Ask HN: If you’ve considered homeschooling, what’s stopping you?
Hi all, I’m a teacher and startup founder building a platform to support families homeschooling. I’m curious to know for those of you who have considered this approach, but not taken the leap yet, what’s stopping you and what kind of tools would make it a no-brainer/easier for you to adopt.
423 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 316 ms ] threadEdit: I have 3 kids, and they all learn in quite different ways. I can't really give one presentation to all 3 on something. The pandemic gave me a little glimpse into what home schooling would be like.
E.g. is it possible for me and a few other neighborhood families hire a private tutor for our kids?
HSLDA.org has the state legal summaries
https://www.modulo.app/all-resources/learningpod
Of course, the public schools here have to take your child if you drop them off.
My wife is well-socialized, extremely well-educated, and way better off than her peers, so it worked.
She's still kinda involved with homeschooling. From various comments on what that is like these days (post-1990's), there are a huge number of resources already on the web to support homeschooling.
my wife and I (with combined degrees in literature, molecular biology and computer science) would have seriously considered homeschooling. But we live in Germany, and it is absolutely illegal here.
e.g. a monoculture is easier to abuse by corrupt leaders. Increased diversity of thought may have prevented Germany from systematically becoming entirely reliant on Russia.
So we moved from Europe to Idaho, where it's supported. (I'm American.) She's been doing a hybrid model of two classes a day at the local school and the rest on her own, and it's been incredibly successful. She's going into her senior year now and is looking at top universities like Harvard, Oxford and Yale. We couldn't be happier with the experience.
Why is it illegal?
Take that, and think about it, before you start. If you have unexamined issues like anger problems, fixations, avoidances, fears - those will have an impact on your child, and a bigger impact if you homeschool your child - purely on the basis of much more time spent together.
If you’re going to do it, i would strongly encourage you to start therapy asap. Because the more of those things you crack open and deal with, the less your child will have to deal with the consequences of them.
The school system has a ton of problems. So does home schooling. There is no magic bullet. Just choices.
Edit: this[0] is not the study but shows something similar
> Adopted children resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in middle childhood or adolescence In contrast, during childhood and adolescence, adopted children become more like their biological parents, and to the same degree as children and parents in control families
[0] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.199...
Twin studies show that nurture has little impact on personality or IQ, excepting things like serious abuse.
But, they do show huge correlation between parental income and child income.
So it seems nurture can affect life outcomes a lot but not much intrinsic to who you are.
I don't know anything about personality, but I do know that for IQ this is an awfully contentious topic, for a multitude of reasons. Whether that's ignoring maternal effects, the implicit assumption of independence between genetics and environment in twins reared apart, or just plain old questioning of how to interpret heritability as a statistic, it's REALLY unclear what to think. You will find serious academics in field with vastly different beliefs.
I spent an inappropriately large amount of time researching this recently, and my conclusion is that it's a lot harder to measure than people think, and that the commonly cited numbers of 0.7-0.8 for heritability should be viewed with a significant deal of skepticism. It might be right, but it's a number that I have very low confidence in. I would also say that even if those numbers are correct, that does imply a very substantial effect due to environment.
What I will say is that you have to more or less ignore the Wikipedia article on the subject. It's too political a topic for Wikipedia to perform well.
At this point, about all I'd say based on the science is that it clearly isn't 0% or 100% of either, but the data to make any grand pronouncements based on science beyond that in any direction just isn't solid enough. I'd be comfortable saying "it's more complicated" but I'm not convinced enough of any particular summary of the "more complicated" to bank on it.
Along with respite, school gave me access to countless alternatives perspectives, influences, and people that would become part of my coping strategies.
I’m absolutely certain that home schooling is great for certain parents and certain children, but some kids are better off not being around their parents quite so much.
As far as I know we’re stuck in anecdote and personal opinion territory, until we have a better way of quantifying the kind of low-level trauma of a non-abusive-but-still-damaging childhood.
See e.g. this study: https://elifesciences.org/articles/39725 (and that's for height, which is vastly lower-dimensional than emotional health or IQ)
Or an easier to read article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turmoil-over-predicting-t...
Can also see this thread: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1163435285193076737 and this tweet: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1476173796323246082. Nature-über-alles studies rely on relatively basic misunderstandings of the required math.
Of course if you want to read studies by biologists too, there's quite a few addressing the problems with twin studies (especially with high-dimensional outcomes like intelligence and emotional health). But to be clear, the problem with the nature-matters-a-lot studies isn't a biology problem; it's a math problem.
And the wider problem is that the "mostly nature not nurture" idea disincentivizes conscientious, careful parenting (since "it doesn't matter in the long run anyway").
https://www.modulo.app/learning/parent-engagement
With regards to therapy - wholeheartedly agree. We’ve got to put on those oxygen masks before we assist our kids! A parent who practices self-care, is grounded and calm will be a better parent for sure hands down
That’s a pleasing statement that seems true, but ignores the millions of ways that parents can be a bad influence. Over pressuring, taking away agency, just being bad study partners, biasing data as it arrives, etc etc etc.
Everyone wants to believe they will be a good parent. But everyone will fuck it up in some way. One of the *good* things about traditional schooling is exposure to a lot of different influences. Bad and good. The bad teaches you to value the good, the good teaches you all the different ways that you can learn.
I don't want to minimize your point about mental health though. If you're struggling you have to help yourself before you can pour into your children.
If you have the time, getting involved in your child's education is probably a huge win. Fill in some gaps you see, correct some biases. Help them get ahead in areas they are doing well in, help them catch up in areas they are not doing so well in. But just because those things are helpful doesn't mean that replacing their education entirely is going to be an improvement.
To be clear I think this applies to people who aren’t struggling, or don’t believe they are struggling. We all have a lifetime of accumulated damage. I hate the “therapy is for people with problems” idea. It’s not about struggling or not, it’s about repeating unhealthy patterns to a next generation - or the swinging pendulum of overcorrecting our parents mistakes. If you have or are going to have kids, please, do at least 6 sessions with a therapist you like. Worst case it does nothing, best case you save your self and your kids a lot of pain.
edit: Upon further reflection, I disagree with the premise. I'm a product of the decade and environment I grew up in. Alot of my values probably aren't relevant to growing up today, and the types of experiences kids will be exposed to. Some things I just haven't had exposure to. Kids should be a combination of their parents values and have the opportunity to experience life such that they can develop their own values. My values are very different from that of my parents, and I suspect will be different from that of my children.
If you actually believe that your values and world view are correct, then you shouldn't be worried about your child encountering other world views. As long as you teach your child to think for themself, they should ultimately recognize your values are better.
Personally, I want my child to think I'm a terrible person, because I want them to be better than me. Our ancestors made loads of mistakes, and I want my children to recognize mine.
Such as?
So eventually you grow tired of it, you've worked out a bit, and now you beat the kid up. Now... you get suspended/expelled, instead of the bully. That's a zero-tolerance policy.
My wife's cousin was suspended for a few weeks for standing up to her bully. My in-laws and her family decided to reward her and she got two weeks of a fun family vacation. But the school was trying to punish her, and if her parents and grandparents weren't more sensible, perhaps they would have succeeded.
Edit: oh, this poster thinks hitler was an admirable figure. Ok, nevermind, no need to entertain their words anymore: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31722179
Your assertion that it is certainly not aways been here, is wrong. Examples in history are plentiful. From shakepearean actors, to two-spirit people in the americas. Gender is somewhere between 50% and 100% a social construct. We construct it differently in different times, but the desire to construct it both as a binary and as a fluid spectrum are as human as breathing.
Trans people (and gay people, and bi, and asexual..) exist and have always existed - it's only now that modern medicine is capable of and permitted to let them shape their body in the way that matches their identity. It also happens to be during a resurgence in anti-LGBT rhetoric that's part of the MAGA "we had it right in the '50s" dog whistle. Their activism is a natural result.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But I do understand why libtard Americunt would look for an excuse to ban me.
The other reason is I don’t have direct experience of the pathologies of the school system - so if someone is going to speak about them it shouldn’t be me.
Some of the best parenting advice I ever got was, before you try to raise a kid, you need to get your own shit together.
For homeschoolers, it's probably a good idea to check if your child displays secure attachment first (since insecure attachment in the child is generally caused by the parents, and schooling your child at home might just make it worse).
And on a final note: why the hell don't we systematically test all children for attachment styles? They: a) can be detected very early, b) are much easier to correct when caught early, and c) have vast impacts for the child's whole life. You don't need any equipment except a trained psychologist!
See also a link between insecure attachment and addiction: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.0072...
This policy would have incredibly positive repercussions throughout society; in that sense, it would be very cheap.
I also don't buy your notion that neuroses are directly transferable by contact. If anything, your kid will probably be so annoyed by them that they'll be exactly the opposite.
Fortunately if you are homeschooling you can seek out specific teachers to help expand on things and choose those that are excellent. (Many homeschooler start taking community college classes in highschool if there are good options available.)
This is a sampling question.
Consider that you may be looking at a bunch of well-educated parents choosing homeschooling over extra income.
I bet they're not choosing to homeschool kids with whom they have a bad relationship, don't understand, can't motivate...
Increasing the sample could produce much different results.
Admittedly salaries for public school teachers are pretty bad. There's no FAANG school with tricky interview questions and starting salaries double of what other schools are paying. I wish there were. Then you might see those 10x teachers choosing "teacher" as their profession.
I would rather -- and do -- support the public school system in my (medium sized) city.
We could always--always--tell which kids were the homeschooled kids.
I was homeschooled for several years, and have known a variety of other homeschooled people.
For me personally, I was impacted in my ability to socialize with people in my own group, and did not develop any rebellious tendencies until I re-entered public school and realized there were other options.
For some homeschooled people I know, they can't read at above a first grade level.
Others can read/write at a higher than average level, may be average or better at math, and have little capability to interact with others.
Still others are some of the smartest, most well rounded people I know.
Unfortunately, most homeschooled people in my experience sit somewhere between the first and second groups - which then means that gatherings of home-schooled families will also tend that direction.
What we are seeing now is a seismic shift that will result in a much more mainstream population of homeschooled kids. I doubt it will be as easy to tell which kids were homeschooled in a decade.
from https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-01-24/8-t...
There are many other articles about the growth of homeschooling during the pandemic, and the likely causes. As the author of the LA Times article notes, the data is still being gathered so experts' theories have yet to be validated with certainty.
But I've not seen anyone question the notion that the people who have recently started homeschooling are not demographically the same as those who homeschooled pre-pandemic. If you have seen such claims, I would be interested to see them!
With 100% accuracy in which direction? You noticed every homeschooled kid, or every kid you thought was homeschooled was actually homeschooled? Because those have very different implications.
In my experience, the relationship developed with non-family adults at school is a narrow, one-sided relationship, where non-family adults are authority figures, rather than say, mentors, strangers, or even friends. Having this skill is still important but the one-sidedness can warp a kid's perception of what adults "are", so it's important to develop adult relationships outside of the school setting.
Also, your first sentence seems true to me, but I assume home-schoolers aren't always at home -- they can meet with other groups of home-schooled kids, or join groups related to sports, activities, etc. This, of course, largely depends on the parents.
As far as I know, that kind of "society" is not replicated anywhere, with the possible exception of military boot camp.
Real societies have a mixture of people from infancy to old age. Real workplaces have a mixture of people from entry level to retirement age. Even prison has a mixture of ages!
The model of education used in most of the United States was designed in the 19th century with the purpose of cranking out factory workers who would remain on-task until a bell rang -- so even its original purpose is largely obsolete.
Firstly I think that simple exposure is very important. Going to school tends to just force you to interact with a lot of different people. That could probably be replicated in other environments, just with more difficulty.
Second, I think that one of the most important facets of socialization is shared experience. Even if traditional schooling isn't an ideal setting for socialization, it is still what most experience. I think removing a child from that sets them up for a significantly more challenging time when it comes to relating to others.
So yeah I think I agree that school isn't really ideal for socialization, but I'm not sure there is a better option out there at the moment.
A huge number of families opt out of public school because of racism and bullying.
Just like families can design their child’s education, they can design their social experiences.
School is a socially engineered environment with little opportunity for organic play.
In traditional school, kids sit in rows or at tables in same age classrooms (often not very diverse ones since they are segregated by neighborhood in public school or parent ability to pay in private school)and they get 30 minute of highly chaotic recess a day if they’re lucky.
In homeschool , families participate in highly diverse, eclectic group of children of different ages. They engage in playgroups and community gatherings, field trips, classes, collaborative projects and have plenty of time for play.
The idea that homeschooling is less social is a myth - and as the homeschool population grows increasing opportunities for organic social interactions and true community emerge.
Here’s some more that I’ve written on this topic https://manisharoses.medium.com/highly-social-homeschooling-...
Have you considered reaching out to SEA homeschoolers for connecting w families near you ?
https://m.facebook.com/seahomeschoolers
I know a bunch of secular homeschoolers around the world and am happy to help you forge connections if you like :)
I feel the same way about college. I understand the arguments that college is not often worth the excessive cost if you look at it in terms of financial outcomes. But I didn't go to college for financial outcomes. I went because it was going to be (and was) a uniquely amazing adventure that I could never replicate at any other time in my life. I think going to grade school is the same thing.
Nothing can replace acting awkward around your crush in the hall, learning to navigate around the bully, bonding after class with a favorite teacher, enduring the horrors of PE or the excitement of a bomb threat, to name a few nostalgic examples.
And life without a little horror is not much of a life if you ask me.
On a more serious note, I like how you asked the question with "what's stopping you?".
That would probably be a good reason not to homeschool ! Though you could certainly mentor your friends’ kids! I believe we can all take part in educating the next generation whether we are parents or not !
Probably most importantly, I'm fairly confident in the competence in my local public elementary (great teachers and lots of parent volunteers)
I'd would consider co-op, but most groups are too small or unorganized.
Watching my own kids thrive in school with lots of friends and social interaction has reaffirmed my thinking that building social skills is as much a part of schooling as the education itself.
On top of that, the language we speak at home is not the language used by the school, or the rest of the country. There are a million problems that come with this: they would force us to use our language, which they're more comfortable with, they would be learning our broken accents, we're not super familiar with the local language so our ability to teach it would be worse, etc, etc.
A cohort within 12 months in age, typically from the same neighborhood, is not a "broader group of people".
I think you'll find that is not actually the case.
Also, I would argue that the distorted "society" produced by public schools is more harmful than beneficial.
Church? That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to social distortion.
Homeschooled peer groups? There's no way that's a broader population than the school in 99.9% of homeschooling scenarios.
I can’t speak for everywhere or every time, but in the 90s in my city, those groups were diverse in some dimensions (age, economic, political beliefs, homeschooling method, schooling exposure, weird parents) and un-diverse in some dimensions (race, immigrants and 1st generation children of immigrants).
It’s important to note that I don’t think every school would get a checkmark on all of those boxes either. But where it differs the most would probably be numbers. Small schools exist in rural settings, but a peer group of 40 kids only about 5-10 of similar age to you is pretty different from most people’s school experience.
And anyway, schooled kids do all of those things as well. Where's the advantage?
There's a reason I don't consider those activities when talking about school socialization. All of the activities you mentioned are part-time and/or self-selected. School is full-time and you don't get to choose your kids' peers. You can't pull them out easily if you don't like the other kids. Like the rest of the world, kids will need to learn how to deal with it, away from you, all day, every day. They will need to learn how to deal with bullies and spurned crushes and tribal politics and bad teachers and all the rest. And yes, that can be harsh. Yes, some kids will have a difficult time. Most will learn invaluable social skills about how to integrate themselves into society, and they will be practicing those social skills full-time at school.
Spanish class? Get out of here.
Seriously dude, what’s the difference? What do you think “socialization” means? It is about being exposed to others, interacting with them, and learning social norms. Sitting quietly at desks listening to a teacher is objectively less effective than something like swimming lessons, or really anything I mentioned in my list, and that description describes the bulk of time at school.
Everything else you described makes me wonder why you think those things are essential to the human experience. Are you regularly bullied as an adult, because if so I suggest you make some life changes. Bad teachers are different from bad managers - you can’t easily quit and go elsewhere, or complain to HR.
Also, spurned crushes exist well beyond education for many people! Not sure why you suggest education is a key component of this.
> Where’s the advantage?
I am not saying there is an advantage in these elements. I am saying socialization is not a disadvantage to homeschoolers and this is really a myth.
I think we agree on this subject, but as a 3rd party in this back and forth I have to say that this is not appropriate discourse for this site. Please try to interpret others comments as charitably as possible. There is never a justification for saying something snarky and rude like "Get out of here" or "Try reading".
My contribution to civility here was to just stop responding.
Yes, you are not the only one using unkind words.
Still, most of the time, each of us (and therefore all of us as an online community) can do better. You have various options. It is tempting to fall into the attack/counter-attack posture. But instead of counter attacking, you can say something like "That was unkind" and leave it there.
> My contribution to civility here was to just stop responding.
A fair point. Doing so is preferable to adding fuel to the fire. Even better IMO is to reassert the community norms firmly without insulting the other person.
Can't you say the same thing of parochial schools? Given the general success of parochial schools, I would find it difficult to imagine how one would argue against their model.
Out in the real world, as opposed to an artificial environment designed to produce obedient factory workers.
Well, no, not exclusively designed for that -- or any one thing. There are many stakeholders and it is fairly difficult to use the word design. I'd suggest evolved might serve as a better metaphor.
(People cite historic factors connecting school to factory workers. I tend to agree, but probably only because people have told me this; I haven't read primary sources on this. Anyhow, I'll grant it for sake of argument.)
Schools in the USA, as I understand them, attempt (with widely divergent success) to prepare students for a mixture of futures: perhaps college, perhaps trade schools, and perhaps general background for citizenship.
I found that school is an effective way for people to be pigeonholed with labels and expectations that make it more difficult for people to explore and change. Once labelled the class clown, or the athlete, or the brainiac, or whatever, it is very hard to do or try other things so long as you are in a fixed environment. This is why, in my opinion, going to college or university is such a profound life event for people - suddenly new environments and opportunities to explore being something other than your fixed adolescent self.
This may be true, if one is raising a philosopher-king or something. In life I'm thrown into situations where I'm jammed together with people in an "ineffective" manner all the time. If extra-curricular programs are more effective they can deal with both environments. Personally I had some effective, good teachers in school as well as some ineffective team coaches.
Now I'm part of an ex-homeschooler support group where most of us had a similar story. In my own case, the "homeschooling" was a political choice by parents who were deeply paranoid about the US government. They lacked the education to even understand what all we were missing and relied on a popular curriculum program to guide them without any supplemental counseling or outside tutoring.
Academically I'm sure some more educated parents could do better and understand they need to get information from a variety of sources, but socially it would be very difficult to replicate the opportunities that school provides most kids.
The only situation in which I'd consider homeschooling my child is if it was in the daily, sustained company of other families and involved parents. Skill-building aside: seeing other kids at the playground once a week doesn't even begin to take the edge off the loneliness.
I love my parents, they tried their best, but there are very few scenarios in which I would encourage someone to homeschool their kids, if for no other reason than most parents aren’t trained teachers who actually know how to educate properly.
I moved towns and my main issues were 1. Lack of a like minded community who were willing to invest time and energy like I was. It's a demanding journey and not one that's easy (or even possible) to do alone. 2. Lack of insight into what the future holds esp. from the POV of higher studies. I can experiment with my own life but was scared of doing it with my kids'.
She is back in school now because it’s a great school, but if we didn’t have options we would definitely teach at home, there has never been more tools available to make it easy.
Truth is the U.S. economy is entirely built around the assumption that both parents are working full time now so there is less time to be at home to help kids learn, so we send them off to giant prison-looking buildings and hope for the best.
Kids need time and attention and space. Teaching is not compatible with holding down a full-time job, because it is a full-time job. Teaching one or two or three kids is not significantly less work than teaching 20.
Here’s some more I wrote on the topic of homeschooling on a budget https://www.modulo.app/all-resources/budget
I think homeschooling is often cruel to children. However I think tools to help make it better for those who will choose it anyway are a good thing. Best of luck to you.
We do have relatives that have successfully homeschooled and I have seen groups that do their homeschooling together (homeschooling isn't necessarily about sitting at home by yourselves). So it's resources/support targeted to delivering a well-rounded homeschooled education, it's finding sufficiently like-minded others with whom to share the effort in a small group setting. With sufficient resources I could likely solve the time problem.
Absent that, we're looking at private schools for our kid. We'd probably just do this, but it's not a cheap alternative.
Over the past three years, I’ve poured over thousands of resources in 50 different subjects to help families learn at home with kids. From these, I selected the best resources that were secular, accurate and mastery-based. I’ve also conducted dozens of intake interviews with parents helping them choose the best digital app, workbook, or nature-based curriculum for learning at home, that their child would love and fit their family’s needs. With our curriculum planner, you can answer a few questions about your child’s interests and your preferences around screen time, budget, etc and it will recommend core curriculum, math and literacy tools to support your child’s education
I’ve been iterating on it and find most people find it to be a helpful starting place
https://modulolearning.typeform.com/to/VBJmkLTu
What I mean by this is simply wearing two hats in the household is a tricky business and can be overwhelming especially when our young students have younger siblings that must be cared for. I have enormous respect for my wife but handling these responsibilities is no easy feat!
Of course my kids are very young. I have other concerns beyond elementary, mostly around an increasing need for expertise in sciences/math and properly rigorous testing ensuring mastery over subjects without access to a realistic grade curve.
My personal experience was very good but a bit unrealistic - I was taught to read by my mom who has taught kindergarten for decades. Not everyone has a professional educator as their homeschool teacher!
While I'm sure you mom had a lot of experience she brought to the table, it isn't uncommon to have kids reading at 3 or 4 taught by parents who didn't have a background in education and simply did some research to find the best way to do it. True it might be harder than it was for your mom, but it isn't like a parent has to just guess. There are plenty of people like your mom making information available about what seems to work and what doesn't so you can find the best thing for your kids.
I thought about what you said quite a bit and wrote a blog about why I feel that parents are the best teachers for their child.
We are teaching our kids many "non-academic" skills all the time but don't see that as stepping into a specific role. I don't think that this needs to be the case either in homeschooling.
I've also included some resources which I think will address your concerns about expertise in certain speciality areas like math/science.
I didn't directly address assessment here, but there are some great ones you can use such as mobymax, cogat and others - as well as mastery-based digital learning apps that have built in assessment.
Here is the blog: https://www.modulo.app/all-resources/parentsarethebestteache...
In my experience, homeschooling can create well-rounded, upright people at a ratio above traditional schooling. It insulates kids from many of the extreme elements and moores of society. Homeschooling is an excellent tool to pass on values from one generation to the next.
Lack of socialization is indeed a problem. Homeschooling parents need to make a big effort to get their kids in homeschooling groups and co-ops, youth sports, etc.
I have three kids myself now, but we send our them to private school rather than homeschool. What stops us from homeschooling is, my wife didn't feel like she had the skills to homeschool. She's not a teacher and feels she doesn't have the patience for it.
Sorry, you talk about your own positive experience with homeschooling (which is great!), but that’s clearly not an experience that would give insight into predicting aggregate outcomes more generally.
What experience are you referring to here? Did you end pursuing a career studying it or something?
Those do not sound positive at all. It sounds like you were successfully sheltered from secular and liberal ideas by traditional and conservative parents, which matches with my preconceptions of homeschooling.
On the other hand, many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand.
Studying many different philosophies leads some to conclude relativism is correct. But I disagree, as do many philosophers and ethicists. Why? There is a simple answer that captures the essence of it: start by letting in all ways of life and worldviews into a pluralistic society. Treat this as an experiment and see which philosophies do not respect the others. It is abundantly clear that some ways of life are incompatible with pluralism -- e.g. some are authoritarian, some are unnecessarily violent, some restrict freedom of thought, etc.
P.S. Homeschooling has a demonstrated connection to religious conservatives.
Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling.
No.
This seems like an attempt at a wise phrase unfortunately mechanistically generated from some recursion and word substitution.
Please try to support the claim if you actually believe it.
Research classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics, almost any field of study; they are not dogmatic in the same way that religion is.
You should read about the history of the homeschooling movement especially in the American south such as Georgia. It has been a sustained effort by conservatives to opt out of the educational system.
Perhaps you have some interesting angle on how state education is somehow parallel? But I highly doubt it. I see a computer scientist's mind at work trying to find a pattern -- a meta pattern perhaps -- to claim understanding. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that the claim has been examined up close. I don't see awareness of historical or educational context.
Tell me if I'm wrong. I see it very often here: Overconfidence without a grounded understanding.
Consider a simpler and rational explanation (for the USA at least): State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society. An effective education in democracy does not shelter people from the idea of religion but instead puts it in a context so that we can live together even though we may not have the same fundamental beliefs.
For modern western nations, that does means encouraging kids to think in terms of specific liberal, secular humanist values like universal human rights, pluralist nation-states, global interdependency, democratic government, capitalist economics, etc — and there are many communities throughout the world and throughout the US who have not actually bought into those values and instead value other, sometimes incompatible things.
There is a real and legitimate tension between state education vs homeschooling (regardless of the particular politics/culture at home).
I personally think too much such value fragmentation will damn us all and that a common education is necessary to keep a relatively peaceful order in what’s a constitutionally and inescapably diverse nation, but I get the complaint and worry that these other commenters are airing.
I don't know you mean by they, but I agree that a role of education is a kind of induction.
Thank you for your comment. I would like to see more people building bridges of understanding.
> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics
when our conversation was about
> Liberalism and pluralism
(your words)?
> State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society
This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US.
Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents).
> I don't see awareness of historical or educational context.
This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why.
I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.
>> classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics
> when our conversation was about
>> Liberalism and pluralism > (your words)?
I'm going to make a few points in different threads to ease replies.
First, let's step back. We are different people having a conversation. I often see people claiming the other person is off topic. Such a claim assumes that one person gets to define what on topic is. One person is not granted that power here. Not you, not me.
I have hope that better discussion is possible with a better tone. I'll do what I can to help.
I'm not trying to police the topic of your commentary; I'm just not letting you swap out "liberalism and pluralism" with "classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics". I don't know if you did this intentionally or subconsciously, but this is an extremely common (and dishonest) rhetorical strategy used by your religion. Don't expect me to let it slide.
Thanks for sharing that. I can relate, but I do it in a more targeted fashion. As I get to know someone better, I adjust my communication style. This is an ongoing process. For example, I can increase my "bluntness factor" or rely on shared understandings to skip over lengthy explanations.
Paying attention to tone and emotions in communication is tremendously important. Relatively intelligent people still have emotions, and they still underly what is being said, particularly around topics close to home like religion and philosophy.
Also, paying attention to tone doesn't have to degrade the quality of information conveyed. It might require a few more words -- or a bit more clarity, such as being careful who you are addressing. (See your other comments, where your intended recipient wasn't clear.) It does require more energy and skill to pay attention to emotion and content. I happen to think it is worth it.
> This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US.
I'd be interested to hear about your model. Please tell me what kind of model you mean.
Are you familiar with the phrase: "All models are wrong, but some are useful?" In what ways is your model useful? In what ways is my model useful?
Are you irritated? What are some ways to make this a kinder discussion? I'm sorry if I insulted you somehow.
And no, I'm not irritated - I don't think there's an efficient way to have a worthwhile discussion about someone's religious beliefs over the internet without coming across as slightly hostile. Apologies.
Thanks.
Yes, it is hard without knowing much about the cultures and communication style of the other people. But I think there are some simple things that help: write, then wait a few minutes before posting. Re-read and edit if you think the tone can be fixed. Etc.
Don't worry, I'm not insulted.
In any case, your assessment of me -- which you talk about as if it is binary (i.e. pass/fail) -- is way off the mark.
Let me suggest a productive direction. How about you tell me in more detail what this kind of indoctrination means to you. If you make a list of sub-points (perhaps questions) that roll up into some kind of indoctrination score, I'll take a look.
We have not using the word religion in the same way. But I know what you mean.
I can appreciate a similarity, of course. But a person can hold a belief / value a worldview (e.g. representative democracy) without believing in a supernatural power.
Conflating similar words is often an intentional rhetorical strategy. Perhaps you are trying it because you hope to conflate political philosophy with religion? But to do so glosses over key differences between them ... e.g Which are descriptive? Which are normative? What is the nature of truth? How does one seek, find, and assess truth?
Are you trying to insult me?
If not, I'd suggest leaving out "although I don't expect you to be able to notice why."
Yes, ignorant people do sometimes accuse others of ignorance.
Consider this: If I tell someone their shoe is untied, even though my shoe was untied sometime last week, does that make me a hypocrite? No.
It is also true that people can be ignorant about different things. Minh might tell Alex he is ignorant about some topic. Alex might tell Minh she is ignorant about some other topic. No problem there. Neither is being hypocritical.
P.S. Telling someone else they are ignorant tends to not go well, but if it is done carefully and kindly, it doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Isn’t that what you just did?
> Isn’t that what you just did?
The key is understanding what I mean by "deny".
First, I'll define liberalism and pluralism as I'm using them (from Wikipedia):
> Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles.
> Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy.
I'm going to abbreviate liberalism as L and pluralism as P from here on.
With this said, you can see that both L and P recognize diversity and individual freedoms to a large degree. But this is not an unfettered, unbounded, nor uncritical viewpoint. Some worldviews cannot coexist together. For example, a philosophy claiming that one group is superior and therefore may inflict suffering on others is not showing respect for the ideas of P or L.
So, it is clear that neither P nor L are compatible with authoritarian philosophies.
If you want to say "P and L deny authoritarian philosophies" I suppose that is fair enough. But I don't think deny captures what is going on very well. P and L go to great length to allow many worldviews -- hopefully to celebrate them if possible and at least tolerate them to whatever extent possible. This is quite different than dogmatic religions, many of whom claim to have absolute truth.
If you want to see a more detailed articulation of why one can accept pluralism and liberalism without resorting to moral relativism, read "Through the Moral Maze" by Robert Kane. I'd expect there are other philosophers that hold similar views. His lecture series "The Quest for Meaning" is quite good -- roughly at the level of an introductory philosophy class at the US undergraduate level, more or less.
The world is so interesting and nuanced! It would be tragic to expect one word answers to deep questions.
You call my writing obscurantism ("the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known: I've been accused of obscurantism and willful misdirection.") which implies that it was willful.
This is in incorrect assumption on your part. I was elaborating in the hopes that you would understand. If you re-read the comments, it is clear that I pushed back against the desire for a simplistic answer, since I think doing so is limiting and foolish. My elaboration provides context to help you understand.
Put another way, what you call obscurantism is better thought of as elaboration. You didn't understand, and then you lashed out. That was an egotistical, unkind thing to do. It is hard to admit you don't understand. It is easy to blame someone else for not explaining it well.
Also, using a term like obscurantism makes it plain that you are making assumptions about people's intentions. Another approach would be to simply ask and/or operate on good faith, which generally meshes with the HN guidelines. Being judgy won't do much to encourage people to take the time to discuss with you.
A useful approach here is to be patient and recognize that communication is a sense-making process.
Based on your other comments, I'm inclined to think you probably are aware of Theory of Mind, at least intellectually. The upshot is this: it is very hard to communicate effectively when you don't know what other people know. Acting in ways that do not build goodwill tend to make it even harder.
So that leaves a key question: why would you make it harder on yourself? Because of the human condition. Call it pride, ego, status-seeking, venting, whatever. But it doesn't really help much in the long term.
I'll try to summarize in the hopes that it will be clear this time. If you are willing to let go of the desire for simplistic questions and simplistic answers, then I hope you will be able to understand. (You don't have to agree to understand.)
Liberalism and pluralisms don't categorically deny the truth of other viewpoints. But they are incompatible with some other viewpoints.
Ah, yes, classic self defense when one feels threatened. Interesting that you use wordplay to criticize wordplay. I've done it too. Everyone has. But it isn't really getting us anywhere. It is a good way to protect one's ego though.
I'm sorry you don't understand it. I'm sorry if you perceived my quip as an insult. I was trying to make the point that if you ask overly simplistic questions and demand overly simplistic answers you aren't going to learn very much. If you take that personally then I'm sorry. My intent is for more people here to broaden their perspective. I see very strong signals have people been anchored in computer science but not philosophy or ethics or history. I see common tendencies for people to dig in. It is easier to defend oneself than to learn.
My nickname is an amalgamation of my two favorite thinkers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nagasena. They are from different time periods (20th century AD and 1st century BC) and philosophical traditions (Western philosophy and Buddhism). Both have very interesting philosophies especially in regards to linguistics. If you think that analyzing language won't get us anywhere, I highly suggest to read both of them.
> If you think that analyzing language won't get us anywhere, I highly suggest to read both of them.
I agree that analyzing language is useful.
> In 1912 Wittgenstein joined the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, an influential discussion group for philosophy dons and students, delivering his first paper there on 29 November that year, a four-minute talk defining philosophy as "all those primitive propositions which are assumed as true without proof by the various sciences." He dominated the society and for a time would stop attending in the early 1930s after complaints that he gave no one else a chance to speak. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Cambridge_...
> ... The club became infamous within popular philosophy because of a meeting on 25 October 1946 at Richard Braithwaite's rooms in King's College, Cambridge, where Karl Popper, another Viennese philosopher, had been invited as the guest speaker. Popper's paper was "Are there philosophical problems?", in which he struck up a position against Wittgenstein's, contending that problems in philosophy are real, not just linguistic puzzles as Wittgenstein argued. Accounts vary as to what happened next, but Wittgenstein apparently started waving a hot poker, demanding that Popper give him an example of a moral rule. Popper offered one – "Not to threaten visiting speakers with pokers" – at which point Russell told Wittgenstein he had misunderstood and Wittgenstein left. Popper maintained that Wittgenstein "stormed out", but it had become accepted practice for him to leave early (because of his aforementioned ability to dominate discussion). It was the only time the philosophers, three of the most eminent in the world, were ever in the same room together.
Look I'm being direct with you, but I'm not upset or attacking you. I'm just seeing the standard patterns of online discussion, and I'm pushing back. We can do better.
There's too much passive aggression wrapped in seemingly logical arguments. But one level deeper it is really clear what is bothering people. I think people don't feel heard. They want to convince people but somehow fall back into sharp criticism which just repels people.
The context is right there in the comment:
> It sounds like you were successfully sheltered from secular and liberal ideas by traditional and conservative parents
It is better to read the whole comment in context and reply charitably. See HN guidelines.
There's nothing charitable about it at all.
Yes, that is what I was implying. Now I will state it more explicitly: those values are each at odds with either secularism or liberalism.
> unquantified assumptions about how the person was raised
I'm not entirely sure what an unquantified assumption is, but I clearly qualified that I was making a guess about the person. Making and confirming guesses about others based on what you know about them so far is normal behavior. I am by no means certain about the accuracy of my guess, but presented it as a starting point for further discussion.
If philosophies claiming absolute truth are imposed on a pluralist society there will be conflict. In this sense, I agree they are incompatible in some cases.
However, they are not necessarily incompatible. There are religious leaders who recommend that followers live by a religious philosophy without imposing it via strict laws.
A philosopher named Robert Kane describes his views which distinguish between public morality and private morality. Pluralism as a public morality is compatible to a very large extent with most private moralities. You only get incompatibilities when the private morality tramples on the rights of other private moralities. This is a useful distinction.
But I also acknowledge that not all humans are like me and that not everyone has a liberal mindset. They did a study once and when conservatives were asked to think like liberals they were able to do so quite effectively. Unfortunately, liberals were not able to think like conservatives at all. This makes me cautious before recommending liberalism and secularism to all.
May I recommend Haidt's The Righteous Mind? It snapped me out of my "only liberalism/secularism is right" mindset.
Can you spell out your logic?
When I think about the relative merits of forms of government, I consider a large range of factors: human nature, philosophy, morality, ethics, technology, and more.
If your utility function is "optimize for the life outcomes of my children", experimental evidence suggests this is a good thing. If your utility function is "optimize for outcomes that are in accord with my state-secular religious beliefs at the expense of my child's life outcomes", it's not.
Personally I can say that I've learned a much greater depth about religion and spirituality outside of formal religious contacts.
Perhaps something about the organizational setup of religious-based and funded programs is counterproductive for skeptical minds who might otherwise be curious.
But also it seems to be assumed contradictorily to imply each secular and not?
You do not understand why it was mentioned. Then you claim you do. Then you write words that many would consider insulting. You can do better. Try.
Saying that someone brought something up "for no particular reason" is not respectful. Just because you don't understand the reason is not a valid justification for being dismissive.
I'm flabbergasted by your words. I don't know your life circumstances, your age, where you live, what you've been through, etc. I do wonder if you are having a particularly bad day or week or month.
I don't mean this as an insult: if you need support, please seek it out.
Perhaps (like many) you lack some important communication skills or emotional awareness. These can be learned.
> We were talking about liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are not universally religious and liberals are not universally irreligious. What is more disrespectful is attempting to change the subject to take the discussion in a direction that, if it were headed there to begin with, I would not have engaged.
1. I've said this before -- not sure if I did on this thread -- so I'll say it again: you seem to think that you get to define what is on topic and isn't. No, you don't. People are free to discuss as they see fit.
2. Logic isn't the whole story. Your words are coming across as self-important. That will not serve you well. It repels people, including me. I'm only writing in the hopes that this will get through to you or someone else that reads it. There are too many people here lacking fundamental discussion skills.
3. Invite feedback and learn. Ask 10 wise people to read your sentence. Do not pre-bias them. Ask for their unvarnished feedback. Discuss and actively listen without defending yourself.
4. What you wrote looks like a justification to make you feel better about yourself. Almost everyone does it. Some people become aware of it. Some people learn to do better.
Speaking for myself, when I say 'liberalism' I usually mean (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)
"""Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy."""
But again, religion is not conservatism, whether political or even social (Stoicism is a 'conservative' philosophy, despite not being religious and perhaps even anti-religious).
It wasn't until I was older that I began studying these topics in any great detail.
> Personally I can say that I've learned a much greater depth about religion and spirituality outside of formal religious contacts.
That's not really germaine. Did you learn it in a public school? Because if not, I think my point stands.
> That's not really germaine. Did you learn it in a public school? Because if not, I think my point stands.
I took classes in history, philosophy, and ethics at a public university (one with considerable public funding). My public high school, on the other hand, had very limited capabilities or structure for teaching liberal arts well.
American public schools are a religious-based and funded program; you just don't notice it because you don't even know what your own religion is.
Please explain. To whom are you referring with "your"? Me, whom you don't know? Someone in general?
I don't need to know you at a personal level to know what your religion is; it's clear from your comments.
Have you read enough of my writing to characterize my worldview with any degree of accuracy or precision? I doubt it.
But you are not alone -- large chunks of people use confirmation bias to judge people based on a small number of cherry-picked words.
Secularism is good for politics, because religions are a dime a dozen and any choice of which one should be the dominant is irrational and arbitrary. It was never meant to be a catch all "No religion plz" rule. Liberalism, unless you define it as anything other than the good old "Live And Let Live" of Mill and Locke, is not in obvious contradiction with any of the traditional values GP states.
-------
Most importantly, Tradition is about Family. Family is important. This is the single biggest understatement I made in a long long time. The cheapness of the Fast-and-Furious style "muh family" sentiments hides the radicalism of this shattering realization : the only force in this entire universe that is invested in your success without any direct expectation of something in return is your family.
I'm a techno-primitivist, I believe political units should be extremely small, extremely numerous, with an emphasis on blood ties as the ultimate guarantee of group cohesion and loyalty. I have a burning hatred for and deep distrust of any political unit with more than 1000 persons. There is no way to make a social organization of >1000 persons consistently fair, the rules are always arbitrary and ad hoc, a few assholes always play the meta-game and find ways around them, and somebody is always oppressed and bullied and consistently given the shorter end without a way to be heard.
Family is different, affinity for genetic similarity is deeply hardwired into your lowest level circuits, very few assholes can find their way around the rules evolution built. Every single social organization is a prisoner's dilemma come alive, why cooperate with that stranger you're never going to see again? The answers are always arbitrary and subject to abuse and evasion : Because God, Because Emperor, Because CEO, Because General. Family is the only social unit where the rules stem from your very being : Because Evolution, the very factory that built you, that encoded your love and respect for your own flesh and blood as deep inside as it encoded your liver and kidneys.
In another, and better, universe, we never built nations or states or parliaments or public school systems, every family is an autonomous unit under the leadership of its bread winner, and federations of families handle cross-cutting concerns in a way that leaves as much power to the families as possible.
Placing inherent value in tradition impedes progress. All tradition should be examined critically. Traditions that continue to provide value should be kept, harmless traditions are unimportant, and harmful traditions should be stopped.
Valuing morality means something completely different to everyone, and as such is close to a meaningless statement. Morality is a web of biologically-borne and cultural-imparted values. By definition each person values their personal morality. That said, usually when people in the US publicly declare the importance of morality, it's code for Christian (usually Protestant) teachings, which are themselves a mixed bag of commonly-held values like community and giving and some heinous views on various marginalized groups, depending on who you ask.
As you may be able to guess, I do not value spirituality. I view any time spent seriously contemplating the supernatural past early developmental years as indicative of a loose grasp on reality.
Honor is something that people earn through their actions. If parents act honorably then they should be treated as such. If they fail to earn their child's respect then they are not entitled to it. The fact that they spawned a child is worthy of little to no honor. The manner in which they provide for and nurture the child may be deserving of honor, or it may not be. I do not view respect of one's parents as inherently good, and blind respect or honor of anyone or anything is certainly bad.
The common thread here is that these values all indicate to me an abdication of critical thought. Blind trust in tradition, an assumption of universal morality, belief in the supernatural, and unquestioning adherence to authority figures. Am I certain that these describe OP? No, but it's definitely what this collection of values sounds like to me in the context of his post.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's true there is some sheltering with homeschooling. But it's not airtight or longlasting. Homeschooled kids, especially teens, will get exposed to outside influences.
I'm nearly 40 years old now, and I can look back confidently and say that homeschooling helped create the environment in which I could critically evaluate ideas, including secular and liberal ones.
Since you were homeschooled yourself, wouldn't you have been the better parent for the job anyway?
When my wife and I had kids, she wanted to quit her job as a nurse and be a stay-at-home mom. We agreed this was a good solution, even though she's not cut out to homeschool them.
I mean, it could be the classic layman "oh, I could do that!" stance, and since everybody has been to school themselves they have a vague idea what the job of a teacher is like (which, of course, is in all likelihood a fallacy). That, paired with a certain cynicism about the job of a teacher in the first place (here, they've got super-safe jobs, almost no accountability, a strong lobby, lots of days off, and are mostly done work after half a day if they're so inclined) and less than stellar results of our educational system when compared internationally, gives us a certain "we couldn't do it much worse" feeling. As a matter of fact, as a homeschooler, you've only got your own kids to focus on, not a whole class of 30 children with a wide spectrum of different prerequisites.
But then again, maybe we couldn't do it very well at all. It's such a long-term commitment, one that requires consistency over years. And the relation between children and parent is different from a student-teacher relationship, there wouldn't be such a sharp distinction between what happens inside the school and the home.
Topics like bullying and other negative forms of social pressure are omnipresent in school settings, but withdrawing our children completely from such realities might turn out to be less good of a preparation for their later lives.
And lastly, without a doubt school teachings are colored by certain political world views, and they might not always be ones you agree with. But when you send your kids to school, you give up control over what they are actually taught. Of course, it is recommended to keep a close eye on that at any point in time, and also challenge contents where you think things are going wrong. But I also think it will become increasingly difficult to do this as your kids get rooted deeper and deeper in the school system, where the political and worlds views of the teachers will play as much of a role as those of the political parties that are in charge of your country's educational system.
So, whether or not to homeschool is a really tricky question - but as I said above, it does not even present itself in our case, because we have no right to homeschool where we currently live.
https://www.modulo.app/all-resources/parentsarethebestteache...
A lot of the after school/summer school in person offerings are pretty expensive and usually pretty sports centric.
Full home schooling I feel could easily burn out even the most hard working parent - as there's little time for getting groceries, etc. done. And lack of socialization in the childs cohort is an issue.
I think more online tools for prepping for science fairs and other academic competitions would be great.
More tools like Khan academy would be great - I'd love it if there were resources that were able to introduce real biology, chemistry, physics prior to high school.
Actually I think about homeschooling more as a movement and ideology of greater involvement in education than a replacement to school. In fact, I call it “modular learning” where families can choose a variety of modules to compose their child’s education including school !
The burnout factor is real but I think that when you give yourself freedom to optimize on academics , social and childcare, you might find it’s lesss of a burnout than the grind of early morning wake-up’s, after school pickups , homework and pta meetings.
I’ve written a lot about curriculum tools to support learning at home.
With regards to physics and chemistry, it depends on your kid’s ages … some of my favorites off the top of my head are mystery science, blossom and roots science curriculum, quantum camp , mel science, Steve Spangler science
The average after school math tutor probably nets $90-$120 per hour, where the average school teacher probably nets $50 per hour.
And this is true doubly so for kids.
It'd be interesting to what extent the fees that normally would be spend on tutoring expenses could be spent on prizes or some other reward - without cheapening the experience (i.e. taking away their intrinsic love for learning by making it transactional and based on extrinsic rewards, etc.).
Motivating your children to do things that are good for them in the long run (brushing their teeth, not hitting other people, etc.) is very much in the wheel house of parenting.
It would also be great to have some knowledge base-style articles about how to navigate the bureaucracy, how to get whatever funding is available, etc. I know this varies by jurisdiction, but presumably this could be crowdsourced and validated for many areas.
I also think our 3 kids would struggle with the lack of separation between Teacher and Parent. Similar to how some adults struggle with working at home and separating work and home life appropriately. I know several folks who do it well and love the freedom and flexibility. But I feel it would take a lot of effort to really stay on top of it and not let things slide when it gets tough.
Not going to lie, the "babysitting" aspect of school is very nice too.