Lift Up Your Hearts!

I've been silent too long, so here's a quick bit of common sense from a policeman who wrote to Free-Range Kids about common sense parenting: A Cop Weighs in on When to Call 911.

Being a street cop for 22 years, I have witnessed America’s slide from self-reliance to dependence in incremental steps. The invention of 911 has been a good thing and undoubtedly has saved many lives, prevented crimes, and has aided us in apprehending dangerous people.  It has also revealed an embarrassing lack of critical thinking and common sense among some who call the police for everything.

...

Parents are afraid.  Along with the daily media reminder their kids might die tortuous deaths, they also worry they might end up in jail if they allow their kids to walk to school alone.  All of this can be solved by applying good, old-fashioned common sense and a balanced approach to safety.

The writer also teaches child safety programs.  I haven't more than glanced at his Child Safety Fun blog, but you can check it out here if you're interested.

I teach them that most strangers are great people who are very helpful, but give them a few techniques to bolster their confidence and give their minds a rest knowing they will probably never need their skills, but if they find themselves in a jam, they know what to do.

I'm not a big fan of going to the dentist, but yesterday's visit paid an unexpected benefit:  the hygienist, a former neighbor of ours, shared this video with me.

Heather, this is especially for you, but I think Janet will appreciate it as well, despite her memories being less happy than yours.  I enjoyed it a lot despite my own mixed feelings.  There are plenty of good memories for Porter as well.  :)

This video is just the trailer for a documentary project promoting music education, Marching Beyond Halftime.  As such, it has relevance to many outside of our immediate family.  Enjoy!

I haven't written much on the Common Core school standards mess (just this), but since Florida give us the opportunity to take sample tests, I couldn't resist checking out what was expected of third graders in mathematics.  I was a math major in college and usually enjoy taking standardized tests, so it should have been a piece of cookie, as we say in our family in honor of one of Heather's college math instructors, who was, Ziva-like, idiom-challenged in English.

I'm strongly in favor of holding students, teachers, and schools accountable for what is learned in school.  What's more, I have always had little sympathy for those who whine about the standardized testing that comes with a welcome concern for such accountability.  For endless years schools have failed to work with parents, to open their doors and records to parents, and to provide parents any reasonable assurance that the massive amount of their children's time spent at school is not being wasted.  They brought it all on themselves with their high-handed, "we know best, you just have to trust us" attitude.

And to those who complain that too much time is being wasted in school with teaching to and practicing for the tests, I always say the fault is not in the test, but in teaching to it and practicing for it.  Any generalized testing system worth its salt should be able to count on the fact that test results are a representative sample of a student's knowledge; teaching to the sample undermines its reliability.

All that said, this is a test that requires practice, and specific, test-related teaching.  First, doing math by mouse clicks instead of paper and pencil is a non-trivial exercise.  In this I was aided by my hours of Khan Academy math work.  But certainly students need time and practice to learn the specific testing interface.

Second, and most important, even with a bachelor's degree in math I found questions that made me stare blankly at the screen.  I don't just mean i didn't know the answer:  I hadn't a clue how to begin answering the question.

I'd like to tell you how I did on the test, but when I finished I was presented with this annoying screen (for all images, click to enlarge):

Now that's just lazy website design.  Being lazy myself, and fully confident of most of my answers, I didn't bother to confirm them.  However, I did pull up the answers to the two questions I couldn't figure out for love nor money.  Here are the problems, for your own amusement, edification, or frustration.  (Scroll down after the second problem to see the answers.)

If I wanted to graph the data, I would simply set Blue to 3, Green to 6, Brown to 12, and Hazel to 9.  But what does "Use a scale of 3" mean?  That on the Number of Students axis, the number 1 actually represents 3 students?  If so, I need to make the Eye Color bars 1, 2, 4, and 3, which is not only ridiculous but can't be done:  the bar heights snap to multiples of three.  Does it mean that I should scale each entry up by a factor of 3?  No, because then I'd need one entry to be 36, which is beyond the range of the graph.

Okay, this seems reasonable at first, with the little trick thrown in that one X on the graph means 2 students.  I'm glad to see that third graders are expected to notice such subleties.  So I plot "Two students like camping" with a single X.  But wait a minute.  "At least 5 students like playing basketball."  What am I supposed to do with that?  I can plot 2 1/2 X's, but there's no obvious way to indicate that the number might or might not be higher than 5.  And what about "Twice as many students like hiking more than playing basketball"?  Who cares if they like hiking better than basketball?  Maybe they like camping better than either one.  And twice as many as what?  Even if you rewrite it as "twice as many students like hiking best as like playing basketball best," you're still left with the problem of how to graph "at least."

Scroll down for the answers:

It seems that all they mean by "use a scale of 3" is that the vertical axis labels should be multiples of three, which is totally unnecessary, and thus confusing, since the axis is already labelled.

Except for the poor wording, this turns out to be a good puzzle, and I like to think that if I hadn't been rushing through the test—because I was in a hurry, and it was for third graders, after all!—I would have caught it.  Assuming that "twice as many students like hiking best as like playing basketball best" was meant, embedded within the graphing question is a simple algebra problem:  if B = the number of students who prefer basketball, then the number of students who prefer hiking is 2B, and thus 3B + 2 = 32, or B = 10 and 2B = 20.  But for third grade?

My limited experience more than once made me question the language abilities of whoever wrote the questions, but I have to say that a problem of this complexity on a third grade test is impressive.  It's not a hard problem, but it requires realizing that it is not a simple graphing question.  That's a subtlety I'm not accustomed to on standardized tests at this grade level, and might be indicative of an exam that actually measures students at the higher levels of skill and knowledge, instead of levelling them all out at "99%."  Unless, of course, you teach to the specific questions.

I came out of the exercise with no strong feelings one way or the other about the new Common Core approach to math.  All in all, it's very like the Khan Academy approach, so there's plenty of practice available for those who want it.  But I'm not sure what I think of the Khan approach.  It's not unreasonable to demonstrate multiplication of multidigit numbers via diagrams like the one below, but is it useful as a primary teaching method?  Does it really increase mathematical insight?  That's more than I know.  But I'm pretty sure that taking someone who already knows how to multiply and making him spend much time on this kind of exercise is less helpful than educators would like to think.  Especially if it's just to pass a test.

The Brainy Bunch by Kip and Mona Lisa Harding (Gallery Books, 2014)

Facebook, like smartphones, can enslave or empower.  Or both at once.  At the moment I'm feeling grateful to Facebook, and the friend who posted a link that eventually led me to this Today Show feature about the Harding family and their book.

As most of you know, education has long been my passion, particularly the education of young children, and most especially my belief that most children can learn and do so very much more than we give them the opportunity to achieve.  It will thus come as no surprise that when I heard of a family where seven (so far!) of the children had gone to to college by the time they were twelve years old, I immediately ordered the book from our library, and finished reading it the day after I picked it up.  If read with an open mind, this is a book that can blow away a number of stereotypes and presuppositions, and not just about education.

Although a large number of homeschoolers are Christians, including many who have spectacular records both academically and socially, as the movement has grown there have slso been examples of less-than-stellar achievement, especially in academics.  It is unfortunate that when many people think of "Christian homeschoolers," it is the latter example that comes to mind.  The Harding family is a stunning counterexample, especially since The Brainy Bunch bristles with buzzwords that set off alarm bells:  Mary Pride, A Full Quiver, Josh Harris, early marriage, Michael and Debi Pearl (at least they label the Pearls' book "a bit legalistic"), creationism, the Duggar Family, and others that might send some running for the hills.  But hang on—they also mention John Taylor Gatto, Raymond and Dorothy Moore, unschooling, and the Colfaxes, quite on the opposite end of the spectrum (inexplicably leaving out John Holt, however).  Mona Lisa and Kip sound like people after my own heart, able to take the best from many sources and leave aside what doesn't work for them.  In any case, the family deals a clean blow to many prejudices, including that of the college student who once told them, "Children in big families have low IQs."

The Hardings insist, however, that their IQs are strictly average; their children are not geniuses.  This bothered me at first, as it seemed almost a reverse boast, as if there were something wrong with being smart.  But I think I know why they make this point, and it's important.  There are a surprising number of people who have gone to college at an extremely young age (here's a list of the ten youngest), but they are generally prodigies with super-high IQs and extraordinary skills.  This does nothing to encourage most families to believe that early college entrance is possible for their children.  Or desirable.  Despite its title, The Brainy Bunch shows that this higher-level work is well within the grasp of the average student, and why this is a good idea.

Some might even say the Hardings started out as a below-average family, or at least one with several strikes against it when it came to predicting their children's academic success.  Kip and Mona Lisa were high school sweethearts who married in their teens.  After high school, he went into the military and she started having babies.  Lots of babies.  Their life was not easy, requiring many moves, and times of great financial hardship.  And yet here they are, with their children not only college graduates but successful at a young age in many fields:  engineering, architecture, medicine, music, and more.

So how do they do it?  The book may seem short on specific practical advice, because it's a lifestyle, not a curriculum.  Here, however, is a brief timeline of their approach:

• Around age four we start to teach reading.
• By age six we start teaching borrowing, multiplying, writing short essays, and encouraging independent reading.
• By age eight we start algebra, reading real chapter books, and having the children do more writing on their own.
• By age ten they are figuring out what they really believe and why.  They continue along in math as they add in reviewing for the SAT/ACT.
• Somewhere around age eleven, they have mastered the five-paragraph essay and can produce a decent research paper.
• By age twelve (sometimes sooner) they have finished lots of high school-level books on many general subjects to fill in their transcripts.  With that and enough emotional intelligence, they should be ready for a college class or two.

Sixty-three sticky notes festoon the book, marking places I thought I might quote in this review, but I'll content myself with a few observations.  Okay, several observations.

• I've read the complaint that the book is not well written. I see the point, but I've read a lot of popular books that are much worse, trust me. I would say it's not so much that it's poorly written as that the writing reminds me of blog-writing. It's not polished. But it's not bad; rather it's like the difference between folk music and a Bach fugue. Read it for what it is, and enjoy it.
• Most people's first reaction to this idea is, "Why not let your kids be kids?"  It's a legitimate question, but as the Hardings point out, in many ways their children are allowed to be kids longer than most, since they are immersed in a loving family and don't have to face the pressures to "grow up" prematurely that are present in school.
• They make sure their children learn about creationism, but also about evolution.  They encourage independent thinking.
• They are careful that their children read good books, and partake of quality television.  They realize that the Internet can be a dangerous place, but liken it to a hot stove:  it's a powerful tool that must be used wisely.  ("The Internet wants to reveal all of Victoria's Secrets to your child.  Teach them the real secret to success in life is to overcome temptation.")  Once a child can use the Internet, the sky's the limit for learning, and parents can respond to questions with, "Go look it up and share with us what you learn."
• The book never mentions Project-Based Homeschooling, but there is a similarity in their methods.  With the Hardings, however, it appears to be much less organized and purposeful.
• Conversations, especially at the dinner table, play a key role in the children's general education, and in sparking their interests.  It reminds me of Richard Feynman's early education, given informally by his father in the form of questions and discussions on frequent, casual occasions.  It also reminds me of a family we know; although they were never homeschoolers, they were always challenging their children with questions, and encouraging the children to do the same to their parents.  Written like that it sounds unpleasant, but I observed it, and it was delightful, not at all like a test or a drill session.
• The Hardings were good at finding "back doors" when faced with locked front doors.  When they lived in California, their children could obtain high school diplomas by taking a comprehensive test.  They were nowhere near the age minimum to take the test, but there was a loophole: high school sophomores could take the test no matter what their age.  Since the children were homeschooled and doing work on that level, the parents had no trouble classifying them as sophomores.  That didn't work in Alabama, but they discovered that community college transfer credit made up for the lack of a diploma.  They used lesser schools as stepping stones.  Why not?  At that age, they had plenty of time.
• The idea of sending a child to college at middle school age doesn't seem to jibe with their emphasis on family togetherness, but again this is the advantage of not aiming for the perfect college.  The young students went to school close to home, in most cases living at home, and at first accompanied by one of their parents.  When family needs forced them to be in different states, the children stayed with siblings or other relatives.  As I recall, one child stayed in a dorm—at a somewhat older age—but the parents still managed to have plenty of contact and presence.
• Reading the descriptions of their efforts to keep their college kids close to family at all times rang a bell with me, and that's when it struck me:  Mona Lisa Harding is a Hispanic mother.  This would not have meant anything to me had our own children not attended a high school with a significant Hispanic population.  Two characteristics marked Hispanic families, as far as I could tell:  the importance of the Quinceañera celebration, and very tight parental reins kept on the girls, such as mothers accompanying their children on band trips, and a girl staying in the mother's hotel room rather than with the other students.  Suddenly I recognized the Hardings' practices as typically cultural on the one hand, and extremely liberal on the other.
• They never say it in so many words, but I think the Hardings would agree with the idea that the middle and high school years are usually the most wasted time in a child's life.  At that age they can and should be doing college-level work.  Not MIT-level, but a lot more than is generally offered in middle school and high school.  So they considered what it takes to get into college, and geared the children's early education to meet those requirements.  The kids take none of the usual standardized tests, but begin preparing for the ACT and SAT instead.  As soon as possible they begin taking classes for which they can get college credit.
• High priority is given to character education; there's no point in being academically advanced if your character development and social awareness are lacking.
• Since much emphasis is placed on the children's following their own interests, a big question is, How do you (or they) know what that is?  By doing a lot of listening, and working together, for one thing.  It's also important to note that the kids aren't deciding at age six what they want to do with the rest of their lives.  Interests are never set in stone, but are allowed to change, going one way, then another.  As long as learning is happening, the parents are happy.
• There's a lot of flexibility in the Hardings' program ("We follow more of a checklist than a timed schedule"), but here's a sample day:

  • Get dressed
  • Eat breakfast
  • Chores
  • Bible study
  • ACT review (a section a day)
  • Writing
  • Lunch
  • Reading (history and science)
  • Math (if not covered in the ACT review)
  • Spanish
  • Violin or piano (they alternate)
  • 2:30, ready or not, PLAY OUTSIDE!
  • no homework "allowed" in the evenings—just reading for fun.

One of the reasons I read The Brainy Bunch was to know whether or not to recommend it to our children.  I would say, most definitely.  Would I buy the book?  Not if I could get it out of the library.  It's definitely worth reading, but I'd read it once before committing shelf space to it.  Then I'd wait for the paperback to come out rather than paying over $16 for the hardcover.  (Hint:  it's available Interlibrary Loan in New Hampshire.)  If I couldn't borrow it?  It's under $10 for the Kindle version; I'd go for that.

For some time we double-dipped in choir, singing for two different churches.  We've only been back a couple of times to visit what I might call the secondary church, but we seem to be perpetually on their mailing list.  Recently I received an e-mail promoting their Youth Choir, which included the following paragraph (emphasis mine).

Elligibility for the Youth Choir is not based on age or grade in school. We welcome participants who are confident readers (grade two-level minimum) and who have the support of their families in making a commitment to attend rehearsals regularly and to be faithful in singing at the 9:00 am service on the third Sunday of each month (September through June). The Youth Choir also leads the singing at the 5:00 pm service on Christmas Eve.

This may not seem radical, but it is.  One of our frustrations in an otherwise positive experience with children's choirs is that choir placement was nearly universally made by age and/or grade, independent of musical or emotional maturity.  One choir director told me frankly that she wouldn't have it any other way, because age/grade divisions are unarguable, and she did not want to be in the position of telling one family that their child was ready for a higher-level choir and another family that their child of the same age was not.  Given that the director in question was a dedicated, self-sacrificing volunteer, I could hardly argue.  But that didn't make the situation any less frustrating.

It's not just children's choirs that have this problem.  Age discrimination is one of the few forms of prejudice still acceptable today.  Grouping by age has never made sense to me—as if the most important factor that any group might have in common is the year of their birth.

Janet was clipping Joseph's fingernails.  When one of them suddenly spun into the distance, Joseph burst into song:  The burden of my nail flew away ... I am happy all the day!

There are a thousand things I could write about related to my trip to Switzerland, but time is short and people at least want to hear something, so to appease both them and L'il Writer Guy, I'll mention one thing that has struck me while observing Joseph's and Vivienne's speech patterns.

Joseph, who is less now than a month from his fourth birthday, was clearly delayed in his speech when I was last here, nine months ago.  Maybe, as I wrote then, "different" is a better descriptor, but in any case he was not as verbal as the majority of children his age.

Today is a different story.  Where he is in terms of "average" I don't know, but his speaking ability has clearly exploded, from understanding pronouns (saying "it is mine" rather than "it is Joseph's," for example) to being able to answer questions about the past and the future.  It reminds me again of how tricky it is to decide when a problem is best solved by intervention (and the earlier, the better) and when it is best simply to let the child develop in his own way, at his own pace.  We'd heard a variety of advice, from simple exercises to a radical diet; no doubt each would be appropriate for some situations, but in this case, trusting and waiting were the best medicine.

There's no doubt that Vivienne is developing differently.  At 29 months she is nearly as verbally competent as Joseph.  She has a good grasp of pronouns, speaks fluently, and works with determination and persistence to correct her own vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar.

All this is hardly news; even within a single family, children develop differently.  What makes it especially fascinating for me is that all this development is taking place in two (or more) different languages, and that, too, differs from one child to another.  Joseph was slow to speak each language (though he clearly understood both English and Swiss German extremely well), but now is fluent in both and never mixes them up.  He can translate from one to another (a very different skill from just speaking) and to some extent from French and High German as well.  Vivienne, on the other hand, mixes the languages freely and with enthusiasm, chattering one moment in Swiss German and the next in English, pulling words from the other language as the spirit moves her, a happy experimenter.

I'm reminded of the two types of computer programmers I've observed:  one who meticulously plans every detail, "measures twice, cuts once," and whose programs often work the first time; and the other, who works iteratively, putting forth one version after another and converging on the solution.  Both approaches work, though each kind of programmer frustrates the other kind no end.  Not that Vivienne and Joseph experience any of that sort of frustration in their speaking.  But it's a good analogy of how it seems to be working for them.

Enough.  It's past bedtime again—but L'il Writer Guy is happier.

It's still worrisome that our president does not consider directing the education of one's own children to be a fundamental human right, but today I'm offering thanks and respect for the Department of Homeland Security's decision to allow the Romeike family to stay in the U.S. "indefinitely."  (Previous posts here and here.)  That decision is not as satisfying for legal precedent as a positive court decision overturning the administration's efforts to deport the family—on the grounds that Germany's heavy-handed anti-homeschooling laws are not sufficient reason to grant asylum—but the Supreme Court refused to review the case.  The TSA's decision, while still leaving the Romeikes in a somewhat tenuous position, at least also leaves them safe in their Tennessee home.

"I don't want to eat" has almost never been a problem in our family!  Nonetheless, this article on ending mealtime battles caught my eye, and it has some wisdom in it, so I'm passing it on.  I can sum up what I like about it in a couple of quotes.

It's dinnertime and my 4-year-old son is deep in play. When I announce that dinner is ready he makes his own announcement: "I don't want to eat, Mommy."

I tell him five words that avoid the food battle that he wants me to engage in: "You don't have to eat."

This is the rule in our house but it is followed by a second rule that everyone follows, regardless of wanting to eat or not. I tell him that family dinners are about being with family, and not just eating, so we all have to sit at the table.

What I like most about Ellyn Satter's Division of Responsibility in Feeding, is it gives parents and children very specific jobs in the realm of feeding. Parents are in charge of deciding what is served at meal time, when meals occur and where. Children get to be in charge of choosing what to eat and how much from what is offered to them.

So when my children complain about what I make for them, I always remind them that they can choose not to eat it. And I make sure to include at least one or two items they are likely to accept. This gives them some control, melts away the tension, and makes them more likely to try it....

This strategy puts more onus on the parents to make sure all the food offerings are nutritious:  if the meal on the table includes chips and soda, a strategy of letting your children decide what and how much to eat from the offerings appears a lot less wise.  Nor would I include anything not part of the family meal among the offerings, i.e. no chicken nuggets when the rest of the family is eating chicken tikka.  But letting them choose proportions (including nothing) from a good meal sounds like a reasonable strategy for giving children autonomy within secure boundaries.

I wonder:  if I had not been required to eat a portion of everything served, would I have learned to like vegetables sooner than I did?  Very early on I developed the tactic of swallowing my vegetable bites whole, with great gulps of water, like pills.  (Peas are particularly easy.)  My parents were willing to insist I eat the veggies, but would not go so far as to require me to chew and taste them.  If, instead, they had simply been offered as part of the meal, and I had observed my parents enjoying it all, might I not have tried them now and then, thus developing the taste for certain foods that eluded me until later in life?  I'll never know, but I like this strategy better.

Our anthem for today, November 3, 2013:  assisting our cherub choir with The First Song of Isaiah (Jack Noble White, Belwin CMR 2247).  (This video is not us.)

Despite the indisputable cuteness of the kids, the most amusing part of the service was one of the hymns:  Praise to God, Immortal Praise.  No, there's nothing funny about the hymn itself, but the bulletin contained a rather unfortunate typo, leaving the title short one "t."

It was a busy day today so I'll try to make this quick.  Jonathan, having been given permission to come visit me any time after 7 a.m., was at the door as expected, and Noah followed soon thereafter.  The rest of the household isn't officially up until after 8:00, so this means giving up precious time by myself—time I only have first thing in the morning or last thing at night.  But it is oh so worth it to have that time for uninterrupted conversation with my oldest grandchild(ren)!

After breakfast it was time for morning chores and preparation for the Bible study that meets here on a weekly basis.  Noah made us tea (there was also coffee) and then while the meeting was going on, he and Faith beta-tested my newest educational PowerPoint shows.  Suddenly it was lunchtime, then time for afternoon chores, and soon it was time for the boys' karate lessons.  This is a new activity for the family, something Jonathan has been wanting for at least two years.  He and Noah are in the same class, which I was able to observe.  Noah does very well; Jonathan in amazing in his focus and the grace of his movements.

We didn't quite have time to get dinner cooked before it was time for Faith's karate lesson, so she and I went there together while the rest of the family ate.  Hers is a "tots" class, so I wasn't expecting much, but she showed the same determined focus and grace that Jonathan has.  When one of the other parents there commented that the "little blond girl" was blowing away the other, older children with her skills, I pointed out that she has the example of her two older brothers to follow.  As I said yesterday, the educational value of older siblings is tremendous.  Although Joy is not yet old enough for any class at the dojo, she insists that she is also learning karate, at home—and so she is, for her brothers and sister teach her.

Immediately after Faith's class we had handbell choir at church—which is fortunately just across the street from the dojo.  They are always gracious and let me ring with them when I come to visit, and I have a great time.

Finally, we were back at home, where Faith and I had a late dinner, and everyone indulged in homemade coffee ice cream (made with coffee left over from the morning's Bible study) smothered in homemade "Magic Shell" chocolate topping.

And now it's late again—but if I'm going to enjoy the privilege of early morning conversations, I need to grab computer time at night.  Tomorrow we will enjoy an early celebration of Heather's birthday; those of you who know us both will understand that part of the "celebration" will be staying home!

Noah had yesterday's Quote of the Day; now it's Joy's turn:  I love Grandma in our house!

I love being here, Joy!  We all miss Dad-o, however.

The process whereby a child learns to read continues to fascinate me.  Three months ago, Noah, who had just turned seven, demonstrated great progress in learning to read.  But he was not yet a reader.  Back then, he did a good job of making his way through his simplified, beginning readers.  But just now he read to me Curious George Gets a Medal, with its much more advanced vocabulary and structure, and he read fluently, nearly effortlessly, and with great expression.

Similarly, in the time between two years, four months and two years, seven months, Joy's language abilities have exploded.  In that time she has made the transition from two-word phrases to full, mostly clear communication, including correct use of pronouns.  Amazing.

There are advantages and disadvantages to large families, but surely one of the greatest is the example of older siblings.  I'm certain Joy has no idea that her youth should hinder her keeping up with her big brothers and sister.  Her size, maybe:  Jonathan executed a neat vault over the porch railing, and Joy announced that she was not going to follow suit because she would get hurt.  Quite fearless, as a rule, she knows the difference between courage and foolishness.

Quote of the Day, from Noah:  "Grandma, I think you're old enough to wear tie shoes now."  To which I responded, "I'm old enough now to choose to wear Velcro shoes because I like them better."

Bedtime.  It's been a long but fun day.

Once again I apologize for the lack of meat in recent posts.  I'm intensely involved in a couple of projects with deadlines, and when that happens, other things requiring sustained thought get put on hold.  It's not that I haven't had any opinions lately!

Our choir anthems for Sunday, September 29, 2013:  Holy, Holy, Holy (Robert Clatterbuck, Hope Publishing Company, C 5470).  No YouTube video, so the link takes you to the anthem on sheetmusicplus.

And I Choose You (Deboarh Governor, Beckenhorst Press, BP1789).  I only wish we could have had Janet playing the oboe part!

These two are what the choir did; there was also a wonderful soloist, but I don't have his music to enter.  What made this service special is that in addition to being regular Sunday worship, it was also a wedding of one of our choir members!

There are plusses and minuses for this not-so-common practice, but one difference I thought particularly wonderful was that despite all the usual pomp and circumstance for a wedding, it was crystal clear that this service was not "all about the bride."  Nor the couple.  It was a joyous sacrament taking place in the midst of God's people worshipping him as usual (almost).

Oh, and the reception was catered by our very own Chef Jessica.  We are fortunate to have her in charge of many of our church meals, and if I ever need a caterer here I know exactly where I'm going.  Not since Heather left Ascension in Pittsburgh—she served there under a deacon who was a professional chef—has church food been so amazing.  (I really, really like church potluck dinners.  But Chef Jessica serves the most amazing Middle Eastern food!)

Here's Vivienne's story.  Janet's here.  Joseph's here.  Stephan's here.

Voting closes in about an hour, I'm afraid, but it's worth a try.  You can vote for them all; probably multiple times, but I don't like ballot-box stuffing.

Correction:  Voting closes October 13; it was submitting the stories that had to be done by today.  But vote now anyway; you'll be surprised how soon a week will pass!

Yesterday I published Joseph's entry in the Seats for Switzerland contest; now it's Janet's turn.  Vivienne's will be up soon, I hope; we've been having some trouble with it.

Thank you for your votes in favor of getting the cousins together!