Short cut!

As organized as I like to think I am, sometimes life throws a curve ball. Soccer practice, an unexpected Play-Doh tragedy, sick kids - life happens, and dinner gets pushed back. In response, I'm trying to be a bit more proactive. Thus, this post about beans.

I love black beans, and I refuse to pay for canned beans. Dry beans are so much cheaper and (I think) tastier. The trouble is that I have to think ahead when I want to serve beans. I have to remember to soak them the night before. That doesn't always happen. What's a mom to do?

I cheated.

I cooked two pounds of beans in my crock pot, drained them and allowed them to (mostly) cool.

Then I pulled out some sandwich bags and a big freezer bag, and divided my cooked beans into serving-sized portions. And - this is important - I labeled my freezer bag before I filled it!

See how organized I am? (Actually, I'm just forgetful, so I labeled the outside of the freezer bag with my portion sizes.) I divided each cup of beans into a sandwich bag (cheaper than freezer bags), and then put all my sandwich bags into the big freezer bag. And I tried to get as much air out of each bag as possible to decrease the chance of freezer burn.

So now I have a head-start on dinner on those nights I run late! Next up for the freezer is pre-cooked taco meat!

What frugal looks like

Drying cloth diapers and clothes on the clothesline:

Filling a planter 2/3 with recycled styrofoam peanuts, before topping them with potting soil, to grow your own cooking herbs:

Upcycling an ice cream container for a compost bucket, because your children broke your pretty one:

And using that compost in your garden, to reduce your summer grocery bill:

When you give a 7 year old the camera...

Boys' bedroom renovation

The boys' room has been in need of attention for more than a year, now. We're finally getting to it, thanks to our tax refund. Here is a before photo of Adam & Luke's bed. Notice that the walls are blue - an ugly, cheap shade of blue that I HATED.

Poor Joey started out in this toddler bed, squished into the opposite corner of the room. (Please forgive the fuzzy picture. It was the only one I could dig out that had this toddler bed pictured.)

Cory eventually made that toddler bed into a trundle, so that it slid under the bunks, giving the boys more floor space. The disadvantage was that Joey had no bed to call his own during the day - no place to keep his special things just to himself. Oh, and eventually one of the casters fell off, so Joey's bed had to be propped up in one corner with books lest he roll out toward the lopsided corner!

You'll also notice, in the above pics, that the boys (ahem, LUKE) had started to peel the ugly blue paint off the wall. Did I mention that I HATED that blue? Hated it. Really.

Hubby and I started talking renovation of the boys' room last fall. Since we've had so much time to plan and talk about it, we came up with a few solutions.

The first solution was a better color for those darn walls! They're khaki-colored, now, except for one wall (not pictured) which is a smart, navy blue. I love it. The second solution was for Hubby to build triple bunk beds. Boy, these suckers are STURDY.

You'll notice that the ladder does not extend away from the bed as it did from the previous bunks, so the footprint of the bunks is smaller. We've lost the storage space under the bunks, though, because the lowest bunk is only a couple of inches above the floor. We have plans to build a wall of cubes to house books, toys, and trophies. I hope to post more pictures when the room is finally complete.

Have I mentioned how happy I am to have gotten rid of the UGLY blue paint?

Homeschooling & Standardized Tests

I've been homeschooling (formally) for 5 years. I've grown a pretty thick skin about most of the incredulous "harrumphing" that most folks send my way about our decision to keep the kids home and educate them (notice I did not say "school them") ourselves. I don't think most people realize how insulting it is to a homeschooler to say, "Oh, I couldn't do THAT!" while in a discussion about homeschooling. I try not to take it personally when I get the "I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged because I couldn't give them everything that schools can!" It does take a monumental effort not to roll my eyes when the "S word" comes up. (Do those people actually know what socialization means?) But the one question that sends me over the edge, with heart racing and teeth bared, ready for a fight to the intellectual death, is the testing question.

"Well, don't they require homeschoolers to pass some kind of requirements? Don't they have to be, like, tested?"

Ooh, blood boiling just typing it out!

Let's get a few little idears straight in our pointy little heads, mmkay punkin?

Part I

1. Standardized testing is a load of horse manure, and any educator (that would be a university-trained and state-certified teacher, not a politician nor an administrator) worth her salt will tell you that. Standardized testing doesn't measure what a child knows. Let me repeat that, and I'll even put it centered and in boldface so that we can be crystal on this point:

Standardized testing doesn't measure what a child knows.

It only measures how well a student has absorbed and regurgitated a finite amount of narrow information stuffed into his noggin. Knowledge infers that a student has gained mastery of a body of ideas and concepts. Knowledge is demonstrated when a person can discuss intelligently, or demonstrate via physical method, a theory or event or historical trend or what-have-you. What a standardized test measures is (notice my subtle irony in format, here)

a. how well a student "tests"

b. memorization of a limited number of facts

c. whether or not said student can sit still for an extended period of time without becoming mind-numbingly bored

d. how effective his teacher was in stuffing his head full of trivia

e. all of the above

2. Standardized tests are time-wasters in the classroom.

And that's because...

3. Standardized tests strip classroom teachers of professional dignity.

As a society, we send young people to universities and put them through the mind-numbing hell that comprise modern Methods classes. We expose them to a multitude of educational philosophies, beat them with educational psychology, flog them with pedagogical nonsense about evaluation methods and the benefits of group work versus independent work, chasten them with Horace Mann and John Dewey, barrage their brains with theories about learning styles and gender differences in the classroom and the effect of economic class on reading proficiency, and spit them out the other side as certified teachers. (And, in my state, laughably, force them to pass a standardized test for licensure after spending 4+ years extolling the evils of said tests!)

After all that "schooling," we don't even trust them to teach our children. We constantly look over their shoulders via standardized tests to see what they're doing. Via the testing medium, we tell them what to teach and when, and how! Right now, you're probably shuddering in horror, thinking that I'm advocating some kind of educational free-for-all, where crazy liberal teachers get free rein to teach about the history of Scotch tape in literature class, but stick with me for a sec.

Standardized tests tell teachers what to teach, and when to teach it, and what facts are most important. Do we really need a professional for such drivel? Really?!

Think about it - a young teacher graduates from university, gets her first job, and has all these wonderful ideas bouncing around in her head about the fantastic world that she can open to the students in her class. There is a feast of knowledge out there - a FEAST! - but her job hinges on the performance of her students on a standardized test. Out goes the fire, in comes the rote memorization of dry facts, facts that will let Ms. I Just Graduated With Student Loan Debt and Need To Pay The Rent and Feed My Cat keep her job, if only the children will fill in the right bubbles on the Scantron form.

Have you gotten the point, yet? Those tests aren't about what children KNOW. They're about SCHOOL FUNDING. They're about MONEY, not knowledge or - saints preserve us! - EDUCATION! They're about $$$$! (No Child Left Behind - schools lose their funding if they don't perform. Sound like a good idea? School is failing, so let's give them even LESS money to fix the problem! Can't buy the testing prep materials or pay for professional development for your teachers? Take THAT! Muhahaha! We showed you! Now you can't even update the textbooks! So there! Teach those kids NOW! Hahaha! Twirl mustache evilly, exit stage left!)

Part II

Exempting homeschoolers from standardized testing is a no-brainer. The reason I homeschool (okay, one of the twenty reasons I homeschool) is to enjoy the freedom of chasing rabbit-trails. If the boys are interested in the Civil War, we dive in. Right now, we're on a solar system kick. We're talking about planets and comets and orbits and light years, and it's lighting a fire under them to learn MORE. There is no pressure to "finish the book" by the end of the year. I don't need some educrat telling me that fourth grade is for state history, and the Civil War will be covered again in eighth grade. Strike while the iron is hot, that's what I say. I am the parent, and I have a vested interest in helping my children succeed - and that is best served by teaching them how to get to the information they want and getting out of their gosh darn way! They can learn loads better when I'm not acting as the gatekeeper of information, doling out morsels as it's convenient for me. My job is to point to the feast and help them find a fork.

So, yeah, there's that other question you're going to ask me, right? The one about those parents who took their kids out of school just to hide them from CPS, or the couple that are too scatterbrained to pull together any kind of education for their children. And you know what? That's part of living in a free society. I am not volunteering my children to be punished for the mistakes (or willful negligence) of someone else. If we follow that line of reasoning that tells us that we have to check up on everyone so that no child falls between the cracks, then is it really that far of a stretch to say that we should all submit to DNA testing for the police to keep on file, in case anyone commits a crime? Or that we should just get rid of that pesky little idea of a search warrant - after all, why would any innocent person have anything to hide, right? So let's just test ALL the homeschoolers, because we need to "make sure," y'know, that they're "learning."

I am the parent of these children. It is my God-given duty to educate them. Again, I have a vested interest. My children are mine, not the government's, to raise. With my values - and that includes educational theories and religious beliefs and thoughts about the solar system and the Civil War.

Lastly, there is this thought:

Q: what happens to school children who fail standardized tests?

A: They go right back for MORE schooling! Duh!

Does that strike anyone else as mind-numbingly, well, stupid? The school failed to "teach" the student, so the student goes back for MORE? (What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.) So, in the thought process of the person asking me the "don't your kids have to be tested?" question, if my children failed a standardized test, why would I send them to a traditional school? Shouldn't I just lose some of my government funding (oh, wait, I don't get any) and then continue on as usual?

Makes sense to me.

Repurposing what I repurposed...

Okay, forgive the bad, grainy pictures. It was a cloudy day, and I did the best I could with light.

I needed a pot holder for my cast iron skillet. I hate realizing that I need to pour something out of the skillet before it burns, and then having to hunt (quickly!) for the pot holder that I'd just used and set down somewhere...

I wanted one of those handy-dandy ones that fit over the handle, but I really wasn't willing to pay $5.99+ for it. I mean, it's basically a padded sock, right? So I rummaged around in my scraps, and found a block that I had made for this quilt, but hadn't used. It was the "odd man out" and didn't fit into the dimensions of the quilt I made. So I traced around the handle of my cast iron skillet, and made a pot holder using that tracing as a pattern for this:

See? Fits perfectly! It's denim on the outside, lined with flannel on the inside. Durable, and keeps me from burning my hand.

Second, Adam was complaining that his legs were cold. (It just so happens that the chair he sits in for schooling is in the coldest spot in the house.) He wanted some leg-warmers like I wear. I grabbed a pair of knee high socks of mine that had holes in the heels and were headed for the rag bag. I found a tutorial online, and repurposed those holey socks from this:

To this:

So I managed to solve two problems in our house for $0. Yay for me!

For more frugal tips, check out Frugal Fridays, at Life As Mom.

Hmmm... Feminism

Now that I'm no longer working the insane hours of retail at Christmas (did I mention I had to be at work at 4am?! OUCH!), my brain has started functioning again. As a consequence, I've been throwing around an idea in my head, a little internal argument that I can't solve on my own. Here's the question:

Has modern feminism gone too far? Has it not gone far enough? Has it gone in the wrong direction?

To the last question, I can answer a resounding "YES!" The other two... well, I'm still working on those.

Are we, as women of Western culture, better off because of feminism? Yes and no. I'm glad that I'm not (usually) talked down to because I'm a woman. I'm glad that I can earn a decent wage, that I'm seen as an intelligent, competent person. I'm not anyone's property, I can vote, I can run for office, and I can have and defend my own opinion. Those are all great things. But I think we'd all agree that something has been lost.

First, I think that feminism, in its way, devalues the contributions to society that are (primarily) made by women. So many feminists that I've encountered want to be seen as the same as men. Gosh, I don't. I want to be a woman, but with the same rights as a man. Can I have it both ways?

Did I lose you back in that last paragraph? Feminism devaluing women? Yeppers. Happens all the time. How many times have you heard someone say, "Does your wife work, or does she stay at home with the children?" (Let one of those blockheads stay home with my brood for a day, and they'll see WORK!) or "Girls can be anything at all when they grow up. They can be pilots, or Senators, or mechanics, or doctors." Umm... where is MOTHER in that laundry list? Well, okay, sometimes it gets tacked on those sentences. Usually like this, "Girls can be anything at all when they grow up. They can be pilots, or Senators, or mechanics, or doctors. Or even mothers." Gee, thanks. Even mothers, huh? Wow. What a wonderfully glowing accolade for the job on the planet that keeps the human race alive. You're welcome, by the way.

Oftentimes, feminists discourage femininity. It is implied to be equal with weakness. Subservience. Timidity. How many times do you think of a strong, modern woman, with intelligence and strength - and then picture a woman with a child on her lap, reading a story? Or sewing? Or knitting? Or cooking a meal for her family? Intelligence? Strength? Child-rearing? KNITTING? Oh, the horror of being a feminine feminist!

Shallow-minded feminism (which is the most common kind, I'm afraid) tells women that to be valued, we must be like men. Not "equal to" men. Not "have the same opportunities" as men. But we must be as men.

And how, pray tell, is that feminism?

It's just the same tired devaluing of women, in new clothes. Now women aren't seen as stupid or without ambition, unless they choose to stay home and raise children. Please don't misunderstand my motive, here. I'm not bitter. Not in the least. Just callin' it like I see it.

I feel a bit cheated by feminism. The illusion of "having it all." It's just not possible. I'm not trying to fight another skirmish in the Mommy Wars by pointing this out, but working 40 hours outside the home, raising children, and trying to keep a house (and make it into a home) is not something that can be done well. By anyone. Something has to give. Eventually, that house of cards comes down, either in a big crash, or a slow slide. But come down it does.

There is a widespread idea that feminism created a perceived need for two incomes. As more women started working outside the home, prices rose as a reaction to households having more disposable income. As a consequence, when some families kept to the one-wage-earning-parent model*, it becomes challenging to "keep up," further entrenching each side of the debate of wealth versus family. (Keeping up is another post.)

And we don't even need to talk about reproductive "freedom." How many women have been coerced into abortions? How many women are taking harmful pills or injections that override their bodies' natural functions, in the name of "freedom?" How many women are raising children on their own, because they tried to be like men and see intimacy as no big deal, and just a physical act? (Please understand that I know all men don't think this way, but this is the way society conditions us to see a man's point of view.) How many men and women are living together, with children and without marriage, because marriage is seen as something outdated, only needed by insecure, grasping people who need a piece of paper to seal a commitment?

I'm grateful for feminism. I'm grateful for the opportunities bought for me by the sacrifice and insistent voices of so many women. And I think it's gotten off track. Or maybe it was wrong at its start: I can't tell you, I hadn't been born yet. But I can say, with honesty, that mainstream feminism is broken, and entirely too man-centric. It focuses on making women like men. And I think that subverts what should be the bedrock of feminism: women are valuable as women. Not because we wear dresses or perfume or makeup (though those are very nice perks) but because we are strong, we make unpopular choices (like giving up a career bought by years of education to kiss sticky faces and get stains out of laundry), and we are unique. And we are not men. (Let's face it girls, the men are better men than we'll ever be. Thank God.)

*see, the feminist in me won't even allow that this sentence would be better served by coming out and saying the father works outside the home!