Outschooling(avc.com)
avc.com
Outschooling
https://avc.com/2019/05/outschooling/
172 comments
If by “student outcomes essentially boil down to parents and the students themselves” what you mean is “largely boil down to structural societal factors out of individuals’ hands, such as poverty, pollution, homelessness, unemployment, neighborhood crime, state-supported violence, lack of access to nutritious food, ...
Then sure.
Then sure.
I do. But those are all things still end up with parents and the students.
If you have a single mother that works odd hours and can't do basic algebra, it's very unlikely you'll excel as a student. That isn't a judgement of anyone, that is just a fact based on the data we have.
How to prevent that situation is a different discussion, but does illustrate that resources may be better used fixing the root of the problem as opposed to putting all the effort and responsibility on education.
If you have a single mother that works odd hours and can't do basic algebra, it's very unlikely you'll excel as a student. That isn't a judgement of anyone, that is just a fact based on the data we have.
How to prevent that situation is a different discussion, but does illustrate that resources may be better used fixing the root of the problem as opposed to putting all the effort and responsibility on education.
Improvements in teaching are very unlikely to change the rank ordering of who learns fastest/most/best. It can absolutely change how much I’d learned and when individual students learn something. Online teaching is far more conducive to mastery learning and ability grouping than offline education. Look at Lambda School for an example. If you have large cohorts starting on a regular basis you can have some people progressing slower than others but ensure they get there eventually in a way that’s not going to happen in a normal classroom environment. The scope for individualised instruction in an environment where you have classes of 15-30 students is limited. If you have 200 students starting every four weeks you can divide them into ten 20 person classes based on where they are in the curriculum and they’ll do much better than if they were doing things they’d already mastered or for which they just don’t have the prerequisites.
On a more purely technological basis integrating spaced repetition into instructional design would be a massive win. Imagine if people actually remembered what they’d been taught in school instead of having a hazy idea the US Civil War was somewhere in the 1800s.
On a more purely technological basis integrating spaced repetition into instructional design would be a massive win. Imagine if people actually remembered what they’d been taught in school instead of having a hazy idea the US Civil War was somewhere in the 1800s.
Lamda school picks winners from the outset. Public education doesn't get that option.
So? With one on one to one on three tuition you can get the average child to the 95th percentile for their age group. That’s the Bloom Two Sigma effect[1]. Tutoring is extremely effective when it comes to teaching but it’s not cost effective. With classes finely graded enough by ability and prior knowledge you can get reasonably close to that with much larger numbers of students, or you can just call it Mastery learning[2]. That’s possible without picking winners. It’s not possible in public schools for institutional and historical reasons but we’re talking about education, not public schools.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastery_learning
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_2_sigma_problem
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastery_learning
My wife are secular homeschoolers and have homeschooled our 3 kids: 10,8,5 for 5 years.
We use outschool regularly, its a great platform to introduce random topics. I would invest in it honestly.
AMA I guess
Oh man I have so many questions. I've been thinking about doing this one day myself but haven't been able to find good answers to the below.
How much time do you spend as a parent teaching or overseeing homeschooling? Are you encouraging your kids to go to college? And if they did want to go to college do they realistically have the option to pick the school they want? Any state or country requirements you need to adhere to in terms of curriculum? Have your kids ever expressed an interest in going to school? I can see homeschooling work well for disciplines like math or programming but have any of your kids expressed interest in something like medicine or law where prestige matters a lot? Are kids really self motivated to learn anything? How much structure do you impose? Do you find that they do more projects and experiments as opposed to reading theoretical stuff?
How much time do you spend as a parent teaching or overseeing homeschooling? Are you encouraging your kids to go to college? And if they did want to go to college do they realistically have the option to pick the school they want? Any state or country requirements you need to adhere to in terms of curriculum? Have your kids ever expressed an interest in going to school? I can see homeschooling work well for disciplines like math or programming but have any of your kids expressed interest in something like medicine or law where prestige matters a lot? Are kids really self motivated to learn anything? How much structure do you impose? Do you find that they do more projects and experiments as opposed to reading theoretical stuff?
> How much time do you spend as a parent teaching or overseeing homeschooling?
Its a busy schedule for my wife, granted we have 3 kids. She also works part-time at their nature camp
> Are you encouraging your kids to go to college?
Depends. I plan on enrolling them at the local community college by age 14-15.
> And if they did want to go to college do they realistically have the option to pick the school they want?
I want them to attend community college then transfer, which is what I did and I transfered to a public ivy school
> Any state or country requirements you need to adhere to in terms of curriculum?
No requirements here in MI, depends on your state.
> Have your kids ever expressed an interest in going to school?
Nope.
> I can see homeschooling work well for disciplines like math or programming but have any of your kids expressed interest in something like medicine or law where prestige matters a lot?
Why would that matter? Top tier colleges are looking for/encouraging homeschool applicants because they are generally very independent thinkers and self-directed.
> Are kids really self motivated to learn anything?
Definitely. For example, my one daughter loves birds and is studying everything she can find about the local bird population. Kids are naturally very curious.
> How much structure do you impose?
This depends on the homeschooling family. We have a decent structure now but other families use no structure.
> Do you find that they do more projects and experiments as opposed to reading theoretical stuff?
50/50 I would say. They are still young so the reading is not like deep theory on anything yet.
Its a busy schedule for my wife, granted we have 3 kids. She also works part-time at their nature camp
> Are you encouraging your kids to go to college?
Depends. I plan on enrolling them at the local community college by age 14-15.
> And if they did want to go to college do they realistically have the option to pick the school they want?
I want them to attend community college then transfer, which is what I did and I transfered to a public ivy school
> Any state or country requirements you need to adhere to in terms of curriculum?
No requirements here in MI, depends on your state.
> Have your kids ever expressed an interest in going to school?
Nope.
> I can see homeschooling work well for disciplines like math or programming but have any of your kids expressed interest in something like medicine or law where prestige matters a lot?
Why would that matter? Top tier colleges are looking for/encouraging homeschool applicants because they are generally very independent thinkers and self-directed.
> Are kids really self motivated to learn anything?
Definitely. For example, my one daughter loves birds and is studying everything she can find about the local bird population. Kids are naturally very curious.
> How much structure do you impose?
This depends on the homeschooling family. We have a decent structure now but other families use no structure.
> Do you find that they do more projects and experiments as opposed to reading theoretical stuff?
50/50 I would say. They are still young so the reading is not like deep theory on anything yet.
Wow thank you! Your answers are really encouraging. Any books or links you like that clarified your thoughts on homeschooling?
What were the primary motivations for homeschooling?
Cultural? Political? Quality? Access?
Also how do you go about socializing them? I've been considering it myself
Also how do you go about socializing them? I've been considering it myself
My wife was from a very competitive school district which forced overachievement and I got beat up by bullies in a small town school. Besides the personal anecdotes,
1. we felt like time was passing too quickly and wanted to have them around, we wanted to be together basically.
2. with 3 kids my wife hasnt been able to work (her line of work is not well paying), so it made sense to start homeschooling vs private schooling.
3. I have issues with what public schools are now, hyper focused on testing, lack of critical thinking, no outdoor time.
The "socializing" concern is a farce imo. Granted we live in area with plenty of groups. Maybe a solo kid way out in the sticks will have problems. Our kids also regularly play with kids 2-5 years older or younger so things are different. Our kids have activities with other homeschool kids 4 days a week.
The schedule looks like this:
M: Outdoor Nature camp: think building fire with bow drills, axes, skinning animals, foraging for wild plants
T: Academic day at home then occasional horseback riding
W: Academic day at home, private music lessons, then playdate at friends house
TH: Homeschool meetup group: think art, music, dance, karate, extracurricular classes with a group of 100 kids and 10 teachers
FRI: another Homeschool meetup group: with various classes and open play
SAT: Climbing, iceskating, skiing, biking, something outdoors
Our life is a mellower version of "Captain Fantastic"
1. we felt like time was passing too quickly and wanted to have them around, we wanted to be together basically.
2. with 3 kids my wife hasnt been able to work (her line of work is not well paying), so it made sense to start homeschooling vs private schooling.
3. I have issues with what public schools are now, hyper focused on testing, lack of critical thinking, no outdoor time.
The "socializing" concern is a farce imo. Granted we live in area with plenty of groups. Maybe a solo kid way out in the sticks will have problems. Our kids also regularly play with kids 2-5 years older or younger so things are different. Our kids have activities with other homeschool kids 4 days a week.
The schedule looks like this:
M: Outdoor Nature camp: think building fire with bow drills, axes, skinning animals, foraging for wild plants
T: Academic day at home then occasional horseback riding
W: Academic day at home, private music lessons, then playdate at friends house
TH: Homeschool meetup group: think art, music, dance, karate, extracurricular classes with a group of 100 kids and 10 teachers
FRI: another Homeschool meetup group: with various classes and open play
SAT: Climbing, iceskating, skiing, biking, something outdoors
Our life is a mellower version of "Captain Fantastic"
I was homeschooled for 8 years and this schedule sounds very familiar, except it was surfing and working a part time job for me. School does not need to take 8 hours to be effective.
As far as socialization, I’ve been asked this a hundred times: “so...like...how do you talk to people when you’re at home?” Now, I understand they mean well. But for someone who just implied their superior social capabilities, they sure seem rude and unsocialized. ;)
As far as socialization, I’ve been asked this a hundred times: “so...like...how do you talk to people when you’re at home?” Now, I understand they mean well. But for someone who just implied their superior social capabilities, they sure seem rude and unsocialized. ;)
It's also worth pointing out that the social environment within most schools is far from ideal.
Most schools are just like jails: you are forced to be there, and forced to be there with people who don't want to be there either. A good recipe for disaster as soon as the group becomes large enough. And don't expect the guardians/educators to do anything when someone picks up on you.
> And don't expect the guardians/educators to do anything when someone picks up on you.
Well that's not entirely fair. I know of several situations (including my own) where students were punished for fighting when attacked by other students. You can't say that's not "doing something", I guess.
Well that's not entirely fair. I know of several situations (including my own) where students were punished for fighting when attacked by other students. You can't say that's not "doing something", I guess.
It's "doing something," but it's doing something stupid, which isn't better.
Social environment _anywhere_ is far from ideal. I've felt that school gave me great training at recognizing and dealing with assholes. I was more of a sensitive kid and if I was isolated from school (and the playground), I may not be able to join the society later on - the state of it it would've been too much of a shock.
Yes, we don't really know what a good social environment for children looks like.
But it does seem obvious that being forced to associate with brutes is unpleasant, demoralising and inconducive to academic learning. By the same token why not teach people to deal with pain by tapping them daily with hammers?
We also have to factor in also that many people will become brutes as a result of this forced association, like the way criminality incubates in prisons.
But it does seem obvious that being forced to associate with brutes is unpleasant, demoralising and inconducive to academic learning. By the same token why not teach people to deal with pain by tapping them daily with hammers?
We also have to factor in also that many people will become brutes as a result of this forced association, like the way criminality incubates in prisons.
Academic learning is not nearly as important as good socialisation (dealing with brutes etc.) IMO. For most people who are not smart enough to get a good, competitive office job (like software engineer, doctor etc.), those years in school seem largely pointless, apart from learning basics like literacy, algebra etc. And even for academically gifted, life without social skills must be worse than being an under-performer in a sub-optimal job. Hell is other people, and social skills is how you deal with them.
But again, what about the people who become bullies and brutes as a result?
The way we learn to get along is through a combination of shared challenges and by trying to emulate people we admire. Not being locked up with Bane seven hours every day.
The way we learn to get along is through a combination of shared challenges and by trying to emulate people we admire. Not being locked up with Bane seven hours every day.
That's fine for learning to get along. Many relationships are antagonistic though, and dealing with a bully in school can help with dealing with an abusive spouse/family member/boss/colleague later in life etc. There are bullies in adult life too, they're just more subtle.
I'm sure that many people have learnt to deal with bullies that way. Fair enough, and everyone should make the best of whatever environment he finds himself in. But it would be a mistake to think, as people often do, that one's own historical path represents the best path for all.
For one thing, setting aside how cruel it is, at 12 years+ the 'school bully learning method' is monstrously inefficient.
Btw, similar arguments are applied to most school subjects. For example, one is forced to take obsolete subject X because it is useful if one later wishes to study subject Y, which is in turn can be helpful if Z crops up in adult life, and so on.
Most sane adults would rather learn 'just in time' and to the precision and extent appropriate to the unique challenge they face. Yet, perhaps because of the enormous sunk cost of their own schooling, they become irrational about this where their children are concerned.
For one thing, setting aside how cruel it is, at 12 years+ the 'school bully learning method' is monstrously inefficient.
Btw, similar arguments are applied to most school subjects. For example, one is forced to take obsolete subject X because it is useful if one later wishes to study subject Y, which is in turn can be helpful if Z crops up in adult life, and so on.
Most sane adults would rather learn 'just in time' and to the precision and extent appropriate to the unique challenge they face. Yet, perhaps because of the enormous sunk cost of their own schooling, they become irrational about this where their children are concerned.
It strikes me as similarly naive as "If you're not religious, how can you be moral?".
It turns out that humans are innately moral and social, outside of extreme situations.
It turns out that humans are innately moral and social, outside of extreme situations.
This seems extraordinarily well-balanced. I'm often skeptical of homeschooling (especially for religious or political reasons), but you've got a great curriculum and motivation.
Curious what about his description appealed to you?
Congratulations on doing it right with regards to socialisation. Sadly, many homeschoolers (in my anecdotal experience) do it wrong - they tend to be the same ones who homeschool for religious reasons.
Also anecdotal, but I suspect that the religiously motivated homeschoolers were already going to suffer socially, homeschooled or not. The only way that government schools would have altered the outcome was by providing peers to challenge their (often poorly-supported) religious positions. Assuming the methodology bordered on bullying, I'm not sure that would necessarily lead to an outcome of better socialization. I could certainly be wrong, though.
An interesting example is the Westboro Baptist children. They are sent to public school in order to learn about how rotten the sinners are. The bullying they receive helps to drive home that lesson.
In my experience (from moving in religious homeschooling circles) it's more that they're doing it to "save" their children from the "world" - so having them at home is them already doing the best by their children, so having accomplished that, they're less worried about ensuring regular socialisation.
And as they often have large families, their children have a large number of sibiling so aren't lonely, so they presume it's all good. Which just leads to entire families of socially inept homeschoolers.
Whether or not religious people retain their views is not the benefit of socialisation - being able to function in everyday human society through direct experience of it, not a carefully curated and managed microscopic subset, that's the advantage.
And as they often have large families, their children have a large number of sibiling so aren't lonely, so they presume it's all good. Which just leads to entire families of socially inept homeschoolers.
Whether or not religious people retain their views is not the benefit of socialisation - being able to function in everyday human society through direct experience of it, not a carefully curated and managed microscopic subset, that's the advantage.
I agree with almost all of what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that a social experience outside of the purview of the insular groups this small subset of religious folks experience is not beneficial. What I'm suggesting is that the particular experience offered by public schools (especially in rural and semi-rural areas insular religious homeschoolers typically inhabit) is not particularly beneficial for the socialization of (otherwise) religious homeschoolers.
I don't know of any studies (or if any could be performed, really) that demonstrate the social impact of public schools on students like this, or at least easily-identified outgroup kids. I know from anecdotal experience that in the public schools I attended that they (the semi-cultish religious kids who were not/no longer homeschooled) were not treated well, never successfully integrated socially, and disappeared from my radar very quickly after graduation. With hindsight I feel very badly about that now, and wish there some way to impact the systemic cliquish nature of public schools, especially high school. Unfortunately I lack a time machine for the kids of the past, and simply don't have answers for those going forward.
Either way, my suspicion is that public schools specifically do not offer the best (or even a much better) experience for socializing students.
I don't know of any studies (or if any could be performed, really) that demonstrate the social impact of public schools on students like this, or at least easily-identified outgroup kids. I know from anecdotal experience that in the public schools I attended that they (the semi-cultish religious kids who were not/no longer homeschooled) were not treated well, never successfully integrated socially, and disappeared from my radar very quickly after graduation. With hindsight I feel very badly about that now, and wish there some way to impact the systemic cliquish nature of public schools, especially high school. Unfortunately I lack a time machine for the kids of the past, and simply don't have answers for those going forward.
Either way, my suspicion is that public schools specifically do not offer the best (or even a much better) experience for socializing students.
Where do you live? Can you do all these things (hunting, foraging, riding horses, karate, climbing, ice skating, etc.) without paying? Does that mean you live on a bunch of land? How far do you have to drive for these things? How did you find these meetup groups?
It sounds like a great setup, but it also seems difficult and expensive to me at first blush.
It sounds like a great setup, but it also seems difficult and expensive to me at first blush.
It seems like you’ve achieved something great, congrats!
What are your estimated cost per year per child? (Including the aforementioned private teachers etc). It’d be interesting to compare that with the average expenditure per child in your local schooling district (it’s hard to compare directly due to hard to quantify factors like a parent staying home, but it’d still be interesting to see if it’s significantly more/less or not).
What are your estimated cost per year per child? (Including the aforementioned private teachers etc). It’d be interesting to compare that with the average expenditure per child in your local schooling district (it’s hard to compare directly due to hard to quantify factors like a parent staying home, but it’d still be interesting to see if it’s significantly more/less or not).
Thats a good question. I bet per child we are prob spending 2K-3K all told. Still way less than private school. Granted we also bring in a reading tutor and music teachers. But I am including all the camps and classes.
My kids are school-schooled, except for having learned to read at home. But they were in a music program that was popular among homeschool families, so we met a lot of those kids and their parents.
Based on that limited observation, I think that the socialism of homeschool kids depends on the kids and their parents in the same way as any other aspect of homeschooling: If the parents are reasonably social, they will find ways to get their kids involved in social things, and their kids will be social too.
If the parents are reclusive, or inclined to isolate themselves from mainstream society for whatever reason, this will also be reflected in their kids. What may seem like a negative outcome of homeschooling could just be a matter of kids resembling their parents. And it wouldn't shock me if genetics plays a role.
Based on that limited observation, I think that the socialism of homeschool kids depends on the kids and their parents in the same way as any other aspect of homeschooling: If the parents are reasonably social, they will find ways to get their kids involved in social things, and their kids will be social too.
If the parents are reclusive, or inclined to isolate themselves from mainstream society for whatever reason, this will also be reflected in their kids. What may seem like a negative outcome of homeschooling could just be a matter of kids resembling their parents. And it wouldn't shock me if genetics plays a role.
What does outschool offer that khanacademy doesn't have?
Lots of random extracurriculars like:
"Travel to Paris"
"Viking Art and History"
"Waldorf Form drawing"
"The History of Halloween"
They also get to see the instructor and interact with them and other kids.
"Travel to Paris"
"Viking Art and History"
"Waldorf Form drawing"
"The History of Halloween"
They also get to see the instructor and interact with them and other kids.
> "Travel to Paris"
Dumb question: Is that a field trip or just a "learn about Paris" lesson?
Dumb question: Is that a field trip or just a "learn about Paris" lesson?
He's not the guy behind the startup in the OP, he's just a guy doing homeschooling sharing his own personal experience. He's saying that at one point they went to Paris, which is a very educational think to do. That's homeschooling. Then they also studied Viking stuff. Maybe it was even in Norway at Viking sites? That sort of thing. A reasonable response to what do you do that Khan Academy doesn't which was the question asked of him.
> He's saying that at one point they went to Paris
Right, but that's not clear. He listed it as a lesson/subject. It can be read as an actual trip, or a virtual trip.
Right, but that's not clear. He listed it as a lesson/subject. It can be read as an actual trip, or a virtual trip.
Its was a virtual field trip I believe
Wait a minute.
You "believe"?
You don't know if your own kids went with you to Paris or not?
I call shenanigans. You're a duplicate account or otherwise working for OP's company.
Sheesh. This situation with YC funded companies getting dog and pony show coverage here with a bevy of fake accounts and special algorithmic preference is never going to stop. YC's so full of crap it's amazing. Bogus.
You "believe"?
You don't know if your own kids went with you to Paris or not?
I call shenanigans. You're a duplicate account or otherwise working for OP's company.
Sheesh. This situation with YC funded companies getting dog and pony show coverage here with a bevy of fake accounts and special algorithmic preference is never going to stop. YC's so full of crap it's amazing. Bogus.
We do have some virtual field trips, like this one:
https://outschool.com/classes/lets-go-to-france-Lsi6B9gk#usv...
The one I would be interested in would be "home-after-schooling". I would love to have more resources to help support K-8 students learn how to do original research for science fairs, MOOCs for non-math subjects and programming. Basically Khan Academy type courses that can enable teaching economics, literature, philosophy to a 12 year old. The interesting non-math stuff for Khan Academy doesn't start until 9-12th grade.
I'd be curious as to why there is not an option to watch a recorded version with Outschool.
I'd be curious as to why there is not an option to watch a recorded version with Outschool.
It's a matter of focus. We'd love there to be more self-study content available for kids also. But MOOCs have a famously low completion rate and it's hard to stay motivated without interaction. So we're focused on connecting learners and teachers and having them interact over video chat.
> low completion rate
Most people who sign up don't actually want a certificate and aren't trying to complete. They are interested in the subject, watching some videos, move on. When you have class sizes with 1000-30,000 students, it's OK if 90% don't complete the certificate since many more did than in a brick and mortar school, yet it cost much less per student to deliver the class.
In online classes where you need to pay to get the certificate, it's been found that paid students have the same completion rate as brick and mortar university students.
https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/fee-payments-lift-...
> Students in massive open online courses (MOOC) who pay a modest amount for a "verified certificate" are just as likely finish their course as regular university students, according to a new large-scale study of online education.
Most people who sign up don't actually want a certificate and aren't trying to complete. They are interested in the subject, watching some videos, move on. When you have class sizes with 1000-30,000 students, it's OK if 90% don't complete the certificate since many more did than in a brick and mortar school, yet it cost much less per student to deliver the class.
In online classes where you need to pay to get the certificate, it's been found that paid students have the same completion rate as brick and mortar university students.
https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/fee-payments-lift-...
> Students in massive open online courses (MOOC) who pay a modest amount for a "verified certificate" are just as likely finish their course as regular university students, according to a new large-scale study of online education.
This. Low completion rate of those who enrolled for free is, in a way, actually a positive indicator because it shows a lot more people getting a chance to "taste" a subject. Many decide it isn't for them or they learned what they wanted and are not interested in the certificate at the end. Something not possible with in-class courses.
Cool - Thanks for the reply! Will definitely be checking outschool in more detail.
I think the benefit of the pre-recorded sessions like from Coursera and Khan Academy, is that one concern is unsupervised teacher-learner interaction could be problematic if its unclear how the teacher has been screened.
For instance is the teacher in live mode going to do anything inappropriate or try to initiate in person contact with the learner, etc.
I think the benefit of the pre-recorded sessions like from Coursera and Khan Academy, is that one concern is unsupervised teacher-learner interaction could be problematic if its unclear how the teacher has been screened.
For instance is the teacher in live mode going to do anything inappropriate or try to initiate in person contact with the learner, etc.
[deleted]
Interesting blog post and theory.
A core counter argument to their base premise is that learning effectively is done in person, as part of a social group, in a physical space dedicated to learning, with hands on practice. It certainly seems to be the core takeaways of Waldorf/Montessori/constructionist/etc. approaches.
> When our kids were in school and struggled with a class/teacher/subject, we would get them a tutor to come to our home in the evenings.
In other words, there's a reason they paid the tutor to come in person, and not tutor over Skype or the phone.
The author speaks of their intent being to open up access to education, and replace the "outdated tech" of physical schools and classrooms. I need to be convinced that successful execution of this plan (and its inevitable percolation into policy if it makes financial sense - which I have no doubt it does, for a VC to take interest in it) won't result in a two tiered system, with students from poorer families getting free, public education over video lessons, and students from wealthier family being able to attend private, more expensive, in person schooling.
A core counter argument to their base premise is that learning effectively is done in person, as part of a social group, in a physical space dedicated to learning, with hands on practice. It certainly seems to be the core takeaways of Waldorf/Montessori/constructionist/etc. approaches.
> When our kids were in school and struggled with a class/teacher/subject, we would get them a tutor to come to our home in the evenings.
In other words, there's a reason they paid the tutor to come in person, and not tutor over Skype or the phone.
The author speaks of their intent being to open up access to education, and replace the "outdated tech" of physical schools and classrooms. I need to be convinced that successful execution of this plan (and its inevitable percolation into policy if it makes financial sense - which I have no doubt it does, for a VC to take interest in it) won't result in a two tiered system, with students from poorer families getting free, public education over video lessons, and students from wealthier family being able to attend private, more expensive, in person schooling.
> In other words, there's a reason they paid the tutor to come in person, and not tutor over Skype or the phone.
I'll refrain from posting the ages and names of his kids in the interest of privacy (you can figure it out with very light Googling), but his older children are in their late twenties, meaning they are nearly my age. When I was in high school "Skype tutoring" wasn't a thing, because reliable video chat didn't exist, and very little of my schoolwork used a computer for more than web processing. Isn't it a lot more likely that the sentence you are referencing is referring to that experience than evidence "in person" was the reason he paid for a tutor to come in person?
I'll refrain from posting the ages and names of his kids in the interest of privacy (you can figure it out with very light Googling), but his older children are in their late twenties, meaning they are nearly my age. When I was in high school "Skype tutoring" wasn't a thing, because reliable video chat didn't exist, and very little of my schoolwork used a computer for more than web processing. Isn't it a lot more likely that the sentence you are referencing is referring to that experience than evidence "in person" was the reason he paid for a tutor to come in person?
I buy that it would be a combination of both factors. I don’t buy that it would be exclusively due to the lack of Skype (I assumed his kids had grown up in the last decade or so, but fair enough) because I myself have been paid tens of thousands of dollars tutoring students of fairly wealthy family when I was in grad school and not once was I asked to do it over Skype.
Simple economics won't allow something to become cheaper just because its a shame that some people don't have access. The goal here isn't to provide elite, one-on-one tutoring with experts, its to provide auxiliary help for those who need it. Outschooling seems to be taking a stab at being the next best thing, not an out-and-out replacement.
Homeschooling seems like an ideal solution for those with a parent at home to improve their children's academic learning. But it's concerning that those actively involved parents are removed from the public school system.
> it's concerning that those actively involved parents are removed from the public school system.
As someone who was homeschooled: it's extremely scary. I've missed out on social experiences and also on actual education and consider myself generally worse-off for it.
Consider: Texas permits homeschooling and has effectively zero oversight. How many homeschooling families are also anti-vaxxers or feed into anti-government paranoia? Especially consider the bitterness of such parents whose taxes pay into the school system but those same taxes aren't utilized for homeschooling families: so it's literally the government taking money to pay for a service for all citizens -- except you, you're not getting what you paid for.
As someone who was homeschooled: it's extremely scary. I've missed out on social experiences and also on actual education and consider myself generally worse-off for it.
Consider: Texas permits homeschooling and has effectively zero oversight. How many homeschooling families are also anti-vaxxers or feed into anti-government paranoia? Especially consider the bitterness of such parents whose taxes pay into the school system but those same taxes aren't utilized for homeschooling families: so it's literally the government taking money to pay for a service for all citizens -- except you, you're not getting what you paid for.
I don't think this is a problem with homeschooling as much as with a subset of homeschoolers - particularly religious fundamentalists and anarchist types.
My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade level in every subject. She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids. Then, once they arrived, she decided this was a natural fit. Meanwhile, they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that they meet up with several times a week.
Homeschooling can be used to keep kids out of the system and deny them a good education, but it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other. There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from a capable instructor.
As my kids grow older, they'll get one-on-one training in the arts, foreign language, and various extra-curricular skills like swimming, dance, etc. from instructors that we hire to assist them. They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.
Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it is only available to middle and upper class families.
My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade level in every subject. She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids. Then, once they arrived, she decided this was a natural fit. Meanwhile, they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that they meet up with several times a week.
Homeschooling can be used to keep kids out of the system and deny them a good education, but it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other. There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from a capable instructor.
As my kids grow older, they'll get one-on-one training in the arts, foreign language, and various extra-curricular skills like swimming, dance, etc. from instructors that we hire to assist them. They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.
Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it is only available to middle and upper class families.
You present one well-honored experience. I present a stark contrast to it.
> My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade level in every subject.
My parents told themselves the same thing. I apparently had top percentile test scores in several early years, particularly in math. Despite that, my parents completely failed to provide an education after choosing to homeschool.
> She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids.
Neat! Not that it really matters, but I am curious: what did she teach?
> they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that they meet up with several times a week.
That's also something my parents told themselves and others. Despite that, it wasn't exactly an honest statement. We met with other church members about once every week for about a month. Then about once every quarter of a year for about a year. Then basically never, while my parents fell deep into paranoia.
> it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other.
Yes, it can. But my experience brings with me a very skeptical mind.
> There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from a capable instructor.
While you're right in that there's a reason for private tutors and elite schools, I think you're wrong about your conclusion for the wealthy. I think wealthy parents don't want their children to associate with poor people who can't afford to hire their own private lessons. I think that's also a despicably-elitist action.
> They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.
It's almost as if you're parroting the same things my parents said. Indeed, I walked away better equipped for computers than pretty much anyone I know. But that's more of a byproduct of spending years in front of a computer than anything that my parents actively tried to teach. Where I gained knowledge about computers there's also loss of other opportunities and knowledge.
> Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it is only available to middle and upper class families.
You are wrong. I consider myself middle class. Almost all of my family are somewhere between poor and destitute.
> My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade level in every subject.
My parents told themselves the same thing. I apparently had top percentile test scores in several early years, particularly in math. Despite that, my parents completely failed to provide an education after choosing to homeschool.
> She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids.
Neat! Not that it really matters, but I am curious: what did she teach?
> they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that they meet up with several times a week.
That's also something my parents told themselves and others. Despite that, it wasn't exactly an honest statement. We met with other church members about once every week for about a month. Then about once every quarter of a year for about a year. Then basically never, while my parents fell deep into paranoia.
> it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other.
Yes, it can. But my experience brings with me a very skeptical mind.
> There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from a capable instructor.
While you're right in that there's a reason for private tutors and elite schools, I think you're wrong about your conclusion for the wealthy. I think wealthy parents don't want their children to associate with poor people who can't afford to hire their own private lessons. I think that's also a despicably-elitist action.
> They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.
It's almost as if you're parroting the same things my parents said. Indeed, I walked away better equipped for computers than pretty much anyone I know. But that's more of a byproduct of spending years in front of a computer than anything that my parents actively tried to teach. Where I gained knowledge about computers there's also loss of other opportunities and knowledge.
> Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it is only available to middle and upper class families.
You are wrong. I consider myself middle class. Almost all of my family are somewhere between poor and destitute.
Sorry you had such a bad time of it.
I know some people who were homeschooled as kids (unschooled, in one case), and they turned out to be exceptional people. It seems pretty clear from interacting with them that their attitudes and abilities are a direct result of their schooling (and having parents who would be willing to school their kids in that way).
But I'm sure homeschooling can also turn out very badly if the parents aren't fully committed to doing it well.
I know some people who were homeschooled as kids (unschooled, in one case), and they turned out to be exceptional people. It seems pretty clear from interacting with them that their attitudes and abilities are a direct result of their schooling (and having parents who would be willing to school their kids in that way).
But I'm sure homeschooling can also turn out very badly if the parents aren't fully committed to doing it well.
Survivorship bias? By definition, you are not likely to meet all the kids who failed miserably with homeschooling. Instead, you are more likely to interact socially or at work with the ones that did great. Therefore, your observation is likely to be biased.
Yeah, fair. I haven’t taken a broad sample of homeschooled kids.
But I do think there’s some signal in the fact that I’m dealing with the success cases of public and home schooling, and the homeschooled ones stand out as exceptional in that population.
What kinds of conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that, though, I don’t know.
But I do think there’s some signal in the fact that I’m dealing with the success cases of public and home schooling, and the homeschooled ones stand out as exceptional in that population.
What kinds of conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that, though, I don’t know.
I've known several people, like yourself, that had that sort of abusive experience while homeschooling. We've built our system with the specific purpose of avoiding those pitfalls. I think you're projecting your suffering on us and not seeing the reality of what homeschooling is like outside a paranoid, anarcho-religious context. I empathize, but I'm not convinced there are any actual similarities.
Tying back to your earlier comment, it doesn’t sound like your parents would have fit well with your public school system or stayed involved.
> They'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.
Except for those whose parents also hire expert tutors. It's not like kids going to traditional schools can't also get additional educational opportunities.
When you consider how much homeschooling is by parents who are not themselves professional educators, I suspect a hybrid approach works better on average.
Except for those whose parents also hire expert tutors. It's not like kids going to traditional schools can't also get additional educational opportunities.
When you consider how much homeschooling is by parents who are not themselves professional educators, I suspect a hybrid approach works better on average.
Professional educators really only need the training and certification because they are dealing with students at scale. One on one teaching is not remotely the same as teaching in a classroom setting where you have to adapt to multiple learning styles and multiple achievement levels all while using standardized assessment techniques, detailed lesson planning, and classroom management skills. The vast majority of what composes an education degree is there because you are educating a large, diverse group. When it is just one teacher working one on one with a single student, a lot of that is irrelevant. The way you teach, the way you assess their progress, and the way you adapt to their needs is much more natural. And most of the principles that apply in both contexts can be learned on the fly.
> It's not like kids going to traditional schools can't also get additional educational opportunities.
This is true and it's a lot of why we homeschool. There are peers that are getting similarly elite educations and just doing it slightly different ways. If I had a billion dollars, I would be paying for an elite, personal tutor to educate my children. I wouldn't be sending them to a public school. Homeschooling allows my wife and I to provide something analogous to that elite structure for our children, even though they are firmly middle class.
> It's not like kids going to traditional schools can't also get additional educational opportunities.
This is true and it's a lot of why we homeschool. There are peers that are getting similarly elite educations and just doing it slightly different ways. If I had a billion dollars, I would be paying for an elite, personal tutor to educate my children. I wouldn't be sending them to a public school. Homeschooling allows my wife and I to provide something analogous to that elite structure for our children, even though they are firmly middle class.
> Professional educators really only need the training and certification because they are dealing with students at scale.
Untrue. Any teacher must be familiar with both the subject matter and basic pedagogy, regardless of whether they're teaching one student or many. Yes, there are additional skills necessary when teaching a larger class, but I think you drastically exaggerate how much of a teacher's job that is.
Untrue. Any teacher must be familiar with both the subject matter and basic pedagogy, regardless of whether they're teaching one student or many. Yes, there are additional skills necessary when teaching a larger class, but I think you drastically exaggerate how much of a teacher's job that is.
The Pedogogy doesn't matter as much as you think it does, because you learn it from your kid what works pretty fast. Most of the pedogogy is crap and outdated and you have to choose one and stick with it for the class where with homeschooling you can try many different teaching methods without having to get approval from the school board, and even then you have the pick the one that works for most students but leaves out others.
People put a lot of stock in the intelligence of teachers, but consider it this way, most teachers choose a career that requires a 4 year degree plus certification that won't make enough to live comfortably or earn them over what a standard retail job makes much less pay their loans, this is something they think long and hard on (which is probably not much more than "I really like working with children") and make their decision on. It attracts the kind of people who think that's a good idea. Anyone more intelligent that wants to teach runs the numbers and decides against it except in rare cases. Any pedogogy those kinds of people learn isn't that advanced and can be picked up by most by reading a book on it over a month. These "professional" educators isn't exactly an advanced profession like that of a medical professional or a scientist, most of those people would struggle or fail out of such programs. The alternatives for most teachers is a communications degree, or sports/massage therapy. Altruism doesn't equate to being good at something, the proof is in the quality of education offered today.
Edit: They don't deserve contempt, but I'm saying if you increased teacher's salaries, the competition would be such the people that go for it now would simply unable to compete with the sudden competition based the altruistic motives plus pay. Altrustism only motivates you so much, doesn't last long when you're over worked and under paid and dealing with 30+ class sizes. Pedogogy be damned, you'd get people who would be able to actually teach kids on an individual level and demand more from administrators or have the conviction to walk out and move on to something else if they didn't.
People put a lot of stock in the intelligence of teachers, but consider it this way, most teachers choose a career that requires a 4 year degree plus certification that won't make enough to live comfortably or earn them over what a standard retail job makes much less pay their loans, this is something they think long and hard on (which is probably not much more than "I really like working with children") and make their decision on. It attracts the kind of people who think that's a good idea. Anyone more intelligent that wants to teach runs the numbers and decides against it except in rare cases. Any pedogogy those kinds of people learn isn't that advanced and can be picked up by most by reading a book on it over a month. These "professional" educators isn't exactly an advanced profession like that of a medical professional or a scientist, most of those people would struggle or fail out of such programs. The alternatives for most teachers is a communications degree, or sports/massage therapy. Altruism doesn't equate to being good at something, the proof is in the quality of education offered today.
Edit: They don't deserve contempt, but I'm saying if you increased teacher's salaries, the competition would be such the people that go for it now would simply unable to compete with the sudden competition based the altruistic motives plus pay. Altrustism only motivates you so much, doesn't last long when you're over worked and under paid and dealing with 30+ class sizes. Pedogogy be damned, you'd get people who would be able to actually teach kids on an individual level and demand more from administrators or have the conviction to walk out and move on to something else if they didn't.
> most teachers choose a career that requires a 4 year degree plus certification that won't make enough to live comfortably or earn them over what a standard retail job makes
Yeah, I know, it's not a "rational" choice by Randian standards. To some, that means they deserve contempt. To me, it suggests that they have other motivations that might deserve some respect.
Yeah, I know, it's not a "rational" choice by Randian standards. To some, that means they deserve contempt. To me, it suggests that they have other motivations that might deserve some respect.
I have a lot of respect for teachers who are in it for the long haul. it's definitely not an easy job. that said, most of the teachers I know personally decided to become teachers after graduating with an bachelors in art history and realizing it was going to be pretty hard to find work as a museum curator. altruistic or pragmatic?
> Any teacher must be familiar with both the subject matter and basic pedagogy, regardless of whether they're teaching one student or many
I think you are imagining a homeschool from the 1980s. My kids learn many aspects of the subject matter from sources like Khan Academy and Outschooling. The idea that the teacher needs to know the subject matter deeply in order to manage the child's education is obsolete.
I think you are imagining a homeschool from the 1980s. My kids learn many aspects of the subject matter from sources like Khan Academy and Outschooling. The idea that the teacher needs to know the subject matter deeply in order to manage the child's education is obsolete.
> Khan Academy and Outschooling
If those allow you to outsource the entirety of your child's education, including personalization of the curriculum to individual needs, answering arbitrarily-deep questions about the subject matter, etc. then great, but I'm not sure I'd call that home schooling. That would be more like a (virtual) private school, with the same level of parental involvement. If you want to be more involved you need more training, simple as that, and the fact is that a lot of home-school parents don't even have an average education themselves.
Also remember, you're not the sample. You claim to have some expertise in data science. What do the data suggest, for a typical home-schooler and not just for you or the non-random sample of others in your neighborhood.
If those allow you to outsource the entirety of your child's education, including personalization of the curriculum to individual needs, answering arbitrarily-deep questions about the subject matter, etc. then great, but I'm not sure I'd call that home schooling. That would be more like a (virtual) private school, with the same level of parental involvement. If you want to be more involved you need more training, simple as that, and the fact is that a lot of home-school parents don't even have an average education themselves.
Also remember, you're not the sample. You claim to have some expertise in data science. What do the data suggest, for a typical home-schooler and not just for you or the non-random sample of others in your neighborhood.
Lots of problems with that infographic. Four sources listed, two of which are homeschooling-advocacy organizations, with no indication which numbers are drawn from which source. How were the samples selected? Are they apples to apples, or mandatory all-inclusive numbers for the public schools vs. voluntary respondents to a survey for home school? [1] is a better source for demographic information, painting a quite different picture, while [2] highlights some of the ways that advocacy groups have been caught distorting the achievement numbers in their favor.
[1] https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/h...
[2] https://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html
[1] https://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/homeschooling-101/h...
[2] https://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html
I taught kindergarten for five years and teach small groups and individuals at various levels now. Basic pedagogy is really, incredibly basic and the kind of stuff you pick up by experience relatively quickly even without formal instruction in it. More generally the economics of education literature shows that the only reliable determinants of teacher quality are subject matter expertise and teaching experience. Subject matter expertise is specifically not expertise in pedagogy because teaching qualifications have no discernible effect on students’ education whereas a Math teacher with a Math Master’s gets better results, or a Chemistry teacher with a Chemistry Master’s etc.
Seriously, consider what you’re saying. You’re saying that people without an education in pedagogy are unable to teach. Most of the parents reading this probably taught their children how to read before they got to school. The overwhelming majority of college faculty never have any training in teaching. Many, many people tutor without ever getting an M.Ed.
Seriously, consider what you’re saying. You’re saying that people without an education in pedagogy are unable to teach. Most of the parents reading this probably taught their children how to read before they got to school. The overwhelming majority of college faculty never have any training in teaching. Many, many people tutor without ever getting an M.Ed.
Since you're sharing your experience, would you like to address the original claim that "professional educators really only need the training and certification because they are dealing with students at scale"? Or would that not suit the preferred narrative?
I think that’s actually too kind to training and certification since it implies that they’re useful when dealing with students at scale. The main benefit from learning about pedagogy was not in the application, it was in knowing the jargon for talking to other teachers and sounding like a professional. What’s annoying is that the jargon U.K. and US trained teachers use differs slightly.
You get better at teaching by teaching, same way you get better at painting by painting or playing music by playing music. You’ll get better faster if you’re paying closer attention to your students and what you’re doing and things like having someone watch your lessons and critique them or reviewing video of your lessons yourself afterwards helps enormously. If you want to be play violin an encyclopaedic grasp of music theory is less useful than another hundred hours playing until you get over 1,000 hours at minimum. Ed school lecturers and professors are not noted for their excellent teaching despite their presumably excellent grasp of theory.
My experience could be unusual, obviously, but what’s very unlikely to be wrong is the literature on the determinants of teacher quality which does not reliably find any effect distinguishable from zero for teacher training or for experience over six years.
You get better at teaching by teaching, same way you get better at painting by painting or playing music by playing music. You’ll get better faster if you’re paying closer attention to your students and what you’re doing and things like having someone watch your lessons and critique them or reviewing video of your lessons yourself afterwards helps enormously. If you want to be play violin an encyclopaedic grasp of music theory is less useful than another hundred hours playing until you get over 1,000 hours at minimum. Ed school lecturers and professors are not noted for their excellent teaching despite their presumably excellent grasp of theory.
My experience could be unusual, obviously, but what’s very unlikely to be wrong is the literature on the determinants of teacher quality which does not reliably find any effect distinguishable from zero for teacher training or for experience over six years.
This confirms what another teacher told me: the training is garbage. He found it to be insane psychobabble that he could only tolerate while drunk. There was nothing useful. The teacher training did almost nothing to cover the key skill of classroom control. His fellow students were incompetent, spending most of their time partying. You could pass if you regurgitated the nonsense.
idk what it's like where you live, but in my state all you need to be a teacher is a bachelors degree and a teaching certificate. the degree doesn't need to be related to the subject you teach and you don't need the certification either if you want to teach at a private school.
> particularly religious fundamentalists and anarchist types.
You mean the significant majority of home schoolers, driving most of the agenda e.g. around certification and curriculum standards? Public schools are meant to ensure that every child can get a minimal level of education. Obviously it's great when people can do better, whether it's through regular public schools, charter schools, private schools, or home schooling. The problem is that when you open it up to just anyone without any kind of certification, testing, or oversight, it results in a form of neglect.
> it is only available to middle and upper class families
Sadly, no. That might describe the home schoolers you see, but "home schooling" which involves little or no actual schooling is also a common option for the (especially rural) poor. Some of my own first and second cousins grew up that way, and basically never recovered.
You mean the significant majority of home schoolers, driving most of the agenda e.g. around certification and curriculum standards? Public schools are meant to ensure that every child can get a minimal level of education. Obviously it's great when people can do better, whether it's through regular public schools, charter schools, private schools, or home schooling. The problem is that when you open it up to just anyone without any kind of certification, testing, or oversight, it results in a form of neglect.
> it is only available to middle and upper class families
Sadly, no. That might describe the home schoolers you see, but "home schooling" which involves little or no actual schooling is also a common option for the (especially rural) poor. Some of my own first and second cousins grew up that way, and basically never recovered.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist of any type (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) to be deeply offended by the political indoctrination in the history and sex-ed classes. Atheists and agnostics are not of one mind on those subjects.
I don't think that contradicts any of what I said. If people have a principled objection to public school, good for them. They should have the right to secure an equivalent education any other way they choose ... but it has to be equivalent. If not, too bad. Parents aren't allowed to feed their children sawdust instead of food, and they're not allowed to fill their their children's heads with religious/libertarian dogma instead of an actual education, for the same reason. Either would be a violation of the child's rights, and that's unacceptable in a civilized society.
Schools fill them with their own religious/political dogma. You just don't like it because it doesn't match your worldview.
Couldn't agree more. Here in Romania it is illegal to not put your children in school and homeschooling is basically a crime.
Also religion was obligatory up until few years ago after they changed the law that made people do extra work if they want to study religion.
Also religion was obligatory up until few years ago after they changed the law that made people do extra work if they want to study religion.
The whole point is to NOT be equivalent. That is the principled objection to public school. For example:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+history+school+book&t=canoni...
About half the population would be offended by those textbooks. You're insisting on an equivalent education, which would mean teaching with that same bias. The whole point is to do otherwise.
One can find other examples in the way books treat the Vietnam war, the North American aboriginal population, LGBT, premarital sex, the causes of the Great Depression, unions, nationalized health care, the electoral college, the second amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, and so many other political topics. History and sex-ed classes are deeply tied to politics.
You say that parents should be "not allowed to provide their children's with religious/libertarian dogma instead of an actual education", but many parents take the view that schools today are doing exactly that.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+history+school+book&t=canoni...
About half the population would be offended by those textbooks. You're insisting on an equivalent education, which would mean teaching with that same bias. The whole point is to do otherwise.
One can find other examples in the way books treat the Vietnam war, the North American aboriginal population, LGBT, premarital sex, the causes of the Great Depression, unions, nationalized health care, the electoral college, the second amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, and so many other political topics. History and sex-ed classes are deeply tied to politics.
You say that parents should be "not allowed to provide their children's with religious/libertarian dogma instead of an actual education", but many parents take the view that schools today are doing exactly that.
> You're insisting on an equivalent education, which would mean teaching with that same bias.
Please learn what "equivalent" means. Maybe get some help at your local public school. It doesn't mean "identical" with the same biases etc. It's entirely possible to define what would constitute an equivalent education even in a subject such as history (never mind neutral subjects such as math which you seem unwilling to talk about) without requiring the exact same interpretation. In fact, public schools try very hard to accommodate all manner of ideological biases, while home-schoolers are often very inimical to all beliefs except their own. By demonstrating that tendency, you make a good argument against unregulated home schooling.
Please learn what "equivalent" means. Maybe get some help at your local public school. It doesn't mean "identical" with the same biases etc. It's entirely possible to define what would constitute an equivalent education even in a subject such as history (never mind neutral subjects such as math which you seem unwilling to talk about) without requiring the exact same interpretation. In fact, public schools try very hard to accommodate all manner of ideological biases, while home-schoolers are often very inimical to all beliefs except their own. By demonstrating that tendency, you make a good argument against unregulated home schooling.
You want to talk about math now? OK...
My coworker's wife was a math major. She volunteered to help at her child's public school. (kind of surprised that this is allowed, actually) The teacher gave a math problem, "BLANK - 9 = 9", accepting both 9 and 0 as the only valid answers. My coworker's wife tried to correct this, claiming that 18 should be the only valid answer. The teacher insisted that 18 was incorrect because they hadn't covered 2-digit math yet!!!
This is not any sort of impoverished school, nor is it rural or urban, nor is it significantly non-white or immigrant or anything of the sort. It is borderline wealthy. Statistically, you'd expect it to be nearly the best America has to offer.
Nobody should want an equivalent to that.
My coworker's wife was a math major. She volunteered to help at her child's public school. (kind of surprised that this is allowed, actually) The teacher gave a math problem, "BLANK - 9 = 9", accepting both 9 and 0 as the only valid answers. My coworker's wife tried to correct this, claiming that 18 should be the only valid answer. The teacher insisted that 18 was incorrect because they hadn't covered 2-digit math yet!!!
This is not any sort of impoverished school, nor is it rural or urban, nor is it significantly non-white or immigrant or anything of the sort. It is borderline wealthy. Statistically, you'd expect it to be nearly the best America has to offer.
Nobody should want an equivalent to that.
My story. Our “science” teacher in sixth grade was trying to teach us how to convert between Celsius and Fahrenheit. She taught us: “the freezing point of water is 0C and 32F. So what is the boiling point?” She called on me, and I answered: “212F.” She says “no, 132F!” Class laughed. My ears burned and I mumbled something about getting it mixed up with the melting point of lead.
I’ve never been able to forget that one. Okay, so people make mistakes. But temperatures are like a basic fact of everyday life. Do you really think water boils at 30 degrees hotter than it gets in a hot day? And do you trust these same people to teach your kids about World War II, the Constitution, evolution, climate change, etc?
I’ve never been able to forget that one. Okay, so people make mistakes. But temperatures are like a basic fact of everyday life. Do you really think water boils at 30 degrees hotter than it gets in a hot day? And do you trust these same people to teach your kids about World War II, the Constitution, evolution, climate change, etc?
What? That's a doozy. But I think most of us here have probably seen the same kind of thing. It's always fun when you realize that the person you are obligated to respect and are purportedly supposed to be learning from is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Most of them get nasty when they are proven incorrect as well.
Most of them get nasty when they are proven incorrect as well.
That seems like a pretty big topic jump, doesn't it?
> Especially consider the bitterness of such parents whose taxes pay into the school system but those same taxes aren't utilized for homeschooling families: so it's literally the government taking money to pay for a service for all citizens -- except you, you're not getting what you paid for.
That's also, of course, true of those who send their kids to private school. I think that there's an excellent argument for vouchers which enable parents to allocate the funds that would have gone to a public school to a private school. There are some dangers (because once something is private, it can be advertised and the system can be gamed), but overall I think this is far better than our current 51%-of-parents-decide model.
I don't feel that it'd be a good idea to give homeschooling parents a similar voucher, but only because it's too ripe for abuse: an abusive parent could take the voucher and spend it, and not bother to educate his kids. I don't know how likely it is, but it's worrisome nonetheless.
That's also, of course, true of those who send their kids to private school. I think that there's an excellent argument for vouchers which enable parents to allocate the funds that would have gone to a public school to a private school. There are some dangers (because once something is private, it can be advertised and the system can be gamed), but overall I think this is far better than our current 51%-of-parents-decide model.
I don't feel that it'd be a good idea to give homeschooling parents a similar voucher, but only because it's too ripe for abuse: an abusive parent could take the voucher and spend it, and not bother to educate his kids. I don't know how likely it is, but it's worrisome nonetheless.
I could really use a voucher for homeschooling. I've spent a lot on books, calculators, and even paper. (11 kids) I think I spent about $1000 to do chemistry labs.
With the voucher I probably would have added a condenser, nickel crucibles, a kiln, an extra digit on my balance, decent-sized platinum electrodes, and a spectrophotometer. Make it a big voucher and I'll get an electron microscope, an extreme-ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscope, and a DNA sequencer.
With the voucher I probably would have added a condenser, nickel crucibles, a kiln, an extra digit on my balance, decent-sized platinum electrodes, and a spectrophotometer. Make it a big voucher and I'll get an electron microscope, an extreme-ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscope, and a DNA sequencer.
I can read your comment in several, slightly conflicting, ways:
- homeschooling is in practice mostly undesirable, because it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who are not going to act in their child's best interest
- homeschooling is at a systemic disadvantage because parents that care enough about their kid's education to take an active part in it have no voice in the public schooling system (my understanding of grandparent's point); in addition, they contribute as much as other taxpayers to the public school system while not getting anything for it.
Am I misunderstanding?
- homeschooling is in practice mostly undesirable, because it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who are not going to act in their child's best interest
- homeschooling is at a systemic disadvantage because parents that care enough about their kid's education to take an active part in it have no voice in the public schooling system (my understanding of grandparent's point); in addition, they contribute as much as other taxpayers to the public school system while not getting anything for it.
Am I misunderstanding?
> homeschooling is in practice mostly undesirable, because it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who are not going to act in their child's best interest
I am not saying that homeschooling in practice is mostly undesirable. Instead, there can be undesirable elements to it. And those undesirable elements are neither common nor easy to spot.
Nor am I saying that it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who aren't going to act in their child's best interest. I certainly think there's an element of truth to it but don't think it's overwhelmingly the case.
My parents did have legitimate reasons to homeschool some of the family. But I think the legitimate issues were leveraged for, indeed, control. Then: I think they bit off more than they could chew (I have a big family); I don't think they realized just how much effort they volunteered of themselves. At the end of a year, they chose to dig their heels in and continue a broken implementation of homeschool and not addressing the problems that came up, instead of risking putting their kids back into school and losing a year or two in grades and having to answer to the State.
> they contribute as much as other taxpayers to the public school system while not getting anything for it.
Yes. Maybe not everywhere but it certainly seemed to be the case when I was in California until moved '03.
I am not saying that homeschooling in practice is mostly undesirable. Instead, there can be undesirable elements to it. And those undesirable elements are neither common nor easy to spot.
Nor am I saying that it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who aren't going to act in their child's best interest. I certainly think there's an element of truth to it but don't think it's overwhelmingly the case.
My parents did have legitimate reasons to homeschool some of the family. But I think the legitimate issues were leveraged for, indeed, control. Then: I think they bit off more than they could chew (I have a big family); I don't think they realized just how much effort they volunteered of themselves. At the end of a year, they chose to dig their heels in and continue a broken implementation of homeschool and not addressing the problems that came up, instead of risking putting their kids back into school and losing a year or two in grades and having to answer to the State.
> they contribute as much as other taxpayers to the public school system while not getting anything for it.
Yes. Maybe not everywhere but it certainly seemed to be the case when I was in California until moved '03.
I certainly know what you mean about "big family" (have 11 so far) and "just how much effort they volunteered of themselves" and "risking putting their kids back into school and losing a year or two in grades" due to uneven progress.
The out is dual-enrollment, sometimes called running start or concurrent enrollment. In many locations it is free, leading to an AA degree. Because it is scheduled in the style of normal college, with classes chosen as you please, uneven progress is not a problem.
Consider also that the students bear some responsibility and can easily have disasters in public school. If the students choose to dig their heels in, refusing to study, that simply shuts down any kind of education. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Be careful about assuming your parents did worse than a public school would have done, even if things went badly. Some kids just refuse to learn.
The out is dual-enrollment, sometimes called running start or concurrent enrollment. In many locations it is free, leading to an AA degree. Because it is scheduled in the style of normal college, with classes chosen as you please, uneven progress is not a problem.
Consider also that the students bear some responsibility and can easily have disasters in public school. If the students choose to dig their heels in, refusing to study, that simply shuts down any kind of education. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Be careful about assuming your parents did worse than a public school would have done, even if things went badly. Some kids just refuse to learn.
> - homeschooling is in practice mostly undesirable, because it overwhelmingly attracts people with fringe beliefs who are not going to act in their child's best interest
To large extend, homeschooling movement was to large extend motivated politically and does attract fringe groups who want to avoid mainstream society. Avoidance of exposure of certain parts of history or sex ed or gender relationships or culture is strong motivation for many of those families.
It did not became popular in conservative christian male is head of household types randomly.
To large extend, homeschooling movement was to large extend motivated politically and does attract fringe groups who want to avoid mainstream society. Avoidance of exposure of certain parts of history or sex ed or gender relationships or culture is strong motivation for many of those families.
It did not became popular in conservative christian male is head of household types randomly.
As someone who was exclusively homeschooled (and glad of it) my read is mostly of the first interpretation: OP likely had authoritarian parents that used homeschooling as a method of control rather than a way to learn.
I was also home schooled (4th and 5th grade) and it wasn't scary. I missed out on some social opportunities but I joined clubs and played sports to make up for those interactions.
Homeschooling put me far ahead of my peers. I went back for middle school (6th grade) and skated through the next 3 years until I could take AP classes in high school. I am by no means exceptional nor were my parents great teachers. I think being able to go at my own pace allowed me to learn faster and more thoroughly than if I had been in a classroom.
I'd say there are a lot of upsides to home schooling if parents can swing it, and the downsides can be mitigated by a little extra effort on socializing.
Homeschooling put me far ahead of my peers. I went back for middle school (6th grade) and skated through the next 3 years until I could take AP classes in high school. I am by no means exceptional nor were my parents great teachers. I think being able to go at my own pace allowed me to learn faster and more thoroughly than if I had been in a classroom.
I'd say there are a lot of upsides to home schooling if parents can swing it, and the downsides can be mitigated by a little extra effort on socializing.
There’s a ton of upside from 1 on 1 parental attention. Schools only get a few hours of real education time daily. A sharp parent can clear that in an hour or so. Give 3 hours 1 on 1 and the Gap grows even more.
I was homeschooled, and I learned way more way faster, your counter argument only applies to people too crazy for school as opposed to too smart. It's immediately clear when you meet people who are too crazy for school and who are too intense / smart.
What social experiences do you feel like you missed out on? Having teachers ignore you and spend 90% of their time dealing with problem kids? The petty drama? How many people look back fondly on K-12 and think “man, that was great?”
Read Sasse’s “the vanishing American adult.” It’s got some great commentary on what’s wrong with modern school. We take kids, and instead of having them be around adults to socialize them, we let them loose on their own little child-dominated Lord of the Flies society.
Read Sasse’s “the vanishing American adult.” It’s got some great commentary on what’s wrong with modern school. We take kids, and instead of having them be around adults to socialize them, we let them loose on their own little child-dominated Lord of the Flies society.
Dealing with petty drama in K-12 is good low-stakes practice for dealing with petty drama in adult life.
I always took Lord of the Flies as an allegory to adult society rather than a book about children.
I always took Lord of the Flies as an allegory to adult society rather than a book about children.
> I always took Lord of the Flies as an allegory to adult society rather than a book about children.
It certainly is, the book even beats you over the head with it when (spoiler warning I guess?) the warship shows up to rescue them at the end.
I do think the K-12 school doesn't particularly resemble adult life, and is a lot worse in most ways. For one thing, leaving bad situations isn't really an option, while at the same time anti-social behavior is more tolerated. Meanwhile you're doing a bunch of work on things that are quickly round-filed when you're done with them, year after year, and operating under a system that's strangely strict and dehumanizing considering how much shittiness it allows to go on. And I had a pretty good school experience, so this isn't coming from some place of special bitterness.
It certainly is, the book even beats you over the head with it when (spoiler warning I guess?) the warship shows up to rescue them at the end.
I do think the K-12 school doesn't particularly resemble adult life, and is a lot worse in most ways. For one thing, leaving bad situations isn't really an option, while at the same time anti-social behavior is more tolerated. Meanwhile you're doing a bunch of work on things that are quickly round-filed when you're done with them, year after year, and operating under a system that's strangely strict and dehumanizing considering how much shittiness it allows to go on. And I had a pretty good school experience, so this isn't coming from some place of special bitterness.
> Dealing with petty drama in K-12 is good low-stakes practice for dealing with petty drama in adult life.
There's really no evidence for this. The only reason anyone believes this is because modern school is a living hell and if the suffering and misery doesn't serve some practical purpose, we'd all be depressed.
The truth is that there are plenty of people who are schooled privately that turn out just fine.
There's really no evidence for this. The only reason anyone believes this is because modern school is a living hell and if the suffering and misery doesn't serve some practical purpose, we'd all be depressed.
The truth is that there are plenty of people who are schooled privately that turn out just fine.
Dealing with petty drama in K-12 is good low-stakes practice for dealing with petty drama in adult life.
I am not at all convinced that this is true.
See: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I am not at all convinced that this is true.
See: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
> What social experiences do you feel like you missed out on?
If you're only interested in social experiences then there's all the obvious answers: girlfriends, team memberships, or even just how to discover and talk to other people my age with similar interests. Standing up for myself is hard. Simply talking to people is hard. How to filter the words I say so that people don't take offense to me expressing an opinion.
If you want to expand your question, then also: art, business, chemistry, college, even joining the military required a high school diploma.
If you're only interested in social experiences then there's all the obvious answers: girlfriends, team memberships, or even just how to discover and talk to other people my age with similar interests. Standing up for myself is hard. Simply talking to people is hard. How to filter the words I say so that people don't take offense to me expressing an opinion.
If you want to expand your question, then also: art, business, chemistry, college, even joining the military required a high school diploma.
I went to a public high school and I also missed out on all those things. It sounds like you got an equivalent education!
We often mistakenly think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I suggest to you that in the alternate history, with you in a public school, you also would not have had girlfriends. I sure didn't have any, despite being tall and slightly athletic.
The same goes for being able to filter words to not cause offense. One time, that got me fired! My public school education served me just as well as your education served you.
We often mistakenly think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. I suggest to you that in the alternate history, with you in a public school, you also would not have had girlfriends. I sure didn't have any, despite being tall and slightly athletic.
The same goes for being able to filter words to not cause offense. One time, that got me fired! My public school education served me just as well as your education served you.
[deleted]
> Consider: Texas permits homeschooling and has effectively zero oversight.
My children are homeschooled in a major metro area not in Texas. We also have effectively zero oversight. But what does it signify? We have an interest in the success of our children that is far greater than any interest a government has.
I understand that in rural areas this can mean that such children have all but disappeared from view, but where we live the school districts allow homeschool children to participate in afterschool activities (including competitive sports) and a recent change in state law allows for homeschool children to attend a class or two at the local school and then leave for the day, if that is something a parent wants. The park district offers many sports classes in the middle of the day for homeschool kids, forest preserves and state parks offer nature classes, and museums have science and art courses. Private businesses love us, they offer discounts to fill up time slots that would otherwise go empty. The public library is very welcoming and typically allows use of community rooms for free.
A public school classroom with 30+ children in it simply doesn't have the time to offer as much educational opportunity that our children get in half the time, allowing them so much time during the day for play, imagination, and reading or exploring topics of their own choice (we typically have 30-60 library books at home at any one point in time).
My children are homeschooled in a major metro area not in Texas. We also have effectively zero oversight. But what does it signify? We have an interest in the success of our children that is far greater than any interest a government has.
I understand that in rural areas this can mean that such children have all but disappeared from view, but where we live the school districts allow homeschool children to participate in afterschool activities (including competitive sports) and a recent change in state law allows for homeschool children to attend a class or two at the local school and then leave for the day, if that is something a parent wants. The park district offers many sports classes in the middle of the day for homeschool kids, forest preserves and state parks offer nature classes, and museums have science and art courses. Private businesses love us, they offer discounts to fill up time slots that would otherwise go empty. The public library is very welcoming and typically allows use of community rooms for free.
A public school classroom with 30+ children in it simply doesn't have the time to offer as much educational opportunity that our children get in half the time, allowing them so much time during the day for play, imagination, and reading or exploring topics of their own choice (we typically have 30-60 library books at home at any one point in time).
> But what does it signify? We have an interest in the success of our children that is far greater than any interest a government has.
I don't think the question of 'whether oversight is a good idea' is usefully explored by piecemeal examples where everything went fine and the motivation of parents is genuine "interest in the success of our children".
This is not to say there is anything particularly wrong with homeschooling per se, I wouldn't accept that examining piecemeal cases where everything went fine would be a good way of inferring "whether oversight is a good idea" in the case of a church or business or academic institution either.
I don't think the question of 'whether oversight is a good idea' is usefully explored by piecemeal examples where everything went fine and the motivation of parents is genuine "interest in the success of our children".
This is not to say there is anything particularly wrong with homeschooling per se, I wouldn't accept that examining piecemeal cases where everything went fine would be a good way of inferring "whether oversight is a good idea" in the case of a church or business or academic institution either.
We have homeschool friends who felt the same and tried to get involved with the public school system. They are very civic minded etc. They found the red tape crushing for their kid, who is a bit of genius, plus he was getting beat up etc. Obviously this is anecdotal. They pulled him and now he is winning academic competitions (history, geography) like 3 grade levels above his age. He reads war history for hours and hours.
Many of the most actively involved parents are already removing themselves (and their children) from the public school system, as the payoff to fighting for improvement won't come until after it can benefit their kids. I don't think it's exactly a tragedy of the commons situation, more of the inverse, but the costs (to the parent) are so high that it's hard to blame them. Personally, I think the best we can hope for is that models like Outschool can develop into supplements that work in concert with public school, reducing the relative ROI of going private.
The children of actively involved parents now have children themselves. They saw the futility of their actively involved parents actions, and how the school system wore them down and slowed down their growth, and want nothing to do with it.
Why is this concerning? The public school system has a lot of issues. My son went to public school until 6th grade and I about pulled my hair out with issue after issue. We put him in a hybrid charter school program (3 days homeschool, 2 days in class) for 7th and 8th and started my youngest in this same program from kindergarten. Both are well ahead academically of their peers and grade level.
There are a ton of homeschool groups in our area too that organize activities where all of the kids get together. It is very active giving kids plenty of opportunity to socialize.
We don't homeschool for religious reasons. We do it because we want our kids to get the best possible education without all of the indoctrination and other crap that is pushed through the public education system. This is pretty much the reason most of the other homeschoolers that I engage with do it too. I think homeschooling has a bad rap because of the media and a few bad apples but at least from my experience, that portrayal is not the norm.
There are a ton of homeschool groups in our area too that organize activities where all of the kids get together. It is very active giving kids plenty of opportunity to socialize.
We don't homeschool for religious reasons. We do it because we want our kids to get the best possible education without all of the indoctrination and other crap that is pushed through the public education system. This is pretty much the reason most of the other homeschoolers that I engage with do it too. I think homeschooling has a bad rap because of the media and a few bad apples but at least from my experience, that portrayal is not the norm.
Students can also access "real time group classes taught largely by very experienced K12 teachers" by... going to school.
Opportunity cost can't justify public school. Seems to be a large waste of time, super authoritative, and mentally damaging to many.
I completed grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the USSR, right before its breaking apart. (I skipped grade 4 not because I was exceptionally smart, but because of the conversion from 10- to 11-year system.)
I went to an average public school, not like a specialized math-heavy school, which also existed.
Then I moved to the U.S. and started 6th grade, decent public school in a major city.
I went to ESL class instead of regular English. Some of the history stuff was new to me. I struggled with integrating and being bullied, though not too badly.
But as far as math and science goes, I was coasting up until 9th grade, when I started high school.
In 8th grade, I was added to the "gifted" program, which basically meant I spent one period a week hanging out with the other gifted kids doing I don't even remember what.
I've been told that while USSR designed its cirruculum to be passable by 80% of the students, in the U.S. it's designed to be passable by close to 100%. Which means that even if your child is smart, they'll be dragging along with the least capable 20% of the school population, doing busywork and being bored, wasting their time instead of learning all they could be at the most capable time of their life.
(Russia's current education system has been stripped and crippled, so it's on par or worse than U.S. now.)
I went to an average public school, not like a specialized math-heavy school, which also existed.
Then I moved to the U.S. and started 6th grade, decent public school in a major city.
I went to ESL class instead of regular English. Some of the history stuff was new to me. I struggled with integrating and being bullied, though not too badly.
But as far as math and science goes, I was coasting up until 9th grade, when I started high school.
In 8th grade, I was added to the "gifted" program, which basically meant I spent one period a week hanging out with the other gifted kids doing I don't even remember what.
I've been told that while USSR designed its cirruculum to be passable by 80% of the students, in the U.S. it's designed to be passable by close to 100%. Which means that even if your child is smart, they'll be dragging along with the least capable 20% of the school population, doing busywork and being bored, wasting their time instead of learning all they could be at the most capable time of their life.
(Russia's current education system has been stripped and crippled, so it's on par or worse than U.S. now.)
As a former high school teacher, as intuitive as this seems, it's dubious at best. To truly have "access," you need a lot of things in place (nutrition, sleep, prerequisite learning, a good school, an experienced teacher), and a lot of things not getting in the way (other kids, the institution, the teacher, circumstances). The bar is much lower for Outschool to hit the target.
I interviewed with Outschool a few months ago, happy to see them here!
They're a wonderful team. I've never seen a group of people with so much positive chemistry before; I've started asking more culture-centered questions in my interviews since then, now that I think about it.
I think it's the best kind of team to front an educational endeavour and it's one big reason I believe in them. It's easier to have a healthy classroom environment if the providing workplace is healthy too.
They're a wonderful team. I've never seen a group of people with so much positive chemistry before; I've started asking more culture-centered questions in my interviews since then, now that I think about it.
I think it's the best kind of team to front an educational endeavour and it's one big reason I believe in them. It's easier to have a healthy classroom environment if the providing workplace is healthy too.
And perhaps related to this post, there was a YC "ad" a few links above this post saying:
> Outschool (YC W16) Is Hiring a Senior Software Engineer in SF
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20048401
> Outschool (YC W16) Is Hiring a Senior Software Engineer in SF
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20048401
In the late 90’s my parents homeschooled me. We had a subscription to a teaching service that broadcast lessons on Satellite at 2am. My parents set the VCR to record each night and then we played the tape back for “class”. Everything was awful. To this day, my understanding of elementary science is a little worse than one would expect because my mom didn’t enjoy teaching science.
I’m so glad for advanced services making more forms of schooling possible for people.
Just to throw some ice on some of the heat in the comments...
- homeschooling isn’t for everyone, but it works wonderfully for some. My sister hated it and I loved it. People are different and need different approaches to learning.
- some people who homeschool are religious, and some of them are “fundamentalist”. But most of the people I encountered were simply “religious.” There’s a difference. ;)
I’m so glad for advanced services making more forms of schooling possible for people.
Just to throw some ice on some of the heat in the comments...
- homeschooling isn’t for everyone, but it works wonderfully for some. My sister hated it and I loved it. People are different and need different approaches to learning.
- some people who homeschool are religious, and some of them are “fundamentalist”. But most of the people I encountered were simply “religious.” There’s a difference. ;)
I'm slightly torn on models like this. On the one hand, the cost savings and potential to improve outcomes by scaling the impact of the best classes is obviously wildly important. At the same time, it does seem like there is hard to quantify value in the social aspects of a traditional school. As I write this, however, I realize that there are plenty of private and parochial schools where the class sizes are so small that you could probably replicate the social value pretty easily, since you wouldn't need too many students in the same place to do things like "class trips".
[deleted]
>...students in the US who need to learn things like Algebra, European History, Biology, etc...
HN, what's your take on the above? Do you believe that there is any particular curriculum of subjects that students "need" to have studied to be prepared for doing well in the world they will be living in?
HN, what's your take on the above? Do you believe that there is any particular curriculum of subjects that students "need" to have studied to be prepared for doing well in the world they will be living in?
economics, law, financial planning, accounting, cooking, how to repair things, business writing, estimation
That's all. No, we mostly don't teach this stuff anymore.
For those going the college route, obviously the STEM prerequisites must be satisfied. This means AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP Physics C (both halves), and AP Calculus BC.
That's all. No, we mostly don't teach this stuff anymore.
For those going the college route, obviously the STEM prerequisites must be satisfied. This means AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP Physics C (both halves), and AP Calculus BC.
Thanks for responding. I wanted to contest the word "need" - given that the best majority of students aren't taught (in a schooling setting) even 1 of the subjects you mentioned, and we still live in an arguably quite civilized modern society, would you agree that they don't actually "need" to be taught?
Hiring a high school student to tutor a kid in math is not a "1%er" solution. Maybe 50%er?
This sounds to me like an American problem
[deleted]
I think this is going to be very controversial on the typical HN crowd: maybe too European, or too socialist. However here it goes.
Some ten years ago I was convinced that private schools had a right to exist, but that they should never impact the funding of public schools, not even indirectly.
Then I discovered that homeschooling was a thing in the US.
Now I tend to believe that private schools should not be allowed to exist. School is far too important as a social mixer and a way to educate well-rounded citizens to leave it to the whims of parents. Parents already have a large enough impact on their kids, to let them take over 100% of their time.
I also strongly believe that parents whose beliefs prevent their kids from getting the medical care they deserve (from refusing transfusions, to refusing vaccines) should get a hard look from social services.
In general I don't believe that parenthood trumps some things that as a society we consider basic human rights. I think most people would agree with me when it comes down to issues like violence, exploitation and child labor, but I think this should extend to the access to healthcare and to a secular education.
Some ten years ago I was convinced that private schools had a right to exist, but that they should never impact the funding of public schools, not even indirectly.
Then I discovered that homeschooling was a thing in the US.
Now I tend to believe that private schools should not be allowed to exist. School is far too important as a social mixer and a way to educate well-rounded citizens to leave it to the whims of parents. Parents already have a large enough impact on their kids, to let them take over 100% of their time.
I also strongly believe that parents whose beliefs prevent their kids from getting the medical care they deserve (from refusing transfusions, to refusing vaccines) should get a hard look from social services.
In general I don't believe that parenthood trumps some things that as a society we consider basic human rights. I think most people would agree with me when it comes down to issues like violence, exploitation and child labor, but I think this should extend to the access to healthcare and to a secular education.
You have a very narrow view of home schooling and only the worse cases. Take a look at the worse outcomes of public schooling and the averages in performance of home school kids versus public school kids. The social anxiety and other issues of kids going through a modern high school versus kids who socialize with mostly adults and socialize in sports programs, co-ops, or groups and learn to be self driven in learning.
Public schools have a long way to go before they should be made mandatory. Until it is the very best solution for everyone, until it addresses every learning disability, the class sizes are smaller, teachers are paid better, classes track with a students ability and mental development and actually run in line with the latest in neuroscience and child development, have flexible hours so teenagers can sleep longer, put less on the kids when they go home so they have time for family activities and social interaction instead of 3-4 hrs of homework. Maybe when the solution isn't to medicate kids who don't learn by sitting still at a desk 6 hours a day with few breaks, elimination of recess and 20-30 minute lunch periods and few if any opportunities to "socialize" in the current schooling environment. When they teach problem solving and critical thinking, rather than rote memorizing for one standardized test at the end of year. If going to school was more like being an adult or put responsibilities on the student, like a college does, rather than treating the student population like they're in a low security prison. When it uses a system that wasn't developed for training factory workers and hasn't transitioned at all since then. When all the new money added to their budgets isn't siphoned up in administrative costs. When schools in many neighborhoods put kids in physical danger, involve gang activity and a good option simply isn't available to them because of their district. Then maybe we can talk about making it mandatory.
Even then, the most rich and privileged still would have loop holes for tutoring their kids for something other than factory work. We would still need exceptions for kids who for a variety of reasons, medical or otherwise need to be at home, students who travel or work in acting/performance. Kids who are on specialized career tracks in schools geared towards where its best they learn very young (perforamance arts and music, CS) to compete in a global market.
This idea that one education fits all is myopic and doesn't line up with the results that public schools produce thus far, and you want to take away any alternative.
It would be like if the only healthcare option in the US was the VA, and no one was allowed to seek healthcare else where because some people make bad health decisions and go to homeopathic healthcare providers.
Public schools have a long way to go before they should be made mandatory. Until it is the very best solution for everyone, until it addresses every learning disability, the class sizes are smaller, teachers are paid better, classes track with a students ability and mental development and actually run in line with the latest in neuroscience and child development, have flexible hours so teenagers can sleep longer, put less on the kids when they go home so they have time for family activities and social interaction instead of 3-4 hrs of homework. Maybe when the solution isn't to medicate kids who don't learn by sitting still at a desk 6 hours a day with few breaks, elimination of recess and 20-30 minute lunch periods and few if any opportunities to "socialize" in the current schooling environment. When they teach problem solving and critical thinking, rather than rote memorizing for one standardized test at the end of year. If going to school was more like being an adult or put responsibilities on the student, like a college does, rather than treating the student population like they're in a low security prison. When it uses a system that wasn't developed for training factory workers and hasn't transitioned at all since then. When all the new money added to their budgets isn't siphoned up in administrative costs. When schools in many neighborhoods put kids in physical danger, involve gang activity and a good option simply isn't available to them because of their district. Then maybe we can talk about making it mandatory.
Even then, the most rich and privileged still would have loop holes for tutoring their kids for something other than factory work. We would still need exceptions for kids who for a variety of reasons, medical or otherwise need to be at home, students who travel or work in acting/performance. Kids who are on specialized career tracks in schools geared towards where its best they learn very young (perforamance arts and music, CS) to compete in a global market.
This idea that one education fits all is myopic and doesn't line up with the results that public schools produce thus far, and you want to take away any alternative.
It would be like if the only healthcare option in the US was the VA, and no one was allowed to seek healthcare else where because some people make bad health decisions and go to homeopathic healthcare providers.
In America we've had decades of various people attacking public schools. So to look at the state of public schools and saying this is how things are, well you're ignoring a broad history of American conservatism taking objection to public schooling.
Right, so fix that first, don't tell people they have to go to a certain school while you spend another 30+ years figuring it out.
Also blaming it on just conservatism is silly, the bluest most democratic districts have some of the worst problems and solutions. Administrators keep thinking more of the same and blanket solutions address the needs of every kid. They forget that children are individuals. If this were the case, schools in very liberal areas like D.C., Chicago, LA, etc would be amazing and all producing the very best students given their funding and that the school board would be incredibly liberal/progressive.
Talk to teachers, many of them that burn out or leave because of how bad its gotten home school their own kids because they've seen the sausage factory.
Addendum (how bad its really gotten):
https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-number...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/robots...
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/29/social-jetlag/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13086098
https://ideapod.com/born-creative-geniuses-education-system-...
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/teen-suspended-for-inciting-vi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/9isnux/teacher_says_s...
https://www.greensboro.com/opinion/columns/christie-murphy-w...
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8smwb6/lawsuit_school...
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/7p69uk/teacher_arre...
Also blaming it on just conservatism is silly, the bluest most democratic districts have some of the worst problems and solutions. Administrators keep thinking more of the same and blanket solutions address the needs of every kid. They forget that children are individuals. If this were the case, schools in very liberal areas like D.C., Chicago, LA, etc would be amazing and all producing the very best students given their funding and that the school board would be incredibly liberal/progressive.
Talk to teachers, many of them that burn out or leave because of how bad its gotten home school their own kids because they've seen the sausage factory.
Addendum (how bad its really gotten):
https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-number...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/robots...
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/29/social-jetlag/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13086098
https://ideapod.com/born-creative-geniuses-education-system-...
https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/teen-suspended-for-inciting-vi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/9isnux/teacher_says_s...
https://www.greensboro.com/opinion/columns/christie-murphy-w...
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8smwb6/lawsuit_school...
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/7p69uk/teacher_arre...
My children receive a secular homeschool education. They score well on standardized tests, interact well with their peers in extracurricular activities, and have healthy and meaningful relationships with other children and adults in their lives.
I recognize that there are some in the homeschool "community" who are ruining their children (imho). For the sake of freedom, I accept that there are terrible people in the world who should not have reproduced, but for me to have rights they must have them too.
I recognize that there are some in the homeschool "community" who are ruining their children (imho). For the sake of freedom, I accept that there are terrible people in the world who should not have reproduced, but for me to have rights they must have them too.
I'm sure your kids are great, as you are probably well educated and wealthier than the average. Have you ever asked yourself what is the effect of removing your kids for public schools on the less fortunate?
Let me put it another way: most children who have some medical doctor in their extended family don't really need to be visited regularly by a pediatrician. That doesn't really imply that most people who refuse to take their kids to a doctor are in their right mind to do so: a lot of them have some weird belief that might put their kids life at risk. And even if they weren't a majority, but a tiny minority, the law needs to protect that tiny minority even if that means being a bit overbearing on people who have doctors in their families.
Let me put it another way: most children who have some medical doctor in their extended family don't really need to be visited regularly by a pediatrician. That doesn't really imply that most people who refuse to take their kids to a doctor are in their right mind to do so: a lot of them have some weird belief that might put their kids life at risk. And even if they weren't a majority, but a tiny minority, the law needs to protect that tiny minority even if that means being a bit overbearing on people who have doctors in their families.
The less fortunate are the ones bullying other children, holding back the curriculum so that no child is left behind, putting someone else's child in harms way because of some undefined benefit to other's with worse parents isn't a fix. Fix the socio economic problems first so those kids have better parents. Don't put my kid in with them thinking its going to socialize other kids better rather than what normally happens is they get harassed and bullied by those who are hostile and the teachers have no power or are apathetic to confront.
It creates greater harm putting good kids in with the bad then it does for the unfortunate but angry, hostile children. Same as it does putting a prisoner in for a non-violent crime with a bunch of felons, they're likely to come out a worse, more hardened criminal. You have this theory that it brings the other kids up, maybe slightly, but often it just brings everyone overall down. Collectivist mentality should be what's the greatest good.
It creates greater harm putting good kids in with the bad then it does for the unfortunate but angry, hostile children. Same as it does putting a prisoner in for a non-violent crime with a bunch of felons, they're likely to come out a worse, more hardened criminal. You have this theory that it brings the other kids up, maybe slightly, but often it just brings everyone overall down. Collectivist mentality should be what's the greatest good.
Except that most of the research that has been done on this subject shows exactly the opposite: social mixing in schools has a great positive effect on the less fortunate and almost negligible effect on the more fortunate (we're talking here about a situation where the composition of a class reflects that of society as a whole, not some extreme example like throwing a wealthy kid in a inner city class).
Also societies that have good public schools (that are universally attended) like Finland, tend to have much less socioeconomic inequality in the following generations. That is: school is the solution to social inequality, not viceversa.
Also societies that have good public schools (that are universally attended) like Finland, tend to have much less socioeconomic inequality in the following generations. That is: school is the solution to social inequality, not viceversa.
Most research? What research? By research do you mean an opinion piece you read once? Most research says homeschoolers perform massively better on average then public school kids do. So what research addresses that, if kids perform not as well in public school.
https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-number...
https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-number...
It is well known that school results are mostly explained by socioeconomic status (I read somewhere up to 75% of the variance can be explained that way). So if you don't take into account other factors that graph doesn't prove anything other than people who can afford private schools and homescholing are on average richer. My guess is that the rest of the data can be explained by smaller class sizes and better resources.
If you want more research this [0] article has a good bibliography on the effects of socioeconomic diversity in schools
[0] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
If you want more research this [0] article has a good bibliography on the effects of socioeconomic diversity in schools
[0] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
Socioeconomic status doesn’t explain why parents with only high school degrees who homeschool in the US will still have kids performing at the top of public school kids’ scores, while strong parental involvement does. Over and over the only truly meaningful external factor in student performance is parental involvement, of which homeschooling is highly indicative.
But if the kids have a doctor in the family...they're being examined by a medical doctor. The idiots that don't take their kids to the doctor...are idiots.
Let's NOT institute forced doctor visitations (with all the cost, overhead, bureaucracy, potential for fraud, etc) for all parents, EVEN THE EXEMPLARY ONES, to deal with that problem.
Instead, let's figure out if there are better ways to ensure that parents have the ability/means/understanding necessary to get their kids to checkups.
Let's NOT institute forced doctor visitations (with all the cost, overhead, bureaucracy, potential for fraud, etc) for all parents, EVEN THE EXEMPLARY ONES, to deal with that problem.
Instead, let's figure out if there are better ways to ensure that parents have the ability/means/understanding necessary to get their kids to checkups.
> The idiots that don't take their kids to the doctor...are idiots.
Do you think that being a teacher is easier than being a medical doctor?
I know somebody who is a primary school teacher in Northern France, on the border with Belgium (a disadvantaged area for France, but no worse than some parts of the American South), every single year she has to deal with medical or social issues that would have gone otherwise unnoticed: abusive families, contagious diseases that went unnoticed, kids who were not eating healthy at home...
My point is that it is often thanks to public schools that we don't need forced doctor (or god forbid social serivices) visitations.
Do you think that being a teacher is easier than being a medical doctor?
I know somebody who is a primary school teacher in Northern France, on the border with Belgium (a disadvantaged area for France, but no worse than some parts of the American South), every single year she has to deal with medical or social issues that would have gone otherwise unnoticed: abusive families, contagious diseases that went unnoticed, kids who were not eating healthy at home...
My point is that it is often thanks to public schools that we don't need forced doctor (or god forbid social serivices) visitations.
> Do you think that being a teacher is easier than being a medical doctor?
What the hell does that matter?
Look, I'm not saying there isn't value to public education. And I'm not saying that educators don't provide a valuable and important service. But forcing public education as the panacea for finding all the ways parents fail their children is sub-optimal.
If you want to find abuses, diseases, malnutrition, etc, then let's mandate yearly doctor visits. I'd back that up WAY more than forced public education.
What the hell does that matter?
Look, I'm not saying there isn't value to public education. And I'm not saying that educators don't provide a valuable and important service. But forcing public education as the panacea for finding all the ways parents fail their children is sub-optimal.
If you want to find abuses, diseases, malnutrition, etc, then let's mandate yearly doctor visits. I'd back that up WAY more than forced public education.
> What the hell does that matter?
If you think that homeschooling is fine, but homedoctoring is crazy, then you think that being a teacher is a job that any idiot can do, while being a medical doctor requires a specific set of skills.
I'm not saying that all homeschooling parents are crazy and are doing a horrible job, I'm just saying that people have to study a bunch of stuff before becoming teachers, and even then they work as a team and have different specializations, I highly doubt that most people can do a better job than them on their first shot.
If you think that homeschooling is fine, but homedoctoring is crazy, then you think that being a teacher is a job that any idiot can do, while being a medical doctor requires a specific set of skills.
I'm not saying that all homeschooling parents are crazy and are doing a horrible job, I'm just saying that people have to study a bunch of stuff before becoming teachers, and even then they work as a team and have different specializations, I highly doubt that most people can do a better job than them on their first shot.
If I can demonstrate that the results of my "crazy" homeschooling is commensurate with (or surpasses) those of public schools, then what difference does it make. Yes, public school teachers have skills. Do those skills apply directly to the homeschool setting? Is there a difference between attempting to teach the one or two or so offspring compared to a classroom of strangers? Are parents incapable of attaining the necessary skills through any means besides university?
If it were reasonable to achieve "doctor" level results of medical care without being a doctor, then I would agree with you. The evidence shows otherwise. If I were getting poor results with my kids, they'd be back in public school.
If it were reasonable to achieve "doctor" level results of medical care without being a doctor, then I would agree with you. The evidence shows otherwise. If I were getting poor results with my kids, they'd be back in public school.
If we spent as much societal resources on elementary education as on healthcare, and schools had teams of intensively trained specialists come in and work with students 1:1 for many hours every week in the area of their expertise, then I would concede your point.
But a single conscientious and patient parent working 1:1 with a child consistently over the course of years is going to beat out a string of generalist teachers managing a 30-student classroom almost every time.
It takes a teacher/class months of overhead at the beginning of each year just to get to know all of the students and figure out what their skills and preparation are. It takes hours of overhead every day coordinating big groups of students, some of whom don’t want to be in a setting that inherently compromises their autonomy and often disrespects them, even in the best case where the teacher is kind and progressive. Feedback on student work is delayed and sometimes mediocre because carefully examining the work of 30 students takes a huge amount of time and effort. Glaring student misconceptions and gaps in basic knowledge and skills are allowed to persist for years. Generally little support is given to help students get over psychological blocks related to particular subjects or activities. Students are frequently cruel to each-other and teachers are often unaware or don’t have the available bandwidth to deal with it.
There is a categorical difference between lecturing to a class of 30 vs. direct tutorial, and the latter is generally much, much easier and more pleasant for both teacher and pupil.
But a single conscientious and patient parent working 1:1 with a child consistently over the course of years is going to beat out a string of generalist teachers managing a 30-student classroom almost every time.
It takes a teacher/class months of overhead at the beginning of each year just to get to know all of the students and figure out what their skills and preparation are. It takes hours of overhead every day coordinating big groups of students, some of whom don’t want to be in a setting that inherently compromises their autonomy and often disrespects them, even in the best case where the teacher is kind and progressive. Feedback on student work is delayed and sometimes mediocre because carefully examining the work of 30 students takes a huge amount of time and effort. Glaring student misconceptions and gaps in basic knowledge and skills are allowed to persist for years. Generally little support is given to help students get over psychological blocks related to particular subjects or activities. Students are frequently cruel to each-other and teachers are often unaware or don’t have the available bandwidth to deal with it.
There is a categorical difference between lecturing to a class of 30 vs. direct tutorial, and the latter is generally much, much easier and more pleasant for both teacher and pupil.
The hard part of being a teacher isn’t teaching the material, it’s managing 20-30 kids. Homeschoolers don’t have to deal with that.
For my kids, contagious diseases come from the doctor's office. (there is a concentration of sick people) The most horrifying disease was hand/foot/mouth disease, which really should be called hand/foot/mouth/anus disease but that would be rude. It can cause paralysis. There is no vaccine. My kids got huge blisters, including one that fully covered the end of a thumb.
So, bear in mind, that doctor visit carries some risk and could even cause permanent damage.
So, bear in mind, that doctor visit carries some risk and could even cause permanent damage.
Don't stop there, there's more to discover--keep going to the Kibbutz!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_communal_child_rearing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_communal_child_rearing...
> School is far too important as a social mixer and a way to educate well-rounded citizens to leave it to the whims of parents.
Literally zero evidence for this. On average, kids that are homeschooled walk away with higher levels achievement and fewer psychological issues than their traditionally schooled peers. They integrate just fine into society.
> I also strongly believe that parents whose beliefs prevent their kids from getting the medical care they deserve (from refusing transfusions, to refusing vaccines) should get a hard look from social services.
This has nothing to do with homeschooling since many of us homeschool for secular reasons and aren't teaching our children fundamentalism or denying them vaccines/healthcare.
> In general I don't believe that parenthood trumps some things that as a society we consider basic human rights.
You don't have kids. Not that it invalidates your opinion, but you don't. I, as a parent, adapt to society and obey society just like I, as an individual, obey the law. But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears. My responsibilities as a parent precede my responsibility to society. As long as society is not abusive, they mesh well and that isn't an issue. But saying that parenthood doesn't trump society is a slippery slope you really don't want to go down.
> I think most people would agree with me when it comes down to issues like violence, exploitation and child labor, but I think this should extend to the access to healthcare and to a secular education.
Healthcare makes sense, I suppose. But "secular education" assumes the education received in a homeschool context is not secular. On the contrary, many homeschoolers are secular homeschoolers, especially in the upper middle class.
I think you need to do more research on this before you start throwing out uninformed opinions.
Literally zero evidence for this. On average, kids that are homeschooled walk away with higher levels achievement and fewer psychological issues than their traditionally schooled peers. They integrate just fine into society.
> I also strongly believe that parents whose beliefs prevent their kids from getting the medical care they deserve (from refusing transfusions, to refusing vaccines) should get a hard look from social services.
This has nothing to do with homeschooling since many of us homeschool for secular reasons and aren't teaching our children fundamentalism or denying them vaccines/healthcare.
> In general I don't believe that parenthood trumps some things that as a society we consider basic human rights.
You don't have kids. Not that it invalidates your opinion, but you don't. I, as a parent, adapt to society and obey society just like I, as an individual, obey the law. But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears. My responsibilities as a parent precede my responsibility to society. As long as society is not abusive, they mesh well and that isn't an issue. But saying that parenthood doesn't trump society is a slippery slope you really don't want to go down.
> I think most people would agree with me when it comes down to issues like violence, exploitation and child labor, but I think this should extend to the access to healthcare and to a secular education.
Healthcare makes sense, I suppose. But "secular education" assumes the education received in a homeschool context is not secular. On the contrary, many homeschoolers are secular homeschoolers, especially in the upper middle class.
I think you need to do more research on this before you start throwing out uninformed opinions.
> Literally zero evidence for this. On average, kids that are homeschooled walk away with higher levels achievement and fewer psychological issues than their traditionally schooled peers. They integrate just fine into society.
There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
> You don't have kids.
You don't know that.
> But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears.
Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
> "secular education"
If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
> You don't have kids.
You don't know that.
> But I am still a parent if the social order breaks down and the government disappears.
Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
> "secular education"
If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
> There is plenty of evidence of the contrary though, that kids born in families with low income and educational achievement do much much better when they are in a socially diverse school as opposed to a ghetto. Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
I was that kid, and putting other well off kids in my school did nothing to fix those issues. You're running on a theory with no evidence. Putting kids in a school just brings the kid down to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have the opposite effect. High performing kids are likely to be picked on, even minority kids will get called out for "acting <insert racial stereotype>". It's works like cancer, not like vitamins. The negativity of the kids from horrible homes effects everyone, the positivity gets squashed by the system and social ostracization.
>If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
What if schools teach other misconceptions that get corrected in college. Like brontosauruses are a thing, or T-Rex's hunt prey. That the founding father's are practical holy figures and did no wrong. What if its a religious school district and they're the ones skirting past evolution, teaching bad concepts and you want to homeschool to correct it. What if you teach the kids secular stuff and the kid gets the politics and beliefs at home anyway and believes it because that's what their parents believe and have more influence over the values and beliefs that kid carries into life than a teacher ever can. You're running on a lot of assumptions that doesn't negate that fact that public schools largely suck, and even a half hearted attempt at home schooling has kids performing on average better than public schools because they suck so very much.
I was that kid, and putting other well off kids in my school did nothing to fix those issues. You're running on a theory with no evidence. Putting kids in a school just brings the kid down to the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have the opposite effect. High performing kids are likely to be picked on, even minority kids will get called out for "acting <insert racial stereotype>". It's works like cancer, not like vitamins. The negativity of the kids from horrible homes effects everyone, the positivity gets squashed by the system and social ostracization.
>If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
What if schools teach other misconceptions that get corrected in college. Like brontosauruses are a thing, or T-Rex's hunt prey. That the founding father's are practical holy figures and did no wrong. What if its a religious school district and they're the ones skirting past evolution, teaching bad concepts and you want to homeschool to correct it. What if you teach the kids secular stuff and the kid gets the politics and beliefs at home anyway and believes it because that's what their parents believe and have more influence over the values and beliefs that kid carries into life than a teacher ever can. You're running on a lot of assumptions that doesn't negate that fact that public schools largely suck, and even a half hearted attempt at home schooling has kids performing on average better than public schools because they suck so very much.
>What if schools teach other misconceptions that get corrected in college. Like brontosauruses are a thing, or T-Rex's hunt prey.
I had no idea there was a debate on the topic of T-Rex hunting. Here's an interesting Nature article that suggests that the T-Rex did hunt live prey: https://www.nature.com/news/tyrannosaurus-rex-hunted-for-liv...
I had no idea there was a debate on the topic of T-Rex hunting. Here's an interesting Nature article that suggests that the T-Rex did hunt live prey: https://www.nature.com/news/tyrannosaurus-rex-hunted-for-liv...
> I was that kid
anecdata
> You're running on a theory with no evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/19/increa...
Here an article reporting on a study by the OECD, but I'm sure you'll be able to find more scholarly sources if you just took the time to research it.
The truth is homeschooling is almost exclusively an American (maybe I should say anglophone) phenomenon, in most of Western Europe homeschooling is just illegal or allowed in extreme cases and under very high scrutiny from the public school system, because data has shown that it does more harm than good.
anecdata
> You're running on a theory with no evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/19/increa...
Here an article reporting on a study by the OECD, but I'm sure you'll be able to find more scholarly sources if you just took the time to research it.
The truth is homeschooling is almost exclusively an American (maybe I should say anglophone) phenomenon, in most of Western Europe homeschooling is just illegal or allowed in extreme cases and under very high scrutiny from the public school system, because data has shown that it does more harm than good.
>You provided anecdata, so I used anecdata.
Homeschooling is exclusively American because American schools are almost completely shit like most government provided services here and saying because German schools are good, American kids shouldn't homeschool is ignoring all the data that says US public schools are in trouble, on a steep decline and home schooling has for many, become their only viable alternative. Look at the colleges complaining about kids coming in who can't do basic problem solving or critical thinking. Anyway, I've linked this stuff so many times.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/robots...
http://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/29/social-jetlag/
https://quantblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/homeschooling-as-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13086098
https://ideapod.com/born-creative-geniuses-education-system-...
If a school in someone's area is crap and not addressing their child's needs a parent ABSOLUTELY should have the RIGHT to pull their kid out and seek a better alternative. Saying home schools are bad because public schools should be good and use data that has nothing to do with test scores, performance later in life. The social thing has been debunked multiple times. Sending a kid to school to learn to socialize has the Lord of the Flies effect, learning to socialize in a school, not from adults. Home schoolers are typically seen as more mature than their peers.
https://reason.com/2019/01/22/homeschooling-produces-better-...
You're defending a dumpster fire with doctored data when their are news articles every day about how much trouble public schools and outdated the education system is, and using anecdotal out liars to prove home schooling is terrible. For every home schooler you show that had issues, I can show you an article about a kid who committed suicide because of bullying, who had a learning disability that can't be addressed in large classroom settings, who experience severe social anxiety because of the social hierarchy high school taught them about.
Homeschooling is exclusively American because American schools are almost completely shit like most government provided services here and saying because German schools are good, American kids shouldn't homeschool is ignoring all the data that says US public schools are in trouble, on a steep decline and home schooling has for many, become their only viable alternative. Look at the colleges complaining about kids coming in who can't do basic problem solving or critical thinking. Anyway, I've linked this stuff so many times.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/15/robots...
http://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/29/social-jetlag/
https://quantblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/homeschooling-as-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13086098
https://ideapod.com/born-creative-geniuses-education-system-...
If a school in someone's area is crap and not addressing their child's needs a parent ABSOLUTELY should have the RIGHT to pull their kid out and seek a better alternative. Saying home schools are bad because public schools should be good and use data that has nothing to do with test scores, performance later in life. The social thing has been debunked multiple times. Sending a kid to school to learn to socialize has the Lord of the Flies effect, learning to socialize in a school, not from adults. Home schoolers are typically seen as more mature than their peers.
https://reason.com/2019/01/22/homeschooling-produces-better-...
You're defending a dumpster fire with doctored data when their are news articles every day about how much trouble public schools and outdated the education system is, and using anecdotal out liars to prove home schooling is terrible. For every home schooler you show that had issues, I can show you an article about a kid who committed suicide because of bullying, who had a learning disability that can't be addressed in large classroom settings, who experience severe social anxiety because of the social hierarchy high school taught them about.
> Sure maybe homeschooled kids are slightly better off, but that comes at a huge cost for all the kids who have a single parent who works three jobs that will never be able to afford to homeschool them.
You are proposing to offset economic inequality by degrading the education of the privileged. Your goal should be improve the education of the disadvantaged instead. Raise all boats, don't drain the lake. It's obvious that the United States could spend much more on education and do a much better job with the schools they have. Pinning any significant portion of the "huge cost" of the current system on middle class homeschoolers seems like sophistry intended to avoid the abuses of the hyper-capitalist, atomized system and ignores the actual problem.
> Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
This doesn't address the issue at hand. If a parent breaks down and the government steps in, that isn't incompatible with permitting homeschooling in non-abusive contexts.
> If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
If your parents are extremists of any sort, you're not going to mitigate their toxic influence or prevent them from harming a child by eliminating homeschooling. Most bad parents still send their kids to public school. Public school is not a remedy for abuse.
You are proposing to offset economic inequality by degrading the education of the privileged. Your goal should be improve the education of the disadvantaged instead. Raise all boats, don't drain the lake. It's obvious that the United States could spend much more on education and do a much better job with the schools they have. Pinning any significant portion of the "huge cost" of the current system on middle class homeschoolers seems like sophistry intended to avoid the abuses of the hyper-capitalist, atomized system and ignores the actual problem.
> Every day hundreds of thousands of parents "break down" and government takes over for them. Government breaking down is a much rarer event.
This doesn't address the issue at hand. If a parent breaks down and the government steps in, that isn't incompatible with permitting homeschooling in non-abusive contexts.
> If you don't like the distinction between secular and religious, you can take any other strong belief. What if my parents are flat earthers? What if they are holocaust deniers? What if they hold some very strong political opinion? Or even what if they are some staunch atheists? They will just create a bubble around their kids.
If your parents are extremists of any sort, you're not going to mitigate their toxic influence or prevent them from harming a child by eliminating homeschooling. Most bad parents still send their kids to public school. Public school is not a remedy for abuse.
> You are proposing to offset economic inequality by degrading the education of the privileged. Your goal should be improve the education of the disadvantaged instead. Raise all boats, don't drain the lake. It's obvious that the United States could spend much more on education and do a much better job with the schools they have. Pinning any significant portion of the "huge cost" of the current system on middle class homeschoolers seems like sophistry intended to avoid the abuses of the hyper-capitalist, atomized system and ignores the actual problem.
I think you're exaggerating the negative effects of sending almost everybody to public schools. Look at Scandinavia, France, Germany (or even southern European countries), the vast majority of people goes to public schools and it's not like the advancement of humanity has stopped there. A similar argument can be made for socialized medicine, a highly privatized system like the American one ends up being: more expensive, more iniquitous and less effective. If you really think that dismantling or undermining the public school system is not going to end like the medical system in the US, well I don't know how to convince you.
I think you're exaggerating the negative effects of sending almost everybody to public schools. Look at Scandinavia, France, Germany (or even southern European countries), the vast majority of people goes to public schools and it's not like the advancement of humanity has stopped there. A similar argument can be made for socialized medicine, a highly privatized system like the American one ends up being: more expensive, more iniquitous and less effective. If you really think that dismantling or undermining the public school system is not going to end like the medical system in the US, well I don't know how to convince you.
I think you're looking at different school systems and using it to leverage criticisms of home schooling in the US.
Fix public schooling in the US first, make it so it isn't so easy for home schoolers to out perform. Don't make kids guinea pigs while you figure out how to fix it. Then and only then can you level a critical eye on US home schoolers if the vast majority weren't doing a better job than public schools. If you're going to advocate for public school in the US, advocate in what ways that schools today by majority statistics are better than home schooling (socialization actually isn't one of them). Because all I see is a system that is 100 years out of date, anti-science (in terms of teaching methodology and pedagogy versus neuroscience and child development studies) and throwing money at problems that goes to the administrators not to teacher pay or reducing class sizes or anything substantial.
Fix public schooling in the US first, make it so it isn't so easy for home schoolers to out perform. Don't make kids guinea pigs while you figure out how to fix it. Then and only then can you level a critical eye on US home schoolers if the vast majority weren't doing a better job than public schools. If you're going to advocate for public school in the US, advocate in what ways that schools today by majority statistics are better than home schooling (socialization actually isn't one of them). Because all I see is a system that is 100 years out of date, anti-science (in terms of teaching methodology and pedagogy versus neuroscience and child development studies) and throwing money at problems that goes to the administrators not to teacher pay or reducing class sizes or anything substantial.
> Fix public schooling in the US first
This is like people saying to fix the bus system before adding bus lanes that would increase congestion for cars. The system is broken because smarter kids or kids who come from more educated families are escaping it. The effect is that public schools in the US are becoming like public transportation in the US: only those who don't have any other option are using it.
This is like people saying to fix the bus system before adding bus lanes that would increase congestion for cars. The system is broken because smarter kids or kids who come from more educated families are escaping it. The effect is that public schools in the US are becoming like public transportation in the US: only those who don't have any other option are using it.
A kid does not have the right to another kid’s education by forcing him to attend the same school and act as his crutch. If you believe they do, you should march down the the nearest hospital and offer up a kidney, a lung, and a lobe of your liver, because that’s what your theory of justice leads to.
>The system is broken because smarter kids or kids who come from more educated families are escaping it.
Yeah, no. Do you have any experience with the public school systems in the US, or are you just viewing this from Europe and engaging in some vigorous armchair analysis? The problems are manifold, and they're exacerbated by the fact that the school system is not nationally funded, but locally by local property taxes, so impoverished areas with stressed parents also get poorly funded schools.
I know some people who took part in Teach for America, and part of that experience was that they taught in some of the lowest performing schools. And one of their big takeaways was that the teachers in those classes couldn't maintain basic order, let alone teach effectively. Smart, well behaved kids aren't going to improve that situation, and it's going to seriously hamper their ability to get a good education if the teacher has to focus on keeping people in their seats instead of teaching.
Yeah, no. Do you have any experience with the public school systems in the US, or are you just viewing this from Europe and engaging in some vigorous armchair analysis? The problems are manifold, and they're exacerbated by the fact that the school system is not nationally funded, but locally by local property taxes, so impoverished areas with stressed parents also get poorly funded schools.
I know some people who took part in Teach for America, and part of that experience was that they taught in some of the lowest performing schools. And one of their big takeaways was that the teachers in those classes couldn't maintain basic order, let alone teach effectively. Smart, well behaved kids aren't going to improve that situation, and it's going to seriously hamper their ability to get a good education if the teacher has to focus on keeping people in their seats instead of teaching.
Smart kids just get held back in school
It's clear to me that A) you don't have kids and don't have any experience with kids in school B) you led a very privileged life and had a better than average experience in school C) think smart kids should be held back or slowed down so the less fortunate kids can keep up and further dumb down and brain drain society because that's how it works in schools D) You're so ignorant on the subject you obviously are a victim of the public education system you're so adamant to defend.
Your analogy isn't worth addressing, its not even close to accurate. Its pointless to continue.
It's clear to me that A) you don't have kids and don't have any experience with kids in school B) you led a very privileged life and had a better than average experience in school C) think smart kids should be held back or slowed down so the less fortunate kids can keep up and further dumb down and brain drain society because that's how it works in schools D) You're so ignorant on the subject you obviously are a victim of the public education system you're so adamant to defend.
Your analogy isn't worth addressing, its not even close to accurate. Its pointless to continue.
Unless this results in better education outcomes spread across the entire population in the red states, this is effectively a bid to support the Republican agenda. This will follow the same pattern as standardized testing: those with the means will pursue the best investments. Those without will be left behind. And so the cycle of inequality worsens. This is "greed is good" politics.
Think about it. If they were serious about education, why are they not investing, Koch-style, in local politics? Why are they not funding candidates who will advocate for stronger school systems, better transportation, school lunches, etc?
This has nothing to do with kids. This has everything to do with extracting as much money as possible from the most anxious, which is incidentally the rapidly vanishing elbow of middle class in the ever-steepening power law curve of wealth distribution in the US.
Think about it. If they were serious about education, why are they not investing, Koch-style, in local politics? Why are they not funding candidates who will advocate for stronger school systems, better transportation, school lunches, etc?
This has nothing to do with kids. This has everything to do with extracting as much money as possible from the most anxious, which is incidentally the rapidly vanishing elbow of middle class in the ever-steepening power law curve of wealth distribution in the US.
Thanks for pointing this out. I, too have the impression that most of the commenters here are completely oblivious to the effects of their choices on society at large. The fact that I have been accused multiple times of not having children is evidence of an appeal to emotion: "You can only understand this if you think about your own family".
The accusation of not having children is the polite one, assuming no malice. The worse ones are that you would exempt your own children (the rest of us get to sacrifice ours), or that you wouldn't exempt your children (due to not caring about them).
I think public school system provides a good return for dollars spent. It has the scale that is difficult to match with other schooling methods. This is my experience from shuffling between private preschools. I think other schooling methods are appropriate if your circumstance forces you (e.g. bad public school system.)
You can always opt out of the crazy things that happen at public schools. After school, you can homeschool your kids. This way you can get the positives of both systems.
Education is complicated. We need to avoid comparing and optimization. It's idiotic to make a personal stance in education.
You can always opt out of the crazy things that happen at public schools. After school, you can homeschool your kids. This way you can get the positives of both systems.
Education is complicated. We need to avoid comparing and optimization. It's idiotic to make a personal stance in education.
If you really look at the data, student outcomes essentially boil down to parents and the students themselves. We've see this with how standardized testing has gone over so poorly. The truth is that, outside of gaming the test system with essentially test prep style cramming, schools really have not been able to make any real meaningful changes to student outcomes.
Absolutely, schools can move the needle a bit in either direction, but outside of edge cases, I feel as though it may be a challenge to show the kind of outcome data that makes any EdTech product a must have in US education.