be so would be intolerant?"
Tolerant means to accept all ideas, perspectives, beliefs, etc, not to disregard one in light of another. In trying to promoted tolerance, speakers such as the "experts" are promoting hypocrisy, not tolerance. To say that we need to exclude one in deference to others is being intolerant of that one. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the majority does not have the right to silence one voice, anymore than that one has the right to silence the majority. Even if the Christian perspective of the end of December has been the most acknowledged one in America, historically, proponents of other holidays and/or diversity have no right to crush or deny it, just as Christians and their beliefs cannot do the same. Thus, to say it is "OK" to acknowledge Ramadan, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa, but not Christmas, perpetuates the same problem, but from a different angle.
The first Amendment of the Constitution has a "Free Expression" clause, which entitles me to celebrate my religious beliefs as I see fit. It does NOT entitle others to get on TV and tell me that I cannot or should not be allowed to honor my religious beliefs. In doing so, others are denying me my freedom of expression, and are thus being intolerant of me. It hurts to have the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it?
Instead of fighting over what should or should not be tolerated (ie what decorations should or should not be displayed), especially during the holidays when peace should reign supreme, we should focus on the joy of our inherent difference. We should celebrate that God (or Jehovah, or Allah, or the name you call your God) in his infinite wisdom decided to make all people different for the variety and learning opportunities it provides.
Tom Swift - 6/28/03
We just inherited a series of Tom Swift books from the 1950's and 60's that my dad used to read as a child. They are full of all the outerspace and undersea action adventure one could want. I was pleased dad asked me if I wanted them, and I think Aden really gets into them. He liked reading the annotated versions of Tom Sawyer, 20,000 Leagues under the sea, and Treasure Island. We will see if Tom Swift can hold the same level of interest. Free books? Never turn them down!
Being the industrious sort and of limited means, I logged onto Half.com and purchased a Rainbow Fish board book for a buck and a quarter. It is a simplified version of the original story, and I thought if Kaya liked that, maybe Rainbow Fish would visit, in full book form, for Christmas.
We received the book on Monday, August 12, and she was very excited. We sat together on the big chair and I read her this beautifully decorated book, and that is about all I can say for the book. After reading the story, I seriously wondered if it was put out by the public schools or something, because the story was so poor and propagandized that I was sorry I wasted the $1.25.
If you are unfamiliar with the story, it is the tale of beautiful Rainbow Fish, who has the most beautiful, glittering scales. When other fish ask if they can have one, Rainbow Fish answers with a resounding, "NO!" and then wonders why he doesn't have any friends. He is advised that he could obtain friends if he shared his scales, so he does, and while he loses his beautiful scales, he gains valuable friends. Now, I see the lesson here is on the importance of sharing, or that material things (scales, in this case) are less important than people, but the layout and presentation of the story bespoke of other ideas. Essentially, I saw three plausibly propaganda/problem elements in this story. First, is the issue of having to "buying" friends, or give people things for them to like you. Second is the issue of appearance, and no one wanted to be Rainbow Fish's friend because of how he looked, which ties into the third element, the propaganda that every one must look "equal"(a la the socialist mentality). No one can have bigger, better, different; or more, because it is unfair.
The first element of "buying friends" friends, or giving someone something to be a friend, is problematic just from the basic premise. I do not want my kids to think that they have to give their toys, clothes, or shoes to someone else just to have a friend. It cheapens the idea of what friendship is and puts friendship on a very superficial level. It equates friendship with materialism, and can cause kids to think that someone will only be their friend if they give (not just share) their toys away. What a terrible way to have to make friends.
Secondly we have the issue of appearance, and because Rainbow Fish was so beautiful ("The most beautiful fish in the ocean," according to the book), no one wanted to be his friend. Only when he sheds his scales to make himself and others look alike is he accepted. This not only bashes everything the multiculturalists have worked so hard for, it tells children, if you are too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, or too green-eyed, no one will want to be your friend. Again, it cheapens the idea of friendship by placing it on a superficial level, asserting looks over "what's inside." Since Kaya (and her younger sister for that matter,hell, even me, at %'10", a woman taller than most guys in high school) is a healthy (read, really tall and prettily chubby) two year old, the last thing I want is for her to think that someone won't be her friend for how she looks. We teach children to value how people act and how they treat us to make friendship judgments, and this book contradicts this idea by valuing appearance over character.
Finally, there is the socialist innuendo within the text, which my husband pointed out to me as I was proclaiming my dislike for this book. Seen from this viewpoint, Rainbow Fish is promotes the idea that, for the best society (one where everyone is a friend) every individual must look the same or have equality (in the case of Rainbow Fish, it is that every fish in the ocean must have a glittery scale so they are more beautiful, and Rainbow Fish, losing scales, is less beautiful, so every fish is equally beautiful-- for more on this read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut). This smacks of denigrating individuality, which even now is on a downward slide, and asserts to each according to their needs (see Marx). My children should feel proud of talents and abilities, even their appearances, that make them special and unique, that make them individual. For a preschool text to show that this individuality is problematic at best and will mean that certain children should be brought up or down according to their "needs" per society is tantamount to socialist indoctrination.
As a college professor and home educator, I must admit that this is the first time a primary text (as in education) has truly set me off. While I like to complain and can find issue with nearly any type of theory or idea, especially in regards to literature and education, this is the first time I have read something so blatantly obtuse and contrary that I felt compelled to write about it. Needless to say, I don't think Rainbow Fish will be visiting our house soon, and I think the books that we do have right now will find their way into the next garage sale.
ON BEING TOLERANT-
Shortly before Christmas, we were at my Mom-in-law's house, and I heard the most obtuse statement uttered by a self-proclaimed "expert" on tolerance. I can't remember who it was, but I believe it was a news excerpt from either FoxNews or MSNBC. I will paraphrase here; but what he said amounted to: we can't show Christian perspectives of the Christmas holiday, because it is intolerant of others who celebrate different religions and holidays. Is this circular logic or what? "We can't be tolerant because to be so would be intolerant?"
Tolerant means to accept all ideas, perspectives, beliefs, etc, not to disregard one in light of another. In trying to promoted tolerance, speakers such as the "experts" are promoting hypocrisy, not tolerance. To say that we need to exclude one in deference to others is being intolerant of that one. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the majority does not have the right to silence one voice, anymore than that one has the right to silence the majority. Even if the Christian perspective of the end of December has been the most acknowledged one in America, historically, proponents of other holidays and/or diversity have no right to crush or deny it, just as Christians and their beliefs cannot do the same. Thus, to say it is "OK" to acknowledge Ramadan, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa, but not Christmas, perpetuates the same problem, but from a different angle.
The first Amendment of the Constitution has a "Free Expression" clause, which entitles me to celebrate my religious beliefs as I see fit. It does NOT entitle others to get on TV and tell me that I cannot or should not be allowed to honor my religious beliefs. In doing so, others are denying me my freedom of expression, and are thus being intolerant of me. It hurts to have the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it?
Instead of fighting over what should or should not be tolerated (ie what decorations should or should not be displayed), especially during the holidays when peace should reign supreme, we should focus on the joy of our inherent difference. We should celebrate that God (or Jehovah, or Allah, or the name you call your God) in his infinite wisdom decided to make all people different for the variety and learning opportunities it provides.
Tom Swift - 6/28/03
We just inherited a series of Tom Swift books from the 1950's and 60's that my dad used to read as a child. They are full of all the outerspace and undersea action adventure one could want. I was pleased dad asked me if I wanted them, and I think Aden really gets into them. He liked reading the annotated versions of Tom Sawyer, 20,000 Leagues under the sea, and Treasure Island. We will see if Tom Swift can hold the same level of interest. Free books? Never turn them down!