Don't know why this is downvoted, seems like a reasonable question. I don't know much about SF or public schools in the US. Are they all bad? do we have data comparing public/private schools in these areas?
Public and private schools don't take the same tests, so we don't have good days to compare the schools. Even if we did, it would be hard to disentangle the impact of selection bias.
You could look at college acceptances or similar, but those aren't unbiased either, as colleges look at estimates of class rank, not just absolute performance.
I read thst San Francisco decided not to offer Algebra until high school so no one would feel left behind. One of those dystopian decisions that emerged from a well intentioned DEI initiative. A decision that defies logic and surprise didn't help. That would be enough of a red flag for me. https://priceonomics.com/why-did-san-francisco-schools-stop-...
my son is in pre algebra in 6th grade. I assume that mean algebra next year. I'm glad his fifth grade teacher realized he knew it all early in the year and moved him to sixth grade math early.
I wonder the same thing, I have friends who send their kids there and are happy with it. Not surprisingly for SF, most of the parents are educated with good incomes and expect their kids to go to college. That has its own set of downsides of course, but you could do a lot worse.
You could literally live next to a school and there’s a chance your kids can’t go there.
There are many kids from low income, broken families who are just really bad students. Bullies. Disruptive. Disrespectful to teachers. It was hell going through public schools in SF.
Average people aim to provide a good a start for their kids as possible; average aims to avoid public school if possible. You now only have a set of people defined by behaviour or ability too poor for private, parents who don't care, or ones with no options...
Basically it's opting out of being around the dregs
I'm not sure what your point is. All parents want to send their kids to the best schools. They buy expensive real estate for this reason. There is a very clear, unspoken reason why parents want to avoid poor areas for schools.
SF has a lottery system. This means all kids in the city are mixed. Unfortunately, my experience was absolutely horrible for learning.
If the average student is a bully, disruptive, and disrespectful to teachers then I think I might actually opt out of being around average people if possible.
And what's so bad about it? Mind you, it's not just 'being around', but "being stuck with them for 30% of your life for years in a situation out of your control".
This is one of the main reasons why there are more dogs than children in SF. There are some good public schools but parents don't want to deal with the vagaries of the lottery system so they move out to other school districts.
The headline is somewhat begging the question,
but the author's key observation is on point:
People homeschooling their kids are implicitly,
and sometimes explicitly,
going for "opt out of being around average people".
I found this explanation extremely unsatisfying considering that you could make the same choice and put your child into private education if you're a successful tech person.
I know families that homeschool and I like to read articles like this one to see if anyone "gets it." So far, no hits.
They're opting out of mediocre instruction and government-mandated values enforcement ("DEI" in its public school curricula form); the other kids are irrelevant. The homeschoolers I know are average and have lots of social activities with average peers in their community.
If you look around and see "government-mandated values enforcement ("DEI" in its public school curricula form)",
I already fear for your children,
whether you home school them or not.
Increasing the quantity and quality of good influences on your children is just good parenting.
If I know there's a kid down the street who seems like he will grow up to be a criminal, and another kid who seems like he'll grow up to be a kind, hard-working, well adjusted person, there is a 100% guarantee I will encourage my kids to play with the second kid, not the first.
I am not saying anything about "worth of a person", I don't believe it is even a thing.
All I know that children (and many adults too) do similar thing that their peers do. So if I want to increase the chance that my child will graduate from high school, they should be around people who will graduate from high school. Similarly, if no one in their class will go to college, the chances they will go to college will be smaller.
Note there are exception to the each rule, and I am talking about "chances", not certainties.
I thought this was a really bad article. "Suddenly"?? I've heard many tech parents go full bore into homeschooling for at least about 2 decades now.
Also, for the particular issues she talks about (e.g. social isolation), essentially all of the tech parents I know that are into home schooling put a ton of effort into having a really rich social environment, e.g. either through "group schooling" or lots of outside activities.
Covid and the school shutdowns, did create a real boost in the homeschooling. Exacerbated by the particularly draconian shutdowns and masking in areas where there are a lot of tech workers like the Bay Area.
I think it merely made parents aware of what was already happening.
My nephew texted my brother during his lunch break to ask for more credits for his switch account. My brother asked why play games instead of talking or hanging out with others. My nephew sent back a video of the lunch room: every single student had their eyes glued to a digital device of some sort.
The experience kids have in schools isn't what we as adults went through - a common thing for every generation - but when you can get more interaction and socialization via home school networks and groups of motivated parents, it is hard to argue against it.
Hearing accounts like this where apparently kids bring game consoles to school as a regular thing further makes me support schools having technology lockers.
Does the US really not do that yet? That's crazy. My children have school laptops for work and need to lock their phones up upon arrival until departure. You couldn't bring in a Switch, period. Sometimes they look at YouTube videos or play web games etc at lunch time on the laptop, but AFAICT they've been discouraging that more and more.
I think trying to equate the situation in the 90s with what's going on is a mistake because it glosses over the huge differences and increased harm in today's world.
I also had a Gameboy in the 90s. I played with it quite a bit, but nowhere near the average amount of time spent on screens by kids today. And I don't think there is any school in the US in the 90s where you'd see every kid glued to a digital device at lunch.
I think it's like saying "hey, I smoked weed in the 60s" and comparing that to someone freebasing cocaine today - or heck, even smoking weed today, as today's weed has about 10-100 times the amount of THC as most 60s weed.
I'll let you in on a secret. I did own a GameBoy while in elementary school. I did bring it to school a few times against my parent's wishes. When teachers saw me playing with it, it was confiscated and held at the front office only to be released at the end of the day. After a few times of that happening the confiscation also resulted in a parental phone call.
The same went with cell phones. I had a cell phone in high school. If it was being used during a class or even chirped a single sound it would be confiscated to be released at the end of the day at the front office. They were not to be used during school time.
> My nephew sent back a video of the lunch room: every single student had their eyes glued to a digital device of some sort.
Wow, this just makes me intensely sad. We are ruining a generation of humans with these digital narcotics. Say what you want about being a Chicken Little, or that every generation looks at the next generation's behavior with some amount of trepidation ("MTV will corrupt your mind!"), but this feels pretty different to me. Humans are social creatures, and human children need lots of unstructured social play, and they need to be allowed to get bored, and we're killing all that.
Completely agree, but it's not really like "tech homeschooling is a new thing" vs. the fact that public schools (I'd argue especially in the Bay Area, e.g. see the school board recall) got so bad during the pandemic that parents had huge motivation to find an alternative.
And the fact of the pandemic makes this article even worse in my opinion: "Gee, why would parents with means want to find an alternative when public schools had to go all remote for extended periods and were a shit show in general?"
It's really a blog post and if you read it that way (i.e. a personal story / take on the topic) then it's fine.
I've replaced the title with a somewhat more neutral question from the article. If there's a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article), we can change it again.
There's nothing inherently right-wing about homeschooling. You could just as easily homeschool as left-wing parents who don't want your kids immersed in an environment where other kids judge them by what brands they're wearing, and where the teachers all subscribe to the capitalist view of how society should function.
It's true that homeschooling has been more prevalent among the right wing, but there are lots of people who do it for lots of reasons. We did it when our local elementary school was bottom third in the state. My wife called up the vice principal, and asked why we should put our kids in their school. He said that their school could toughen up our kids. We decided that "tough" wasn't our main goal for our daughters, and we noped out of that school.
Alvin Toffler called it back in the 70s (in Future Shock); in there, he thought educated elites would move towards homeschooling, nothing political on his analysis at least (that may match current trend?)
I went to public school (not in SF) but the only "wokeness" was historically accurate — erm — history classes. We didn't have books banned in the library or English courses either.
The lack of physical safety is a product of policy (or rejection of) by the same people whining about "wokeness".
Learning about systematic racism has been relabeled as Critical Race Theory, and suddenly teaching about the Tulsa Race Massacre or how banks used to discriminate against minorities for lending is considered extremism and "woke". Growing up, learning this stuff in history books, was just normal and made sense in order for us to avoid repeating these mistakes.
Yeah, I took advanced placement history and government. Things were taught clearly, factually and without bias.
Students aren't going to benefit from hiding inconvenient truths about this country's history and founding. We certainly don't need religion forced into classrooms either.
> suddenly teaching about the Tulsa Race Massacre or how banks used to discriminate against minorities for lending is considered extremism and "woke".
No, these things were taught to me in school and I’ve never heard anyone consider historical facts like this to be CRT except people railing against conservatives (ironically demonstrating their own ignorance of what CRT is).
What’s problematic about CRT is its postmodern view that liberalism is inadequate (or worse) at eliminating racism; downplaying objectivity in favor of “lived experience” that can supposedly never be truly understood by white people; rejecting colorblindness out of hand; advocating segregation of minorities in the name of “safe spaces”; regularly and unscientifically trumpeting the existence and scope of unconscious bias; emphasizing intersectionality to the point of essentialism.
The famous Smithsonian “Assumptions of Whiteness” infographic (https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rationa...) is an example of these concepts infesting a mainstream cultural educational entity. There’s room to critique current racial discourse and advocate for changing models, but to state that the scientific method and “objective, rational linear thinking” are white values, implying that whites have a monopoly on science or that minorities are less capable at it, is obviously derived from critical theory, and is (I think unquestionably) horrifically racist. When there is any sign of these viewpoints seeping from higher academia into elementary schools, it’s perfectly natural for parents to become concerned.
"The Stop WOKE Act, also known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and redubbed the Individual Freedom Act, is a Florida state law which prohibited schools and businesses from teaching certain concepts related to race, gender, racism, and privilege. In addition to that, it prohibits Florida educational institutions and businesses from discussing whether race, gender, and systemic racism intersect with various social systems, including legal, healthcare, education, and so forth. Penalties would include disciplinary action, including job termination, and loss of public funding for state schools.[1][2]
After passing both chambers of the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature along party lines, it was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on April 22, 2022, and entered into effect on July 1.[3] Intended by DeSantis to "fight back" against "woke indoctrination" and critical race theory"
You may not have personally been impacted but this is a real occurring to our schools (and workplaces) under the scapegoat of "CRT" and being "Woke". The Stop Woke Act is just one of many examples.
The lack of physical safety is caused by many things, and I doubt you can lay the blame on people complaining about wokeness. There are bullys, drug dealers, gangs, normal hormonal teenagers fighting, interpersonal drama, romance, poverty. All sorts of things influencing the violence.
I was referring to complacency as it relates to guns and the horrific violence inflicted with said guns.
Bullies are everywhere. One runs X. You deal with them.
I never saw any drug dealers or gangs and the rest of what you’re describing sounds like what I’d expect as a normal part of growing up.
One of our many societal shortcomings (or outright failures) is that we treat poverty as a moral failing, not with any sort of kindness, interest in understanding the root cause(s) or meaningful attempts to address the issue.
I don’t think we do this consistently, and to the extent “we” do, it’s because we’ve lost the distinction between the working and striving poor vs the poor that consistently make poor choices no matter how much help you would give them.
> Bullies are everywhere. One runs X. You deal with them.
Elon Musk yells at people, I knew bullies in High school that would put people into the hospital. There is a big difference between being yelled at and getting hit with a baseball bat.
> I never saw any drug dealers or gangs
Congratulations on not growing up in poverty. This is the reality for a large portion of America.
I have no idea how common this, I hadn’t much of this trend among tech weirdos before this article.
The one thought that I imagine is being told you’re “above average” and “destined to do great things” your whole life by your socially-deemed successful parents is just another set of probably unrealistic expectations placed on kids.
I try and homeschool my kid when they are home (from school). I say some of those things, but I also say, when we are fixing a clogged drain by disassembling the plumbing. "You could be a plumber, lots of hard problem solving and you are not afraid to get dirty". You can have high expectations that they live an actualized life w/o projecting your own life-arc desires on them.
If my kid turns out thoughtful, kind and a whole actualized person, then they are successful no matter what.
The problem with homeschooling is that rarely is someone so well rounded that they can supply the full spectrum of education that a child needs. Blackbody vs an RGB source emulating a full spectrum. We all have cognitive blindspots.
> The problem with homeschooling is that rarely is someone so well rounded that they can supply the full spectrum of education that a child needs. Blackbody vs an RGB source emulating a full spectrum. We all have cognitive blindspots.
While this is true, it's not like schools are teaching kids a full spectrum of knowledge either. In particular, a lot of practical skills are often not taught in modern schools - personal finance, cooking, basic home maintenance and construction ("shop class"), etc. How valuable some of this stuff is will depend on the child of course.
I agree with this, but IMO the more correct solution is to look for the gaps in learning from all sources and look to fill those instead of removing a massive chunk of education assuming one can do all of it better.
I think is another example of monotheistic cultures favoring linear narratives, rigid taxonomies and 1 to 1 causal chains. This is the world that we live, that we seek The Reason (singular) that something is the way it is. And if it isn't it the way we want, what ever is closer to the root of the taxonomy needs to get replaced.
> - Impatience with the idea of connecting on a meaningful level with other people: who needs ‘em?
> - An abiding sense of detachment from reality
I'm the same age and have the same things, and I went to traditional school K through university. Idk if that has much to do with how you were schooled, or at least not being home schooled doesn't just magically fix that.
Those are all symptoms of ADHD. I am reluctant to point that out, but I see this a lot. I'd like to respond with a small footnote. Or wait until the comment drops below the fold. Alas, I cannot. :)
Also schizotypy which maybe 5% of people have and gets DXed basically 0% of the time. It's a developmental disability which will make you a target for relentless bullying which will screw you up much more than you need to be screwed up.
You should be reluctant to DX ADHD, everybody seems to have it because it's promoted by an addictive pill industry, it's almost as fashionable as gluten intolerance used to be or autism is these days. #notactuallyautistic
Interesting. I read the wiki article and the mayo clinic page on it. School uniforms are not uniformly a bad idea I think. We as a civilization should really focus on removing bullying as memetic virus. It has knock on effects that are larger than we realize, like most forms of harm.
I think most people seem to have it, because I think most people do to some degree, most things are a spectrum. We simply aren't prepared for the world we have accidentally created for ourselves. I personally don't find the pills addictive. Speaking of which, this quite long video, "Dopamine Expert: <clickbait redacted>" is quite good, esp if you are a fan of neurology and neuropsychology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6xbXOp7wDA
Whether schizotypy is dimensional (you have more or less of it) or taxonic (you have it or you don't) is a primary controversy. One fact is that the 'schizogene' postulated by Meehl which would make it taxonic certainly does not exist or efforts to find it would have born fruit in the genomic age.
The dimensional view is personified by Gordon Claridge who edited a few conference proceedings which may be closer to the truth but fail to tell a compelling story. You might read these and walk away thinking "nothing more to see here folks"
by Mark Lenzenweger tells a compelling story that might be less true. My life made 100% more sense the day it fell into my hands after decades of looking for answers.
I don't really like the DSM definition of STPD; today I could mark up my first psych eval with a highlighter and add a few symptoms I've experience sense and satisfy it, but as a person who reads about psychodiagnosis for fun I read it and missed it numerous times. (Also despite my condition causing me a lot of trouble, I don't feel like I'm really that ill.) If Lenzenweger is right, it could be diagnosed by an eye tracking test.
As for school uniforms I think they have some good points and some bad points. As a kid they might have done me some good but I probably would have been resistant, as I was to many things. And for bullying I'll share
written by USMC officer, journalist, novelist and US Senator Jim Webb which is a compelling but even-handed account of the role of hazing in promoting group cohesion that was recommended to me by one of his classmates from the Naval Academy one day when I was giving blood.
Reading it now, I am reminded of the importance of sleep. The only time I have experience "visual aberrations" is when I have been very sleep deprived. Items in my periphery would rotate, like my mind was attempting to dream. And then there is this description of one of the cases
> single male who works for the U.S. Postal Service, typically during the midnight shift.
People should be very very cautious about working swing shifts or night shifts.
I am not that far in, but it looks to me like STPD is a precursor to full Schizophrenia, and that if caught early could avoid it entirely. This might be what the book says.
Oh the DSM, it seems chock full of ... spicey illinformed kinda right by accident correlation isn't causation kind things. After reading enough of it, I don't even see it anymore. I am sure there is still some phrenology in there.
Hazing as a bonding exercise is barbaric. I have seen scrapbooks of USN sailors that have crossed the Tropic of Cancer and Equator. Yeah, no.
Meehl's hypothesis is that some fraction of schizotypes, maybe 5-10% develop schizophrenia in early adulthood. I'm too old for that now.
It could be that I've compensated because my verbal intelligence is too high to measure. I got 800 verbal/760 math on the SAT and probably gave up 40 points to the line noise in my brain. I struggled to get more than 90% on math quizzes in high school because of that line noise but as my education progressed (physics PhD) I got better at not making mistakes on math. I've maxxed every verbal test and subscale I've taken.
I am worried that I won't be able to compensate so well when I am older; psychotic dementia would be a terrible burden on the people around me. I've seen people who aged well because they had good emotional habits, I can only hope I've got enough time to improve mine.
My proposal: Forrest is just an average person guy, those who know him (but not how he feels about himself) may describe him as “well adjusted”. How Forrest feels is a reasonable response to a culture that rewards and incentivizes maladjustment.
Anecdotally, those around me that are homeschooling are doing it for one of two reasons:
1) Right-wing disgust over woke issues.
2) Fear of school shootings.
That's coming from a non-tech middle/lower-middle class setting. 20-30 years ago, when I was in school, most of the homeschoolers seemed (again anecdotally) to be based on religion or some other idiosyncratic reasoning rather than the reasons I cited above.
The active shooter drills and other security measures that American kids go through in some schools are positively dystopian. Even if the chances of a school shooting are statistically very low, the measures put in place to prevent them are probably not good for kids' psychological well being.
I have some friends who are Christian but left wing (their kids would come over to play and draw pictures about helping poor people.) The dad teaches CS at a small Catholic college, mom stayed home and educated their kids.
The "disgust over woke issues" existed in some form 30 years ago when people were homeschooling but it had not hardened into the constellation it is in now. Back then you could get folks like that to talk articulately about how they disagreed with secular values, introduce a word like "woke" and now people talk past each other, at best, if they talk at all.
Personally I see it as bad theology as much or more so than bad science.
I mean, how do you reconcile the idea that "God is great" (Muslim slogan but how you can not believe that as a theist?) with the idea that the world is just 6000 years old and he sits on the throne and is obsessed with Jewish people as opposed to the scientific picture that the world is at least 13 billion years old, 'his image' is inscribed into the molecular structure of our cells, which implies God is a lot bigger than that.
I live in a good area and have friends who work in a few different schools out here. Kids are throwing chairs at teachers. There are elementary school classrooms where ~1/4 students don't speak English. The reading/math skills are so dismal, any student who learns at home is bored as hell.
Yes, and... In states where property taxes fund schools, there are basically two ways to pay for a good school: a) go to a private school, b) live in a school zone with high real estate values. At various points my wife and I calculated that 8 years at ~25k/yr tuition would work out to about the same as the ~200k house price delta we'd have to pay to move to a better school zone.
And I suppose option #3 is rationing, which is how some schools do it (our daughter is in a gifted academy where admission is limited via lottery.)
I did the same math comparing portland with suburb schools (around portland and seattle) and came to the same conclusion. But one other thought is when the money goes to the mortgage, you get to keep the wealth after (assuming you sell to downsize at some point).
More money in the mortgage principal you theoretically keep when you later downsize housing, but you also will probably spend a good bit more in taxes as well.
Yes, good to do the calculation properly before making the decision if its motivated primarily by finances; sometimes the outcome can be surprising. Ironically speaking specifically about Portland, you'll pay _less_ in taxes moving to e.g. Washington schools in addition to getting better schools. But I think this is likely a special case.
>In states where property taxes fund schools, ... b) live in a school zone with high real estate values
Here's some tangential anecdata.
I'm in Oregon, the county I live in pays for the local schools through property taxes. More than half of the tax goes to the schools if I recall.
Anyway, that's not the fun part. The fun part is one of the schools needs(wants?) a new roof. Sounds reasonable, here are the unreasonable parts: They want to raise funds with additional taxes, because they refuse to budget and earmark money for it. They also said they need(want?) several million dollars to do it. The taxes would also be used by the county to buy school-issued bonds from the school to fund the new roof, rather than directly using the tax dollars.
Unsurprisingly, the county measure to introduce that new tax failed during the election in November with a resounding laugh.
The entire way our schools are operated begs some very hard questions.
Our local schools, like many around the country, spooled up new permanent programs in response to the influx of COVID funding which they always knew to be temporary.
Now that the funding has gone away, they say they have a funding crisis, and will have to cut other things unless they can get the state to "adequately fund" them.
What you’re describing is the completely normal way of funding capital projects… they presumably need to fund the improvements at once (the roofing contractors aren’t going to be paid over the next 15 years) and tax payers won’t want a huge spike in taxes so the district will sell bonds with a ~15 year horizon, taxpayers can have slightly higher taxes for 15 years, and the funds are available for improvements on day one.
You seem to be under the impression that the school district has enough extra funding that they could just put tens of millions of dollars aside and complete the improvements as they come up, but can you imagine the shrieking that would erupt if they had a school board meeting and disclosed a capital improvement fund with millions of dollars in it? People would demand that their taxes be lowered post haste since it’s clear the schools don’t need all the money they’re being given.
Something like a new roof is an expense known literally years in advance. You know when something will be due for repair or replacement due to reaching the end of design and/or useful life. The proper way to handle that kind of expense is to set aside some money every year in the budget toward an earmarked fund until you have enough when time comes to buy a new roof.
So no, I (and clearly most of the voters) heartily rejected the new tax proposal. Fiscal discipline before any more or new taxes.
Also: There is no reasonable, commonly understandable way a new roof costs several million dollars. Forget where the money could come from, the demand itself is questionable. As a taxpayer I want to see the school's entire fiscal records, including data that might not be public, if they want that kind of money for what should be a regular maintenance job.
Lol never worked construction for government gigs? I was once hired on as a laborer for a city government funded arts building. The construction boss had to buy a very expensive and gawdy table from the mayor's kids. The government was paying themselves. It's likely 30% roof and 70% old boys network of hiring select people for favors.
I'm quite aware what the several million buckeroos are actually "needed" for, and I'm all the more vindicated in telling the school and county to get fucking bent.
Unfortunate that kids have to indirectly get caught in the crossfire, but such is life.
So basically you think taxes should have been set higher a long time ago so they would have a yearly surplus that could have been saved up to pay for a new roof?
I don't see why this is preferable to lower taxes that just cover operations and short term maintenance, with separate bond issues to play for things like new roofs which are expensive but only come up ever 20 to 30 years.
There is quite a bit of variability in how long a roof lasts, because it can be greatly affected by weather and climate and accidents. With the "save for it out of a surplus" approach you'd need enough surplus so that you'll be ready if it turns out your current roof needs replacing on the low side of the roof lifetime range.
But then what happens when you reach that and the roof turns out to actually still be fine? Do you just keep adding each years surplus to the roof fund? I bet taxpayers wouldn't like that. They'd want taxes to be lowered to get rid of the surplus.
But then when you do replace the roof you'd have to raise taxes back to what they were to start building the fund for the next roof. So you still end up with the pattern being higher taxes for several years after a roof is installed and then lower taxes from then until it is time for the next new roof.
That's the same pattern you end up with under the "use a bond issue to pay for a roof when needed" approach.
>So basically you think taxes should have been set higher a long time ago so they would have a yearly surplus that could have been saved up to pay for a new roof?
Yes.
Simply put: If you can't or won't budget+save for a known future expense, I'm not giving you money to pay for it when it comes knocking.
>But then what happens when you reach that and the roof turns out to actually still be fine?
Save what's in there for when the roof really hits end of usable life and either: A) Keep adding to the fund if it's justifiable, or B) Remove the line item from the budget and reduce or reallocate the budget accordingly.
We're not talking about RNGesus throwing down a randomass thunderbolt at the school and blasting a randomass hole through it on a randomass Thursday. We know reasonably when the roof will need replacing for an absolute fact, and at least a ballpark estimate how much it will cost.
Fiscal discipline goes a long way to convincing me to pay (more) taxes.
IME private schools also tend to be in more expensive areas, so you will either still have to pay more for housing, or spend a lot of time and transportation costs to get between home and school. Plus friends from school will live further away.
And of course many people don't have enough money for private school or to move to a good school district.
This seems to reflect a lot of what I hear about as well. Everything is too entrenched from a decision making standpoint for any one person to make a difference in reforms.
A free market fixes anything where people have the ability to "vote with their wallet" and simply stop paying for services which aren't meeting expectations when they find another that does. Things like employer sponsored health insurance are insulated from you choosing a different option for yourself and we get the situation that we currently have because of it.
Education is the same way but the only ways to vote with your wallet are...
1. Buy a house zoned for the school that you want.
2. Pay for private school.
3. Home school.
4. In some areas, school choice where you can choose from another of the available public options may be viable too.
The only long term solution here that has potential to fix things legislatively is a true school voucher program that would let you take the tax money assigned for your kids education and put it into whatever option you believed was actually best for their education.
This _should_ lead to a start-up like small business ecosystem with lots of small Montessori style schools especially for younger kids. Most likely a "neighborhood schools" model would pop up and parents would end up walking their kids to school again, even in suburban areas.
Most likely you would still see bigger options for high school still as teenagers crave more socialization. Sports would likely revolve more around communities than individual schools too.
You'd of course see some specialties. Schools advertising why they were the best option for your kids and then having to prove it in order to keep them. Yes, there would definitely be religious schools as there already are now.
My guess is that a lot of the current home school co-ops that are popular in my area would simply become suddenly funded because the parents involved as pretty happy with the model. I had a lot of biases against home schooling until I saw how these co-ops work and it's really effective. Basically just like a normal school small school with parents teaching different lessons on different days. Each parent's commitment is a half day a week to teach and they still do school plays, etc.
Voucher programs are just going to flood the "education market" with substandard schools teaching things like humans walked with dinosaurs a few thousand years ago before the great flood. They're going to extract profits from our tax dollars to give us a worse quality service.
We'll see a lot of new schools open up, spend a few years collecting profits, then get shut down for substandard quality after effectively failing to teach kids for those few years. Meanwhile the public schools which can't be choosy will end up with fewer resources and have worse outcomes for the kids who have parents who can't afford private transportation to the few nicer, choosier voucher schools.
Why would it give people worse education? Besides who are you or any of us to decide what is and isnt a good education for someone elses kids? It's not your job to police ideas.
Are you really arguing schools getting taxpayer money to teach kids humans walked with dinosaurs and all modern biology is a lie a good educational outcome?
Do you really not see how that's a bad outcome?
Do you not see that removing the funding from the regular public schools to go to teach that nonsense will lead to worse outcomes for those kids who can't leave those regular public schools?
Sure, maybe some students will potentially have some better outcomes if they manage to go to a good private charter school with their voucher that happens to be a decent one. For everyone else it's a worse outcome, unless you think it's a good thing to teach every animal alive today are direct descendants of the ark that was just a few thousand years ago.
Also, kiss special education funding goodbye. It won't be profitable to handle these students. They'll be trapped in those even more underfunded public schools. Hooray, great outcomes!
But those kids who are "being left behind" are good to have vouchers too. You don't think there will be small schools who want to take them?
I had a bunch of random teachers teach really dumb stuff while I was in public school. I don't believe those things, because I had parents who were involved in my education. It's never a good idea to leave your kids education to the whims of someone else.
Public school doesn't have some magic monopoly on good ideas. And private/voucher schools aren't going to have a monopoly on bad ones.
Why would the kids not be able to leave public schools? They will all have vouchers?
> You don't think there will be small schools who want to take them?
Spending a second of logic on it and thinking critically, there won't. Why would a school empowered to be choosy and subject to profit motivations choose the pricier students to specialize that reduce their rankings?
And why do you think a flood of schools arguing germ theory is a lie be a public good?
I went to religious private school and too had teachers who taught some bullshit things. Dinosaurs were fakes buried in the soil by the devil to test believers. Evolution is a lie by the government. And yet by personal experience I'm more learned than the average public school peer I know. I'm a somewhat special person though; I know many in my class that still believe without question. It's not a good thing for society overall to have such "knowledge".
As for why kids wouldn't be able to leave the public schools, some schools will be required to provide transportation. Others won't. Some will be able to be choosy, some won't. You see where this goes? Those schools which are choosey and don't provide transportation will end up selecting the most well off while those unable to be choosy and/or forced to provide transportation will be forced to shoulder those who aren't good performers who don't get into the choosy schools with a transit scholarship.
> I went to religious private school and too had teachers who taught some bullshit things... And yet by personal experience I'm more learned than the average public school peer I know.
Should that not give you pause about the general quality of the schools you're defending? Do you not see where parents might see you in fundie school learning about how man rode the dinosaurs alongside a public school kid that somehow knows even less than you about history or biology, and think "hmm maybe I'd like to find something else"?
> Should that not give you pause about the general quality of the schools you're defending?
No, because I've seen the average of the extremist schools which will grow with the voucher program and they're far worse than the negatives I experienced. Education like Eve gives Adam two apples, how many apples does Adam have; it doesn't matter Jesus will come soon here's another chapter of the KJV.
Except there's no reason to believe extremist schools should grow significantly. Most people aren't extremists (pretty much by definition). In fact, good schools are a usual top tier concern when looking at housing. Your worry about fly-by-night schools extracting profits and fleeing is also not particularly hard to solve: hold them liable for damages/a return of n years of voucher funds if the school fails to meet standards and require them to carry insurance or post a bond to prove they can meet their liability. High performing schools or new schools associated to people/organizations with a previous success record will have cheap premiums. Dodgy schools will have expensive premiums or will be uninsurable. Your worry about special ed is also not that complex: give higher funds for those kids to offset their higher cost.
Ok, so… you went to some self-described example a school you are complaining about, turned out great, and are upset that kids might not keep going to known-failing schools?
Maybe… there is more to school than facts? Maybe it’s about order and discipline and shared values too?
> Maybe… there is more to school than facts? Maybe it’s about order and discipline and shared values too?
Maybe status-quo bias is so powerful that people will see an institution that fails at literally everything it tries to do and instead of concluding that it's a failing institution they will pick some other random thing and decide the institution must actually be about that, because the idea that the institution is actually pointless is too horrible to contemplate.
> Are you really arguing schools getting taxpayer money to teach kids humans walked with dinosaurs and all modern biology is a lie a good educational outcome?
I'll say yes. Most people I've seen who have gone through that type of schooling are good members of society. They work jobs, they pay taxes, they have friends, they often go on to higher education, they raise families, and they may be happier than the average person. The outcome is perfectly fine.
I went to a young earth creationist Christian school and it messed me up. Most of us had a hard time adjusting to life outside the Evangelical Christian bubble. It's really hard to connect to others when your identity is tied up in believing a lot of outlandish things and it's hard to love yourself because you're given a long list of crazy rules to follow. I was told that kissing someone before I was married would taint my soul and whoever I married would be disgusted by me if I did so. Most people I've kept in touch with regret going to that school and every queer person I know has been absolutely traumatized by the experience. I'm happy, and by your criteria, a good member of society but that was despite my school. It took a lot of therapy, personal growth, and finding a community of people who actually care about me to be happy.
You are ignoring the externalities. We end up with an ignorant society that ultimately harms all of us. I hate to use a movie trope here, but we're barely a step above Idiocracy when it comes to the ability of the average American to function and make decisions. This ultimately becomes self destructive.
87% of kids attend public k-12, and secular and Catholic schools together make up the majority of private, so if we're barely a step above Idiocracy, it seems a bit silly to point at the "man rode the dinosaurs" people.
Come on, be serious. In a huge country with 50M students attending primary/secondary school you can always dredge up a few horror stories but those are far from the typical case. On the scale of ways that schools damage kids, teaching them the unscientific mythology of certain Christian sects is hardly the worst. The Catholic church, which is one of the largest private school operators, has no official position on paleontology or evolution through natural selection.
I am serious. If you're thinking most of the families are chomping at the bit to repurpose tax dollars to Catholic schools you've clearly never interviewed the average homeschool family South of the Mason-Dixon. They don't even think Catholics are Christian; many would align a priest with Satan!
Most families I know who currently home school do so so to avoid vaccine requirements because germ theory/biology is a lie or because they're worried their kids will be exposed to the idea of the fossil record or that gay people exist in the world or put thoughts like dinosaurs died before humans into kids heads.
You're delusional if you think of these aren't major homeschooling points in the US. Willingly holding your nose to ignore the extreme stench of the anti-intellectualism the rest of the movement massively embodies.
This will be the outcome in an extreme majority of school districts. If anything, this recent election shows fundies vote. To them it's even more than life or death, it's eternal death to miss voting.
This isn't pure statistics though. This dataset is massively biased. And out performed on what, that 2+2=4 or that 2+2=Who know what except that God gives us our provision despite what our eyes see and logic tells us
Or private equity owned schools. Imagine how bad product they could effectively deliver. The would not even teach humans walking with dinosaurs... As they would do bare minimum of teaching anything at all...
Why would parents send their children to those schools? Never mind who owns them; I would expect the kind of hypothetical schools you’re describing to go bankrupt quickly. Private equity is not in the business of losing money in predictable ways.
Same reason parents send their kids to public schools: because the price is right. Since we're importing legions of indentured servants, wages aren't rising, and parents have to make tough decisions in order to pay for basic necessities.
A thriving education system is an indicator of a prosperous society, not a cause.
Schools are a state and local matter. So just because you might be frustrated with the government in your area ain't my effing problem. To chastise all public schools is a false narrative.
Two, then you wouldn’t be opposed to eliminating the dept of education then, right? I hope Trump follows through on his promise you seem to agree with.
Being able to read the Bible would be a big improvement on say the Baltimore school system, which spends $22,500 per year per student: https://www.city-journal.org/article/are-baltimore-students-... (“According to the 2022 NAEP test, only 10 percent of fourth-graders and 15 percent of eighth-graders in Baltimore’s public schools are proficient in reading.”)
Literally, madrassas in Pakistan that just teach the kids to read the Quran would be an upgrade.
Those numbers do not mean what you seem to think. 1st, proficiency on that test is a pretty high bar. There are kids making perfectly adequate progress who don’t score proficient. Second, average per-pupil costs are meaningless. Baltimore city pays for two of my kids’ educations. One costs the city about $8k (the money that a school gets for a kid with no extra needs). The other costs well over $100k, due to significant disabilities. Baltimore has a disproportionate number of kids with significant needs of some sort, including learning disabilities, extreme family poverty, and ESL learners. Those kids need extra resources. A voucher system isn’t going to change that.
Those numbers are actually painting a rosier picture of what is actually happening in Baltimore and other cities. In 23 out of 150 school, zero students - none! - were proficient in math. Not a single student. There is simply no way to put lipstick on that pig.
>The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program.
>Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.
>But that’s not all. WBFF combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given. In 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math.
Not saying they are useless but standardized tests only work for kids who take them seriously.
I recall taking these as a kid, and there were kids who would just fill in the bubbles. They would not even read the questions. They thought it was funny.
In the other 127 schools, what percentage of students were proficient in math? How about other schools given the same test? It's hard to draw conclusions without context as to what an average or above average school scores in these tests.
So when we have anecdotes, we get told to look at the stats for objective facts. Alternatively, when we do have stats, we get told "no those numbers do not mean what you think they mean" as a way to dismiss the abysmal numbers. So which is it.
Let's face it, we all know it, just some of us are too scared to say it publicly. In large urban areas in America, there is a (large / huge / significant) portion of the school population that is illiterate, speaks non-functional english in the form of black-culture slang, the rest don't even speak english in an english-speaking country, and practically none of them are going to be functional adults that don't require assistance and handouts to survive.
>madrassas in Pakistan that just teach the kids to read the Quran
I thought they were just teaching the sounds of the Quran. Like the Pakistani kids don't know any Arabic, and they don't learn to read or understand Arabic. They just memorize and recite the Arabic sounds of the Quran that they've been taught.
They usually do teach you to read Arabic, which is mostly the same script as Urdu. But you don't understand what you're reading which doesn't really make it any better.
I can believe that they don't actually teach the grammar of Arabic or how to speak or write it, but they don't even translate the meaning of the verses to Urdu (or whatever the local language is)?
I'm not an expert in this area at all. But I was under the impression that for some of these schools, that is the case. My understanding is that some (many?/most?) Muslims believe that the Quran was a direct revelation from Allah in Arabic, and so translations are somewhat suspect, risking incorrect interpretations from humans.
I know that Muslims believe that translations of the Quran are of a lesser status, but I didn’t think that would extend to not even explaining their meaning to the students.
I tend to see big per student spending in public schools as suggestive that they've been loaded up with a disproportionate share of the kids with IEPs.
Catholics aren't generally young-Earth creationists, and overall the Church argues the age of the earth is a scientific not a religious question.
I totally agree there are many religious schools which are extremely high quality. Despite a few strange views at the school I went to, the general quality of education was quite high. However, I refuse to ignore the many other examples of schools which are not high quality. They should be called out, and there's no way I want my tax dollars going to teach their nonsense.
The thing is - the average school is terrible. NAEP scores show less than 25% reach "basic" proficiency in math, and reading is even worse.
I can't find any comparable stats on just religious schools, but I strongly suspect they are, on average, performing substantially better than non-religious schools. The reasons for that are more to do with the students than the schools, but the exact reason is inconsequential - the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education.
The typical claim of evolution is illogical. Even if a religious school solely and exclusively taught creationism while not even paying lip service to the controversy (which few to none do), it's not at all like a child's education would be permanently crippled. As the most important things learned in basic education are not facts, but skills - reading, writing, and arithmetic in particular.
A school which can be choosy in admissions will likely have students with better proficiencies. It's easy to have only top scoring students when you can kick out the bottom scoring ones.
> the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education
This is the point I'm making. Many people aren't going to end up choosing the school because of the quality of the education, they'll be choosing it because it aligns with their world view. That germ theory is a lie, the Earth is 5,000 years old, scientists are liars out to eliminate Christ from society, and that the only things you need to know is what is in the Bible.
Let's assume what you're saying is true, though I'm sure you realize you're being rather hyperbolic, at a minimum.
I think the purpose of school is to teach the fundamentals - reading, writing and arithmetic in particular.
I don't really care what worldview a school endorses so long as they are completely transparent on it.
Young Earth theory and creationism is one side of a coin - 80 genders, intersectionalism, and critical theory is the other.
If a parent is down with these worldviews, I see no problem so long as the school is excelling at their primary educational responsibilities, and also making their ideological motives transparent to parents.
Nothing magical about it. It’s pure economics and rational decision making. The institutions we complain about in this country every day are completely insulated from it. Everything else survives or fails on its own merits.
Pure economics and rational decision making are the exact reasons for engaging in regulatory capture, bribery, and oligarchy.
Why on earth would democracy (or any other form of shared power) be a rational choice for you, from an economic standpoint, if you already are wealthy enough to neuter it to the point where nearly all profits and decision-making authority are allocated to you?
Dictatorship is the ultimate in rational decision-making for a rational self-interested actor. Philanthropy and benevolence are not rational for the wealthy and powerful.
Income inequality and regulatory capture are features of the free market, not bugs. They are baked in by design.
Most countries in the world "patch" those bugs by regulation that moves them away from being pure "free market" economies. Antitrust regulation is a well-known example of this.
Even if there were more ways to "vote with your wallet" is abundantly clear that a lot of parents, respectively, (a) couldn't care less anyway, and (b) can't actually tell a good charter or voucher school from a bad one.
When the purpose of schooling is ensuring a civic floor amongst citizens the effectiveness of things like the home school co-ops mentioned can't come at the expense of population at large unless we wish to surrender the republican form of government for something else.
You need to contrast suggested ideas to the current systems, not an idealized standard that the current system is nowhere near achieving.
For instance NAEP scores consistently demonstrate only about 25% of students achieve "basic" proficiency in math, reading is even worse. Its going to be difficult to do worse.
And I mean that very literally - some percent of people would become competent in e.g. basic math with 0 public education due to family or personal interests. I can't imagine it's "that" far from 25%.
There's also rising awareness among parents of neurodiversity while many schools are still stagnant and failing to correct.
I have ADHD. My wife doesn't, but most of her siblings do. Our kids do. Our kids love reading and love learning new things, and I know from my own experience that the fastest way to kill that love would be to send them to a public school that doesn't know how to work with ADHD brains.
There's a saying that if you gave a scientist the job of designing a system to completely derail an ADHD brain, they'd come back with the typical public school classroom. This matches my experience, and I want better for my kids.
ADD/ADHD was over-diagnosed for a long time. Why are you so sure all the people you mention have it vs other explanations? What is it you think makes ADHD brains special?
Were you the downvote I got instantly after commenting, lol? I'm simply curious and that should be sufficient, I'm not really sure what it has to do with you though.
As someone with this condition, I think it may be helpful to note that while your comment may not be intended to be disparaging, it can be interpreted in such a way. A lot of neurodivergent folks or people experiencing mental health issues are commonly told their problems are imaginary, or aren’t a big deal. [0] It’s a pretty big sore spot.
It’s also debatable how over diagnosed ADHD is. The diagnosis criteria has certainly changed, but current literature estimates about 6% adults are believed to some degree of ADHD [1]—though many are high functioning and find ways to cope with varying degrees of success and difficulty.
> As someone with this condition, I think it may be helpful to note that while your comment may not be intended to be disparaging, it can be interpreted in such a way. A lot of neurodivergent folks or people experiencing mental health issues are commonly told their problems are imaginary, or aren’t a big deal. [0] It’s a pretty big sore spot.
Not my intention, but I was diagnosed as a kid when over-diagnosing did seem to be a trend, and I've become skeptical in these times of self IDing.
When I mentioned over-diagnosing it was more referring to the 90s, but I think a lot of adults who were diagnosed then may have been misdiagnosed and never checked.
Me and my friends were in the wrong side of the culture (tabletop RPGs, video games and heavy metal) and I can bet we would all be diagnosed back then as it felt it was mostly "feisty kids that don't fit".
My heart goes out to you. Misdiagnosis is just as bad (and sometimes worse) than not being diagnosed. I've known people who were diagnosed with ADHD with very bad outcomes because it later turned out that they had bipolar disorder; the wrong medical treatment literally ruined their life. At the same time, I've had periods in my life where I couldn't focus on important conversations with my partner because of a noisy bird nearby.
If you suspect you have a condition or someone is advocating for you to seek treatment, please seek a qualified psychiatrist who's specifically trained in diagnosis. Better yet, make sure they're in touch with your primary care provider [1]. Psychiatric assessment and diagnosis its own psychiatric specialty for a reason, but doctors with these qualifications are criminally difficult to get time with for a variety of reasons.
Totally on board with your comments on disparagement, but there's been a rash of autism diagnoses in my daughter's school to the point where in some classes 20% of students have been diagnosed as autistic. I feel at that point people are diagnosing personality, and it's using the (UK) special educational needs system to force schools to pay attention to different learning styles. (My daughter's school is actually pretty good on that front if you point it out to the staff, so I'm not sure what's triggering it particularly in her school, but it may be to do with releasing government funding for extra classroom assistants).
ADHD and autism are diagnosed based on behaviors. This might work for cases at the more extreme end of the spectrum, but when it comes to trying to identify more mild cases, you are going to start seeing a lot of overlap in behaviors of the larger population. Couple that with extra funding for kids who can be said to have ADHD and autism, and you get a recipe for overdiagnosis.
Maybe it is worth it to try to make sure fewer kids with the issue slip through the cracks at the expense of diagnosing kids who don't actually have it. Maybe it's not, but it makes sense why it can happen.
You and GP make great points, and these are situations that are becoming more common. Luckily, there is some light at the end of the tunnel (at least for ADHD). There's been a lot of study in recent years and medical science is starting to identify physiological markers commonly correlated with ADHD [1][2][3]. The sad thing is that the science hasn't advanced far enough to include these in the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. It's my hope we'll see an updated DSM and medical training within the next decade, but it'll be a long and painful wait.
There are many volumes on the subject, but I'm honestly tired of debating this with people who doubt ADHD is a thing. If you're legitimately curious, there are myriad sources out there about the differences in ADHD brains.
Suffice it to say that I'm sure. All of the adults I'm thinking of have had serious interference with their daily lives in ways that rise to the level of a disability. I'm the only one of the set that has been able to build a steady career, and that's due to a lot of luck and due to developing an anxiety disorder that, while not at all fun, at least allows me to keep track of things that I used to miss.
"Special" makes it sound like you think I think we're better. I don't. I just know that we don't work in the way that the world expects us to.
I don't doubt the research, it's more I doubt how many diagnoses were accurate.
I was diagnosed with ADD as well, so I'm not being entrely dismissive. In this age of self ID I think there can be reason to be.
> All of the adults I'm thinking of have had serious interference with their daily lives in ways that rise to the level of a disability. I'm the only one of the set that has been able to build a steady career, and that's due to a lot of luck and due to developing an anxiety disorder that, while not at all fun, at least allows me to keep track of things that I used to miss.
If I may ask on this point, how would you distinguish ADHD from possibly being on the spectrum?
> "Special" makes it sound like you think I think we're better. I don't.
Not my intention, I should have said unique or significantly different in the contexts you mentioned or something.
> If I may ask on this point, how would you distinguish ADHD from possibly being on the spectrum?
There's a lot of overlap there and my personal feeling is that they likely share similar causes—there's too much similarity and too many people with both to be a coincidence. But in the case of my family, most of us do just fine in reading social cues... when we're paying attention. Where we struggle is maintaining attention on things that don't interest us for long enough to meet employer or school expectations.
> Where we struggle is maintaining attention on things that don't interest us for long enough to meet employer or school expectations.
Yes, this is something I deal with as well.
It's interesting because as a kid I got diagnosed with ADD, and my sibling who was more physically hyperactive got diagnosed with ADHD. My parents thought, and thus I did also for a long time that the 'h' difference was due to his physical energy, but it seems unrelated.
I've wondered if I am on the spectrum also but I don't match a lot of the base/core traits, although I feel ADHD or ADD alone doesn't explain some of my, ahem, quirks either.
I want to again stress there was no malice behind my question, just interest in trying to relate through my own experiences. Thank you again for answering.
> It's interesting because as a kid I got diagnosed with ADD, and my sibling who was more physically hyperactive got diagnosed with ADHD. My parents thought, and thus I did also for a long time that the 'h' difference was due to his physical energy, but it seems unrelated.
These days they don't draw a distinction any more. There are different presentations of ADHD, but it's all the same disorder.
> I want to again stress there was no malice behind my question, just interest in trying to relate through my own experiences. Thank you again for answering.
No worries, sorry for reacting negatively! I've had a lot of people assume that ADHD is not a thing at all, and it gets exhausting having to explain it. I pattern matched on your comment too aggressively.
> There's a lot of overlap there and my personal feeling is that they likely share similar causes
Autism and adhd definitely appear to share traits, and I suspect there's a shared cluster of genes affecting certain aspects of neural linking between regions of the brain. Even without shared genes it makes sense that a "networked system" of core brain functions would share similar behaviors if the parameters were tweaked in similar ways.
> There's a saying that if you gave a scientist the job of designing a system to completely derail an ADHD brain, they'd come back with the typical public school classroom.
Doctors aren't sure if I have ADHD or Major Depression or Bipolar II (I've been diagnosed and attempted to be treated for all three), but this fits into my experience.
I was consistently frustrating to my high school teachers, because I was clearly learning the material, but I wouldn't do my homework, and I'd get bored during class, and as a result I would get bad grades. I don't think the teachers took any joy in giving me a bad grade, but they were kind of forced into it because I didn't really fit into the bureaucratic mold that they needed me to fit in.
This eventually led to me almost flunking out, and eventually dropping out of my first attempt at university. I did eventually finish my bachelors, but it was at Western Governors University (WGU), which feels almost tailor-made for the ADHD-brained people.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but the American GPA system still kind of gives me anxiety when I think about it.
You pay per-term, not per class, and you can take as many classes as you'd like per term. You take one class at a time, and many classes can be finished after taking a test and/or completing a project.
I say it feels tailor-made for ADHD because it feels almost "gamified". It's addictive to see how many classes you can knock out in a week, and you can work at whatever pace you'd like.
Part of the reason I always did poorly in school is that I didn't like how slow everything went, but with WGU I can go whatever pace I want, and the faster I go, the more money I save. Since I'm an extremely impatient person, the fact that I was able to quickly go through the material while only having to focus on one course at a time was kind of game-changing to me.
I already had a decade of software engineering experience when I did WGU, so when I did the Computer Science degree on there I finished the entirety of it (having to start from scratch) in six months, for a grand total cost of around ~$4600.
WGU is hardly the fanciest school, but it's good enough, inexpensive, and most importantly it is fully accredited. If you always struggled with traditional universities, I recommend giving it a look.
I think that there's a reasonably good chance that if school were like that by default, I probably would have done better. It's hard to juggle six classes at a time like you're expected to in American high schools.
If I had a magic wand and could make the education system however I'd like, I'd make it so every student spends the exact same amount of time on the subject, but I'd make it so you only ever manage a single class at once, instead of trying to interleave everything.
This isn't even that weird of a concept, even in the US; American summer schools will often do exactly this. Instead of doing an hour per day over the course of 180 days, you do roughly thirty six-hour days. That's how I took gym in high school, and how I retook calculus (even though I passed the AP exam first-try).
Honestly, I'd bet there are a variety of delivery models that would be most effective for each person. Having choice in that would really be amazing. Unfortunately, its also very hard to organize and measure.
Yeah, that's true. I'm not entirely sure how you'd implement it but it would be great if there was options to do the one-class-at-a-time model or the traditional one if you prefer, though almost by definition the public school system is (mostly) one-size-fits-all.
> you can take as many classes as you'd like per term. You take one class at a time, and many classes can be finished after taking a test and/or completing a project.
Is it all based on self-guided learning? Because I can't see how this system could work with the classic system of bottom-up lectures accompanied by tutorials and exercise classes?
It’s self-guided. There aren’t lectures or anything. They have reading stuff they recommend, and there are course instructors you can reach out to if you need help.
Some courses do have recorded lectures, but nothing live.
It's definitely not for everyone, and to be honest I'd recommend a trying a traditional university first if that's an option.
The reason I liked it is because I have always just been better at teaching myself stuff than being taught. I like working at my own (usually faster) pace and I really hate waiting to make progress. WGU is a perfect system for someone with that mentality, particularly since it's inexpensive.
I think the quality of the education is "ok". I think you'll leave with a good enough education in computer science to be "useful", but I will acknowledge that the fast-pace does make it easier to get away with skipping the boring stuff than it would be with a traditional school.
If you already have a lot of experience with software, WGU can work as a "legitimizer" if nothing else, though. I had a bit of a complex about dropping out and not having a bachelors. That pretty much went away once I got my bachelors from WGU.
Oh! Xir entire software developer career has been built on skills xe taught xirselves from childhood (never took a CS course in college; majored in fine arts) so this sounds absolutely perfect! Probably would have crushed it there back in the day, too. Thank you!
I've known people who were going to some of the top private schools in the U.S. who were still paying for weekend math classes because the schools weren't reaching them at their level.
Unfortunately, most educators simply don't seem to care much about high performing students, and they're fine with them not learning anything in the class as long as as the teachers are hitting their goals. I imagine the same attitude is harming the other students as well, but it's especially easier to see with high performing students where their needs are often openly ignored.
>Unfortunately, most educators simply don't seem to care much about high performing students
If you really believe this, then sue your school district. In my area, there was a district where parents believed high performers were not getting the necessary resources and through a combination of legal pressure and partnership with the school district, made it a priority in the same way that district had prioritized education for other specialized needs. Don't blame the average teacher though - they are doing what they have budget for and what they've been directed from administration.
If you really believe this, then sue your school district.
AIUI, California school districts are under no obligation to meet kids where they're at, i.e. if a kid is ahead they don't have to be offered differentiated content or acceleration.
> Don't blame the average teacher though - they are doing what they have budget for and what they've been directed from administration.
It's worth discussing the administrators and the budget (though our budget is much higher than the national average), but why should we reflexively dismiss concerns about the teachers? There are advanced students who only get acknowledged as such when the teachers tell them "don't do that, we haven't learned it yet."
There's a large difference between trying to engage advanced students with limited resources, and not trying to engage or even acknowledge advanced students at all.
It’s easier to see with kids who have stronger behavioral or learning needs.
I was a 3rd grade teachers aide and I saw the distinction first hand. A gifted child was given advanced textbooks and space to work at his own pace. The teacher didn’t really teach much, but the child was learning.
Conversely there was another kid who just got headphones to watch videos in the back of the room. I guess learn st his own pace, except the videos didn’t actually seem educational to me. I think it was mostly just done to keep him preoccupied.
I don’t know where you live, but kids (plural!) assaulting teachers like that would be very unusual. I have a lot of family and friends in elementary education and management. Stories like that are the kind of thing that get talked about for years if they happen, not something that happens enough to be referred to in the plural.
Yeah, I know one kid that threw a chair in school. We use public education because I think it's good for kids to be independent at an early age. It can't be healthy to spend 16 years within bluetooth range of your parents at all times.
A family member who taught at a title 1 elementary schools encountered chair/desk throwing multiple times in the short time she was there. I think unfortunately YMMV greatly depending on the area where you live
Very expensive suburb of Seattle. I was shocked to hear this as well. Reported to me by my friend who is the school counselor and had to deal with these kids (plural) herself.
It’s good they had access to counseling and I hope she was able to help some of them. I don’t imagine most kids are born wanting to throw chairs at people. Something is going on at home.
The girl in the math class before me would beat the shit out of my desk like clockwork. She hated math, was violent, and very autistic, no apparent other issues nor even hate towards humans. Nothing could be done, just wait for the tantrum to end then take my seat.
Room destroyers are pretty common, but they usually have IEPs.
TBH there's no good choices for many - big mental health issues and trauma, no home or family support, and no real options: kids have to go somewhere, self contained classrooms are at capacity, there are worse kids in line to get put in facilities, and often you can't really do that unless parents push for it anyway.
I'm curious where you live. My spouse and I selected the area we live in based on the school district when our kids were around pre-K age. We live in a district that isn't overly expensive to live, but has the best public schools in the state and are some of the top in the nation.
Throwing chairs? That's a parent problem. Not sure why the district would put up with that. Expulsion works. I've never heard a story like this and we've been in the district for 8+ years.
As for skills, my kids are probably 3 years ahead of where I was at the same age. Devices are not a huge component of their schooling, although I am on a parent board that's pushing back on SaaS creep. They're forced to have Google accounts which I'm proposing to remove and/or minimize. Math and reading programs are fantastic. Teachers are great. There have been one or two mediocre teachers but nothing to really complain about.
We also have great private options, but again, we moved to this district to take advantage of the public schools.
As an observation the homeschooled kids that participate in extracurricular activities along with the public school kids are definitely behind. Not only from a traditional education standpoint, but also social skills. It's always an awkward conversation when those parents engage in a conversation asking where our kids are at with respect to reading, math or science.
Our goal is to have our kids be the best version of them that they can be. If they're happier, healthier and better equipped than we were then I'll be happy. I look at a lot of parents who want their kids to be stars and it's painful. Modern day parenting has lost its way in US society on so many levels.
There really seems to be two kinds of public schools. One is willing to expel students who are violent and disruptive and this allows the students who are willing and able to learn to do so. The other refuses to expel violent and disruptive students and they make it nearly impossible for the willing and motivated students to actually learn.
When I was in high school there was a local school that was notorious. Apparently here the public schools were not allowed to expel kids if they would no longer have local options. This was the worst school, and thus the last place the kids would end up. So it was basically just a prison.
There are some rotten incentives at work here, as well as constraints that aren’t obvious from a parent or student’s point of view.
For example, CA schools have to publish statistics on suspensions and expulsions. So there’s an incentive for administrators to minimize them. In practice, this means that expelling a student (short of some extreme situations) is a lengthy process of ass-covering. Even when administrators are doing the right thing, from the outside it can look like nothing is being done. Think HR putting you on a PIP.
Meanwhile, the “right thing” isn’t always so obvious. The “violent and disruptive” student is also a child with a right to an education. And for what it’s worth, usually a child in crisis. For school staff, your role as an adult is to teach the child to participate in society with whatever limited influence you have. As a parent or classmate, of course, you have no reason to give a shit about some asshole kid, but the teacher has to.
And then, what does “violent and disruptive” actually mean? How much violence? No tolerance? What about a bullying victim who sticks up for themselves? Playground scuffle? At what point does the dial turn from teaching a child not to hit, to teaching a child that they are bad and do not belong? What about non (physically) violent bullying? What about children who are disruptive, but not violent (surely including a lot of those posting here about how their ADHD was misunderstood)?
Sometimes expulsion is the answer, even keeping in mind that every student expelled before 16 is just going to school someplace else. But the problems are more complex than people often realize.
Literal children are incapable of forfeiting their rights by being "violent and disruptive", and it would be insane if they could because they can't possibly begin to understand what they'd be giving up. Clearly that right is sometimes taken from them anyway, but that's neither the fault or a failure of the child.
Often kids who get their right to education taken from them are failed by their parents and/or by the schools, but the blame cannot be placed on the child for that. Every child, excepting those with significant mental illness or intellectual limitation, can and should be successfully educated. Any educational system that is incapable of handling a child's tantrum or helping a child in crisis is a failed system.
It isn't an either / or. Expelled children have to go somewhere. So you provide education / rehabilitation facilities where they hopefully manage to get their behaviour under control and can be brought back into mainstream education or stay in those institutions where they can at least get a bit of an education rather than just being left to roam the streets. Whether there's the appetite to fund that kind of institution properly is another matter.
This is what they did in my school district when I was growing up. You had 3 tiers. First tier is regular school. If you get expelled, you go to tier 2 which is a school for people who got expelled. If you get expelled from there, you go to tier 3 school, which is where all the really bad kids go. This worked pretty well, keeping in mind all the students' needs in mind.
They did away with that since I was young and now they just let the disruptive kids run rampant.
Keep in mind, you only have one chance really to get an education. If your learning is impeded by uncontrollable children, you now have a greater risk of life failure because you weren't able to learn the fundamentals, because a class of 30 was always being disrupted by one or two people. Say you didn't learn pre-Algebra well because of disruption; now you're behind when it comes to the higher level math for the rest of your school tenure and ultimately, life. These disruptions could have major long term consequences for other kids trying to learn.
Finally, teachers' average turnaround is 4 years last time I checked. That means there are very few veteran teachers available to show new teachers the ropes and how to manage a classroom full of teenage kids. Not that it matters, the new teachers will look for other careers within 4 years on average. The cycle continues.
> If you get expelled, you go to tier 2 which is a school for people who got expelled.
So if you're a kid who's already struggling, you get sent to be surrounded by other kids who are already struggling.
> you only have one chance really to get an education.
That's true for the bad kids too.
I 100% get where you're coming from. My kids come home from school and tell stories about disruptive stuff other kids do and how much it gets in the way of the school functioning effectively.
At the same time... what are we supposed to do with those kids? The kids that have behavioral problems are much more likely to be that way because they have a bad home life. So if you expel them, they're missing out on education and they're spending more time in a bad environment. They're not going to get any better after that. Then what? Now they're a year behind academically and have the shame of being expelled. Their behavior is likely even worse because they spent a year not being socialized in a bad environment. So they're even worse next year, and they get expelled again.
Eventually, they stop going to school entirely. But at least here in the US, the number of jobs available to people without any kind of school degree gets smaller every year. So now they can't find work.
What do desperate people do? Commit crimes. So now we have a system that effectively just produces uneducated mentally unhealthy criminals.
Do you really want to force good students to have to be in the same classroom as the kind of students who get expelled from public schools? Do you understand just how bad your behavior has to be to actually get expelled?
"At the same time... what are we supposed to do with those kids? "
The most important thing is to NOT allow them to prevent other kids from getting an a good education.
> Do you really want to force good students to have to be in the same classroom as the kind of students who get expelled from public schools?
Where precisely do you think "the kind of kids who get expelled from public schools" should be? I mean that literally, concretely.
Do we send them home where they are statistically much more likely to be abused and not have access to reliable nutrition? Imprison them? Ship them to some sort of Lord of the Flies island?
Do I want disruptive kids in the same room as my kids? Not really. Is it the least bad place I can think of to put them? Unfortunately, yes.
This is a deeply hard problem. Sure, if you only care about well-behaved kids it's easy: kick out the bad eggs and forget they ever existed. But if you consider that those bad kids are actual people who will still participate in your society, you need some solution for how to help them.
Your solution it to let disruptive children ruin the education for all students so that no one gets a good education? You are making home-schooling sound much more appealing. Public Schools aren't supposed to be daycare centers, they are supposed to teach children.
I think you and many others in this discussion presume that kids fall into a neat binary classification:
1. Good kids who were always and will always be good kids.
2. Bad kids who were always and will always be bad kids.
Further, any interaction between a bad kid and a good kid is strictly making things worse for the good kid.
I can definitely understand how someone might end up with that belief system. It was probably formed while they themselves were a kid and thus lacks the nuance and maturity that comes with time.
A closer picture of reality is that:
1. People go through good and bad periods. An "good" kid might become a "bad" kid for a year while going through the divorce of their parents. A "bad" kid might get the structure or diagnosis they need and blossom into their better potential. Kids mature at different rates and times.
2. Being around "good" kids is good for "bad" kids. If the people in their home life are awful, having a community of mentally healthy kids around them during the day can be very helpful for learning how to behave better.
3. Being around "bad" kids is often good for "good" kids. Obviously, it's not OK for some kid to bully or abuse another. But short of that, it's often useful and educational for kids to be exposed to a variety of personalities and maturity levels. Do we want our kids to grow into adults that have the skills to take care of and help other people who are struggling? I do. They can learn many of those skills in school by being part of the support network for bad kids.
Often, when they do, it turns out that kid wasn't so bad in the first place.
Overall, this simplified mindset is one I see all the time where we look at situations as a consumer: Is this a thing I want to "purchase" or not? Instead, it's better to look at the entire situation as an environment that you are both consuming and yourself part of.
They always talk about "it takes a village". We all both need a village and are the village for each other.
1. Good kids who were always and will always be good kids.
2. Bad kids who were always and will always be bad kids.
Further, any interaction between a bad kid and a good kid is strictly making things worse for the good kid.
My experience in K-12 proves that this is in fact largely TRUE.
" Being around "bad" kids is often good for "good" kids. "
This is just a mind-numbingly stupid take. A 10th grader taking advanced calc and programming robots doesn't benefit from being forced to interact with an illiterate 19 year old who has been held back 3 times and steals his lunch money every day. This is in fact almost a human rights violation for the smart kid.
"I can definitely understand how someone might end up with that belief system. It was probably formed while they themselves were a kid and thus lacks the nuance and maturity that comes with time."
>Where precisely do you think "the kind of kids who get expelled from public schools" should be? I mean that literally, concretely.
That's really the make-or-break question. IIRC, it was kids who constantly got into fights. Kids caught with knives, drugs, or firecrackers; kids in gangs, etc. It was kids who constantly disrupted the classroom, even after being assigned to after school detention multiple times. It was kids who disrespected teachers (cussing them out, threatening them, attacking them, etc). It was kids that got pregnant. It was even kids that cheated because it was taken more seriously back then.
The levels were: write sentences on the board after class, get sent to the principal's office with a parent call, get after school detention, get after school detention a whole lot, get expelled. Sometimes like in the case of knives, it would go straight to expulsion.
Today, teachers will send kids to the principal's office to get them out of the classroom and they just get sent back to continue disruption. Back then, teachers were expected to teach and the administration dealt with unruly kids. Disciplining kids who are bad is hard on the heart, but in the long term, not disciplining them is way worse for them. There's no discipline today in schools (other than getting arrested, which really should be avoided at all costs). There hasn't been discipline in schools for a generation. It shows not only in schools but in society as a whole.
> Is it the least bad place I can think of to put them?
Bad for whom? If you have the two options:
(A) Bad for people causing negative externalities.
(B) Bad for people causing positive externalities.
I will choose the former over the latter every time. Sure, it's bad for the kid to be getting abused since they're expelled from school, but it's bad for the kid to be getting abused since this other kid wasn't expelled from school.
I think you're missing something. Getting expelled doesn't mean you didn't attend school for the remainder of the year. Getting expelled meant you were sent to a school for expelled kids. If you got expelled from there, you went to a school for expelled x2 kids. In the US, it's illegal to not attend school under the age of 16.
>and have the shame of being expelled.
Shame is a powerful motivator, but only works sometimes. The alternative is to ignore the behavior or reward it, both worse solutions IMO.
I think the idea is if kids are disruptive, put them with other disruptive kids so the amount of disruption is minimized. All the kids in the disruption school are already disruptive. Also, you don't want to teach the current non-disruptive kids that being disruptive is acceptable, otherwise, you'll just create more disruptive kids by inaction.
Thank you for demonstrating the point that there are constraints and complications that are difficult to appreciate from the outside. The law generally disagrees with you.
And that really hasn't turned out very well. Letting the most disruptive students ruin the education of other students isn't fair at all to those students AND is pretty damn stupid when you consider how much tax money is spent educating those students and the harm to society from not educating them.
To be clear, I am not about to justify any sort of violence anywhere. That said...
Many violent and disruptive students were just kids with special needs. And I don't mean mental conditions or anything like that.
I mean a kid that would do WAY better if he was in a trade class doing something that motivates them, rather than being frustrated and forced to endure a rubbish secondary education, several hours crammed into a small room with other people and getting nowhere.
But of course that's more difficult to implement than a generic standardising/equalising pipeline of norm-conforming average citizen production.
I think we should focus on students already trying to be a positive influence in the school, rather than catering to the bottom quintile. After all, that is how schools got in this situation in the first place.
My point was not clear. What I'm saying is that often it would be better for a certain profile of people to not be forced to attend what in my country is mandatory secondary education, and that it would be better to put them to work on stuff they might enjoy.
But of course that would mean the system needs to contemplate individuals, instead of collectives, and the system doesn't like that.
> For example, CA schools have to publish statistics on suspensions and expulsions. So there’s an incentive for administrators to minimize them.
Are you sure administrators care? I live in Oakland, where some of the public schools have absolutely abysmal (academic) statistics. I haven't checked the expulsion statistics. I'm not sure anyone cares.
> For example, CA schools have to publish statistics on suspensions and expulsions.
Are there actionable consequences if these numbers get too high? If they're merely published, as a parent, I would see high numbers as a positive signal if anything...
> The “violent and disruptive” student is also a child with a right to an education. And for what it’s worth, usually a child in crisis. For school staff, your role as an adult is to teach the child to participate in society with whatever limited influence you have. As a parent or classmate, of course, you have no reason to give a shit about some asshole kid, but the teacher has to.
This is where I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Education is not a right if you can't comply with simple rules. I'd also like to see where you're correlating "violent and disruptive" with a "child in crisis". I'm not saying it's not there, but I am saying I don't believe those two components are exclusive.
These games of "what if" and "what is" must be fun for some people - because they seem to be played quite often. Rules are rules, they can be cut and dry - even in this case. The excuses are played out, the fallback on so many "disorders" is rampant. Either society is essentially fucked, or people are abusing the exceptions. I do agree, there should be some exceptions, but those should be few and far between to avoid slipping through the cracks.
Finally, the implication that a teacher "has to" give a shit has got to be the worst idea Americans have embraced. No, they don't. If my kid was asshole in school - I would handle the situation and apologize. Parents who go at districts for not "giving a shit" about their kid when their kid has been taught there are no repercussions by their parents don't have a right to anything in my opinion.
- The kid's behavior isn't their fault. They might have a medical condition or a home situation causing them to act this way. It's tempting to write kids like this off, but we shouldn't punish kids for their parents' failings.
- No matter what, this represents a problem we have to solve. Either family can solve it at home, educators can solve it at school, or some LEO can solve it in the carceral system, but you burn more money and suffer worse outcomes the further down the pipeline you solve it (not unlike bugs in software engineering).
---
I have a hot take that school is so frustrating because it's one of the very few things in the US money and status don't readily fix. Your household income might be $250k a year, but your kid's playing kickball with... people who make less, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. The US isn't good at these kinds of "let's make society as a whole healthier so we avoid the worst outcomes" type problems, preferring to use those bad outcomes to motivate people to not be poor/lazy/unlucky.
Unfortunately the resources required to create some kind of middle tier education are truly bonkers (it's also de facto racist: 30% of Black kids and 20% of Hispanic kids are impoverished, so if you're saying "poor kids with all their problems not welcome here" you're kind of also saying Black/Hispanic kids with all their problems not welcome here--which also doesn't super work because of de facto segregation, so you're also saying "no middle tier schools here"). There are around 70m kids in the US. Let's take the top 2/3 (they're in households making > 199% of the poverty line) and assume ideal class size of 12. That's $229,000,000,000 a year just in salary (current median teacher salary is $58,950), which is more than 2/3 the current DoE budget, plus you'd have to dramatically increase salary and benefits if you wanted to hire that many new teachers anyway.
But, yeah overall my point is it's really hard to appreciate the scale of the problem both like, logically (can it really cost this much money?), emotionally (my kid got hit with a chair today), and culturally (I honestly thought making a quarter of a million dollars a year ensured my kid would never be hit by a chair in school; who do I see about this). But, it really is just the case we are going have to spend money like crazy and hire a shitload of professional educators. It might seem expensive, but you'll pay 10x if kids slide to the end of the pipeline--to say nothing of the moral cost.
In neighborhoods with better school districts, home prices and rents are higher in proportion to the demand people have for better schools, creating de facto segregation based on income, and by your logic, by race too.
What do you mean by "fault"? My concept of "fault" is whoever I'm going to punish to make society better. (More precisely, assume everyone has some policy `p_i` for actions they take. If a certain action `a` is bad for society, they get punished proportionally according to `KL(a, p_i)`, i.e. they are that much at fault.)
If their home circumstances are forcing them to act this way, then too bad for them! That is part of them and they should be blamed until you can fix the root cause.
Expecting children to be responsible for their own actions to this degree is unrealistic, any policy built on that expectation will be ineffective at best and likely harmful, and thus anyone advocating for it is at best asking us to waste resources and at worst asking us to harm kids.
You've got over 20 posts in this thread, many of them putting the blame on children with no evidence that this would be helpful (probably because it wouldn't be). You've yet to contribute good ideas or substantial new information to our discussion. Your behavior is making our group worse, and ironically if we were to follow your advice here we'd have to throw you out.
I can tell you're passionate about, but frustrated by this issue. My advice is to take a breath and if you're really interested, do some reading and get involved. There are successful education systems out there (everyone references Finland); things aren't hopeless.
> You've yet to contribute good ideas or substantial new information to our discussion. Your behavior is making our group worse, and ironically if we were to follow your advice here we'd have to throw you out.
Do you really believe this? I flagged your comment, because I'm worried that you are trying to convince people by building an ethos (and tearing down others' ethos) instead of appealing to logic. Your writing is very good, but there isn't much substance to it. For example, you say
> Expecting children to be responsible for their own actions to this degree is unrealistic
but don't substantiate why it is unrealistic. I've found that when people disagree (in America) there are usually layers of rhetoric that have been built around the issue, so much so that it can be hard to dig down to the crux of the issue and actually resolve the disagreement. This is why I'm worried about how you're writing: it seems to be adding layers instead of removing them. (EDIT: Note, I don't think you are doing this intentionally.)
Now, I do think I have been adding to the discussion. For example:
- I proposed we raise salaries by 10x and fire everyone to balance the budget.
- I gave an anecdote showing that even top-tier public schools have anti-learning cultures.
- I've pointed out that the "for whom" is important when discussing what is good or bad.
I wanna start off by saying you're clearly a smart person and I'm not trying to run you out or anything. I'm--both deliberately and subconsciously--saltier post Trump v2 and I'm trying to work through it. A big part of me wants to litigate everything all the time, but I'm gonna avoid that here because I believe in the HN community and that wouldn't build and strengthen that community (imagine the breathing exercises it took to attain this level of clarity haha).
Instead I want to discuss your basic point: we should expel problem kids because it improves outcomes for non-problem kids. I don't want to come off as condescending but I DDG'd for "does expelling students improve outcomes" and literally nobody thinks that. Here's some stuff to read:
"evidence shows these tactics aren’t effective in changing a student’s conduct, and carry major long-term risks for their welfare. Students most affected tend to be those with higher and more complex needs, such as those with disabilities and mental health issues."
"The findings underscore that suspending students does little to reduce future misbehavior for the disciplined students or their peers, nor did it result in improved academic achievement for peers or perceptions of positive school climate." (emphasis mine)
"Suspensions do not reduce classroom disruptions, and often encourage them."
Thanks for the very thoughtful response! I admit I also get salty, particularly when it comes to education. It feels so obvious things should be a specific way, but of course that may just be my STEM person arrogance :P.
So, what I'm mostly confused about is why expulsion wouldn't work. We know some schools are better than others. We know students in "gifted" classes do better than others, and if your references are correct even a regular student in a "gifted" class would soak up the positive climate and turn out better than in a regular class. This seems to imply that expelling enough students should make the school better. For an extreme example, you could have everyone take a test, expel the lowest 50% of marks to a lower-tier school, and the remaining students would have better marks. This comparison is a little unfair, because expulsion is usually reserved for disruptive behaviour, not poor marks, but you could similarly have every teacher compile a list of misbehaving students. When I hear that expulsion wouldn't fix the problem, it must be because they are not expelling enough people!
I'm also a little leery of drawing the same conclusions as the news articles you linked. It seems likely that suspension/expulsion does always work, there's just a causation between lots of students misbehaving in a school and more students being expelled in the school. For example, the second news article says
> The findings underscore that suspending students does little to reduce future misbehavior for the disciplined students or their peers, nor did it result in improved academic achievement for peers or perceptions of positive school climate.
which has a few paragraphs on peer spillover effects from out-of-school suspension vs. in-school suspension. They do find a 1-2% decrease in the peers achieving ELA/math credit with out-of-school suspension (20-30% for the suspended), but there are also 20,000 incidents of out-of-school suspension with a median length ~two weeks [Table A.4]. Their data comes from the NYCDOE which has just under a million students, which means their peers also being suspended could account for half of the decrease! Then there's the correlation between negative school climate, more grievous offences, and out-of-school suspension (re: Table A.4), and it seems to be a clear-cut case of Simpson's paradox.
-----
Alright, time for the spicier part of this comment.
> I just wrote a whole screed in that Paul Graham wokeness thread about this exact thing. Educators are smart! They run studies on how best to educate! They're so easy to find and read!
I don't think the so-called educators are being smart. I think the average wokist is smarter than the average MAGAt (by a lot), but most systems fall into the Goodhart trap. People who optimise for looking good rather than being good often bubble to the top. This is why I think many woke arguments lean heavily on emotional appeals. The callous or ignorant MAGAts that only care about the gas price ironically end up with a more meritocratic system, because results matter.
I didn't partcularly like Graham's essay either, but I do sympathise with the anti-woke sentiment almost entirely because I believe this Goodharting has devastated the education system. For example, a common refrain I found in the comment section and your linked articles was,
> Expelling the student is not a good solution. Think about how this will effect his life! And what if he's going through abuse? Is it even his fault?
The MAGAt mentality is "I don't care, show me the results". They find current schools lacking,...
> Thanks for the very thoughtful response! I admit I also get salty, particularly when it comes to education. It feels so obvious things should be a specific way, but of course that may just be my STEM person arrogance :P.
Thank you (also for indulging)! As an also-arrogant STEM person myself we can muddle through together haha.
> So, what I'm mostly confused about is why expulsion wouldn't work.
I think a number of dynamics are at play here:
- Schools don't usually reach for suspension/expulsion that quickly because they're weighing the impact of the problem kid's behavior on others vs. the impact of a suspension/expulsion on the kid, so their disruptive lingers.
- Some schools have zero tolerance policies that suspend/expel very quickly, but it turns out that creates a super weird climate (students defending themselves are also suspended/expelled, school staff feel pretty bad suspending/expelling all the time, you can't build relationships with problem kids which is deeply dehumanizing on both sides, etc.)
- Problem kids have a weird habit of just coming right back. A lot of us are envisioning a relatively rich school district with multiple nets to cordon off problem kids, bost districts have the one school, maybe if they're lucky there's an "alternative school" in the parking lot, which is a trailer that should only ever have 5 people in it, but it has 15. Maybe some people are advocating for some kind of super harsh zero-tolerance-expelled-forever pipeline, but let me introduce those advocates to the School-to-Prison Pipeline [0].
- Problem kids are still in your neighborhood, your kid is pretty likely to still see them outside of school, and that leads to more weird social dynamics.
But moreover, let's say that zero-tolerance-expel-immediately leads to better outcomes for kids and we have some way of totally segregating problem kids both in school and broader society. Those kids are still a problem for society that we'll have to deal with at some point. Today they're throwing stuff in class, tomorrow they're breaking the windows of your car or running drugs in your neighborhood. At that point in the School-to-Prison Pipeline, rehabilitating the person is extremely expensive.
> seems to be a clear-cut case of Simpson's paradox
Nah, definitely not. A commonly cited paper [1] has a pretty good table breaking down the effects of various classroom properties on outcomes. Reading it, you'll immediately get a great look at why private/charter school outcomes are so much better: they work pretty hard to cherry-pick kids that lead to better outcomes, thus exacerbating the School-to-Prison Pipeline issue by putting more pressure on public schools. Anyway, there's so much on this topic you're gonna have to switch your argument to explaining a conspiracy in educational research:
Schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and human rights: transforming our educational systems into levers for social justice: programjames↗
I think the school->prison pipeline is a real issue, but I think a poor quality of education is a much bigger deal because smart, educated people generate exponentially more wealth since the industrial revolution. If you want what is best for everyone, you would focus more resources on top-performing students rather than less! Sure, top-performing students would turn out better than mid-performing students—even with fewer resources—but that's a tautology and an emotional appeal. I think the tricky part is to make sure top students give back to society once they graduate, but that seems more of a cultural issue to solve. Boring students to death probably doesn't help, though.
Now, you brought up that national testing + placement would mostly reflect socio-economic status. I think this is concerning because it lead to in-groups reinforcing themselves, which naturally decreases motivation for future rich people to help the rest of society. However, we already have examples of placement tests, and this isn't what happens! NYC has several "specialized" schools, including one of the best high schools in the nation, Stuyvesant. Admissions to Stuyvesant are entirely based on your rank on the SHSAT, yet 48% of their students are "economically disadvantaged" according to USNews. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I would expect lower or lower-middle class. This data also matches up with my intuitions: although intelligence is heritable (through genes or upbringing), there are exponentially more "economically disadvantaged" people than rich people, so even though rich kids are overrepresented, they are still outnumbered by poor(er) kids.
Also, keep in mind that rich people will always be able to pay for private schools or tutors if they find public education lacking. So, you are really only depriving poor students of any possibility of a good education by lumping everyone together, which is worse for reinforcing classism. As you mentioned, charter/private school outcomes are so much better because they work pretty hard to cherry-pick kids that lead to better oucomes. Why not give everyone that opportunity?
That's a little facetious, because not everyone has that opportunity. Some people are just not genetically predisposed towards exams, or they're being abused at home, or they have to work after school to buy food for their younger siblings. But, it doesn't really matter why someone cannot do/be better if we're unable to fix the why. Until it can be fixed, the problem is just a part of them and they'll be punished for it. This isn't very sympathetic, but it's the game-theoretical optimal approach for getting to the Pareto frontier.
You mention that blame/punishment essentially never works, which is probably because humans are not perfectly rational agents. Sure. I've definitely seen this when I play Risk online. You have to use different strategies when people are irrational/prone to mistakes, e.g. with novices it's usually good to make a big stack and wait for everyone else to noob-slam, while with masters it's better to work with the othe rplayers to slowly choke out the rest. Optimal strategies may be less tolerant to mistakes, and a common mistake humans make is, "this person hurt me, so I will hurt them even more," without considering why they were hurt. A common theme I saw in school->prison pipeline studies is that youth get disaffected with society/the justice system, so they end up committing more crimes. If people really are being irrational, in such a way that punishment will not work, you really only have three options:
1. Force them into rationality.
2. Rehabilitate them through positive reinforcement.
3. Eliminate them from society, e.g. sending them to Louisiana/Australia, prisons/executions, or closed communities.
I'd argue that you should take whichever option is best for society, i.e. costs it the leas...
You've done a lot of thinking here, but if you did 80% of the thinking and 20% of the reading you'd reach better conclusions. There are systems that spend more per student than the US does, more % of GDP than the US does, they have lower classroom sizes than the US, they have better systems for gifted students, their students spend more time in class, they pay teachers professional salaries, they have more state of the art instructional programs, etc. etc. etc. None are trending towards the outcomes you're suggesting; in particular the EU isn't producing more billionaires (this is a product of income and wealth inequality, not educational system efficacy).
> I'd argue that you should take whichever option is best for society, i.e. costs it the least. Why?
> a) Societies cannot be comprised of mostly (weighting by utility) negative-externality people for very long.
> b) Everyone else is better off by eliminating such people, thus they are motivated to do so in whichever way is cheapest.
I can't imagine what you might mean by negative-externality people, but whatever it might be let me inform you there are lots of countries/governments/societies in the world that aren't doing so hot, and they've been doing not so hot for quite some time. Is this some kind of quasi-rational-market hypothesis for societies? Nowhere is this true. Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why did Black people continue to live in States that practiced segregation? Why do people still eat unhealthy food, or smoke, or drink?
> If it were cheaper to just execute all criminals, or commit horrific human rights disasters to make prisons cheap to run, that's what society should do. Historically, that's what societies have done.
I think relying on the actions of governments who knew almost nothing (Earth is flat, what is air, diseases are punishment from God, the sun revolves around Earth) is a bankrupt argument. Governments have almost never been data-driven. Reducing the rubric of how governments/societies should act to "do whatever's cheaper" is... so wrong I don't even really know where to start. How do you justify investments? How do you justify things like entering WWII or The Manhattan Project? How do you know what's cheaper or will result in the most gains ahead of time? This can't be a real argument. Are we about to go the entire history of how governments work? I refuse. Do more reading.
> I think "people being products of systems" is a rather naive take; if people were products of stable systems (in the physics sense), punishment actually would work.
Punishment doesn't work. Deterrence is a myth, and recidivism rates are off the charts. Again you're naive to the criminal justice system. If we don't think better systems/environments lead to better outcomes and worse systems/environments lead to worse outcomes, why are we trying to improve the US educational system at all? A kid's educational attainment is preordained right? Even if you think this is a straw man, it does us no good to consider "some kids just suck" when building an educational system, again because of the School-to-Prison Pipeline where bad outcomes are so lopsided.
> Similarly, we should be able to do a cost-benefit analysis on teacher salaries. In reality, the most efficient use of money is to pour it into the top schools (and have entrance exams), but the metrics don't look as good.
Your argument relies on the prospect of these super students increasing GDP so much we offset the cost of shunting tons of students into the School-to-Prison pipeline. Not only is there no evidence for this, it's a deeply immoral system. I refuse to even continue considering it.
To be pointed about it, I have people in my family who are special needs. I myself was disruptive in school because of life circumstance. When you advocate literally for imprisoning me and members of my family, at some poin...
> To be pointed about it, I have people in my family who are special needs. I myself was disruptive in school because of life circumstance. When you advocate literally for imprisoning me and members of my family, at some point I have to recognize we're fighting. I've reached that point now.
This upsets me. Have you, this whole time, only been arguing for your in-group? Every time you said, "what is best for society," did you really just mean what is best for the people you care about? I, too, want what is best for my in-group, but I've tried to talk about how ranking/expulsions/etc. would increase wealth generation, and improve everyone's quality of life.
Quite frankly, your in-group needs my in-group, not the other way around. If we really are just trying to capture value for our in-groups, people in mine could just give up on public schools and go home-school their kids. I don't think this is optimal for either of our in-groups, but you have to acknowledge that if you want certain people to go to public school, you can't be defecting against those very people! If we really do have a conflict between two in-groups, why do you feel entitled to anything from the other side?
You've mentioned the school->prison pipeline, and how a lack of education brings out the pitchforks and torches. This is entirely true on the other side as well. As you saw in the comment section, a lot of smart people literally feel like school was prison to them. They were bullied, abused, had no freedom, etc. We've both acknowledged that bad students may become disaffected with school and society (if we don't rehabilitate properly), but only I've seemed to recognize that good students will too. Perhaps the difference is, disaffected bad students become violent, while disaffected good students become quantitative traders. Well, guess what? If your entitlement comes through a threat of violence, the correct response is to eliminate that threat.
Maybe you are alright with threatening violence, but I'd rather we not fight. And we don't have to. Society holds itself together through mutually beneficial deals (and a plethora of convenient lies). The minimum I'm asking for is for public schools to be mutually beneficial. This is why, although I think it is best for society to put extra resources into their top stuents, I am okay spending only equal resources.
> I can't imagine what you might mean by negative-externality people
Google is your friend. Essentially, in a counterfactual universe where they never existed, the world would be better off. If you have more negative externalities than positive externalities, your society is draining wealth, and will eventually disappear.
> Punishment doesn't work. Deterrence is a myth, and recidivism rates are off the charts.
We've already gone over this. Go rehabilitate, I don't care. Just rehabilitate people in a way so they aren't actively commiting crimes against education.
> Your argument relies on the prospect of these super students increasing GDP so much we offset the cost of shunting tons of students into the School-to-Prison pipeline. Not only is there no evidence for this, it's a deeply immoral system. I refuse to even continue considering it.
You are trying to coerce one group into sacrifcing enormously for another group, and you say my system is immoral? If sacrifices have to be made (they don't), why do you get to choose who bleeds on the altar?
Also, there is plenty evidence that super students do offset the cost. For example, North Korea's system puts disproportionally more money into their top students, and they usually rank higher on the International Mathematics Olympiad than every European country except Russia. The benefit is mostly for their defense: they really needed nuclear weapons, and they couldn't get them without investing in their best students. They might not even exist as a country today if they didn't do so. What could be more beneficial to their society?
> There are systems that spend more per student than the US does, more % of GDP than the US does, they have lower classroom sizes than the US, they have better systems for gifted students, their students spend more time in class, they pay teachers professional salaries, they have more state of the art instructional programs, etc. etc. etc. None are trending towards the outcomes you're suggesting; in particular the EU isn't producing more billionaires
Look, everyone acknowledges Europe has a stagnation problem, America is better for startups, and the USD being the principal reserve currency makes Americans richer. You cannot directly compare countries like that. I know you're smart enough to recognize that, so I'm astonished you wrote this down.
Ideally, you could just randomly assign two policies, and see which works better. But in the real world, pretty much all studies in education are surveys, and it's hard to account for differences in space (countries/culture/socioeconomic status). Even differences in time (when new policies are introduced) have confounders, but less so. If you look at those studies, you'll find that new policies that throw money at smaller class sizes or higher-quality teachers lead to better educational outcomes. It's uncontroversial to say that better educational outcomes lead to better salaries, and higher wealth generation. (BTW, I'm not using wealth to mean USD, I mean quality-of-life. The USD is just a convenient proxy. Not sure if that was clear earlier.)
Tracking is more controversial. However, the one study that did just randomly assign tracking to 120 first grade classes found it benefited everyone:
Most other studies use standardized exams (e.g. the PISA), and let me remind you, those are not difficult enough to see improvement for the upper percentiles! You flippantly dismissed it, but it's a huge deal. If your national assessment were the AMC 10/12 the bottom 50% would all score zero points (really 37.5, but that's irrelevant), and tracking would look like a resounding success if the top few thousand showed improvement.
> 30 student classes obviates any benefit you'd get from anything else. There are no systems with those class sizes that are achieving the outcomes we want.
I disagree? Universities have larger lectures, and students can move to lower classes if theirs moves too fast. I think your argument goes somewhat like:
| Assume each student randomly needs extra help some x% of the time. Then, the expected length until no needs help is (1-x%)^-n. Just to throw a number out there, assume ten students can move half as quick as one student. Then by the time you get to thirty students, you're moving 20% as fast as with ten students.
However, x% decreases with higher-salary teachers, and you can just move on without answering questions: "Ask me after class, we don't have time today." Finally, if you organize classes so similarly ranked students are together, the correlation in needing help increases, and the pace improves.
> You also can't literally fire all teachers. The NEA or teacher tenure won't let you.
Not with that attitude! Milei layed off 20% of his federal employees, and Musk 80% of Xitter. So, it is possible. They can protest, but I don't have sympathy for shitty teachers looking after their own interests.
> Training and interviewing 2.333 million teachers (plus administrators) is a gargantuan undertaking. Who moves to the middle of nowhere in Arizona, or Mississippi? How will you find so many qualified people?
I think the key is to steal employees ;). If you're offering double the salary, I think the local universities might lose a few professors. Also, as I mentioned, the university pyramid scheme is pumping out more PhDs than they know what to do with. There are also many universities shutting down as enrollment drops. Finally, interviewing 2 million teacher positions is a gargantuan undertaking, but each town only needs a few dozen. The federal government can create a teachers' job board for people to apply to, and let local towns do the hiring. Lots of doctors move to the middle of Nowhere, Mississippi, so I'm sure lots of teachers would too for a competitive salary.
> You also get stuck in tracks, so if say your mom dies in 3rd grade, you do poorly on the test and get bumped down, you're probably bumped down forever. That's a bad outcome.
Bad for whom? It's great for the kid who got bumped up. If you really want a better spot, you can study harder for the next test. No one is *stuck* in tracks. Do you know how I got good at math? I just solved thousands of math competition problems I found on AoPS.com. I would have improved faster if I had a coach/teacher to guide me, but the resources are out there if someone actually wants to hop tracks. It'll be harder than just never losing your spot, but that's no reason to give up.
> This [olympiad problem->curriculum writers] doesn't work because different people learn in different ways. You need dedicated, educated, well-compensated, supported professionals applying state-of-the-art techniques and research to get the outcomes we want. Also when you talk about replacing Common Core with some new standard, you're still not escaping Goodhart's Law.
I call bullshit. The SAT/ACT do not go high enough to distinguish the top 0.1% from the top 0.5%, and other (American/state) standardized exams are even worse, which means the so-called professionals literally do not have metrics that can capture that signal to tune their curriculae against. On the other hand, olympiad problem writers/camp counselors have a proven track record of doing exactly that. Here are two anecdotes:
1) In elementary school, my gifted class' teacher was complaining that her evaluations looked bad, because her students never showed improvement. It wasn't because they didn't improve, it's just because they stayed at 99%.
2) When Luke Robitaille got second in MATHCOUNTS in sixth grade, the nex...
>> 30 student classes obviates any benefit you'd get from anything else. There are no systems with those class sizes that are achieving the outcomes we want.
> I disagree? Universities have larger lectures, and students can move to lower classes if theirs moves too fast. I think your argument goes somewhat like:
You're doing the thing again where you apply your expertise to a domain you're naive to. Google for class size and outcomes.
>> You also can't literally fire all teachers. The NEA or teacher tenure won't let you.
> Not with that attitude!
Contracts are contracts. Attitude has nothing to do with it.
> I think the key is to steal employees ;). If you're offering double the salary, I think the local universities might lose a few professors.
How do you deal with losing... let's just say 2m people from other high-value professions? Unemployment is at historic lows. You also haven't wrestled with finding ~$700b to pay for all of this. There's ~100,000 public schools in the US in ~13,000 school districts. You think you'll get good outcomes letting them all hire individually? Will you put caps on salary so smaller districts don't lose out?
You've honestly not thought through this at all. You're again walking onto an issue you're entirely ignorant of, and if you were in charge of it you'd thoroughly destroy it.
>> You also get stuck in tracks, so if say your mom dies in 3rd grade, you do poorly on the test and get bumped down, you're probably bumped down forever. That's a bad outcome.
> Bad for whom? It's great for the kid who got bumped up.
You're naive to the problems with standardized testing and trying to supplement with anecdata.
> [Weird takes on common core and standardized testing]
There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills. I'm not saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but dealing with gifted students is a whole other kettle of fish (which judging by your anecdata I'm confident you've read nothing about).
>> Today they're throwing stuff in class, tomorrow they're breaking the windows of your car or running drugs in your neighborhood. At that point in the School-to-Prison Pipeline, rehabilitating the person is extremely expensive.
> In my other reply, the TLDR; is essentially, "it's the other way around". It's much more expensive to rehabilitate them in the classroom than in the prison system.
I'm gonna quote something from my response to Paul Graham's wokeness essay: "It's like someone's running an experiment on how many times you can be bafflingly wrong before people notice." I'm noticing.
> There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills.
My entire premise is it's way further up the list. I called you out originally for "adding layers instead of removing them." You won't even acknowledge my cruxes exist, in fact you "refuse to even continue considering it." It's like they say: insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Everyone you talk to from the other side is baffingly wrong, because you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills. I'm not saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but dealing with gifted students is a whole other kettle of fish (which judging by your anecdata I'm confident you've read nothing about).
the answer is simple - these two groups should NEVER be in the same classrooms - NEVER. these two groups will soon approach being different species. The entire issue is that they ARE in the same classroom but shittiest programmer is not sharing an office with Googlers working on search algo - yet somehow this is acceptable in schools. I have to pay tens and tens of thousands of dollars every year to make sure my kid does not have to deal with that nonsense
The purpose for "blame" or "fault" is to know who to punish to best improve society. The "what if" and "what is" scenarios stem from treating "blame" as a mysterious entity that leads to punishment, and then pathological (pathos) appeals that no one is really to blame. It seems rather tautological that society should adopt rules for blame that improves society, not rules that make people feel good inside.
There's a big difference between someone with an IEP (usually massive trauma and mental illness also) doing things and a "regular" student doing them. Expelling a kid usually just means they move to a different school, and all expulsion is doing is moving the burden down the chain, usually from more affluent places where parents are equipped to complain, to less affluent ones. Particularly if the room destroying-violence kiddo's family don't have lawyers.
When I judge an educational institution I could not care less why some child being significantly disruptive is tolerated, even slightly. That institution simply becomes a non starter for a place I might send my children.
Of course parents who don't care about such things, or don't have the luxury of being able to choose, would accept such things. As would those who themselves have 'problem children.' Now think about what this does to the quality of that institution over time.
I do think it's totally fair to put pressure on the school to reduce mainstreaming of kids with major behavior issues. But it's really not about "tolerating" or "not tolerating"- you're witness a system failure and responding by making the problems worse for everyone but the wealthy in a society where governance is premised on the population at large being well educated.
* Tossing around hot potato kids doesn't resolve things in a good for society way.
* Concentrating the proportion of kids interfering with normal income families by removing all the high-income kids from the school doesn't resolve things in a good for society way.
* Letting people choose to send their kids to charters while all the kids of low-involvement parents are still stuck in a situation with a concentrated proportion of problems doesn't either.
Unfortunately there are a several things at play:
* Increased availability of specialized, non-mainstream resources for moderate+ (moderate is pretty severe most of the time IMO) kiddos, gen pop behavior interventions, etc.
* Better general welfare for parents (often unstable/low income ones).
* More push back from districts when parents w/ lawyers demand stuff that's bad for the rest of the classroom.
IMO institutional quality is purposefully damaged by people who hate paying taxes or supporting the general welfare - public schools are basically being purposefully doomed in much the same way that Republicans say "government always bad" and then set out to make it fail on purpose to prove their point, only with a wider variety of motives at play. "I'm sending my kids to private school, why should I pay taxes for public schools?" is not an uncommon strain of thought.
It's a doom loop leading to societal regression into a stratified society unable to properly self-govern IMO.
Kids with major behavioral issues should be getting a bootcamp-style education, where their tendencies can be held in check by adequate physical supervision. This is not about denying anyone an education - if anything, it's doing the exact opposite and addressing their unique educational needs in the most effective way.
While I certainly agree that specialized care and instruction is needed, it is unfortunately not that case that "bootcamp-style" is actually universally fitting. Autistic kids need autism specific early intervention. Many kids with extreme behaviors or mood disorders will respond better to reward structures than they will to heavy-handed discipline. Appropriate settings with professionals trained in behaviors (IE the management and alterations of) can have substantial success, especially if the home environment is not antagonistic/trauma inducing.
> ...unfortunately not that case that "bootcamp-style" is actually universally fitting. Autistic kids need autism specific early intervention. Many kids with extreme behaviors or mood disorders will respond better to reward structures...
These things are not mutually incompatible. Kids with autism who actually have major behavioral issues will clearly benefit from some physical supervision, in addition to whatever autism-specific intervention may be most appropriate for them. Similarly, rewards for good behavior can often go hand-in-hand with some sort of more rigorous discipline for those who persist in damaging and harmful conduct - these things will hopefully be complementary.
It hardly matters to other students WHY a particular student is making it very hard for them to learn and using up all the teacher's time. Only that they ARE.
> Throwing chairs? That's a parent problem. Not sure why the district would put up with that. Expulsion works.
Our local education superintendant _in_ _his_ _program_ _document_ is saying that he will go after any teacher attempting to impose discipline in a "community inappropriate manner".
After spending some time on the teachers subreddit I completely understand why so many people are choosing to homeschool. The amount of in-classroom abuse -- verbal and physical -- in addition to the entitled parents is shocking.
> a district that isn't overly expensive to live, but has the best public schools in the state and are some of the top in the nation
To have a great school district where housing isn't overly expensive is rare these days. I would have to guess it is hard to find a house in such a district unless you waive inpections and pay in cash.
Administrators are constantly castigated for disciplinary actions, as the "throwing chairs" behavior is not evenly spread among the different cultures that students come from.
Different rates of suspensions leads to accusations of racism, and said accusations lead to Hail Mary attempts to make unequal rates equal, including forbidding any meaningful type of punishment for certain varieties of students.
If this sounds far fetched, public officials in Rotherham became objectively evil in their attempts to avoid racism accusations, "1400 children betrayed" is a extremely understated headline, if you want to learn more.
Homeschooling parents are divided into two separate groups. One is secular with college degrees who really want to give their children a better education than they could get in a school AND are able to do so.
The other group are very religious who don't want their children learning about evolution or many other secular things.
The only real issue I have with homeschooling in the US is that regulations vary wildly by state. Some states have so little enforcement that it is possible to teach a child essentially NOTHING by the time they are 18 and face no punishment for ruining that child's life.
A few weeks ago while giving a talk to some business school students, I was shocked to find most of the students and children of the faculty were homeschooled for K-12. This was a Baptist-affiliated university. I really had no clue this was so prevalent amongst evangelicals.
I'd broaden the group to "kids who parents feel have been done wrong or failed by the local school and see home schooling as the best choice available." I don't think this group is quite as consistently college educated as group 1.
Certainly a biased view of religious home schoolers. Most of my religious friends who homeschool are college educated and many have postgraduate degrees. Some do disbelieve evolution, or at least disdain it a bit. Pretty much all of them are motivated people however. Of course that's just my little bubble.
The hard thing for a lot of people to accept is that belief or lack thereof of evolution has no impact on daily life at all. It always comes up in these discussions as a boogeyman anyway.
Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance. Farmers who don't understand evolutionary principles might not recognize the importance of rotating pesticides or implementing refuge areas to prevent resistance from developing.
Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
To play the devil's advocate here, as someone who grew up homeschooled and in a culture of "micro-scale evolution exists, but macro-scale evolution has not been demonstrated":
>Antibiotic resistance
...is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. Recognizing it does not require belief in a prehistoric common ancestor for all organisms; it just requires observing changes that happen on a much smaller and more rapid scale.
>Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
This is non-falsifiable conjecture about a pre-historic past based on observation of present structures. It is equivalent to "we obviously know that dinosaurs did not have feathers, because their skeletons do not have feathers, and feathers would have made them more visible to predators, so they wouldn't have had feathers."
>Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance.
...which, again, is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. You can notice pesticide resistance occurring in pests and rotate your pesticides without having to sign on to the unverifiable claim that this happens because all life derives from a single organism.
>Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
This is more non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture based on observation of current structures. Is it necessary to believe a particular set of conjectures about the origins of mammals' biological similarities in order to recognize the fact in front of you that the mammals are biologically similar, and thus some mechanisms of action may apply across species, provided those similarities are retained?
>Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
...which, again, is non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture that has no bearing on recognizing the existence of the verifiable current-day reality in front of you: humans have back and knee pain. Is it necessary to accept a particular set of unprovable conjectures about the distant-past origins of this particular skeletal structure in order to make decisions about how best to treat a symptom that exists today resulting from the skeletal structure that you see immediately in front of you?
OK, for falsifiable how about evolution predicts patterns of genetic similarity between species that match their apparent morphological relationships - a correlation that didn't have to exist but does.
That's not what falsifiable means. It's not experimentally verifiable. There is no way to conduct a test that would negate it if it were untrue.
It is why, being intellectually honest, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is called a "theory" in the academic sense: it's a proposed model that fits the data available on hand, but which has not been experimentally verified in its premise. Short of time-travel, I'm not sure how it can be experimentally verified.
"Falsifiable" means "I can construct an experiment that could yield an outcome that directly demonstrates this idea as false." This is sort of like the difficulty that exists with the four-color theorem [1]: yes, you can run a lot of examples using computer-assisted proof tech, but at best what that tells you is "we haven't found a counterexample yet."
Except, for non-falsifiable claims like the theory of evolution as the origin of species, there is no experiment you can run to provide a counterexample. The theory covers any possible counterexamples by simply saying "that form of life must have evolved from a different origin point and/or under different conditions (regardless of whether we can recreate those conditions)", and tucks any counterexample in neatly into itself without feeling threatened by falsifiability. It is "total" by having an "escape hatch" for any counterexamples.
That stacks it up alongside "a deity made everything, and designed an ordered universe with certain mechanics, including giving organisms the ability to adapt"; both are explanations that fit the available data, but neither can be experimentally verified. Similarly, that theory is "total" by having an escape hatch: "well, maybe the deity did something different in that case." Young-earth Creationists do this with visible starlight that is a million or more lightyears away: "maybe God just accelerated that starlight so that humans would have a pretty night sky."
That tendency is similar to "maybe the [hypothetical] organisms on Mars adapted from a different common ancestor that maybe was made of non-living substances that are similar to the non-living substances that comprised Earth's first organism." Boom, done, no need to re-examine the premise, you just fold it in with "maybe the same magic worked a little differently over there," just like saying "maybe God made starlight go faster in the direction of Earth."
As long as you don't engage in denial of the available data because of your theory, then I don't understand why holding a particular non-falsifiable theory is mandatory.
It doesn't matter if I hold to the theory that the universe began as an origin-less hypercompressed single point of matter suddenly and rapidly decompressing...if I'm in the lab next to you claiming that vaccines cause autism. The problem is not which non-verifiable theory I hold about an unrelated subject, but rather my denial of the available data on hand.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that Louis Pasteur was a Creationist when discussing the mechanisms he discovered by which vaccines work. What matters is his recognition of the reality of the data at hand, and his work to explore and build on it.
But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
The ask of evolution and science in general is to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
>But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
This is an excellent rebuttal to the micro/macro distinction, because it's working in the correct direction, which you've stated well:
>to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
Using the notion of "species" as a "ground truth", as though it were some biological law, is a self-defeating point precisely because the definition of "species" is "a somewhat-arbitrary taxonomy developed by people to try to group organisms together based on observed common traits."
Want to have your mind blown? The creationist fallacy of "irreducible complexity" isn't just wrong for eyeballs and flagellum but for upward complexity as well. And lateral complexity.
Thanks to ubertaco for the neat response point by point, but I don't think any of your points are relevant, even if they are true.
I know a couple of big-scale farmers in the US. They are Christian, and believe in Creation. That doesn't stop them from using the necessary pesticides, or choosing the adequate strain of corn seeds, etc.
Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron. Believing God created everything according to a design and purpose is not incompatible with acknowledging the presence of similarities and design patterns throughout all of Creation, and believing that doesn't suddenly poof take away your rational capabilities to think and understand things.
Either way, I was asking for is a real situation in which someone will be negatively impacted because they hold a Creationist belief.
Will a Creationist live a sad life without fully embracing the misteries of goose-bumps? Will a farmer not use pesticides, or choose the wrong one because Creationism? Will Advil won't work on a Christian because they don't understand that rats and rabbits are our cousins? Will their knees hurt more (or maybe less?) because they think humans were standing up from the beginning?
More generally all of modern technology is a result of the exact same processes that led to the theory of evolution. If you reject it where do you draw the line?
"Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron"
You kinda do have to be a moron to be a true young earth creationist. I went to Lutheran schools that taught me that the earth was created by god 6000 years ago and evolution was an evil plot created by Satan. By the time I was 15 I realized how stupid this was and how the theory of evolution fits the evidence and is self-consistent. One of the biggest realizations I had is that the theory of evolution, due to requiring such VAST amounts of time for evolution to occur, actually has nuclear fusion embedded in it as a dependency because nothing else could allow a star to shine for so long. When Darwin first proposed the theory a major and reasonable objection was the timescales needed because at the time it was thought that the Sun was powered only by gravitational collapse which would last less than 20 million years. Then this utterly absurd source of power for stars was discovered that could allow them to last for almost 1000 times as long.
> all of modern technology is a result of the exact same processes that led to the theory of evolution
Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the scientific method?
If so, I really feel the need to insist that being Creationist or Christian is not exclusive or incompatible with that. Guess what, I am Christian, I believe in a Creator God and yet I am (surprise, surprise) an accomplished Software Engineer.
I can understand if you think I'm stupid because of my beliefs. That's your opinion and I'm totally fine with it.
What I'm trying to say is that holding these beliefs doesn't make you intellectually impaired, or unable to use reasoning. We're just working with different assumptions.
You have faith in Nothing, from which everything came, I have faith in Something (God) from which everything came. And it is faith indeed, because you don't and can't possibly have definite proven knowledge of the origin of things. You weren't there.
To you, nuclear fusion is evidence of evolution. Fine. To me, alongside the rest of Creation, it is evidence of God.
Therefore, you will reason a certain set of things, and I will reason a different set of things. Because we have different starting points, we will reach different conclusions.
"What I'm trying to say is that holding these beliefs doesn't make you intellectually impaired, or unable to use reasoning. "
They prove their is something fundamentally wrong with your logical reasoning and evaluation of evidence.
You use God as an explanation for why the universe exists but cannot explain where God came from so you are just adding an extra unnecessary step.
Your software engineering background gives you a unique perspective to understand this: When debugging code, you follow the evidence (logs, stack traces, reproducible errors) rather than starting with assumptions about what should be happening. Evolution works the same way - we follow the evidence rather than starting with assumptions about how life should have developed.
The power of evolutionary theory isn't just that it explains what we see - it's that it makes testable predictions. For example, evolutionary theory predicted we would find transitional fossils in specific geological layers before we actually found them. It predicted specific genetic relationships between species that were later confirmed by DNA sequencing. Just as in software engineering, a theory that makes accurate predictions is more valuable than one that only explains what we already know.
You're absolutely right that being religious doesn't make someone intellectually impaired. But perhaps consider that accepting evolution doesn't require abandoning faith in God - it might instead lead to a deeper appreciation of the elegant mechanisms through which creation could have unfolded.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of people who were killed in the witch trials (medieval and contemporary), among so very many other examples.
Few things are more personally relevant than not getting tortured and executed by your neighbors because you were granted no defense against spectral evidence.
What about the tens of millions of people who have been killed because atheism?
But how about this: the first time that any relevant powers decided that slavery was wrong at a global level was due to Christian beliefs, fancy that. And luckily they went on to impose that moral belief to the rest of the world. (England, France vs. Slavery)
It's true that a lot of evil has been done in the name of Christianity, but that's not of Christianity. If I came to your home and punched you in the face in the name of your mother, would you blame your mother?
But Christianity and the Bible have been abused very wrongly by evil powers as tools for control, something possible through deceiving illiterate, uneducated people.
As some other comments mention, Protestant Evangelicals made a big push for literacy precisely so people could read and interpret the Bible themselves, without depending on interested third parties.
Anyone taking a little time to read the Bible will see and understand that the Crusades were wrong, racism is wrong, oppressing women is wrong, and so on.
> Few things are more personally relevant than not getting tortured and executed by your neighbors because you were granted no defense against spectral evidence.
As @arkey points out, this happens with atheistic beliefs as well. By numbers communist purges have killed vastly more people than all religions combined just due to the numbers of people involved in modern ages.
The denunciations are very similar with actual evidence rarely being required or needed. Or it’s based on some characteristic of being on an outside group. Netflix’s adaptation of the Chinese authors book “Three body problem” gives a visceral showcasing of what that would’ve been like as one of the characters father is denounced and killed during that time for having “anti-Marxist” beliefs like gravity.
I’ve been to the Pol Pot’s killing trees in Cambodia where they slaughtered millions of people. Anyone who was educated in any way were considered polluted by capitalism and killed. Things like having spectacles was sufficient evidence.
I’ve seen the holocaust monuments in Berlin and Tel Aviv where the ideals of racial purity based on pseudo scientific interpretations of evolution were a key philosophical underpinning.
Actually much of the anti-evolutionary zeal in the US can be partially traced back to progressives (of that period) use of “evolution” to justify mass forced sterilization of “undesirables” by several US states during the 1910-1930’s.
Really humans are pretty flawed with any belief system. You fool yourself if you think “scientific” or “atheist” are any hindrance to these group behaviors.
Oh honey, xe are visibly queer. None of the above is new to xe, as a matter of survival. And a matter of sanity, as xe were raised to believe that the world was created from whole cloth six thousands years ago and that dinosaurs either lived with humans or were an invention of the devil.
There are no such things as atheist beliefs any more than there are a-unicorn beliefs, even if many things have been done in its name. The same goes for evolution. And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic than German fascism was inherently Catholic (it certainly wasn't atheistic) nor US democracy inherently Protestant. Anyone doing anything "in the name of evolution" is projecting their own hate and small-mindedness onto whatever convenient vocabulary at hand, as has happened over and over and over long before science. Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications. But xe also expect the same of others in kind. Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime? Because actual science has no patience with such nonsense whereas xir original point still stands. We can resume this discussion after that.
> There are no such things as atheist beliefs any more than there are a-unicorn beliefs, even if many things have been done in its name. The same goes for evolution.
That’s just silly. Of course there are atheistic, theistic, along with myriad of other classifications of belief systems. If you decide to try and redefine all commonly accepted terms based on your belief system you’re not participating in a fair discussion.
> And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic
Perhaps it’s not, but all the major communist states have embraced atheism as a matter of course and that is what pertains to my comment. Most scholars consider Karl Marx an atheist and he was certainly secularist.
> Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
Confidence in something is a form of belief. You believe something will occur or is a certain way based on prior information.
Again you’re trying to insert your idiosyncratic definition of belief into the discussion.
> No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications.
As I pointed out above a couple of times you are not being precise but rather are injecting your own idiosyncratic non-standard definition of things. Defining your own unique pronouns is a good exemplar of this.
This all comes across to me as you not being open to genuine conversation.
> Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime?
Having fair trials, hearing of evidence in a court, having impartial judges, etc is based on a societies belief that those things are important.
Junk science goes against those sort of beliefs in a country like the USA and has been used to fight against such things.
As a counter, a science minded secular materialism belief system doesn’t have to believe in things like fair trials or the need of evidence to convict. Some rationalist scientific minded have argued that belief in fair trials and equality of people is illogical as common people don’t have the intelligence or expertise to properly judge things.
The CCP for example is arguably generally more scientific-minded secular materialist society than the USA. Yet they have no problems eschewing things such as trials as in their (dare I say logical and self-consistent) belief system the needs of the state subsume those of the individual.
It's not necessarily just the idea of evolution itself, but rather that it's indicative of someone's willingness to continuously and actively reject all evidence in order to maintain the beliefs they've decided are true.
But highly educated people believe this too. There’s lots of wacky and unscientific, ideas out there that people believe because they come from Columbia University social science professors instead of the Bible. After the last several years I take back everything I said when I was younger and an atheist about religious people and not believing in evolution.
The trick here is that we can reject OP's unnecessarily binary categorization as a premise and focus on the illogical and under-developed personal systems for testing reality and challenging beliefs that represent a far greater concern than the particulars of categorically unexamined beliefs.
Xe were raised young earth creationist and that requires gaslighting your own child on established science, going so far as to regularly test them on their willing to believe or lie about believing patent untruths. Oh, plus the constant repression of one's identity, the lack of exposure to a wider range of perspectives and experiences, and the panopticon of surveillance by people with near total control of your socializing, especially in the suburbs. That really fucks a child up.
That kind of homeschooling is a cult, no matter how much our wider culture has normalized the literal insanity.
Most of the disagreements are fundamentally metaphysical (would God make fossils?), so debates about evidence, expertise, and scientific consensus are beside the point.
It’s directly correlated with young earth creationism and climate change denial. A significant portion of the population being taught "don’t trust scientists they’re lying on behalf of the literal devil" has done terrible things to American politics.
> It’s directly correlated with young earth creationism and climate change denial.
Is it though? Any sources to back that?
From what I know CC denialists come in all shapes and sizes, from Christians to Conspirationist Atheists to people who are hoping for the return of the Anunnaki. As well as firmly Creationist Christians that don't deny the climate change at all.
There is another issue. Kids in the first group can get an incredible academic intellectual education, AND be emotionally and socially stunted. I have directly observed this, unfortunately. It also happens in very liberal, high-end, private schools.
Schools shouldn't teach neither evolution, nor creationism, nor any other origin story. Because it is something that doesn't matter at all – knowledge without value.
Worse is that the majority pupils around the world will be taught both the Abrahamic creation story, the origin of man according to evolution, and usually a third or even fourth creation story from local pre-Abrahamic mythology. In the same school and from the same teacher. Talk about confusion of the highest order!
>There are elementary school classrooms where ~1/4 students don't speak English.
This really gets my hackles up, because my kids grew up in schools with a 50% Spanish speaking population and my partner is a dual-language teacher in a district where Spanish, Russian, and I believe Vietnamese are all taught as first-languages in specialized classrooms. Your assertion around English is misguided. This isn't to say that we don't need to get our kids proficient in English (it is the lingua franca after all), but there's more here than meets the eye. In my area we are headed toward universal bilingual education, which I see as only a good thing. That means that it may take longer to reach full proficiency, but the overall outcome is more capable and prepared students.
I don’t want my kid in a classroom where everything has to be repeated in Spanish. It’s already this way for school meetings and it slows information sharing down to a crawl.
If there was mandatory English and Spanish in elementary school classrooms I would consider home schooling.
Outside of certain fields (skilled trades primarily) my children will not need to be proficient in Spanish to be successful in the United States. It’s a nice to have and should not slow down everything else.
My kid is in a program where they spend half the day, and learn half the subjects, in a language that most of the students didn’t initially speak at all. They pick it up and do quite well.
I think you missed the point of the parent, which is that ~1/4 of the students are dead weight at the cost of the rest of the class. It isn't "misguided" if their experience is different than yours.
If your outcome is students that are more capable at languages but less capable in virtually every other subject, is the result really "more capable and prepared students"? I'm not opposed to bilingualism but you're lying to yourself if you think this comes at zero cost to at least some students.
for kids in early development, their skill level in all the other subjects later will be essentially determined by their linguistic ability. math is a language. there is research that shows benefit to bilingual programs, but there has to more structure than just dumping esl kids in there with everyone else.
Forgive me, but with machine translation becoming nearly a solved problem — why would kids spend years of their lives learning new languages anymore? By the time they grow up, won't that be a rather useless skill — except perhaps in very nuanced contract negotiations?
The teachers in this school don't speak Spanish. The Spanish speaking children are struggling, and the rest of the kids cannot proceed at the same rate.
I'm not pretending to have solutions, and I'm certainly empathetic for all involved. Just stating the reality that this is a suboptimal learning environment.
this is the experience i see at our local schools. english as first language kids are bored and not challenged. the class is moving slower because half the kids are only learning english for the first time at school. “modern” progress ideology is to not separate the students by ability anymore and there’s less accelerated tracks
Perhaps you shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction of getting yourself irritated then. The GP clearly said 1/4 students don't speak English, not 1/4 students speak one more language besides English.
I have observed that any two-tier system accentuates inequality, be it health, education, security, or anything. When one group pays to have a system better than a universally provided one, the differences between both tend to increase, as the incentive to keep the universal system only as a fall-back to the private one by investing less on it (or by receiving generous donations from the private sector) is tempting to politicians.
A former colleague of mine, who grew up in communist Yugoslavia, remembered how he cherished summer vacations when kids from different schools went together to state-operated summer camps. I thought this was an excellent way to build inter-group bonds between kids that would never have met in other circumstances, learning to work together in team-building and educational activities. It didn't turn out well for the country, or, at least, it wasn't sufficient to prevent the breakup and the disaster that happened because of it, but still seems like a good idea.
Over time, my opinion changed from a strong supporter of free market economics to more deliberate models. I would support banning homeschooling along private schools completely. If a country wants to build a society that sees itself as a group of individuals with equal rights and obligations, you need to start early.
Of course, this would never pass any legislative body in the US.
A slightly different perspective: schools are mass produced education. Mass produced in the sense that they are the lower cost in terms of person hours to produce an educated child. Like all mass produced products, it's better than 1/2 hearted solo attempts to do the same thing, but a parent that can afford to put a huge amount of time into it can do better job as lots of comments here attest.
If true, that also provides an explanation for the rise home schooling: more people can afford to do it.
Homeschooling is seeing a surge in popularity, its not just tech people or high status people.
IME it's a lack of trust, sending your kids to be raised by strangers. I grew up in a small town and some of my teachers were basically neighbors.
For some reason outside my understanding, a lot of small towns have shuttered the school in walking distance and moved to "consolidated" schools which might serve a thousand students from 4 different towns it's placed somewhat equidistant to, ie, in the middle of nowhere
The irony of this is that you rely on strangers for critical stuff like ensuring you don't get electrocuted or burned at home or even ensuring that the water that you drink won't make you ill or that your car is a good enough condition to not lead you to a fatal crash. Any of these affects your close relatives. What makes education different?
I think there's a broad perception that education professionals are ideologically captured by the left. It's hard to know how true this is, but individuals like "libsoftiktok" have made a career out of stoking that fire.
Also, unlike your other examples of strangers working on things, there's not really a feedback loop of review and rework where mistakes can be corrected. If your child gets a bad education, that's time lost that's really hard to recover and can set them back for life.
Edit: To add, the "ideological capture" perception is important because of what education is. When you're dealing with an electrician, it doesn't matter who they vote for because electricity works the same way regardless. Teachers don't just regurgitate information but promote a set of values and expectations in their classroom so their personal opinions can matter a lot. And that's not even getting into teachers who explicitly try to teach students their worldview.
If the water you drink is having problems, you'd have campaigns over it, protests, people trying to get it resolved and potentially lawsuits. People would band together to do whatever they could to fix the problem that they see.
Education is seeing the exact same thing. Parents see a lot of problems. They are going to school board and council meetings, people are campaigning on solving the issue and people are taking whatever measures are in their power to fix it...like home schooling.
When people see problems, they want to fix them. It's exactly the same thing.
Exactly right. Plenty of people have in-home systems to bring their municipal water to the quality that they want (e.g. filters, softeners). Many more even have wells because there is no municipal water.
Many people research safety ratings before purchasing a car as a proxy for how reliable a given manufacturer is at ensuring good outcomes in a crash.
I have some friends who live in area with the bad water quality... They end up drinking/cooking with store-bought water, instead of city-provided one from the tap.
When I need electrician/plumber/general contractor/etc..., I choose one based on recommendations and reviews.
If you know (say from conversations with other parents) that your local school is bad, why would you send your kids there? It is like choosing an electrician with bad reviews only because their office is next door to you, or living in bad-water area, drinking city water and getting sick every week.
The cost and timeline to evaluate quality is completely different; I can get multiple opinions for my possessions, and utilities are fairly objective to evaluate (and the cost to do so is small relative to the scale of the operation).
Schools are limited for choice, expert evaluation is limited, outcomes are potentially unclear... That's before you get into issues with the politics of a teacher or problem students.
some people feel better when they think they're in control, despite the fact that the outcome could be even worse. The ability to have control gives the reassurance that the outcome is going to be acceptable (without evidence).
Even further than that, individual evaluations of ‘better’ can meaningfully vary. Not everyone has the same metric of success here and I think there are many reasonable yet distinct evaluation criteria.
Not really ironic, though. There are aligned interests and effective incentive structures involved in all of your examples. And your examples pertain to very narrowly-focused, objectively measurable outcomes.
Education is massively different. It's not a simple one-off deliverable, like making sure wires are insulated or water is filtered. It's something that's has different success criteria for each person who consumes it. It overlaps significantly with normative considerations and subjective values. And the current infrastructure that provides it via public institutions is badly distorted by perverse incentives, ulterior motives, and dysfunctional mechanisms of accountability.
I know in my area they're doing consolidation of schools because there are fewer kids enrolled than when the schools were originally constructed. Even after some consolidation many schools are barely over 60% of their enrollment capacity which is estimated to go down almost another 10% in the next five years.
People haven't been having nearly as many kids for a while. Fewer kids means fewer students. Revenue to operate the building is tied to number of students; fewer students means less revenue to keep things operating satisfactorily.
When the majority of the homes surrounding the elementary are filled with retirees whose kids have moved elsewhere instead of young families it is no surprise the school closes.
> For some reason outside my understanding, a lot of small towns have shuttered the school in walking distance and moved to "consolidated" schools
In my experience it's because schools are being treated as a business, and businesses are usually more efficient when there's consolidation of expenses. Why pay for 3 schools with 10 teachers each when you could instead consolidate classes and pay for 1 school with 15 teachers? To a business, the decision is purely made out of cost. Alas, a lot of governments have such tight budgets (for many legitimate and illegitimate reasons) that cost benefits outweigh the human benefits.
Not sure if I agree with this. Schools are not exactly run by the government, rather local school districts.
My (not data based) impression of school levies is that they nearly always get approved by voters, even in tax-averse areas, so if there is a lack of funding, it is usually real, rather than through a misplaced need to be "efficient".
> Schools are not exactly run by the government, rather local school districts.
What gets approved by voters? Ahh, right, government services. How are those paid? By taxes. Who collects taxes? Governments, of course.
I don't know where you are in the world. In the US, public schools are funded by government money counted by number of students and their test scores. So more students = more funding, better scores = more funding. There are other kinds of schools, private schools and charter schools come to mind, with different funding types. But often those include additional costs to the parent on top of the taxes they already pay.
How do public schools get managed by the district? Again I'm not sure where you are, but here the public school administration gets voted in during government elections. The public education system's requirements are defined by law and, above the district level, managed by county or state education services.
> if there is a lack of funding, it is usually real, rather than through a misplaced need to be "efficient"
Don't get me wrong, I think efficiency has its place. But I think it is extremely easy for school administrators to end up in a business-first mindset instead of a serve-people-by-educating-them mindset.
In many places in the US, though probably not all, school districts levy their own taxes independent of municipal or county governments. The reason we might not describe school boards as "the government" is, well, they don't govern us and are distinct from the organizations which do. They don't have the power to levy taxes or pass laws. Its almost like a large co-op where all the citizens of an area fund and vote on the inner workings of the school.
And, as you say, they are regulated by the government but so is everyone and everything else. In my view, its appropriate to describe public schools as part of "the government" but I also respect the GP's view that they're independent enough to be describe as not "the government".
school districts levy their own taxes independent of municipal or county governments. The reason we might not describe school boards as "the government" is… They don't have the power to levy taxes.
In my district, direct democracy determines the level of tax. They can't, for example, pass a law that collects a tax on business income or whatever. They could probably collect usage fees of some sort. I'm thinking in school field trips and paid lunches. But truth be told I'm not intimately familiar with the legal or bureaucratic basis for those fees.
Depends on area. Portland schools have plenty of money but still struggle. Administration and retirement perks eat up most of the budget. In a sense its that they are not a business that leads to that kind of issue.
But ultimately its a complex issue. eg voucher systems would resolve the above issues, but create entirely new sets of problems which may be worse along the way.
It's pure economics. One large facility is cheaper in fixed cost terms than four smaller facilities. It's also cheaper in variable costs of staffing and other economies of scale like consumables. Lastly, the size of the large school means the cost of special features like a wood shop, kitchen, large theatre, art facilities, etc., are relatively smaller and thus more easily included in the whole package.
You're right that something is definitely lost. It's an externality that's forced on you and your children. There are compensations, but it's not an unambiguous win.
Well, I went through through the public school system from rural (hamlet) kindergarten till big city university and I say ... it's OK as a default baseline but if one wants some resemblance of competitiveness and performance from their kids, one cannot avoid private tutoring.
If that is done by the parents / family, then it's almost like home schooling. But I don't like home schooling because the kid is left out of the system and the studies are not recognized. At some point they will have to take traumatizing equivalence tests, which can be entirely avoided by playing along - go to a public school, or in my kid's case, a private school which follows the same curricula.
But I stress again, even with private school, there's no replacement for private tutoring if you want your kid to succeed in life.
I think as a professional in tech, it's frightening and obvious how behind schools are in keeping up with the modern world. I'm not talking about having ipads. AI will be he most significant technology humanity has experiences. We need to pivot toward an educational model that enhances creativity and cooperative communication but I just don't see that happening. It's still the bucket model of learn this don't ask questions, kids are a bucket and they need to be filled up by knowledge. It's outdated NOW, with absolutely no indication there will be significant changes.
I had trouble in the public schools because of bullying linked to my schizotypy (then undiagnosed despite what I'm told later was an exceptionally good psych eval for the late 1970s) They were going to drug me so my parents took me out for two years, I skipped three and was successful in high school. (In the single year my parents were able private school I was treated as I had some rights and dignity)
My son struggled in elementary school in a different way. Our school got labeled as a "persistently dangerous school" because we had an principal who, unlike others in the district, filled out the paperwork honestly (and got fired for it.) I lost faith in the superintendent when he first words in a meeting were "we're going to appeal it" as opposed to something like "we're going to do everything in our power to make this school safe".
I was active in the PTA (maybe the only dude; that same superintendent was dismissive of my wanting to be active in my son's education at the same time he welcomed the mother of a 'special' child who could call the state and light a fire under his ass to do so) and was very impressed with the teachers for one year, but the next year they seemed disorganized and the precipitating incident was when my son made a horribly violent doodle and the teacher wrote "Great!" with an underline on it. We didn't take him back the next day and kept him out for two years. We couldn't get him on a good reading program but we got him far above grade level on math with Kahn Academy. (As an adult circumstances got him interested in reading, now he's reading The Economist every week, books on chess openings, psych textbooks I loan him, etc.)
We never quite filled out the paperwork but two years later we slotted him into middle school where he was successful.
We are in an age where people who watch a youtube video think they know more than the experts. Being a good teacher is a skill and understanding childhood development is something that requires proper education. I'm not saying there is never a good reason to home-school your kid, but most people who do it are unqualified and from my limited experience the kids who are home schooled have huge holes in their education. Surprisingly, they do seem to be fine socially which is what you hear many people worry about.
I'm so worried for those parents raising children outside of school without degrees in childhood development! Think of all the unqualified parenting time happening without skilled teachers to supervise!
Teachers are mostly very uneducated and ineffective at teaching itself and the subjects they teach. I don’t think spending time to get an education degree or certification means much. Parents care for their children more than any random teacher, especially ones that resist performance measurements to judge their effectiveness. I would expect the average parent to be FAR more effective just based on that care.
I went to a rural public school, underfunded as they come, and my HS math teacher is still in the top 3 of all teachers / instructors I've had throughout my life. If my parents were to teach me math, I simply wouldn't be working in a STEM-field today.
The majority of my teachers were good. The dynamic was completely different compared to being around my parents.
Studying the subject academically in any real capacity. Also, in the US, every teaching degree requires time in a classroom as a student teacher with an experienced teacher as your mentor.
Studying the subject academically in any real capacity.
What do you mean by "in any real capacity"? I have read many books and academic papers about education. And I have experimented with some of the things I've learned. Does that count?
Among current K-12 teachers in the United States, what would you estimate is the median number of academic/research papers related to education or adjacent fields that they have read in the past 24 months?
in the US, every teaching degree requires
A teaching degree is neither necessary not sufficient for effective teaching. There are thousands of ineffective teachers with US teaching degrees. There are thousands of effective teachers without teaching degrees.
This is what I'm talking about. This attitude of I read a paper or two so I know what it's like in a classroom with multiple kids at different ages that have different needs. Or I know what it's like in a classroom with 20 kids. Yes there are bad teachers, but you present the argument like "there are bad teachers therefore all homeschooling teachers are better" which is absurd.
"There are thousands of effective teachers without teaching degrees."
I doubt it. And there are countless thousands more that are terrible and whose kids are very behind.
I have one child. If I were to homeschool my child, I would not need to know "what it's like in a classroom with 20 kids".
I'd imagine there are approximately zero homeschoolers who are managing a classroom of 20 kids.
The skills, knowledge and behaviors required to obtain and keep a job as a public school teacher are not the same as those required to homeschool your own kids.
Ah, the experts. I have no sort of education in education at all. Why was I better (and still am) at helping mates learn and solve CS exercises at Uni than some of the expert and qualified teachers? A friend of mine recently started a CS course to pivot his professional career. When he doesn't understand what the teacher is on about, he comes to me for help.
I have huge respect for the concept of teachers, but sadly a lot of people are teachers because they didn't know what else to be.
> from my limited experience the kids who are home schooled have huge holes in their education
I don't want this to sound snarky at all, but I'd honestly be happy to provide you with real life cases that would broaden your experience and hopefully tilt your viewpoint.
Personally, I have high functioning autism. I would do terrible at interpersonal relationships, but then get near perfect scores on all the tests.
Teachers would anticipate that I would be terrible and then when I got perfect scores on all the tests, they would be pissed off.
I think there are a lot of tech people that are neurodivergent and had terrible experiences in school and would love to avoid my child having that experience.
Also, I’m not super happy about the extreme views on race, sex and religion that are going through the school system. I would like the opportunity to teach a more moderate view. I feel like people who don’t have kids who make comments about this trully don’t understand many parents perspectives on this.
Also, when you are a parent, you find that you have to move to specific areas to get good schooling and homeschooling would allow you to live where you want to and not pay and go through the application for private school.
It’s interesting that everything in this article that’s anti-homeschool relies on the parents not doing something correctly, which I think most people just assume they correct for that. I’m not worried about abusing my own kids, because I’m not going to abuse them. Honestly, my mom was a teacher and she was anti-homeschool and many of the anti-homeschool bullet points were provided by the union and I think she just wanted to get full funding for the school and the state wouldn’t provide funding to the school when the homeschoolers didn’t show up and wasn’t really caught up in those arguments.
However, my wife is never going to homeschool our kids or allow me to do it, so it’s just not going to happen.
My son's district has a black superintendent and at least one black principal but otherwise black (and other) kids don't get to see the example of black teachers (and learn school is a "white thing you wouldn't understand" the same way that boys come to the conclusion that school is for girls when they don't see any male teachers -- the problem here is representation-ism that stops at the very top, if they do get a black teacher they get promoted out of the ranks immediately)
When my son was in middle school he was quite inspired by a curriculum unit on the Harlem Renaissance and liked the school's black principal.
Later on he felt the attitude about gender (man vs women as opposed to something else) was very oppressive and that it contributed to him and other students falling victim to incel ideology and sometimes body dysmorphia. Today he struggles to talk to girls not because he's afraid of being rejected but because he's afraid of being reported.
It's pretty standard for middle schools to hold assemblies discussing sexual harassment and healthy relationships, but they don't always do a great job communicating those concepts.
Back when I was in middle school about a decade ago, the principal got up on stage with a police officer and explained that sexual harassment is when you talk to a girl and she feels uncomfortable. He then went on to assert that the school had zero tolerance for sexual harassment, describe various authorities to whom victims could report instances of sexual harassment, and implore students not to risk their future by engaging in sexual harassment.
If you weren't super confident in your ability to predict or control other people's feelings, probably your takeaway from that assembly was that talking to girls was a risky thing to do.
"Don't make people uncomfortable" and your takeaway is you shouldn't talk to them at all. I don't think the problem there lies with the sexual harassment narrative.
I was bullied in elementary school and graduated the same way Ender Wiggin did.
I was out two years and skipped three, started in the middle of freshman year.
I had no idea how I was going to find a mate. The world my parents grew up in, where my mom was introduced to my dad by his sister, was long gone. I knew I couldn't trust anything I saw on TV or in the movies. Adults, including my parents, were completely dismissive of my concerns. Might have made a difference if I had a sister, but she was born premature and I never saw her before she died.
I sat next to a beautiful girl in English who left me feeling entirely outclassed. [1] I came home crying from school about this every day for most of a year until I met the new physics teacher who let me hang out in the lab during study breaks, which gave me some meaning in my life and led me to get a PhD in the field. I still was afraid I'd wind up alone forever and went to a "tech" school which had an unfavorable gender ratio; I did find a girlfriend in my senior year, then was lonely and miserable in grad school. I found someone who was a friend of a friend and I've been involved in a love triangle ever since which he lost out in. My partner is a 100% reliable person from the same culturally Catholic background of myself (my parents did not involved me with the Church, she did all the things and has a positive orientation towards religion but doesn't take communion because she doesn't believe it literally.)
Boys today don't have it any easier. My immediate reaction is to be sympathetic towards "incels" but as an organized group they teach boys self-loathing which is primary to the 50% attraction-50% hate that they express towards women (hmmm... something a lot of people who are more or less healthy feel towards their parents because the conflicts that come out of being dependent on people)
[1] She was traumatized by her parents going through a nasty divorce. She teaches the Quechua language in Hawaii now. There's a photo of her next to a huge dog, no sign of any human relations. I probably did better at love than she did in the end.
Of course, a lot of activities carry risk; doesn't mean teenagers will completely abstain from them.
The missing piece here might be that, as a teenager, it's pretty easy to convince yourself that the main way girls will reject you is by expressing that they're uncomfortable. (I believe this is called "getting the ick" in modern slang; the old movies your parents like call it "get lost, creep".) So if you're afraid of rejection, it's plausible that you'd be afraid of the legal consequences of making someone uncomfortable more than the personal embarrassment or emotional pain of the actual rejection.
If support of trans folk is "Too far" for someone, they were already running towards fascism. There's nothing progressive about denying folks their gender identity, and to the extent that "Progressivism" is a force in America, it is better off without the Anti-trans contingent.
No it isn’t. The vast majority of progressive people don’t buy into any of the gender/trans discussion. It’s definitely not a core tenet of being a progressive, but a very vocal minority is definitely trying to make it so.
I disagree, and I find an even more vocal, even smaller group seems very invested in making sure people know who exactly we need to throw to the fascists to make them finally stop being fascists.
Hard agree with this. I've stopped calling myself progressive because it's so tainted by this bullshit. Now I do my best to draw a line between actual leftist views and this harmful faux-progressive nonsense whenever I talk politics with anyone.
My best friend in college was transsexual, knew who she was in childhood, couldn't be talked in or out of it. She was kicked out of the Air Force Academy which was my gain but our nation's loss. I was proud of my country when I heard this policy changed, not just for the individuals but because the US struggles to attract officers to match the quality of our enlisted warfighters.
I've cross-dressed at times (high heels, fishnets, all that) such as for Halloween and I also know the undercurrents of violence you can feel from ignorant people. Sometimes I bum around the house wearing a long skirt.
I was inclined to be supportive of the modern transgender movement when I first heard about it and when my exposure was through the media. It is their own speech that has alienated me from them.
Once I met people affected and after I joined Mastodon where I've had to add rules to completely block out their continuous hateful spew which frequently gets reposted by people who should know better. I'd be glad to hear "I'm so happy I found a new way to put on makeup that makes me feel like myself" or "I'm really inspired by electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos" or "Thank Lynn Conway for that phone in your pocket".
I can't deal with large volumes of negativity from strangers and on leftie corners on the web people from that community are the worst. [1] Whether or not they should exist is beyond my pay grade but I don't want them in my feed at all.
For that matter I feel less safe and not more safe expressing non-conformant gender characteristics because: (1) so many people have gotten inflamed, and (2) I don't buy into the politics.
[1] I just plain couldn't stand the MAGA nuts on Twitter, never mind all the equally hateful people who spew hate against transgender people (who I suspect want people to spew hate at them to justify their world view as much as Benjamin Netanyahu likes Palestinian attacks that justify his world view.)
I'm sorry you experienced that, and that kind of hate has not been my experience - though that kind of negativity in other online cultures certainly has been.
Trans people behaving badly does not make me want them to cease existing, or make me feel less for their cause. "Trans people want hate spewn at them to justify their worldview" feels like a hilariously backwards belief outside of a few professional activists, who I am not particularly inclined in listening to in the first place.
> Their cause is to universally redefine "woman" to include men who desire to be women, and "man" to include women who want to be men.
This is a reductive view that presupposes gender as a pre-existing discernable static fact of a person's biology as opposed to an apparently extant human phenomena. The idea that they are the same is a profoundly simplistic view of the issue, one not supported by modern psychology or human archaeology, littered with happy societies full of folks we would now consider "gender non conforming". It's not a new cause, nor is it attempting to "redefine" anything.
> We can already see the effects and they're not good
People living authentically is great, actually. Respecting others and their preferences, also good. It genuinely doesn't hurt anyone. The effects to my life are roughly equivalent to my friend Phillip telling me he prefers Phil.
> harmful to women and girls in particular.
In very hypothetical, "just asking questions" ways that have yet to be borne out in any sensible reality. What has happened many times is cis and trans women being harassed for baseless, paranoid reasons. It's especially repugnant a defense when you consider that trans folk - trans women in particular!- are among the most vulnerable to attack and abuse.
If we were worried about harm to women and girls in a tangible, meaningful sense, we would be quick to punish actual perpetrators of verifiable assault than play feminist only when we find a more vulnerable throat to crush.
> This is a reductive view that presupposes gender as a pre-existing discernable static fact of a person's biology as opposed to an apparently extant human phenomena.
And yours is a subjective take that opposes this rather basic, verifiable fact.
It's like I can't win. If I behave too feminine as a man people give weird looks to me and mockingly refer to me as a woman. A significant portion of the society still does not think men should be very effeminate.
So I am like ok, sure, I don't care much about this gender ideology, but if society does not think I am a man, then I am a woman!
Then people are not happy again. They call me a man who just wants to become a woman.
You might be being facetious and trying to imply that the political views taught in school are actually moderate, but I'm going to take the question literally anyway.
One example is the idea that a bio man should and must be called a woman if they declare themselves to be so. Regardless of whether or not you agree, it is an extreme viewpoint that has only just now become acceptable to believe in terms of history.
No one is learning about Critical Race Theory anywhere other than law school (or possibly undergraduate sociology classes that pre-law students would be likely to take). It's a heterodox thread in legal scholarship. Whatever you think primary schoolers are learning about race, it's not Critical Race Theory.
> No one is learning about Critical Race Theory anywhere other than law school (or possibly undergraduate sociology classes that pre-law students would be likely to take).
Yes and no.
You are correct that almost no one is learning full CRT legal theory in K-12.
That said, CRT principles have expanded beyond legal studies, and they have certainly made their way into classrooms. Here is an example of an article that makes a case for it:
I’m not sure if you know many education academics, but I assure you that CRT and derivatives thereof have been some low-hanging fruit in education research for over two decades (i.e., relatively easy to get published).
There were two definitions of Critical Race Theory. In 2021, the National Education Association adopted a Business Item [1] to "Share and publicize, through existing channels, information already available on critical race theory (CRT) -- what it is and what it is not; [...] and share information with other NEA members as well as their community members."
This included "Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project." [1]
Which is pretty wild, because that's a great summary of everything conservatives were objecting to in social studies classes, and provides a good wording for Christopher Rufo's redefinition of CRT.
However, I agree with you that this was a very recent redefinition of the term Critical Race Theory: As far as I can tell, the application of legal scholarship's CRT to education scholarship in the late 1990s was focused on the Critical analysis of teaching outcomes [2, 3, 4], especially racial discrimination in school districts. This seems to have been focused on administrative things rather than course content. There was a subsequent movement around 2016 to bring "Critical Race Praxis" into school districts, which again seems to be focused on removing inequities from school administration and teaching counter-narratives to "K-12 leaders". So I think that this is where conservatives found the term and decided to repurpose it to label the antiracist content which was being incorporated into social studies courses.
One thing I've never understood with homeschooling: How come parents think they have the competence to be a teacher? Just because you are educated doesn't mean you are a good (pedagogical) educator.
I had numerous teachers that won local and regional teacher of the year awards that were, too put it bluntly, terrible at teaching. The actual pedagogical education that teachers receive is not good, and when you look at the rigor in their degree programs it would be found extremely wanting compared to just about any hard science degree program. There are numerous examples of pedagogical research being neglected to be included in programs for dogmatic reasons, and the usage of such methods like whole word reading over phonics would indicate large scale failure.
Anecdotally, if I were to stack rank my education in k-12 based on quality of teacher, it would essentially be all professors followed by k-12 teachers, with those receiving more teacher instruction being lower on the list. I was once instructed by a history teacher, to not use examples on a history essay that we didn't learn in class, because she had to look them up.
I find it incredibly easy to believe that I can teach my children better than the average teacher.
Hundred percent. They vastly underestimate teaching in the same way that people resorting to homeopaths for serious illnesses underestimates the training and knowledge doctors go through.
We don't think we have the competence to be a teacher. We would never presume to teach someone else's kids.
We think we have a relationship with our own child that allows us to understand what they need and how to communicate with them in a way that works for them. We think we have the time (assuming one parent is full time parenting) to give our child the attention they need to excel. And we believe that a combination of relationship and individual attention goes further in K–12 than any amount of formal training in education.
If you do that, the normal education is redundant. You wouldn't put a university student in class to learn multiplication; it's an insulting waste of their time. Why would you do the same to a 10 year old who mastered it years ago?
Not really. There are only so many hours in the day. The time between school and bedtime is extremely limited and involves other time consuming activities such as after school sports and eating dinner.
I work on homework with my kid every day and after all those things it's not like we have time (or she has energy) to fill in holes in her at-school learning
Next time you're in the car, try teaching your kid about solving systems of equations where both are linear vs one is linear and the other is parabolic. It's a lot easier to sketch it out on scratch paper than to pontificate from the driver's seat.
that's not germane to this conversation. it's about parents without formal teaching certs working with their children to given them what they need to excel.
Sure those things (history/philosphy/etc) matter but in our society you still have to do well on math tests to do well in life.
As a parent you can teach them directly (homeschool) or augment a public school education, but the augmentation route needs to be done in slack time, which is tough.
Not really—public school takes up 6+ hours of every day, and I'd like my kids to have self-directed time as well. If we tried to do some sort of after-school tutoring with mom that would deprive them of valuable time to choose their own stuff to work on.
And what would be the point? If we're right that their mom is better equipped to teach them than a teacher is (because of time to dedicate to them and a personal relationship and understanding) then what do we gain by having a teacher do it too?
(This isn't the thread for the socializing argument, because OP started with teacher qualifications. I'll just add that we are aware of that concern and have strong mitigations in place.)
>We don't think we have the competence to be a teacher. We would never presume to teach someone else's kids.
While this is a good and rational awareness of one's own capabilities, as someone who grew up in Bible-belt homeschooling circles and saw a wide variance in approaches and effectiveness, the "homeschool co-op"/"homeschool group" model where one parent teaches one subject to many kids, classroom-style, is super common. See, for example, "Classical Conversations" [1], a pretty common one in my area, that leans on "parent as classroom teacher to many kids", without much in the way of prerequisite qualifications.
Agreed. Titles and credentials do not mean what they used to, in education and a lot of other fields.
Sufficient erosion in the meaning and value of 3rd party teaching credentials then diminishes the relative value of outsourcing the process vs. doing it in-house: literally.
Educators are trained to teach any kid effectively. Parents have the much easier problem of teaching a handful of specific kids, who they've spent their entire lives with and share half their DNA.
One thing I've never understood with public schooling: How come teachers think they have the competence to be in loco parentis? Just because you are educated doesn't mean you are a good (pedagogical) educator.
> How come teachers think they have the competence to be in loco parentis?
Multiple members of my wife's family are teachers in the local public school system. From what they have told me: they don't want to be in that place. Parents demand it of them, despite their strong attempts to push back and say "hey this one is your job as the parent to solve". So that's the reason in at least some cases, although probably not all.
Here in this country it's not teachers that assess their own compentence to be educators, it's their mentors that guide and grade them through a university Bachelor of Education Course and their first year trials of "live" teaching in the wild.
I'm generally not a fan of home schooling in a lot of cases, part of what school does is expose you to a vertical slice of humanity, and you will almost certainly be dealing with that for the rest of your life.
HOWEVER... remember that "home schooled" doesn't mean "as a parent you are the only teacher" right? You can hire tutors, you can form teaching groups with other parents, you can use online resources, etc. If done WELL and with a sense of one's own limitations, and the need to socialize your child, homeschooling can work.
It's just unfortunate that so often homeschooling is used as a way to ensure that no outside influences interrupt a parent's particular brand of ideological indoctrination... although in the narrow case of tech parents, I suspect that's less of a driving force.
The USA hasn’t had a healthy education system for decades, so parents who have gone through that system are a) not very well educated and b) think they can do better.
This is a weak argument. The US has a patchy K-12 system whose quality varies from abysmal to world-beating, depending on many factors. It has, indisputably, one of the world's best universities. Lots of people who have gone through the former but are also products of the latter. They can be very well educated, and do better than credentialed teachers (let's face it, the only difference is that; also a known fact that brighter, higher-IQ people do not gravitate toward K-12 teaching).
The same logic applies to teachers, and can be applied against your own question.
As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you.
I agree with your sentiment however, i just dont think its a powerful retort.
Type theory comes from math. Numbers in math do in fact have types. Most of the time we ignore it but numbers in math have types. math also has the concept of max number rolling back to zero ogain something anyone who has studied types in math would know. Rounding error is studied in several different math fields.
negative zero isn't in any math I know of. It is only in obsolete computer science though.
Mathematicians generally work with sets, not types. The first thing you do after defining the reals is agree that the naturals, integers, and rationals are subsets. From a type theory perspective, they are all type ℝ, and, roughly, the naturals satisfy the proposition "n:ℝ is a natural number".
Mathematics has a lot of different theories and some small branches have different rules. I've done mod math for example (it was maybe one week of classes) where you don't get an infinite set of possible numbers. It isn't nearly as interesting as far as mathematicians are concerned (for good reason) so it isn't looked at much but those theories exist.
So, what was the purpose of the conversation then? In the vast majority of cases, in most normal mathematical manuscripts, '3.0' is '3'. There is no distinction.
The point is to refute the claim that math never uses a bunch of computer concepts like types - those concepts all have roots in formal math theories and so the claim is false. That that theory is not of much use in the vast majority of math doesn't mean there is no math behind it.
> The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct.
In contemporary mathematics, 3 is 3.0 . Both 3 and 3.0 belong to the set of integers. There is no additional precision being demonstrated by adding a 0 at the end of the 3. This is simple notation, not refering to a new concept.
I am no Terry Tao, but I do have a degree in mathematics. Other than possibly in a class on numerical analysis, I don't remember anything resembling types.
We definitely spent more time discussing different kinds of infinity than we did discussing rounding error!
I can believe that the situation might be different in "applied mathematics" or definitely in "engineering mathematics" - but at least at Berkeley, the latter degree is in the College of Engineering, not under the Math Department at all.
There is a lot of math never taught. types in math are mostly a dead end and so rarely taught - particularly since computer science moved to a seperate department. Even before then it was mostly applied math.
>>> a = 3.0
>>> b = 3
>>> type(a) == type(b)
False
The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding. You didn't give the right answer and apparently kept complaining about it instead of trying to figure out why you were wrong to the point they threatened suspension. I imagine your complaints based on your assumption you couldn't be wrong were causing quite a distraction.
For example, 10 / 3 = 3.333... right? We're then asked to round to the nearest whole number, and the answer should be 10 / 3 = 3. It is not correct to then say 10 / 3 = 3.0, because that is just wrong.
I'd end up siding with the teacher on this one. Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.
> adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct. They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding.
If you round 3.05 down to 3, 3.00 is not arbitrary precision, its explicit precision that's reflective of the rounding operation you did. I wasn't claiming that `type(3.0) == type(3)`. I was claiming that:
>>> round(3.0) == 3
True
And that such a representation was valid within the context of the question. This was long before I was wise enough to understand that sir, this is a public school, just do what the book says and don't make me talk with the students more than I need do.
It's incredible despite multiple additional individuals telling you that you're wrong you continue doubling down on it.
10 / 3 != 3.000000000000000000000000 no matter how many times you refute it. You should really learn to accept it and continue on and look deeper inside yourself into this. It's sad you still haven't learned this lesson from elementary education. Maybe they should have suspended you.
In no world does 10 / 3 = 3.0. This is just a falsehood as much as 2 + 2. = 5. I don't care about your large values of 2.
'10/3 = 3' is also false, and is something you put forward as true. Meanwhile, '10/3 ≈ 3' and '10/3 ≈ 3.0' are both equally true, as is '10/3 ≈ π' if you're in a pinch. Also true is that math is full of conventions, and it makes sense to use the conventions you feel are appropriate for what you're doing. Sometimes that might be significant figures, which I suppose you're alluding to. Other times, it might be propagation of uncertainty. Other times error tracking is not even relevant; you might just round the thing but also want to have all of your expressions be of the same type. For that matter, you may have 3: ℝ = 3.0: ℝ by definition. The other poster never gave any indication of whether or why some particular convention should apply.
Teachers not having the time to muse about such ideas and instead needing to package everything into a presentation appropriate for an entire room full of children is one of the more obvious failure modes of industrialized education.
'10 / 3 = 3' is either bad notation or wrong. It's not true under any usual definition of 10, 3, / or =. '3 = 3.0' on the other hand is perfectly reasonable in many circumstances. If you think 10/3 can equal 3 but not 3.0, you are either confused or confusing or both. What you mean to write is '≈', and when you do that, it's obvious that 3 and 3.0 are both usable in that sentence.
It is perfectly reasonable to define 3: ℕ = succ(succ(succ(zero))). It's also perfectly reasonable to define 3: ℝ as the image of succ(succ(succ(zero))): ℕ under the canonical embedding. Or you can define 3: ℚ with the obvious element. You can also define 3.0: ℚ or 3.0: ℝ as the obvious elements. If you were really a deviant, I suppose you could even define 3.0: ℕ, and people would roll their eyes, but everyone would understand you. Obviously, there are reasonable ways to define things so that `3 = 3.0` is a meaningful sentence (typechecks) and also literally true.
Again, different conventions are used in different contexts. The "user" of mathematics should pick the conventions and notations that make sense for what they're doing to communicate what they're trying to say. That itself is an important lesson. The sigfig convention you learned in middle school isn't the word of God.
Not being aware of these things to be capable of musing about them is I suppose another issue with our education system.
If I ask for someone for 3 of something and they give me 3.001 of it, it's whatever. If I ask someone for 3.000 of something and they give me 3.001 of it, it's out of spec.
Admittedly I only did this in school and it's been over 10 years, but I recall when doing engineering drawings, we'd specify ± (or separate lower/upper tolerances in some situations). Using decimal points to indicate uncertainty was not a thing I believe I did after high school. Does any actual professional use decimal places and not explicit ±?
Similarly, we calculated those ± values using the chain rule/uncertainty propagation, not with the simple decimal place rules you learn as a kid. I assume no one serious uses the child rules when CAD software can just as easily use the real ones.
> we'd specify ± (or separate lower/upper tolerances in some situations)
> we calculated those ± values using the chain rule/uncertainty propagation
Yes, that's common in detailed engineering documents. It still doesn't change the fact if I ask for 3.000 and you give me 3.001 I'm not going to consider that in-spec despite not giving a ±. It's assumed if I wrote it out to that decimal point I'm caring about that level of precision.
> Using decimal points to indicate uncertainty was not a thing I believe I did after high school
Well, I'd imagine since the topic of lesson was understanding whole numbers at a basic level this was probably a high school or lower class, probably more like elementary or middle school. You know, in that time when you did use decimal places to indicate precision. This person wasn't talking about losing points at their engineering job.
"Whole number" means that the mantissa is 0, and is not related to what some random programming language asserts in its representational type system.
Math terms like "whole number" are not defined in terms of the behavior of computer programming languages.
In math, not only are 3.0 and 3 the same thing, but also, so is 2.9999999...
.
> They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding.
Can you show any math reference that supports this viewpoint? This goes against my college mathematics training.
.
> You didn't give the right answer
According to mathematics, 3.0 and 3 are the same thing (and so is the Roman numeral III, and so on.) So is 6/2.
It is deeply and profoundly incorrect to treat an answer as incorrect because the mantissa was written out.
The teacher is simply incorrect, as are you.
.
> Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.
If a teacher asks "what is the country north of Austria," in an English speaking school, and you write "Germany," and the teacher says "no, it's Allemande," they're just incorrect. It doesn't matter if the teacher is French. There are only two ways to look at this: either the correct answer is in the language of the school, or any international answer is acceptable.
A normal person would say "oh, ha ha, Germany and Allemande are the same place, let's just move forwards."
A person interested in defeating and winning, instead of teaching, might demand that the answer come in in some arbitrary incorrect format that they expected. That's a bad teacher who doesn't need to be listened to.
Yes, we know there's also some kid who is explaining to just do as teacher instructs, but no, we're there to learn information, not to learn to obey.
> Can you show any math reference that supports this viewpoint? This goes against my college mathematics training.
> The word integer comes from the Latin integer meaning "whole" or (literally) "untouched", from in ("not") plus tangere ("to touch"). "Entire" derives from the same origin via the French word entier, which means both entire and integer.[9] Historically the term was used for a number that was a multiple of 1,[10][11] or to the whole part of a mixed number.
It's very clear you're out of your element on this, and you have multiple people with an actual math background telling you the objection is somewhere between meaningless and wrong.
The takeaway from trying to really nail down a definition of "integers" (or anything, really) is going to be something along the lines of "if it quacks like a duck up to unique isomorphism, it's a duck". The encoding is not important and one frequently swaps among encodings when convenient. In any case, no one who knows any math is going to say to a child that 3 and 3.0 aren't interchangable outside of some extremely specific contexts. In fact that's not even encoding: it's notation. They can be literally equal, not just equivalent. Those particular contexts aren't ordained, and e.g. propagation of uncertainty is "better" than significant figures if you're doing engineering anyway.
Writing something like '10/3=3' is likely to trigger the mathematicians because lots of people get confused about what '=' is supposed to mean (and often use it to mean something like "next step indicator"). '3=3.0' not so much.
The exact context was given. They wanted only whole numbers.
> Writing something like '10/3=3' is likely to trigger the mathematicians
Sure, when lacking the context of all answers should be rounded to the nearest whole number. But that was the context, and it's astounding so many people with alleged math backgrounds arguing things like intergers aren't a thing to understand.
Assuming you want to be able to make statements like ℕ⊆ℚ⊆ℝ (as one normally does), 3.0 is a whole number, 3 is a real number, and 3.0=3=2.9999999...
Being equal to 3, 2.9999... is also a whole number.
Teaching to use '=' in a statement like '10/3=3' is an example of where teachers don't know math in depth and make errors about details that are actually important/later cause confusion. 10/3 is not equal to 3. '=' doesn't mean "answer". Then not accepting 3.0 which is equal to 3 just layers on that confusion. '=' is transitive. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Saying 3.0≠3 is a subtlety you really only get into in math when defining these things, and then you immediately redefine them so that 3.0=3 and you don't have to think about it again.
You're continuing to focus on the functional similarities and functional equivalences of 3, 3.0, 6/2, 2.999... etc. You're right, from an arithmetic standpoint, these are all the same value. I've definitely always agreed with this and fully understand it.
But the question wasn't testing that you knew how to divide and round. The question was testing if you understood what the teacher was trying to teach about whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, real numbers, etc.
6/2 as written is not an integer. It is not a whole number. The value it represents can be written as a whole number, I fully agree, but as written it itself is not a whole number. Whole numbers are the set of numbers Z including -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,... I doubt any math teacher, upon teaching "what is a whole number", draws a number line and proceeds to label it -3.999, -6/2, -12/6, -5/5, 0, 5/5, 12/6, 6/2, 3.999..., and on.
The notation was the key part of the question and was a key part of the answer.
The teacher wasn't looking for a value (which is what you're so focused on looking at), they were looking for a notation, a format.
Then the teacher is teaching something that someone more knowledgeable in the subject will later have to unteach. I'm focusing on functional equivalences because that's how math works as practiced by mathematicians. The functional equivalences are the point, and you may not notice it, but you're also relying on those equivalences, which is why you can write "6/2" in the first place. Integers are already equivalence classes of pairs of natural numbers (which is why 2-3=3-4). Rationals are equivalence classes of pairs of integers (which is why 3/1 = 6/2). If you actually try to define any of this stuff in a coherent way, you're immediately forced to deal with equivalence as a central idea.
6/2 is a whole number. 6/2 = 3. 3 is a whole number. They are equal. Usually, they are the exact same mathematical object. It is not merely that they share properties. They are literally definitionally the exact same thing (the same set in ZFC). "n is a whole number" is a proposition. It is true for n=6/2.
If a teacher is teaching that 6/2 is not an integer, unless they are in the middle of constructing the rationals and need to make a distinction between integers and equivalence classes of pairs of integers, then they are wrong. The very first thing you do after you're forced to make that distinction is you make it go away. They shouldn't be teaching the student to hyperfocus on a specific notation or format. That's a bad lesson to teach, and is something a real teacher will need to fix later. Actual mathematics professors are happy to let you write "let <christmas tree>∈ℝ". An intro proofs professor will definitely put something like "-3.999..., -6/2, -12/6, -5/5, 0, 5/5, 12/6, 6/2, 3.999..." on a number line to illustrate the point that these are just different ways to write the same thing. Fluidity in switching through and following different notations without getting distracted is a centrally important mathematical skill.
> unless they are in the middle of constructing the rationals and need to make a distinction between integers and equivalence classes of pairs of integers
Finally, you're starting to understand the context of the question at hand.
I'm also happy you're starting to show you do understand there's a notational difference between 6/2 and 3. That the values are the same the notation is quite different, thus there are some differences. Not functionally, true, but notationally.
The notational difference was the point of this lesson. You may think it'll only be a barrier in the future to point it out like that (maybe it is!), but the notational difference was the lesson.
> Fluidity in switching through and following different notations
If you don't really have an understanding of the notations, you're going to have a hard time being fluid switching between them.
> An intro proofs professor
An intro proofs professor wasn't leading the lesson, it was probably an elementary or middle school math teacher. The point of the lesson is different, the context of the lesson is different.
Given that most math teachers haven't studied algebra/likely haven't seen the definition of any of these things, and the distinction is not relevant when discussing rounding, I highly doubt that the teacher was making that distinction, or even aware it exists. More likely, the teacher was making a distinction that does not exist, which only confuses students.
In any context that a child is working in, 6/2 and 3.0 are a whole numbers. If the teacher says otherwise, they are wrong. Just because the teacher wants to teach a lesson doesn't mean that lesson is actually correct. The teacher is just confused.
If they weren't confused, it would be highly inappropriate to go into that level of detail with anyone other than a curious gifted kid that's asking questions that are years ahead of a normal curriculum. So much so that it's beyond the level of knowledge expected of a schoolteacher.
You also wouldn't mark it wrong because the entire point is to define things in a way that makes the distinction go away. Even after that distinction has been presented and is front-of-mind, you still generally write down whatever representative is convenient.
It's either literally wrong, philosophically/pedagogically wrong, or both.
Pretty sure all teachers I had even in elementary school studied at least high school level algebra. In middle school and above they all had masters or better in mathematics.
> the distinction is not relevant
> I highly doubt that the teacher was making that distinction, or even aware it exists
> the teacher was making a distinction that does not exist
The distinction both exists and does not exist. Incredible.
> it would be highly inappropriate to go into that level of detail
The detail of a thing that does not exist, right?
> it's beyond the level of knowledge expected of a schoolteacher.
Right, the teacher is wrong because you wouldn't expect the schoolteacher to be smart enough to be right about it.
Yes, the distinction both exists and it doesn't. When defining things, you might start off by saying "the natural numbers are von Neumann ordinals". Then you construct the integers as certain infinite sets of pairs of natural numbers, and you say "actually when I say natural numbers I mean integers that contain a pair where the 2nd number is 0". Then you define rationals as certain infinite sets of pairs of integers, and say "actually when I say integers I mean rationals that contain a pair where the 2nd number is 1", and so on. So for a brief moment during the construction of the next step, there is a distinction. Then you immediately retcon your definition and get rid of it. No one ever uses the intermediate definitions again.
There's similar logical snags when trying to define real numbers because technically you'll need distances which have to be rational because you don't have real numbers yet, but really you'd like distances to be real. It's not actually an issue though, and as far as everyone is concerned, distances are real.
Or you define things only up to unique isomorphism by their properties and wash your hands of the whole ordeal. The construction is merely to show that some object with those properties exists.
The teacher is wrong because if they are being pedantic about it to a child, they're a bad teacher. And they're missing the point.
As someone who (almost!) has a PhD in mathematics I'm going to have to call you out on this point. You are thinking like an engineer and talking about precision, but this is mathematics, not engineering. We make no distinction between the "real" number 3, the "complex" number 3, and the "whole" number 3. The number 3 lives in each of these universes as the same object (so to speak) because these sets (whole, real, complex) numbers are included in one another. Writing 3.0 is a representation for 3 just as 2.9999... is a representation of 3. Perhaps the bigger question we should be asking here is what was the purpose of all of this discussion? I've seen such petty treatment by teachers all the time and it always discouraged me from pursuing math until I met professors in university who actually tried to teach us something interesting and beautiful about math. This question could have led in that direction actually with a discussion of different kinds of numbers but unfortunately many math teachers in the US are not capable of this, or are too discouraged by the other craziness in schools to have the energy for such conversations.
> As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you.
I got threatened with suspension on protest once. It was about the meaning of a word, but still.
Luckily, I'm a university brat, so I just waited a couple days until my dad was keeping me at his office, then I wandered down the hall, and I asked some professors for a detailed and referenced way to push back. I brought candy and tums, because that's what professors want from children who can't bring beer.
About a week later, I went in with a 30 page computer printed essay. As a nine year old. It had six phone numbers in the back, four to PhDs, which could be called for further detail if needed. It was addressed to both the teacher and the principal.
An opening note was "please look into how Marilyn vos Savant was treated when she explained the Monty Hall problem, when considering whether teachers are permitted to threaten students for disagreeing politely. Are you really so afraid of being incorrect?," written by an internationally renowned mathematician.
I was carrying an etymological breakdown that to this day I can barely read, stretching all the way back to the hypothetical proto-indo-european roots.
Professors don't like kids being threatened.
I did not hear about that teacher doing that again while I was in that school.
I was homeschooled from 2nd - 8th grade. My elementary school was trying to put my brother on adderall and my class had sorted me into the "blue" group of readers (colors of the rainbow for reading ability). I apparently came home talking about how I was slow and it was okay because we all learn at our own pace.
Definitely not a great school! both my brother and I ended up going to college and getting engineering degrees, and had zero issues with academics in high school. My mom did a pretty okay job but it was absolute hell on her, I entered high school ahead on mathematics/history but pretty behind on writing and science. The science I dont blame my mom for, all the curriculum at the time was insanely religious, so the ones we could find were very dry.
That's like half your job as a parent: teaching your kids stuff ( the other half being: keeping them alive). You are THE most qualified person on the planet to teach your own kids anything.
This is exactly why I dislike the push to erode parental rights or attack homeschooling, which is happening in many blue states. Parents know best, not a civil worker (teachers) or bureaucrat or the “state”.
Well, maybe not best, but it's also not something I would advocate for taking away from parents. It's silly to pretend parents need a degree to teach their kids something when teaching their kids how to live life is half of the job.
I am absolutely not the most qualified person on the planet to teach my kids quantum physics. I'm also absolutely not the most qualified person on the planet to teach them geology. Probably also not the most qualified person to teach them advanced biochemistry.
We haven't really decided what we're going to do with our kids. I personally think I'd enjoy homeschooling them, but I don't know what their preferences will be. Their mom would appreciate the break. That said,
1. Teachers develop skills in managing rooms of ~30 kids. I believe this is completely different from tutoring someone 1:1 and likely has very little overlap.
2. Part of my day job is already mentoring/teaching. I enjoy that part of my work. I've received feedback that I'm good at it. Actually when I was younger I thought I'd switch into teaching after building up some savings with programming. I've since heard/read enough about the realities of being a teacher that I can't imagine doing that job (especially with public school). Homeschooling or teaching a homeschool pod seems like the best way to actually be able to teach if that's your inclination.
3. The k-12 curriculum is not really much to cover. Schools move at a pace appropriate for the slower kids in the room. It doesn't seem like a high bar to beat, and most of what I've found looking into it indicates that homeschool parents generally do outperform schools with a fraction of the time spent.
3a. I've already been teaching my 3 year old phonics and reading when she's in the mood. She doesn't really have the attention to sit and focus for more than ~5 minutes, but that's okay, and it's still going alright. I expect she'll already be years ahead of the school curriculum before it's even time to start. So initial results have been promising and suggest I am indeed capable of teaching a child.
4. When it comes to more advanced/in-depth understanding, I don't expect teachers to have the background. Like just looking at the math education program at my alma mater, there's no requirement for real analysis or algebra. There's no requirement for science courses (physics, chemistry, etc.). All of the options in the math department except education require at least a minor in another STEM subject. It's no surprise that a common trope is that teachers (particularly math) don't know how to answer how something gets used in the real world, but that's insane to me as a status quo. There are tons of applications of pretty much any math you might learn before graduate level in pretty much any field you examine (conic sections stand out to me as a niche thing that we covered in high school. Not that they don't have applications to e.g. orbits, but they don't seem to apply to other fields, and I don't believe the connection to physics was made in my high school class anyway (presumably because math teachers where I grew up aren't required to learn physics)).
Honestly I think school is mostly more useful for socializing and something like arts/crafts that entail mess and require a bunch of energy to do at home, especially before high school/AP classes. The academic part seems trivial. Once you've reached that conclusion, it makes sense to ask whether there are alternatives that are better suited/are more aware of and aligned to their purpose as enrichment.
Good points. Your last paragraph suggests we really need a drastic rethink of how education works and where funding goes. Right now a one size fits all solution with no competition is what gets funded.
> Just because you are educated doesn't mean you are a good (pedagogical) educator.
This applies equally to paid teachers, along with numerous downsides that don't apply to parents (i.e. being able to tailor education to a single individual, developing a relationship that lasts close to two decades, ability to slow down and speed up course material where necessary, and more). Paid teachers, contrary to semi-popular mythology, are not special and don't do anything that an average person couldn't do (they are not extra-"competent"). In the natural course of being a parent you learn how to interact, guide, and teach your children.
This argument also fails in many concrete situations. For example, where I grew up there is a decent homeschooling community made up of people with average levels of education, low to average income, and yet the kids perform very well academically and are well socialized. Saying that these parents are not competent because didn't get a badge (education-related degree) is absurd considering they do as well as the people who did get that badge.
Great, I'm sure you'll have no problem using the services of a self-taught doctor, lawyer, or engineer then. After all, why would they need to be taught by a professional?
Go spend some time in a classroom and get a fucking clue how much more there is to teaching than what your layman's view entails. You, and this disrespect for our educators and the potential of what we could be offering in our public schools is why we are the laughing stock of the developed world.
Teaching twenty kids of wildly different levels is always going to be harder that teaching a single kid, so parents have a great advantage by default.
Yes, there are educators who are so great they can teach all 20 kids amazingly well, but those are super rare. Most likely kids who are learn much faster or much slower than the rest will be left behind. If you child is in this group, it's better off to stay away from public school.
(It could have been much better if there were advanced classes, "magnet" schools, etc.. but in many states those programs are being cancelled and everyone is being forced into rigid programs.)
If you are blindly relying on certified professionals in soft fields such as general medicine and law you are in for a bad time.
At a minimum you need to use your judgement to vet good from bad practitioners in those fields.
Also "disrespect our educators" is so funny. Sorry, they're not that serious, mostly dumb. And we're not the laughingstock of the developed world, we are the rulers of the developed and undeveloped world
It is an objectively measurable fact (e.g. by test scores) that K-12 teaching, in the US, pays poorly, lacks prestige, and attracts far from the best and the brightest.
Depends on the parents because a lot of them are more than qualified. The typical education major isn't exactly a scholar, but that is also true of most people.
When I was in school for my master's degree some years ago, several of my classes were heavily populated by teachers (New York State requires teachers to have or get a master's degree within 5 years of being certified). All were humanities teachers (English, Social Studies, ect - no STEM). At least half of them had great difficulty simply writing a one page essay. With one or two exceptions, reading comprehension was absolutely abysmal. At least two of them were functionally illiterate (in a master's program!). All were certified teachers who were actively working in schools.
The fact is that in many places school standards have been so low and social promotion has been going on for so long that we now have people coming out of high school and college that have never achieved anything academically. Many of these people go into teaching (even when schools were academically rigorous, majoring in education was always regarded as one of the least challenging areas of study).
That isn't to say that there aren't good teachers, or that there aren't smart teachers - there certainly are. It is to say that having an education degree or a teacher's certificate does not mean that one is qualified to do anything.
Does this mean every parent is smart enough or cut out to properly home school their child? Of course not! What it means is that (many) schools have effectively failed as institutions and until they are improved many people are going to look for alternatives.
I'm a former public school teacher -- maybe I can explain.
There's a lot of competence necessary to teach two dozen kids with different backgrounds and mastery levels, even in the rare moments when 2-4 of them aren't actively trying to derail the entire class.
The base level of competence necessary to go through a curriculum with one/a few of your own children is much, much lower. Could I do better with one/a few of your children given as much time and attention? Pretty definitely. Can I do better if your kid is in my classroom? In most cases, no.
Sure, there are things I could explain or guide a kid through because of my background and skills that homeschooling parents can't (though it mostly just takes more time and effort), but there's a huge amount they can do because of their relationship, access, and ability to devote time and attention that I couldn't hope to. And with modern homeschooling resources, tutors/group microschooling, online courses and group study, etc., the deficits have never been easier to overcome.
Also, two underdiscussed points:
1. An untrained, literate adult probably needs less than two hours to help a kid through what they'd learn in an eight-hour day at school. That time can go to other things. If they're productive, great. If they're not, no huge loss.
2. People significantly overestimate the level of care and competence average teachers have. You remember some fantastic ones. If fantastic and caring was the norm, you were quite lucky.
The average public school teacher is somewhere in the average top 40-30% in intelligence/academic achievement. Anyone who's a top performer academically is going to be much more competent than the average public school teacher.
Teachers in most countries are, at best, mid-wits with no practical or real world experience. I know teachers who barely passed math in high school who are now match teachers. It's like a basketball teacher who went to "Basketball Teaching School", who's never played basketball in his life, teaching kids how to play basketball.
Public school education is a shit show in many western countries. I'm not in the USA but all the talk about private schools and lotteries is very real. The only thing we don't have is charter schools leaching public funds.
The USA is ranked below most other western public school systems so I don’t think you can conclude “the US are doing bad because all western countries are”. It’s just a matter of priorities and the US prioritizes defense over education.
Are those education metrics even measuring the correct things? Many other countries have higher scores of educational achievement, and yet on average we ignorant Americans go on to be more productive and more innovative than any other major developed country. Just to pick one example, the USA develops about 80% of the new prescription drugs every year. Does it really matter if we can't integrate a function or remember when the Civil War started?
American exceptionalism is one hell of a drug, I think this denial is one of the reasons why you are impotent to fixing any one of your numerous glaring issues like education, health care, housing, infrastructure, etc.
No one seems to have mentioned AI/LLMs yet. Between Khan Academy, Wikipedia, and LLMs, if your child has curiosity, the resources to tutor have never been better.
We get weekly summaries of our childrens curriculum from the school. I run it through chatgpt and get quality weekly study guides for reinforcement at home, its awesome.
Those are sources, and while curiosity is great most kids are focused on specific things not everything. Kids need direction and somebody them to focus on things they dont want to learn- like a kid who loves animals isnt going to learn math or how to write well, and a kid whos interested in history might not care at all about science.
Parents are no better at this unless they are incredible focused on utilizing a curriculum and addressing their own issues along the way- And even then, learning with other kids is incredibly helpful. Talking to a computer is not a replacement for a teacher (yet).
> Talking to a computer is not a replacement for a teacher (yet).
I agree. The limitless patience and non-judgement of a computer is very valuable in a learning context. LLMs won't be better than the best private tutors, but its very likely they'll be better than 80% of junior high through college teachers.
interesting take. Heard of Synthesis? (hint: DARPA funded).
At the local elementary school, we are told the kids are being kept safer now thanks to being tracked by AI cameras.
Some parents, maybe especially those with insight into tech fact vs. tech marketing, may have reservations about "tutors" whose services (perhaps for free) come with the stipulation that they are free to record every bit of data about your kid and do with it as they please.
The're being silly, right? Because?
As everyone on HN knows: software is super safe, and the entities/corps controlling it, so, so benign. Data doubly so -- hacks basically never happen, am I right? No one cares about your kid?
LLMs hallucinate and often provide incorrect answers. They're a fabulous tool if you're not necessarily looking a specific, correct, answer. But I'm not sure I would want my kids to use them as a tutor, without someone to vet the output.
That's a very good concern to have. Grounding[0] helps a lot with this and will continue to improve. I'll also add that I've had human teachers who were confidently wrong about things.
Nice, thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware of this, but certainly anticipated we'd continue to see improvement in this area. And I completely agree on teachers being wrong, usually without realizing it, but not always. :)
At least in the US the education system is so incredibly bad for anyone reasonably intelligent where homeschooling is an option it should be the clear preference. At least until high school.
* smart tech folks who value education not seeing education value in local schools
* chronically underfunded public schools based on local property taxes, fewer programs, etc.
* good private schools aren't cheap
* political axes to grind esp. by the right to defund the Dept. of Education, and create curriculums that don't sell well (e.g. bibles in school, pro-oil & gas slants, etc.)
1,387 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 470 ms ] threadI'd rather home school them if I lived in San Francisco, or if I have money, send them to private school.
Why not, what's wrong with it? What could you do better at home, or what could private schools do better?
You could look at college acceptances or similar, but those aren't unbiased either, as colleges look at estimates of class rank, not just absolute performance.
I have no other knowledge to vouch for SFUSD either way though.
There are many kids from low income, broken families who are just really bad students. Bullies. Disruptive. Disrespectful to teachers. It was hell going through public schools in SF.
Basically it's opting out of being around the dregs
SF has a lottery system. This means all kids in the city are mixed. Unfortunately, my experience was absolutely horrible for learning.
I know families that homeschool and I like to read articles like this one to see if anyone "gets it." So far, no hits.
They're opting out of mediocre instruction and government-mandated values enforcement ("DEI" in its public school curricula form); the other kids are irrelevant. The homeschoolers I know are average and have lots of social activities with average peers in their community.
If I know there's a kid down the street who seems like he will grow up to be a criminal, and another kid who seems like he'll grow up to be a kind, hard-working, well adjusted person, there is a 100% guarantee I will encourage my kids to play with the second kid, not the first.
If the school is bad enough, then an average student there (because there are many more students than teachers) might not be a good influence.
There are schools in my state with <50% graduation rate, the average student there won't even finish the school.
All I know that children (and many adults too) do similar thing that their peers do. So if I want to increase the chance that my child will graduate from high school, they should be around people who will graduate from high school. Similarly, if no one in their class will go to college, the chances they will go to college will be smaller.
Note there are exception to the each rule, and I am talking about "chances", not certainties.
Also, for the particular issues she talks about (e.g. social isolation), essentially all of the tech parents I know that are into home schooling put a ton of effort into having a really rich social environment, e.g. either through "group schooling" or lots of outside activities.
My nephew texted my brother during his lunch break to ask for more credits for his switch account. My brother asked why play games instead of talking or hanging out with others. My nephew sent back a video of the lunch room: every single student had their eyes glued to a digital device of some sort.
The experience kids have in schools isn't what we as adults went through - a common thing for every generation - but when you can get more interaction and socialization via home school networks and groups of motivated parents, it is hard to argue against it.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2024/12/28/a-north...
I also had a Gameboy in the 90s. I played with it quite a bit, but nowhere near the average amount of time spent on screens by kids today. And I don't think there is any school in the US in the 90s where you'd see every kid glued to a digital device at lunch.
I think it's like saying "hey, I smoked weed in the 60s" and comparing that to someone freebasing cocaine today - or heck, even smoking weed today, as today's weed has about 10-100 times the amount of THC as most 60s weed.
The same went with cell phones. I had a cell phone in high school. If it was being used during a class or even chirped a single sound it would be confiscated to be released at the end of the day at the front office. They were not to be used during school time.
Wow, this just makes me intensely sad. We are ruining a generation of humans with these digital narcotics. Say what you want about being a Chicken Little, or that every generation looks at the next generation's behavior with some amount of trepidation ("MTV will corrupt your mind!"), but this feels pretty different to me. Humans are social creatures, and human children need lots of unstructured social play, and they need to be allowed to get bored, and we're killing all that.
And the fact of the pandemic makes this article even worse in my opinion: "Gee, why would parents with means want to find an alternative when public schools had to go all remote for extended periods and were a shit show in general?"
I've replaced the title with a somewhat more neutral question from the article. If there's a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article), we can change it again.
It's true that homeschooling has been more prevalent among the right wing, but there are lots of people who do it for lots of reasons. We did it when our local elementary school was bottom third in the state. My wife called up the vice principal, and asked why we should put our kids in their school. He said that their school could toughen up our kids. We decided that "tough" wasn't our main goal for our daughters, and we noped out of that school.
The lack of physical safety is a product of policy (or rejection of) by the same people whining about "wokeness".
Students aren't going to benefit from hiding inconvenient truths about this country's history and founding. We certainly don't need religion forced into classrooms either.
No, these things were taught to me in school and I’ve never heard anyone consider historical facts like this to be CRT except people railing against conservatives (ironically demonstrating their own ignorance of what CRT is).
What’s problematic about CRT is its postmodern view that liberalism is inadequate (or worse) at eliminating racism; downplaying objectivity in favor of “lived experience” that can supposedly never be truly understood by white people; rejecting colorblindness out of hand; advocating segregation of minorities in the name of “safe spaces”; regularly and unscientifically trumpeting the existence and scope of unconscious bias; emphasizing intersectionality to the point of essentialism.
The famous Smithsonian “Assumptions of Whiteness” infographic (https://www.newsweek.com/smithsonian-race-guidelines-rationa...) is an example of these concepts infesting a mainstream cultural educational entity. There’s room to critique current racial discourse and advocate for changing models, but to state that the scientific method and “objective, rational linear thinking” are white values, implying that whites have a monopoly on science or that minorities are less capable at it, is obviously derived from critical theory, and is (I think unquestionably) horrifically racist. When there is any sign of these viewpoints seeping from higher academia into elementary schools, it’s perfectly natural for parents to become concerned.
The “what’s taught in schools isn’t CRT” argument reminds me of the “motte and bailey” argument tactics.
"The Stop WOKE Act, also known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and redubbed the Individual Freedom Act, is a Florida state law which prohibited schools and businesses from teaching certain concepts related to race, gender, racism, and privilege. In addition to that, it prohibits Florida educational institutions and businesses from discussing whether race, gender, and systemic racism intersect with various social systems, including legal, healthcare, education, and so forth. Penalties would include disciplinary action, including job termination, and loss of public funding for state schools.[1][2]
After passing both chambers of the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature along party lines, it was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on April 22, 2022, and entered into effect on July 1.[3] Intended by DeSantis to "fight back" against "woke indoctrination" and critical race theory"
You may not have personally been impacted but this is a real occurring to our schools (and workplaces) under the scapegoat of "CRT" and being "Woke". The Stop Woke Act is just one of many examples.
Bullies are everywhere. One runs X. You deal with them.
I never saw any drug dealers or gangs and the rest of what you’re describing sounds like what I’d expect as a normal part of growing up.
One of our many societal shortcomings (or outright failures) is that we treat poverty as a moral failing, not with any sort of kindness, interest in understanding the root cause(s) or meaningful attempts to address the issue.
I don’t think we do this consistently, and to the extent “we” do, it’s because we’ve lost the distinction between the working and striving poor vs the poor that consistently make poor choices no matter how much help you would give them.
Elon Musk yells at people, I knew bullies in High school that would put people into the hospital. There is a big difference between being yelled at and getting hit with a baseball bat.
> I never saw any drug dealers or gangs
Congratulations on not growing up in poverty. This is the reality for a large portion of America.
The one thought that I imagine is being told you’re “above average” and “destined to do great things” your whole life by your socially-deemed successful parents is just another set of probably unrealistic expectations placed on kids.
If my kid turns out thoughtful, kind and a whole actualized person, then they are successful no matter what.
The problem with homeschooling is that rarely is someone so well rounded that they can supply the full spectrum of education that a child needs. Blackbody vs an RGB source emulating a full spectrum. We all have cognitive blindspots.
While this is true, it's not like schools are teaching kids a full spectrum of knowledge either. In particular, a lot of practical skills are often not taught in modern schools - personal finance, cooking, basic home maintenance and construction ("shop class"), etc. How valuable some of this stuff is will depend on the child of course.
I think is another example of monotheistic cultures favoring linear narratives, rigid taxonomies and 1 to 1 causal chains. This is the world that we live, that we seek The Reason (singular) that something is the way it is. And if it isn't it the way we want, what ever is closer to the root of the taxonomy needs to get replaced.
> - Social awkwardness and anxiety
> - Difficulty in forming IRL friendships
> - Impatience with the idea of connecting on a meaningful level with other people: who needs ‘em?
> - An abiding sense of detachment from reality
I'm the same age and have the same things, and I went to traditional school K through university. Idk if that has much to do with how you were schooled, or at least not being home schooled doesn't just magically fix that.
You should be reluctant to DX ADHD, everybody seems to have it because it's promoted by an addictive pill industry, it's almost as fashionable as gluten intolerance used to be or autism is these days. #notactuallyautistic
I think most people seem to have it, because I think most people do to some degree, most things are a spectrum. We simply aren't prepared for the world we have accidentally created for ourselves. I personally don't find the pills addictive. Speaking of which, this quite long video, "Dopamine Expert: <clickbait redacted>" is quite good, esp if you are a fan of neurology and neuropsychology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6xbXOp7wDA
The dimensional view is personified by Gordon Claridge who edited a few conference proceedings which may be closer to the truth but fail to tell a compelling story. You might read these and walk away thinking "nothing more to see here folks"
This monograph
https://www.amazon.com/Schizotypy-Schizophrenia-View-Experim...
by Mark Lenzenweger tells a compelling story that might be less true. My life made 100% more sense the day it fell into my hands after decades of looking for answers.
I don't really like the DSM definition of STPD; today I could mark up my first psych eval with a highlighter and add a few symptoms I've experience sense and satisfy it, but as a person who reads about psychodiagnosis for fun I read it and missed it numerous times. (Also despite my condition causing me a lot of trouble, I don't feel like I'm really that ill.) If Lenzenweger is right, it could be diagnosed by an eye tracking test.
As for school uniforms I think they have some good points and some bad points. As a kid they might have done me some good but I probably would have been resistant, as I was to many things. And for bullying I'll share
https://www.amazon.com/Bullying-Social-Destruction-Laura-Mar...
and also
https://www.amazon.com/Sense-Honor-Bluejacket-Books/dp/15575...
written by USMC officer, journalist, novelist and US Senator Jim Webb which is a compelling but even-handed account of the role of hazing in promoting group cohesion that was recommended to me by one of his classmates from the Naval Academy one day when I was giving blood.
> single male who works for the U.S. Postal Service, typically during the midnight shift.
People should be very very cautious about working swing shifts or night shifts.
https://time.com/3657434/night-work-early-death/
I am not that far in, but it looks to me like STPD is a precursor to full Schizophrenia, and that if caught early could avoid it entirely. This might be what the book says.
Oh the DSM, it seems chock full of ... spicey illinformed kinda right by accident correlation isn't causation kind things. After reading enough of it, I don't even see it anymore. I am sure there is still some phrenology in there.
Hazing as a bonding exercise is barbaric. I have seen scrapbooks of USN sailors that have crossed the Tropic of Cancer and Equator. Yeah, no.
It could be that I've compensated because my verbal intelligence is too high to measure. I got 800 verbal/760 math on the SAT and probably gave up 40 points to the line noise in my brain. I struggled to get more than 90% on math quizzes in high school because of that line noise but as my education progressed (physics PhD) I got better at not making mistakes on math. I've maxxed every verbal test and subscale I've taken.
I am worried that I won't be able to compensate so well when I am older; psychotic dementia would be a terrible burden on the people around me. I've seen people who aged well because they had good emotional habits, I can only hope I've got enough time to improve mine.
My proposal: Forrest is just an average person guy, those who know him (but not how he feels about himself) may describe him as “well adjusted”. How Forrest feels is a reasonable response to a culture that rewards and incentivizes maladjustment.
Signed on behalf of
Los milenaristas milenarios de militante
1) Right-wing disgust over woke issues.
2) Fear of school shootings.
That's coming from a non-tech middle/lower-middle class setting. 20-30 years ago, when I was in school, most of the homeschoolers seemed (again anecdotally) to be based on religion or some other idiosyncratic reasoning rather than the reasons I cited above.
I would add:
3) Fear of fear of school shootings.
The active shooter drills and other security measures that American kids go through in some schools are positively dystopian. Even if the chances of a school shooting are statistically very low, the measures put in place to prevent them are probably not good for kids' psychological well being.
The "disgust over woke issues" existed in some form 30 years ago when people were homeschooling but it had not hardened into the constellation it is in now. Back then you could get folks like that to talk articulately about how they disagreed with secular values, introduce a word like "woke" and now people talk past each other, at best, if they talk at all.
I mean, how do you reconcile the idea that "God is great" (Muslim slogan but how you can not believe that as a theist?) with the idea that the world is just 6000 years old and he sits on the throne and is obsessed with Jewish people as opposed to the scientific picture that the world is at least 13 billion years old, 'his image' is inscribed into the molecular structure of our cells, which implies God is a lot bigger than that.
Private schools are outrageously expensive.
Homeschooling is becoming the pragmatic choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty_Model
where "voice" never works.
Btw, I'm trying hard to think of places (today) where "Voice" works. For instance, in a corporate setting, I can personally attest that it does not.
Perhaps there are some "small-scale" contexts where it does work (HOA?)
Yes, and... In states where property taxes fund schools, there are basically two ways to pay for a good school: a) go to a private school, b) live in a school zone with high real estate values. At various points my wife and I calculated that 8 years at ~25k/yr tuition would work out to about the same as the ~200k house price delta we'd have to pay to move to a better school zone.
And I suppose option #3 is rationing, which is how some schools do it (our daughter is in a gifted academy where admission is limited via lottery.)
Here's some tangential anecdata.
I'm in Oregon, the county I live in pays for the local schools through property taxes. More than half of the tax goes to the schools if I recall.
Anyway, that's not the fun part. The fun part is one of the schools needs(wants?) a new roof. Sounds reasonable, here are the unreasonable parts: They want to raise funds with additional taxes, because they refuse to budget and earmark money for it. They also said they need(want?) several million dollars to do it. The taxes would also be used by the county to buy school-issued bonds from the school to fund the new roof, rather than directly using the tax dollars.
Unsurprisingly, the county measure to introduce that new tax failed during the election in November with a resounding laugh.
The entire way our schools are operated begs some very hard questions.
Now that the funding has gone away, they say they have a funding crisis, and will have to cut other things unless they can get the state to "adequately fund" them.
You seem to be under the impression that the school district has enough extra funding that they could just put tens of millions of dollars aside and complete the improvements as they come up, but can you imagine the shrieking that would erupt if they had a school board meeting and disclosed a capital improvement fund with millions of dollars in it? People would demand that their taxes be lowered post haste since it’s clear the schools don’t need all the money they’re being given.
So no, I (and clearly most of the voters) heartily rejected the new tax proposal. Fiscal discipline before any more or new taxes.
Also: There is no reasonable, commonly understandable way a new roof costs several million dollars. Forget where the money could come from, the demand itself is questionable. As a taxpayer I want to see the school's entire fiscal records, including data that might not be public, if they want that kind of money for what should be a regular maintenance job.
Unfortunate that kids have to indirectly get caught in the crossfire, but such is life.
I don't see why this is preferable to lower taxes that just cover operations and short term maintenance, with separate bond issues to play for things like new roofs which are expensive but only come up ever 20 to 30 years.
There is quite a bit of variability in how long a roof lasts, because it can be greatly affected by weather and climate and accidents. With the "save for it out of a surplus" approach you'd need enough surplus so that you'll be ready if it turns out your current roof needs replacing on the low side of the roof lifetime range.
But then what happens when you reach that and the roof turns out to actually still be fine? Do you just keep adding each years surplus to the roof fund? I bet taxpayers wouldn't like that. They'd want taxes to be lowered to get rid of the surplus.
But then when you do replace the roof you'd have to raise taxes back to what they were to start building the fund for the next roof. So you still end up with the pattern being higher taxes for several years after a roof is installed and then lower taxes from then until it is time for the next new roof.
That's the same pattern you end up with under the "use a bond issue to pay for a roof when needed" approach.
Yes.
Simply put: If you can't or won't budget+save for a known future expense, I'm not giving you money to pay for it when it comes knocking.
>But then what happens when you reach that and the roof turns out to actually still be fine?
Save what's in there for when the roof really hits end of usable life and either: A) Keep adding to the fund if it's justifiable, or B) Remove the line item from the budget and reduce or reallocate the budget accordingly.
We're not talking about RNGesus throwing down a randomass thunderbolt at the school and blasting a randomass hole through it on a randomass Thursday. We know reasonably when the roof will need replacing for an absolute fact, and at least a ballpark estimate how much it will cost.
Fiscal discipline goes a long way to convincing me to pay (more) taxes.
And of course many people don't have enough money for private school or to move to a good school district.
That's the whole point. Keeps out the riff-raff.
A free market fixes anything where people have the ability to "vote with their wallet" and simply stop paying for services which aren't meeting expectations when they find another that does. Things like employer sponsored health insurance are insulated from you choosing a different option for yourself and we get the situation that we currently have because of it.
Education is the same way but the only ways to vote with your wallet are...
1. Buy a house zoned for the school that you want.
2. Pay for private school.
3. Home school.
4. In some areas, school choice where you can choose from another of the available public options may be viable too.
The only long term solution here that has potential to fix things legislatively is a true school voucher program that would let you take the tax money assigned for your kids education and put it into whatever option you believed was actually best for their education.
This _should_ lead to a start-up like small business ecosystem with lots of small Montessori style schools especially for younger kids. Most likely a "neighborhood schools" model would pop up and parents would end up walking their kids to school again, even in suburban areas.
Most likely you would still see bigger options for high school still as teenagers crave more socialization. Sports would likely revolve more around communities than individual schools too.
You'd of course see some specialties. Schools advertising why they were the best option for your kids and then having to prove it in order to keep them. Yes, there would definitely be religious schools as there already are now.
My guess is that a lot of the current home school co-ops that are popular in my area would simply become suddenly funded because the parents involved as pretty happy with the model. I had a lot of biases against home schooling until I saw how these co-ops work and it's really effective. Basically just like a normal school small school with parents teaching different lessons on different days. Each parent's commitment is a half day a week to teach and they still do school plays, etc.
We'll see a lot of new schools open up, spend a few years collecting profits, then get shut down for substandard quality after effectively failing to teach kids for those few years. Meanwhile the public schools which can't be choosy will end up with fewer resources and have worse outcomes for the kids who have parents who can't afford private transportation to the few nicer, choosier voucher schools.
Do you really not see how that's a bad outcome?
Do you not see that removing the funding from the regular public schools to go to teach that nonsense will lead to worse outcomes for those kids who can't leave those regular public schools?
Sure, maybe some students will potentially have some better outcomes if they manage to go to a good private charter school with their voucher that happens to be a decent one. For everyone else it's a worse outcome, unless you think it's a good thing to teach every animal alive today are direct descendants of the ark that was just a few thousand years ago.
Also, kiss special education funding goodbye. It won't be profitable to handle these students. They'll be trapped in those even more underfunded public schools. Hooray, great outcomes!
I had a bunch of random teachers teach really dumb stuff while I was in public school. I don't believe those things, because I had parents who were involved in my education. It's never a good idea to leave your kids education to the whims of someone else.
Public school doesn't have some magic monopoly on good ideas. And private/voucher schools aren't going to have a monopoly on bad ones.
Why would the kids not be able to leave public schools? They will all have vouchers?
Spending a second of logic on it and thinking critically, there won't. Why would a school empowered to be choosy and subject to profit motivations choose the pricier students to specialize that reduce their rankings?
And why do you think a flood of schools arguing germ theory is a lie be a public good?
I went to religious private school and too had teachers who taught some bullshit things. Dinosaurs were fakes buried in the soil by the devil to test believers. Evolution is a lie by the government. And yet by personal experience I'm more learned than the average public school peer I know. I'm a somewhat special person though; I know many in my class that still believe without question. It's not a good thing for society overall to have such "knowledge".
As for why kids wouldn't be able to leave the public schools, some schools will be required to provide transportation. Others won't. Some will be able to be choosy, some won't. You see where this goes? Those schools which are choosey and don't provide transportation will end up selecting the most well off while those unable to be choosy and/or forced to provide transportation will be forced to shoulder those who aren't good performers who don't get into the choosy schools with a transit scholarship.
Should that not give you pause about the general quality of the schools you're defending? Do you not see where parents might see you in fundie school learning about how man rode the dinosaurs alongside a public school kid that somehow knows even less than you about history or biology, and think "hmm maybe I'd like to find something else"?
No, because I've seen the average of the extremist schools which will grow with the voucher program and they're far worse than the negatives I experienced. Education like Eve gives Adam two apples, how many apples does Adam have; it doesn't matter Jesus will come soon here's another chapter of the KJV.
Maybe… there is more to school than facts? Maybe it’s about order and discipline and shared values too?
Maybe status-quo bias is so powerful that people will see an institution that fails at literally everything it tries to do and instead of concluding that it's a failing institution they will pick some other random thing and decide the institution must actually be about that, because the idea that the institution is actually pointless is too horrible to contemplate.
I'll say yes. Most people I've seen who have gone through that type of schooling are good members of society. They work jobs, they pay taxes, they have friends, they often go on to higher education, they raise families, and they may be happier than the average person. The outcome is perfectly fine.
Most families I know who currently home school do so so to avoid vaccine requirements because germ theory/biology is a lie or because they're worried their kids will be exposed to the idea of the fossil record or that gay people exist in the world or put thoughts like dinosaurs died before humans into kids heads.
You're delusional if you think of these aren't major homeschooling points in the US. Willingly holding your nose to ignore the extreme stench of the anti-intellectualism the rest of the movement massively embodies.
This will be the outcome in an extreme majority of school districts. If anything, this recent election shows fundies vote. To them it's even more than life or death, it's eternal death to miss voting.
https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
That's certainly an indictment.
A thriving education system is an indicator of a prosperous society, not a cause.
As compared to what again? Remind me how good government has been doing.
Two, then you wouldn’t be opposed to eliminating the dept of education then, right? I hope Trump follows through on his promise you seem to agree with.
Literally, madrassas in Pakistan that just teach the kids to read the Quran would be an upgrade.
Those numbers are actually painting a rosier picture of what is actually happening in Baltimore and other cities. In 23 out of 150 school, zero students - none! - were proficient in math. Not a single student. There is simply no way to put lipstick on that pig.
>The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program.
>Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.
>But that’s not all. WBFF combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given. In 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math.
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/23-baltimore-schools-have...
I recall taking these as a kid, and there were kids who would just fill in the bubbles. They would not even read the questions. They thought it was funny.
Citywide the number was 7%. Better than 0 I suppose but still awful.
>Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.
Let's face it, we all know it, just some of us are too scared to say it publicly. In large urban areas in America, there is a (large / huge / significant) portion of the school population that is illiterate, speaks non-functional english in the form of black-culture slang, the rest don't even speak english in an english-speaking country, and practically none of them are going to be functional adults that don't require assistance and handouts to survive.
I thought they were just teaching the sounds of the Quran. Like the Pakistani kids don't know any Arabic, and they don't learn to read or understand Arabic. They just memorize and recite the Arabic sounds of the Quran that they've been taught.
I joke but religious education isn't all bad. One of my smartest friends in High School went to Santa Clara University and really liked it.
The claims around religious education are one of the biggest remaining examples of socially acceptable bigotry.
I totally agree there are many religious schools which are extremely high quality. Despite a few strange views at the school I went to, the general quality of education was quite high. However, I refuse to ignore the many other examples of schools which are not high quality. They should be called out, and there's no way I want my tax dollars going to teach their nonsense.
I can't find any comparable stats on just religious schools, but I strongly suspect they are, on average, performing substantially better than non-religious schools. The reasons for that are more to do with the students than the schools, but the exact reason is inconsequential - the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education.
The typical claim of evolution is illogical. Even if a religious school solely and exclusively taught creationism while not even paying lip service to the controversy (which few to none do), it's not at all like a child's education would be permanently crippled. As the most important things learned in basic education are not facts, but skills - reading, writing, and arithmetic in particular.
> the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education
This is the point I'm making. Many people aren't going to end up choosing the school because of the quality of the education, they'll be choosing it because it aligns with their world view. That germ theory is a lie, the Earth is 5,000 years old, scientists are liars out to eliminate Christ from society, and that the only things you need to know is what is in the Bible.
I think the purpose of school is to teach the fundamentals - reading, writing and arithmetic in particular.
I don't really care what worldview a school endorses so long as they are completely transparent on it.
Young Earth theory and creationism is one side of a coin - 80 genders, intersectionalism, and critical theory is the other.
If a parent is down with these worldviews, I see no problem so long as the school is excelling at their primary educational responsibilities, and also making their ideological motives transparent to parents.
https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
Supply and demand. It’s a natural law.
Why on earth would democracy (or any other form of shared power) be a rational choice for you, from an economic standpoint, if you already are wealthy enough to neuter it to the point where nearly all profits and decision-making authority are allocated to you?
Dictatorship is the ultimate in rational decision-making for a rational self-interested actor. Philanthropy and benevolence are not rational for the wealthy and powerful.
Income inequality and regulatory capture are features of the free market, not bugs. They are baked in by design.
Most countries in the world "patch" those bugs by regulation that moves them away from being pure "free market" economies. Antitrust regulation is a well-known example of this.
When the purpose of schooling is ensuring a civic floor amongst citizens the effectiveness of things like the home school co-ops mentioned can't come at the expense of population at large unless we wish to surrender the republican form of government for something else.
For instance NAEP scores consistently demonstrate only about 25% of students achieve "basic" proficiency in math, reading is even worse. Its going to be difficult to do worse.
And I mean that very literally - some percent of people would become competent in e.g. basic math with 0 public education due to family or personal interests. I can't imagine it's "that" far from 25%.
I have ADHD. My wife doesn't, but most of her siblings do. Our kids do. Our kids love reading and love learning new things, and I know from my own experience that the fastest way to kill that love would be to send them to a public school that doesn't know how to work with ADHD brains.
There's a saying that if you gave a scientist the job of designing a system to completely derail an ADHD brain, they'd come back with the typical public school classroom. This matches my experience, and I want better for my kids.
It’s also debatable how over diagnosed ADHD is. The diagnosis criteria has certainly changed, but current literature estimates about 6% adults are believed to some degree of ADHD [1]—though many are high functioning and find ways to cope with varying degrees of success and difficulty.
0. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourn...
1. https://chadd.org/about-adhd/general-prevalence-adults/
Not my intention, but I was diagnosed as a kid when over-diagnosing did seem to be a trend, and I've become skeptical in these times of self IDing.
When I mentioned over-diagnosing it was more referring to the 90s, but I think a lot of adults who were diagnosed then may have been misdiagnosed and never checked.
If you suspect you have a condition or someone is advocating for you to seek treatment, please seek a qualified psychiatrist who's specifically trained in diagnosis. Better yet, make sure they're in touch with your primary care provider [1]. Psychiatric assessment and diagnosis its own psychiatric specialty for a reason, but doctors with these qualifications are criminally difficult to get time with for a variety of reasons.
1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10669410/
Maybe it is worth it to try to make sure fewer kids with the issue slip through the cracks at the expense of diagnosing kids who don't actually have it. Maybe it's not, but it makes sense why it can happen.
1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/...
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7461955
3. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti...
Suffice it to say that I'm sure. All of the adults I'm thinking of have had serious interference with their daily lives in ways that rise to the level of a disability. I'm the only one of the set that has been able to build a steady career, and that's due to a lot of luck and due to developing an anxiety disorder that, while not at all fun, at least allows me to keep track of things that I used to miss.
"Special" makes it sound like you think I think we're better. I don't. I just know that we don't work in the way that the world expects us to.
I don't doubt the research, it's more I doubt how many diagnoses were accurate.
I was diagnosed with ADD as well, so I'm not being entrely dismissive. In this age of self ID I think there can be reason to be.
> All of the adults I'm thinking of have had serious interference with their daily lives in ways that rise to the level of a disability. I'm the only one of the set that has been able to build a steady career, and that's due to a lot of luck and due to developing an anxiety disorder that, while not at all fun, at least allows me to keep track of things that I used to miss.
If I may ask on this point, how would you distinguish ADHD from possibly being on the spectrum?
> "Special" makes it sound like you think I think we're better. I don't.
Not my intention, I should have said unique or significantly different in the contexts you mentioned or something.
There's a lot of overlap there and my personal feeling is that they likely share similar causes—there's too much similarity and too many people with both to be a coincidence. But in the case of my family, most of us do just fine in reading social cues... when we're paying attention. Where we struggle is maintaining attention on things that don't interest us for long enough to meet employer or school expectations.
Yes, this is something I deal with as well.
It's interesting because as a kid I got diagnosed with ADD, and my sibling who was more physically hyperactive got diagnosed with ADHD. My parents thought, and thus I did also for a long time that the 'h' difference was due to his physical energy, but it seems unrelated.
I've wondered if I am on the spectrum also but I don't match a lot of the base/core traits, although I feel ADHD or ADD alone doesn't explain some of my, ahem, quirks either.
I want to again stress there was no malice behind my question, just interest in trying to relate through my own experiences. Thank you again for answering.
These days they don't draw a distinction any more. There are different presentations of ADHD, but it's all the same disorder.
> I want to again stress there was no malice behind my question, just interest in trying to relate through my own experiences. Thank you again for answering.
No worries, sorry for reacting negatively! I've had a lot of people assume that ADHD is not a thing at all, and it gets exhausting having to explain it. I pattern matched on your comment too aggressively.
Autism and adhd definitely appear to share traits, and I suspect there's a shared cluster of genes affecting certain aspects of neural linking between regions of the brain. Even without shared genes it makes sense that a "networked system" of core brain functions would share similar behaviors if the parameters were tweaked in similar ways.
Doctors aren't sure if I have ADHD or Major Depression or Bipolar II (I've been diagnosed and attempted to be treated for all three), but this fits into my experience.
I was consistently frustrating to my high school teachers, because I was clearly learning the material, but I wouldn't do my homework, and I'd get bored during class, and as a result I would get bad grades. I don't think the teachers took any joy in giving me a bad grade, but they were kind of forced into it because I didn't really fit into the bureaucratic mold that they needed me to fit in.
This eventually led to me almost flunking out, and eventually dropping out of my first attempt at university. I did eventually finish my bachelors, but it was at Western Governors University (WGU), which feels almost tailor-made for the ADHD-brained people.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but the American GPA system still kind of gives me anxiety when I think about it.
I would very much appreciate it if you could expand on this point a bit. What makes WGU particularly suited for folks with ADHD?
I say it feels tailor-made for ADHD because it feels almost "gamified". It's addictive to see how many classes you can knock out in a week, and you can work at whatever pace you'd like.
Part of the reason I always did poorly in school is that I didn't like how slow everything went, but with WGU I can go whatever pace I want, and the faster I go, the more money I save. Since I'm an extremely impatient person, the fact that I was able to quickly go through the material while only having to focus on one course at a time was kind of game-changing to me.
I already had a decade of software engineering experience when I did WGU, so when I did the Computer Science degree on there I finished the entirety of it (having to start from scratch) in six months, for a grand total cost of around ~$4600.
WGU is hardly the fanciest school, but it's good enough, inexpensive, and most importantly it is fully accredited. If you always struggled with traditional universities, I recommend giving it a look.
If I had a magic wand and could make the education system however I'd like, I'd make it so every student spends the exact same amount of time on the subject, but I'd make it so you only ever manage a single class at once, instead of trying to interleave everything.
This isn't even that weird of a concept, even in the US; American summer schools will often do exactly this. Instead of doing an hour per day over the course of 180 days, you do roughly thirty six-hour days. That's how I took gym in high school, and how I retook calculus (even though I passed the AP exam first-try).
https://www.cornellcollege.edu/one-course-at-a-time/
Is it all based on self-guided learning? Because I can't see how this system could work with the classic system of bottom-up lectures accompanied by tutorials and exercise classes?
Some courses do have recorded lectures, but nothing live.
The reason I liked it is because I have always just been better at teaching myself stuff than being taught. I like working at my own (usually faster) pace and I really hate waiting to make progress. WGU is a perfect system for someone with that mentality, particularly since it's inexpensive.
I think the quality of the education is "ok". I think you'll leave with a good enough education in computer science to be "useful", but I will acknowledge that the fast-pace does make it easier to get away with skipping the boring stuff than it would be with a traditional school.
If you already have a lot of experience with software, WGU can work as a "legitimizer" if nothing else, though. I had a bit of a complex about dropping out and not having a bachelors. That pretty much went away once I got my bachelors from WGU.
Unfortunately, most educators simply don't seem to care much about high performing students, and they're fine with them not learning anything in the class as long as as the teachers are hitting their goals. I imagine the same attitude is harming the other students as well, but it's especially easier to see with high performing students where their needs are often openly ignored.
If you really believe this, then sue your school district. In my area, there was a district where parents believed high performers were not getting the necessary resources and through a combination of legal pressure and partnership with the school district, made it a priority in the same way that district had prioritized education for other specialized needs. Don't blame the average teacher though - they are doing what they have budget for and what they've been directed from administration.
It's worth discussing the administrators and the budget (though our budget is much higher than the national average), but why should we reflexively dismiss concerns about the teachers? There are advanced students who only get acknowledged as such when the teachers tell them "don't do that, we haven't learned it yet."
There's a large difference between trying to engage advanced students with limited resources, and not trying to engage or even acknowledge advanced students at all.
It’s very funny (in a depressing way) reading this sentence as a non-American.
I was a 3rd grade teachers aide and I saw the distinction first hand. A gifted child was given advanced textbooks and space to work at his own pace. The teacher didn’t really teach much, but the child was learning.
Conversely there was another kid who just got headphones to watch videos in the back of the room. I guess learn st his own pace, except the videos didn’t actually seem educational to me. I think it was mostly just done to keep him preoccupied.
I don’t know where you live, but kids (plural!) assaulting teachers like that would be very unusual. I have a lot of family and friends in elementary education and management. Stories like that are the kind of thing that get talked about for years if they happen, not something that happens enough to be referred to in the plural.
TBH there's no good choices for many - big mental health issues and trauma, no home or family support, and no real options: kids have to go somewhere, self contained classrooms are at capacity, there are worse kids in line to get put in facilities, and often you can't really do that unless parents push for it anyway.
Throwing chairs? That's a parent problem. Not sure why the district would put up with that. Expulsion works. I've never heard a story like this and we've been in the district for 8+ years.
As for skills, my kids are probably 3 years ahead of where I was at the same age. Devices are not a huge component of their schooling, although I am on a parent board that's pushing back on SaaS creep. They're forced to have Google accounts which I'm proposing to remove and/or minimize. Math and reading programs are fantastic. Teachers are great. There have been one or two mediocre teachers but nothing to really complain about.
We also have great private options, but again, we moved to this district to take advantage of the public schools.
As an observation the homeschooled kids that participate in extracurricular activities along with the public school kids are definitely behind. Not only from a traditional education standpoint, but also social skills. It's always an awkward conversation when those parents engage in a conversation asking where our kids are at with respect to reading, math or science.
Our goal is to have our kids be the best version of them that they can be. If they're happier, healthier and better equipped than we were then I'll be happy. I look at a lot of parents who want their kids to be stars and it's painful. Modern day parenting has lost its way in US society on so many levels.
There really seems to be two kinds of public schools. One is willing to expel students who are violent and disruptive and this allows the students who are willing and able to learn to do so. The other refuses to expel violent and disruptive students and they make it nearly impossible for the willing and motivated students to actually learn.
For example, CA schools have to publish statistics on suspensions and expulsions. So there’s an incentive for administrators to minimize them. In practice, this means that expelling a student (short of some extreme situations) is a lengthy process of ass-covering. Even when administrators are doing the right thing, from the outside it can look like nothing is being done. Think HR putting you on a PIP.
Meanwhile, the “right thing” isn’t always so obvious. The “violent and disruptive” student is also a child with a right to an education. And for what it’s worth, usually a child in crisis. For school staff, your role as an adult is to teach the child to participate in society with whatever limited influence you have. As a parent or classmate, of course, you have no reason to give a shit about some asshole kid, but the teacher has to.
And then, what does “violent and disruptive” actually mean? How much violence? No tolerance? What about a bullying victim who sticks up for themselves? Playground scuffle? At what point does the dial turn from teaching a child not to hit, to teaching a child that they are bad and do not belong? What about non (physically) violent bullying? What about children who are disruptive, but not violent (surely including a lot of those posting here about how their ADHD was misunderstood)?
Sometimes expulsion is the answer, even keeping in mind that every student expelled before 16 is just going to school someplace else. But the problems are more complex than people often realize.
See here's the thing. Not they don't. They forfeit that right by being violent and disruptive.
Often kids who get their right to education taken from them are failed by their parents and/or by the schools, but the blame cannot be placed on the child for that. Every child, excepting those with significant mental illness or intellectual limitation, can and should be successfully educated. Any educational system that is incapable of handling a child's tantrum or helping a child in crisis is a failed system.
They can. And do. We have 12-year-old "children" literally robbing stores around here.
If this happens, they should exercise their right to education from inside a locked institution.
They did away with that since I was young and now they just let the disruptive kids run rampant.
Keep in mind, you only have one chance really to get an education. If your learning is impeded by uncontrollable children, you now have a greater risk of life failure because you weren't able to learn the fundamentals, because a class of 30 was always being disrupted by one or two people. Say you didn't learn pre-Algebra well because of disruption; now you're behind when it comes to the higher level math for the rest of your school tenure and ultimately, life. These disruptions could have major long term consequences for other kids trying to learn.
Finally, teachers' average turnaround is 4 years last time I checked. That means there are very few veteran teachers available to show new teachers the ropes and how to manage a classroom full of teenage kids. Not that it matters, the new teachers will look for other careers within 4 years on average. The cycle continues.
So if you're a kid who's already struggling, you get sent to be surrounded by other kids who are already struggling.
> you only have one chance really to get an education.
That's true for the bad kids too.
I 100% get where you're coming from. My kids come home from school and tell stories about disruptive stuff other kids do and how much it gets in the way of the school functioning effectively.
At the same time... what are we supposed to do with those kids? The kids that have behavioral problems are much more likely to be that way because they have a bad home life. So if you expel them, they're missing out on education and they're spending more time in a bad environment. They're not going to get any better after that. Then what? Now they're a year behind academically and have the shame of being expelled. Their behavior is likely even worse because they spent a year not being socialized in a bad environment. So they're even worse next year, and they get expelled again.
Eventually, they stop going to school entirely. But at least here in the US, the number of jobs available to people without any kind of school degree gets smaller every year. So now they can't find work.
What do desperate people do? Commit crimes. So now we have a system that effectively just produces uneducated mentally unhealthy criminals.
Do you really want to force good students to have to be in the same classroom as the kind of students who get expelled from public schools? Do you understand just how bad your behavior has to be to actually get expelled?
"At the same time... what are we supposed to do with those kids? "
The most important thing is to NOT allow them to prevent other kids from getting an a good education.
Where precisely do you think "the kind of kids who get expelled from public schools" should be? I mean that literally, concretely.
Do we send them home where they are statistically much more likely to be abused and not have access to reliable nutrition? Imprison them? Ship them to some sort of Lord of the Flies island?
Do I want disruptive kids in the same room as my kids? Not really. Is it the least bad place I can think of to put them? Unfortunately, yes.
This is a deeply hard problem. Sure, if you only care about well-behaved kids it's easy: kick out the bad eggs and forget they ever existed. But if you consider that those bad kids are actual people who will still participate in your society, you need some solution for how to help them.
1. Good kids who were always and will always be good kids.
2. Bad kids who were always and will always be bad kids.
Further, any interaction between a bad kid and a good kid is strictly making things worse for the good kid.
I can definitely understand how someone might end up with that belief system. It was probably formed while they themselves were a kid and thus lacks the nuance and maturity that comes with time.
A closer picture of reality is that:
1. People go through good and bad periods. An "good" kid might become a "bad" kid for a year while going through the divorce of their parents. A "bad" kid might get the structure or diagnosis they need and blossom into their better potential. Kids mature at different rates and times.
2. Being around "good" kids is good for "bad" kids. If the people in their home life are awful, having a community of mentally healthy kids around them during the day can be very helpful for learning how to behave better.
3. Being around "bad" kids is often good for "good" kids. Obviously, it's not OK for some kid to bully or abuse another. But short of that, it's often useful and educational for kids to be exposed to a variety of personalities and maturity levels. Do we want our kids to grow into adults that have the skills to take care of and help other people who are struggling? I do. They can learn many of those skills in school by being part of the support network for bad kids.
Often, when they do, it turns out that kid wasn't so bad in the first place.
Overall, this simplified mindset is one I see all the time where we look at situations as a consumer: Is this a thing I want to "purchase" or not? Instead, it's better to look at the entire situation as an environment that you are both consuming and yourself part of.
They always talk about "it takes a village". We all both need a village and are the village for each other.
2. Bad kids who were always and will always be bad kids.
Further, any interaction between a bad kid and a good kid is strictly making things worse for the good kid.
My experience in K-12 proves that this is in fact largely TRUE.
" Being around "bad" kids is often good for "good" kids. "
This is just a mind-numbingly stupid take. A 10th grader taking advanced calc and programming robots doesn't benefit from being forced to interact with an illiterate 19 year old who has been held back 3 times and steals his lunch money every day. This is in fact almost a human rights violation for the smart kid.
"I can definitely understand how someone might end up with that belief system. It was probably formed while they themselves were a kid and thus lacks the nuance and maturity that comes with time."
That's really the make-or-break question. IIRC, it was kids who constantly got into fights. Kids caught with knives, drugs, or firecrackers; kids in gangs, etc. It was kids who constantly disrupted the classroom, even after being assigned to after school detention multiple times. It was kids who disrespected teachers (cussing them out, threatening them, attacking them, etc). It was kids that got pregnant. It was even kids that cheated because it was taken more seriously back then.
The levels were: write sentences on the board after class, get sent to the principal's office with a parent call, get after school detention, get after school detention a whole lot, get expelled. Sometimes like in the case of knives, it would go straight to expulsion.
Today, teachers will send kids to the principal's office to get them out of the classroom and they just get sent back to continue disruption. Back then, teachers were expected to teach and the administration dealt with unruly kids. Disciplining kids who are bad is hard on the heart, but in the long term, not disciplining them is way worse for them. There's no discipline today in schools (other than getting arrested, which really should be avoided at all costs). There hasn't been discipline in schools for a generation. It shows not only in schools but in society as a whole.
Bad for whom? If you have the two options:
(A) Bad for people causing negative externalities.
(B) Bad for people causing positive externalities.
I will choose the former over the latter every time. Sure, it's bad for the kid to be getting abused since they're expelled from school, but it's bad for the kid to be getting abused since this other kid wasn't expelled from school.
I think you're missing something. Getting expelled doesn't mean you didn't attend school for the remainder of the year. Getting expelled meant you were sent to a school for expelled kids. If you got expelled from there, you went to a school for expelled x2 kids. In the US, it's illegal to not attend school under the age of 16.
>and have the shame of being expelled.
Shame is a powerful motivator, but only works sometimes. The alternative is to ignore the behavior or reward it, both worse solutions IMO.
I think the idea is if kids are disruptive, put them with other disruptive kids so the amount of disruption is minimized. All the kids in the disruption school are already disruptive. Also, you don't want to teach the current non-disruptive kids that being disruptive is acceptable, otherwise, you'll just create more disruptive kids by inaction.
Many violent and disruptive students were just kids with special needs. And I don't mean mental conditions or anything like that.
I mean a kid that would do WAY better if he was in a trade class doing something that motivates them, rather than being frustrated and forced to endure a rubbish secondary education, several hours crammed into a small room with other people and getting nowhere.
But of course that's more difficult to implement than a generic standardising/equalising pipeline of norm-conforming average citizen production.
But of course that would mean the system needs to contemplate individuals, instead of collectives, and the system doesn't like that.
Are you sure administrators care? I live in Oakland, where some of the public schools have absolutely abysmal (academic) statistics. I haven't checked the expulsion statistics. I'm not sure anyone cares.
Are there actionable consequences if these numbers get too high? If they're merely published, as a parent, I would see high numbers as a positive signal if anything...
This is where I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Education is not a right if you can't comply with simple rules. I'd also like to see where you're correlating "violent and disruptive" with a "child in crisis". I'm not saying it's not there, but I am saying I don't believe those two components are exclusive.
These games of "what if" and "what is" must be fun for some people - because they seem to be played quite often. Rules are rules, they can be cut and dry - even in this case. The excuses are played out, the fallback on so many "disorders" is rampant. Either society is essentially fucked, or people are abusing the exceptions. I do agree, there should be some exceptions, but those should be few and far between to avoid slipping through the cracks.
Finally, the implication that a teacher "has to" give a shit has got to be the worst idea Americans have embraced. No, they don't. If my kid was asshole in school - I would handle the situation and apologize. Parents who go at districts for not "giving a shit" about their kid when their kid has been taught there are no repercussions by their parents don't have a right to anything in my opinion.
- The kid's behavior isn't their fault. They might have a medical condition or a home situation causing them to act this way. It's tempting to write kids like this off, but we shouldn't punish kids for their parents' failings.
- No matter what, this represents a problem we have to solve. Either family can solve it at home, educators can solve it at school, or some LEO can solve it in the carceral system, but you burn more money and suffer worse outcomes the further down the pipeline you solve it (not unlike bugs in software engineering).
---
I have a hot take that school is so frustrating because it's one of the very few things in the US money and status don't readily fix. Your household income might be $250k a year, but your kid's playing kickball with... people who make less, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. The US isn't good at these kinds of "let's make society as a whole healthier so we avoid the worst outcomes" type problems, preferring to use those bad outcomes to motivate people to not be poor/lazy/unlucky.
Unfortunately the resources required to create some kind of middle tier education are truly bonkers (it's also de facto racist: 30% of Black kids and 20% of Hispanic kids are impoverished, so if you're saying "poor kids with all their problems not welcome here" you're kind of also saying Black/Hispanic kids with all their problems not welcome here--which also doesn't super work because of de facto segregation, so you're also saying "no middle tier schools here"). There are around 70m kids in the US. Let's take the top 2/3 (they're in households making > 199% of the poverty line) and assume ideal class size of 12. That's $229,000,000,000 a year just in salary (current median teacher salary is $58,950), which is more than 2/3 the current DoE budget, plus you'd have to dramatically increase salary and benefits if you wanted to hire that many new teachers anyway.
But, yeah overall my point is it's really hard to appreciate the scale of the problem both like, logically (can it really cost this much money?), emotionally (my kid got hit with a chair today), and culturally (I honestly thought making a quarter of a million dollars a year ensured my kid would never be hit by a chair in school; who do I see about this). But, it really is just the case we are going have to spend money like crazy and hire a shitload of professional educators. It might seem expensive, but you'll pay 10x if kids slide to the end of the pipeline--to say nothing of the moral cost.
If their home circumstances are forcing them to act this way, then too bad for them! That is part of them and they should be blamed until you can fix the root cause.
You've got over 20 posts in this thread, many of them putting the blame on children with no evidence that this would be helpful (probably because it wouldn't be). You've yet to contribute good ideas or substantial new information to our discussion. Your behavior is making our group worse, and ironically if we were to follow your advice here we'd have to throw you out.
I can tell you're passionate about, but frustrated by this issue. My advice is to take a breath and if you're really interested, do some reading and get involved. There are successful education systems out there (everyone references Finland); things aren't hopeless.
And expecting other children to suffer for their actions is wildly unfair.
Do you really believe this? I flagged your comment, because I'm worried that you are trying to convince people by building an ethos (and tearing down others' ethos) instead of appealing to logic. Your writing is very good, but there isn't much substance to it. For example, you say
> Expecting children to be responsible for their own actions to this degree is unrealistic
but don't substantiate why it is unrealistic. I've found that when people disagree (in America) there are usually layers of rhetoric that have been built around the issue, so much so that it can be hard to dig down to the crux of the issue and actually resolve the disagreement. This is why I'm worried about how you're writing: it seems to be adding layers instead of removing them. (EDIT: Note, I don't think you are doing this intentionally.)
Now, I do think I have been adding to the discussion. For example:
- I proposed we raise salaries by 10x and fire everyone to balance the budget.
- I gave an anecdote showing that even top-tier public schools have anti-learning cultures.
- I've pointed out that the "for whom" is important when discussing what is good or bad.
Instead I want to discuss your basic point: we should expel problem kids because it improves outcomes for non-problem kids. I don't want to come off as condescending but I DDG'd for "does expelling students improve outcomes" and literally nobody thinks that. Here's some stuff to read:
[0]: https://theconversation.com/why-suspending-or-expelling-stud...
[1]: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/school-suspe...
[2]: https://disabilityrightsnc.org/resources/stop-suspending-stu...
[3]: https://www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/media-documents/...
[4]: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/central/Ask-A-RE...
[5]: https://gafcp.org/2023/04/11/the-impact-of-early-suspension-...
[6]: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/crdc-school-susp...
[7]: https://theconversation.com/expelling-students-for-bad-behav...
[8]: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581500
[9]: https://pedagogue.app/why-suspending-or-expelling-students-o...
[10]: https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1625&co...
Some excerpts:
"evidence shows these tactics aren’t effective in changing a student’s conduct, and carry major long-term risks for their welfare. Students most affected tend to be those with higher and more complex needs, such as those with disabilities and mental health issues."
"The findings underscore that suspending students does little to reduce future misbehavior for the disciplined students or their peers, nor did it result in improved academic achievement for peers or perceptions of positive school climate." (emphasis mine)
"Suspensions do not reduce classroom disruptions, and often encourage them."
"Suspensions do not improve outcomes f...
So, what I'm mostly confused about is why expulsion wouldn't work. We know some schools are better than others. We know students in "gifted" classes do better than others, and if your references are correct even a regular student in a "gifted" class would soak up the positive climate and turn out better than in a regular class. This seems to imply that expelling enough students should make the school better. For an extreme example, you could have everyone take a test, expel the lowest 50% of marks to a lower-tier school, and the remaining students would have better marks. This comparison is a little unfair, because expulsion is usually reserved for disruptive behaviour, not poor marks, but you could similarly have every teacher compile a list of misbehaving students. When I hear that expulsion wouldn't fix the problem, it must be because they are not expelling enough people!
I'm also a little leery of drawing the same conclusions as the news articles you linked. It seems likely that suspension/expulsion does always work, there's just a causation between lots of students misbehaving in a school and more students being expelled in the school. For example, the second news article says
> The findings underscore that suspending students does little to reduce future misbehavior for the disciplined students or their peers, nor did it result in improved academic achievement for peers or perceptions of positive school climate.
The linked findings come from this study:
https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/NYC-Suspensi...
which has a few paragraphs on peer spillover effects from out-of-school suspension vs. in-school suspension. They do find a 1-2% decrease in the peers achieving ELA/math credit with out-of-school suspension (20-30% for the suspended), but there are also 20,000 incidents of out-of-school suspension with a median length ~two weeks [Table A.4]. Their data comes from the NYCDOE which has just under a million students, which means their peers also being suspended could account for half of the decrease! Then there's the correlation between negative school climate, more grievous offences, and out-of-school suspension (re: Table A.4), and it seems to be a clear-cut case of Simpson's paradox.
-----
Alright, time for the spicier part of this comment.
> I just wrote a whole screed in that Paul Graham wokeness thread about this exact thing. Educators are smart! They run studies on how best to educate! They're so easy to find and read!
I don't think the so-called educators are being smart. I think the average wokist is smarter than the average MAGAt (by a lot), but most systems fall into the Goodhart trap. People who optimise for looking good rather than being good often bubble to the top. This is why I think many woke arguments lean heavily on emotional appeals. The callous or ignorant MAGAts that only care about the gas price ironically end up with a more meritocratic system, because results matter.
I didn't partcularly like Graham's essay either, but I do sympathise with the anti-woke sentiment almost entirely because I believe this Goodharting has devastated the education system. For example, a common refrain I found in the comment section and your linked articles was,
> Expelling the student is not a good solution. Think about how this will effect his life! And what if he's going through abuse? Is it even his fault?
The MAGAt mentality is "I don't care, show me the results". They find current schools lacking,...
Thank you (also for indulging)! As an also-arrogant STEM person myself we can muddle through together haha.
> So, what I'm mostly confused about is why expulsion wouldn't work.
I think a number of dynamics are at play here:
- Schools don't usually reach for suspension/expulsion that quickly because they're weighing the impact of the problem kid's behavior on others vs. the impact of a suspension/expulsion on the kid, so their disruptive lingers.
- Some schools have zero tolerance policies that suspend/expel very quickly, but it turns out that creates a super weird climate (students defending themselves are also suspended/expelled, school staff feel pretty bad suspending/expelling all the time, you can't build relationships with problem kids which is deeply dehumanizing on both sides, etc.)
- Problem kids have a weird habit of just coming right back. A lot of us are envisioning a relatively rich school district with multiple nets to cordon off problem kids, bost districts have the one school, maybe if they're lucky there's an "alternative school" in the parking lot, which is a trailer that should only ever have 5 people in it, but it has 15. Maybe some people are advocating for some kind of super harsh zero-tolerance-expelled-forever pipeline, but let me introduce those advocates to the School-to-Prison Pipeline [0].
- Problem kids are still in your neighborhood, your kid is pretty likely to still see them outside of school, and that leads to more weird social dynamics.
But moreover, let's say that zero-tolerance-expel-immediately leads to better outcomes for kids and we have some way of totally segregating problem kids both in school and broader society. Those kids are still a problem for society that we'll have to deal with at some point. Today they're throwing stuff in class, tomorrow they're breaking the windows of your car or running drugs in your neighborhood. At that point in the School-to-Prison Pipeline, rehabilitating the person is extremely expensive.
> seems to be a clear-cut case of Simpson's paradox
Nah, definitely not. A commonly cited paper [1] has a pretty good table breaking down the effects of various classroom properties on outcomes. Reading it, you'll immediately get a great look at why private/charter school outcomes are so much better: they work pretty hard to cherry-pick kids that lead to better outcomes, thus exacerbating the School-to-Prison Pipeline issue by putting more pressure on public schools. Anyway, there's so much on this topic you're gonna have to switch your argument to explaining a conspiracy in educational research:
Suspending Progress: Collateral Consequences of Exclusionary Punishment in Public Schools: https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414556308
Effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Child Behavior Problems: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3483890/
Teacher Support for Zero Tolerance Is Associated With Higher Suspension Rates and Lower Feelings of Safety: https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.183...
Schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and human rights: transforming our educational systems into levers for social justice: programjames ↗ I think the school->prison pipeline is a real issue, but I think a poor quality of education is a much bigger deal because smart, educated people generate exponentially more wealth since the industrial revolution. If you want what is best for everyone, you would focus more resources on top-performing students rather than less! Sure, top-performing students would turn out better than mid-performing students—even with fewer resources—but that's a tautology and an emotional appeal. I think the tricky part is to make sure top students give back to society once they graduate, but that seems more of a cultural issue to solve. Boring students to death probably doesn't help, though. camgunz ↗ You've done a lot of thinking here, but if you did 80% of the thinking and 20% of the reading you'd reach better conclusions. There are systems that spend more per student than the US does, more % of GDP than the US does, they have lower classroom sizes than the US, they have better systems for gifted students, their students spend more time in class, they pay teachers professional salaries, they have more state of the art instructional programs, etc. etc. etc. None are trending towards the outcomes you're suggesting; in particular the EU isn't producing more billionaires (this is a product of income and wealth inequality, not educational system efficacy). programjames ↗ > To be pointed about it, I have people in my family who are special needs. I myself was disruptive in school because of life circumstance. When you advocate literally for imprisoning me and members of my family, at some point I have to recognize we're fighting. I've reached that point now. programjames ↗ > I can't imagine what you might mean by negative-externality people programjames ↗ > There are systems that spend more per student than the US does, more % of GDP than the US does, they have lower classroom sizes than the US, they have better systems for gifted students, their students spend more time in class, they pay teachers professional salaries, they have more state of the art instructional programs, etc. etc. etc. None are trending towards the outcomes you're suggesting; in particular the EU isn't producing more billionaires programjames ↗ To make a couple other points: camgunz ↗ >> 30 student classes obviates any benefit you'd get from anything else. There are no systems with those class sizes that are achieving the outcomes we want. programjames ↗ > There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills. bdangubic ↗ There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills. I'm not saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but dealing with gifted students is a whole other kettle of fish (which judging by your anecdata I'm confident you've read nothing about).
Now, you brought up that national testing + placement would mostly reflect socio-economic status. I think this is concerning because it lead to in-groups reinforcing themselves, which naturally decreases motivation for future rich people to help the rest of society. However, we already have examples of placement tests, and this isn't what happens! NYC has several "specialized" schools, including one of the best high schools in the nation, Stuyvesant. Admissions to Stuyvesant are entirely based on your rank on the SHSAT, yet 48% of their students are "economically disadvantaged" according to USNews. I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I would expect lower or lower-middle class. This data also matches up with my intuitions: although intelligence is heritable (through genes or upbringing), there are exponentially more "economically disadvantaged" people than rich people, so even though rich kids are overrepresented, they are still outnumbered by poor(er) kids.
Also, keep in mind that rich people will always be able to pay for private schools or tutors if they find public education lacking. So, you are really only depriving poor students of any possibility of a good education by lumping everyone together, which is worse for reinforcing classism. As you mentioned, charter/private school outcomes are so much better because they work pretty hard to cherry-pick kids that lead to better oucomes. Why not give everyone that opportunity?
That's a little facetious, because not everyone has that opportunity. Some people are just not genetically predisposed towards exams, or they're being abused at home, or they have to work after school to buy food for their younger siblings. But, it doesn't really matter why someone cannot do/be better if we're unable to fix the why. Until it can be fixed, the problem is just a part of them and they'll be punished for it. This isn't very sympathetic, but it's the game-theoretical optimal approach for getting to the Pareto frontier.
You mention that blame/punishment essentially never works, which is probably because humans are not perfectly rational agents. Sure. I've definitely seen this when I play Risk online. You have to use different strategies when people are irrational/prone to mistakes, e.g. with novices it's usually good to make a big stack and wait for everyone else to noob-slam, while with masters it's better to work with the othe rplayers to slowly choke out the rest. Optimal strategies may be less tolerant to mistakes, and a common mistake humans make is, "this person hurt me, so I will hurt them even more," without considering why they were hurt. A common theme I saw in school->prison pipeline studies is that youth get disaffected with society/the justice system, so they end up committing more crimes. If people really are being irrational, in such a way that punishment will not work, you really only have three options:
1. Force them into rationality.
2. Rehabilitate them through positive reinforcement.
3. Eliminate them from society, e.g. sending them to Louisiana/Australia, prisons/executions, or closed communities.
I'd argue that you should take whichever option is best for society, i.e. costs it the leas...
> I'd argue that you should take whichever option is best for society, i.e. costs it the least. Why?
> a) Societies cannot be comprised of mostly (weighting by utility) negative-externality people for very long.
> b) Everyone else is better off by eliminating such people, thus they are motivated to do so in whichever way is cheapest.
I can't imagine what you might mean by negative-externality people, but whatever it might be let me inform you there are lots of countries/governments/societies in the world that aren't doing so hot, and they've been doing not so hot for quite some time. Is this some kind of quasi-rational-market hypothesis for societies? Nowhere is this true. Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why did Black people continue to live in States that practiced segregation? Why do people still eat unhealthy food, or smoke, or drink?
> If it were cheaper to just execute all criminals, or commit horrific human rights disasters to make prisons cheap to run, that's what society should do. Historically, that's what societies have done.
I think relying on the actions of governments who knew almost nothing (Earth is flat, what is air, diseases are punishment from God, the sun revolves around Earth) is a bankrupt argument. Governments have almost never been data-driven. Reducing the rubric of how governments/societies should act to "do whatever's cheaper" is... so wrong I don't even really know where to start. How do you justify investments? How do you justify things like entering WWII or The Manhattan Project? How do you know what's cheaper or will result in the most gains ahead of time? This can't be a real argument. Are we about to go the entire history of how governments work? I refuse. Do more reading.
> I think "people being products of systems" is a rather naive take; if people were products of stable systems (in the physics sense), punishment actually would work.
Punishment doesn't work. Deterrence is a myth, and recidivism rates are off the charts. Again you're naive to the criminal justice system. If we don't think better systems/environments lead to better outcomes and worse systems/environments lead to worse outcomes, why are we trying to improve the US educational system at all? A kid's educational attainment is preordained right? Even if you think this is a straw man, it does us no good to consider "some kids just suck" when building an educational system, again because of the School-to-Prison Pipeline where bad outcomes are so lopsided.
> Similarly, we should be able to do a cost-benefit analysis on teacher salaries. In reality, the most efficient use of money is to pour it into the top schools (and have entrance exams), but the metrics don't look as good.
Your argument relies on the prospect of these super students increasing GDP so much we offset the cost of shunting tons of students into the School-to-Prison pipeline. Not only is there no evidence for this, it's a deeply immoral system. I refuse to even continue considering it.
To be pointed about it, I have people in my family who are special needs. I myself was disruptive in school because of life circumstance. When you advocate literally for imprisoning me and members of my family, at some poin...
This upsets me. Have you, this whole time, only been arguing for your in-group? Every time you said, "what is best for society," did you really just mean what is best for the people you care about? I, too, want what is best for my in-group, but I've tried to talk about how ranking/expulsions/etc. would increase wealth generation, and improve everyone's quality of life.
Quite frankly, your in-group needs my in-group, not the other way around. If we really are just trying to capture value for our in-groups, people in mine could just give up on public schools and go home-school their kids. I don't think this is optimal for either of our in-groups, but you have to acknowledge that if you want certain people to go to public school, you can't be defecting against those very people! If we really do have a conflict between two in-groups, why do you feel entitled to anything from the other side?
You've mentioned the school->prison pipeline, and how a lack of education brings out the pitchforks and torches. This is entirely true on the other side as well. As you saw in the comment section, a lot of smart people literally feel like school was prison to them. They were bullied, abused, had no freedom, etc. We've both acknowledged that bad students may become disaffected with school and society (if we don't rehabilitate properly), but only I've seemed to recognize that good students will too. Perhaps the difference is, disaffected bad students become violent, while disaffected good students become quantitative traders. Well, guess what? If your entitlement comes through a threat of violence, the correct response is to eliminate that threat.
Maybe you are alright with threatening violence, but I'd rather we not fight. And we don't have to. Society holds itself together through mutually beneficial deals (and a plethora of convenient lies). The minimum I'm asking for is for public schools to be mutually beneficial. This is why, although I think it is best for society to put extra resources into their top stuents, I am okay spending only equal resources.
Google is your friend. Essentially, in a counterfactual universe where they never existed, the world would be better off. If you have more negative externalities than positive externalities, your society is draining wealth, and will eventually disappear.
> Punishment doesn't work. Deterrence is a myth, and recidivism rates are off the charts.
We've already gone over this. Go rehabilitate, I don't care. Just rehabilitate people in a way so they aren't actively commiting crimes against education.
> Your argument relies on the prospect of these super students increasing GDP so much we offset the cost of shunting tons of students into the School-to-Prison pipeline. Not only is there no evidence for this, it's a deeply immoral system. I refuse to even continue considering it.
You are trying to coerce one group into sacrifcing enormously for another group, and you say my system is immoral? If sacrifices have to be made (they don't), why do you get to choose who bleeds on the altar?
Also, there is plenty evidence that super students do offset the cost. For example, North Korea's system puts disproportionally more money into their top students, and they usually rank higher on the International Mathematics Olympiad than every European country except Russia. The benefit is mostly for their defense: they really needed nuclear weapons, and they couldn't get them without investing in their best students. They might not even exist as a country today if they didn't do so. What could be more beneficial to their society?
Look, everyone acknowledges Europe has a stagnation problem, America is better for startups, and the USD being the principal reserve currency makes Americans richer. You cannot directly compare countries like that. I know you're smart enough to recognize that, so I'm astonished you wrote this down.
Ideally, you could just randomly assign two policies, and see which works better. But in the real world, pretty much all studies in education are surveys, and it's hard to account for differences in space (countries/culture/socioeconomic status). Even differences in time (when new policies are introduced) have confounders, but less so. If you look at those studies, you'll find that new policies that throw money at smaller class sizes or higher-quality teachers lead to better educational outcomes. It's uncontroversial to say that better educational outcomes lead to better salaries, and higher wealth generation. (BTW, I'm not using wealth to mean USD, I mean quality-of-life. The USD is just a convenient proxy. Not sure if that was clear earlier.)
Tracking is more controversial. However, the one study that did just randomly assign tracking to 120 first grade classes found it benefited everyone:
https://www.educationnext.org/tracking-improve-learning/
Most other studies use standardized exams (e.g. the PISA), and let me remind you, those are not difficult enough to see improvement for the upper percentiles! You flippantly dismissed it, but it's a huge deal. If your national assessment were the AMC 10/12 the bottom 50% would all score zero points (really 37.5, but that's irrelevant), and tracking would look like a resounding success if the top few thousand showed improvement.
> 30 student classes obviates any benefit you'd get from anything else. There are no systems with those class sizes that are achieving the outcomes we want.
I disagree? Universities have larger lectures, and students can move to lower classes if theirs moves too fast. I think your argument goes somewhat like:
| Assume each student randomly needs extra help some x% of the time. Then, the expected length until no needs help is (1-x%)^-n. Just to throw a number out there, assume ten students can move half as quick as one student. Then by the time you get to thirty students, you're moving 20% as fast as with ten students.
However, x% decreases with higher-salary teachers, and you can just move on without answering questions: "Ask me after class, we don't have time today." Finally, if you organize classes so similarly ranked students are together, the correlation in needing help increases, and the pace improves.
> You also can't literally fire all teachers. The NEA or teacher tenure won't let you.
Not with that attitude! Milei layed off 20% of his federal employees, and Musk 80% of Xitter. So, it is possible. They can protest, but I don't have sympathy for shitty teachers looking after their own interests.
> Training and interviewing 2.333 million teachers (plus administrators) is a gargantuan undertaking. Who moves to the middle of nowhere in Arizona, or Mississippi? How will you find so many qualified people?
I think the key is to steal employees ;). If you're offering double the salary, I think the local universities might lose a few professors. Also, as I mentioned, the university pyramid scheme is pumping out more PhDs than they know what to do with. There are also many universities shutting down as enrollment drops. Finally, interviewing 2 million teacher positions is a gargantuan undertaking, but each town only needs a few dozen. The federal government can create a teachers' job board for people to apply to, and let local towns do the hiring. Lots of doctors move to the middle of Nowhere, Mississippi, so I'm sure lots of teachers would too for a competitive salary.
> You also get stuck in tracks, so if say your mom dies in 3rd grade, you do poorly on the test and get bumped down, you're probably bumped down forever. That's a bad outcome.
Bad for whom? It's great for the kid who got bumped up. If you really want a better spot, you can study harder for the next test. No one is *stuck* in tracks. Do you know how I got good at math? I just solved thousands of math competition problems I found on AoPS.com. I would have improved faster if I had a coach/teacher to guide me, but the resources are out there if someone actually wants to hop tracks. It'll be harder than just never losing your spot, but that's no reason to give up.
> This [olympiad problem->curriculum writers] doesn't work because different people learn in different ways. You need dedicated, educated, well-compensated, supported professionals applying state-of-the-art techniques and research to get the outcomes we want. Also when you talk about replacing Common Core with some new standard, you're still not escaping Goodhart's Law.
I call bullshit. The SAT/ACT do not go high enough to distinguish the top 0.1% from the top 0.5%, and other (American/state) standardized exams are even worse, which means the so-called professionals literally do not have metrics that can capture that signal to tune their curriculae against. On the other hand, olympiad problem writers/camp counselors have a proven track record of doing exactly that. Here are two anecdotes:
1) In elementary school, my gifted class' teacher was complaining that her evaluations looked bad, because her students never showed improvement. It wasn't because they didn't improve, it's just because they stayed at 99%.
2) When Luke Robitaille got second in MATHCOUNTS in sixth grade, the nex...
> I disagree? Universities have larger lectures, and students can move to lower classes if theirs moves too fast. I think your argument goes somewhat like:
You're doing the thing again where you apply your expertise to a domain you're naive to. Google for class size and outcomes.
>> You also can't literally fire all teachers. The NEA or teacher tenure won't let you.
> Not with that attitude!
Contracts are contracts. Attitude has nothing to do with it.
> I think the key is to steal employees ;). If you're offering double the salary, I think the local universities might lose a few professors.
How do you deal with losing... let's just say 2m people from other high-value professions? Unemployment is at historic lows. You also haven't wrestled with finding ~$700b to pay for all of this. There's ~100,000 public schools in the US in ~13,000 school districts. You think you'll get good outcomes letting them all hire individually? Will you put caps on salary so smaller districts don't lose out?
You've honestly not thought through this at all. You're again walking onto an issue you're entirely ignorant of, and if you were in charge of it you'd thoroughly destroy it.
>> You also get stuck in tracks, so if say your mom dies in 3rd grade, you do poorly on the test and get bumped down, you're probably bumped down forever. That's a bad outcome.
> Bad for whom? It's great for the kid who got bumped up.
You're naive to the problems with standardized testing and trying to supplement with anecdata.
> [Weird takes on common core and standardized testing]
There may be a problem with the educational system not serving highly gifted students, but that's way further down the list than kids who graduate without basic reading and math skills. I'm not saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but dealing with gifted students is a whole other kettle of fish (which judging by your anecdata I'm confident you've read nothing about).
>> Today they're throwing stuff in class, tomorrow they're breaking the windows of your car or running drugs in your neighborhood. At that point in the School-to-Prison Pipeline, rehabilitating the person is extremely expensive.
> In my other reply, the TLDR; is essentially, "it's the other way around". It's much more expensive to rehabilitate them in the classroom than in the prison system.
I'm gonna quote something from my response to Paul Graham's wokeness essay: "It's like someone's running an experiment on how many times you can be bafflingly wrong before people notice." I'm noticing.
My entire premise is it's way further up the list. I called you out originally for "adding layers instead of removing them." You won't even acknowledge my cruxes exist, in fact you "refuse to even continue considering it." It's like they say: insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Everyone you talk to from the other side is baffingly wrong, because you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
the answer is simple - these two groups should NEVER be in the same classrooms - NEVER. these two groups will soon approach being different species. The entire issue is that they ARE in the same classroom but shittiest programmer is not sharing an office with Googlers working on search algo - yet somehow this is acceptable in schools. I have to pay tens and tens of thousands of dollars every year to make sure my kid does not have to deal with that nonsense
When I judge an educational institution I could not care less why some child being significantly disruptive is tolerated, even slightly. That institution simply becomes a non starter for a place I might send my children.
Of course parents who don't care about such things, or don't have the luxury of being able to choose, would accept such things. As would those who themselves have 'problem children.' Now think about what this does to the quality of that institution over time.
* Tossing around hot potato kids doesn't resolve things in a good for society way.
* Concentrating the proportion of kids interfering with normal income families by removing all the high-income kids from the school doesn't resolve things in a good for society way.
* Letting people choose to send their kids to charters while all the kids of low-involvement parents are still stuck in a situation with a concentrated proportion of problems doesn't either.
Unfortunately there are a several things at play:
* Increased availability of specialized, non-mainstream resources for moderate+ (moderate is pretty severe most of the time IMO) kiddos, gen pop behavior interventions, etc.
* Better general welfare for parents (often unstable/low income ones).
* More push back from districts when parents w/ lawyers demand stuff that's bad for the rest of the classroom.
* Teachers quality needs improving. (Many reasons.)
IMO institutional quality is purposefully damaged by people who hate paying taxes or supporting the general welfare - public schools are basically being purposefully doomed in much the same way that Republicans say "government always bad" and then set out to make it fail on purpose to prove their point, only with a wider variety of motives at play. "I'm sending my kids to private school, why should I pay taxes for public schools?" is not an uncommon strain of thought.
It's a doom loop leading to societal regression into a stratified society unable to properly self-govern IMO.
These things are not mutually incompatible. Kids with autism who actually have major behavioral issues will clearly benefit from some physical supervision, in addition to whatever autism-specific intervention may be most appropriate for them. Similarly, rewards for good behavior can often go hand-in-hand with some sort of more rigorous discipline for those who persist in damaging and harmful conduct - these things will hopefully be complementary.
Our local education superintendant _in_ _his_ _program_ _document_ is saying that he will go after any teacher attempting to impose discipline in a "community inappropriate manner".
So basically, nobody gets expelled.
To have a great school district where housing isn't overly expensive is rare these days. I would have to guess it is hard to find a house in such a district unless you waive inpections and pay in cash.
I don’t care whose problem it is, I’m not subjecting my kids to that kind of nonsense.
Different rates of suspensions leads to accusations of racism, and said accusations lead to Hail Mary attempts to make unequal rates equal, including forbidding any meaningful type of punishment for certain varieties of students.
If this sounds far fetched, public officials in Rotherham became objectively evil in their attempts to avoid racism accusations, "1400 children betrayed" is a extremely understated headline, if you want to learn more.
The other group are very religious who don't want their children learning about evolution or many other secular things.
The only real issue I have with homeschooling in the US is that regulations vary wildly by state. Some states have so little enforcement that it is possible to teach a child essentially NOTHING by the time they are 18 and face no punishment for ruining that child's life.
Not accepting it leads to a profoundly WRONG worldview that bleeds into everyday life in many ways.
Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance. Farmers who don't understand evolutionary principles might not recognize the importance of rotating pesticides or implementing refuge areas to prevent resistance from developing.
Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
>Antibiotic resistance
...is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. Recognizing it does not require belief in a prehistoric common ancestor for all organisms; it just requires observing changes that happen on a much smaller and more rapid scale.
>Existence of vestigial structures in organism. Why do humans get goosebumps when we don't have enough hair to insulate us? Because it's an evolutionary leftover from our hairy ancestors when the reflex would actually cause hair to trap more air for better insulation.
This is non-falsifiable conjecture about a pre-historic past based on observation of present structures. It is equivalent to "we obviously know that dinosaurs did not have feathers, because their skeletons do not have feathers, and feathers would have made them more visible to predators, so they wouldn't have had feathers."
>Understanding evolution is crucial for crop management. The development of pesticide resistance in insects follows the same principles as antibiotic resistance.
...which, again, is a micro-scale adaptation, like an organism's immune response. You can notice pesticide resistance occurring in pests and rotate your pesticides without having to sign on to the unverifiable claim that this happens because all life derives from a single organism.
>Medical research often relies on animal models because of shared evolutionary history. Our biological similarities with other mammals exist because of common ancestry. Without this framework, it becomes harder to understand why medicines tested on mice or primates might work in humans, or why certain diseases affect multiple species similarly.
This is more non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture based on observation of current structures. Is it necessary to believe a particular set of conjectures about the origins of mammals' biological similarities in order to recognize the fact in front of you that the mammals are biologically similar, and thus some mechanisms of action may apply across species, provided those similarities are retained?
>Human susceptibility to back and knee pain is a consequence of how recent bipedalism is in our evolution. Same for why humans are so prone to chocking, our larynx evolved to enable speech at the cost of making it easier for food to enter it.
...which, again, is non-falsifiable distant-past conjecture that has no bearing on recognizing the existence of the verifiable current-day reality in front of you: humans have back and knee pain. Is it necessary to accept a particular set of unprovable conjectures about the distant-past origins of this particular skeletal structure in order to make decisions about how best to treat a symptom that exists today resulting from the skeletal structure that you see immediately in front of you?
It is why, being intellectually honest, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is called a "theory" in the academic sense: it's a proposed model that fits the data available on hand, but which has not been experimentally verified in its premise. Short of time-travel, I'm not sure how it can be experimentally verified.
"Falsifiable" means "I can construct an experiment that could yield an outcome that directly demonstrates this idea as false." This is sort of like the difficulty that exists with the four-color theorem [1]: yes, you can run a lot of examples using computer-assisted proof tech, but at best what that tells you is "we haven't found a counterexample yet."
Except, for non-falsifiable claims like the theory of evolution as the origin of species, there is no experiment you can run to provide a counterexample. The theory covers any possible counterexamples by simply saying "that form of life must have evolved from a different origin point and/or under different conditions (regardless of whether we can recreate those conditions)", and tucks any counterexample in neatly into itself without feeling threatened by falsifiability. It is "total" by having an "escape hatch" for any counterexamples.
That stacks it up alongside "a deity made everything, and designed an ordered universe with certain mechanics, including giving organisms the ability to adapt"; both are explanations that fit the available data, but neither can be experimentally verified. Similarly, that theory is "total" by having an escape hatch: "well, maybe the deity did something different in that case." Young-earth Creationists do this with visible starlight that is a million or more lightyears away: "maybe God just accelerated that starlight so that humans would have a pretty night sky."
That tendency is similar to "maybe the [hypothetical] organisms on Mars adapted from a different common ancestor that maybe was made of non-living substances that are similar to the non-living substances that comprised Earth's first organism." Boom, done, no need to re-examine the premise, you just fold it in with "maybe the same magic worked a little differently over there," just like saying "maybe God made starlight go faster in the direction of Earth."
As long as you don't engage in denial of the available data because of your theory, then I don't understand why holding a particular non-falsifiable theory is mandatory.
It doesn't matter if I hold to the theory that the universe began as an origin-less hypercompressed single point of matter suddenly and rapidly decompressing...if I'm in the lab next to you claiming that vaccines cause autism. The problem is not which non-verifiable theory I hold about an unrelated subject, but rather my denial of the available data on hand.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that Louis Pasteur was a Creationist when discussing the mechanisms he discovered by which vaccines work. What matters is his recognition of the reality of the data at hand, and his work to explore and build on it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
But the micro vs. macro distinction is only one of time and scale and that's the whole point: species aren't "real," even fish aren't "real" in any ontological sense, but the countless organisms that we categorize as such existed, exist, and will continue to exist regardless of how we conceive of them.
The ask of evolution and science in general is to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
This is an excellent rebuttal to the micro/macro distinction, because it's working in the correct direction, which you've stated well:
>to accept the incredibly narrow capacity of human cognition as a starting point for an even deeper understanding rather than an end goal to rationalize towards.
Using the notion of "species" as a "ground truth", as though it were some biological law, is a self-defeating point precisely because the definition of "species" is "a somewhat-arbitrary taxonomy developed by people to try to group organisms together based on observed common traits."
I know a couple of big-scale farmers in the US. They are Christian, and believe in Creation. That doesn't stop them from using the necessary pesticides, or choosing the adequate strain of corn seeds, etc.
Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron. Believing God created everything according to a design and purpose is not incompatible with acknowledging the presence of similarities and design patterns throughout all of Creation, and believing that doesn't suddenly poof take away your rational capabilities to think and understand things.
Either way, I was asking for is a real situation in which someone will be negatively impacted because they hold a Creationist belief.
Will a Creationist live a sad life without fully embracing the misteries of goose-bumps? Will a farmer not use pesticides, or choose the wrong one because Creationism? Will Advil won't work on a Christian because they don't understand that rats and rabbits are our cousins? Will their knees hurt more (or maybe less?) because they think humans were standing up from the beginning?
"Believing in Creation doesn't turn you into an illiterate moron"
You kinda do have to be a moron to be a true young earth creationist. I went to Lutheran schools that taught me that the earth was created by god 6000 years ago and evolution was an evil plot created by Satan. By the time I was 15 I realized how stupid this was and how the theory of evolution fits the evidence and is self-consistent. One of the biggest realizations I had is that the theory of evolution, due to requiring such VAST amounts of time for evolution to occur, actually has nuclear fusion embedded in it as a dependency because nothing else could allow a star to shine for so long. When Darwin first proposed the theory a major and reasonable objection was the timescales needed because at the time it was thought that the Sun was powered only by gravitational collapse which would last less than 20 million years. Then this utterly absurd source of power for stars was discovered that could allow them to last for almost 1000 times as long.
> all of modern technology is a result of the exact same processes that led to the theory of evolution
Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the scientific method?
If so, I really feel the need to insist that being Creationist or Christian is not exclusive or incompatible with that. Guess what, I am Christian, I believe in a Creator God and yet I am (surprise, surprise) an accomplished Software Engineer.
I can understand if you think I'm stupid because of my beliefs. That's your opinion and I'm totally fine with it.
What I'm trying to say is that holding these beliefs doesn't make you intellectually impaired, or unable to use reasoning. We're just working with different assumptions.
You have faith in Nothing, from which everything came, I have faith in Something (God) from which everything came. And it is faith indeed, because you don't and can't possibly have definite proven knowledge of the origin of things. You weren't there.
To you, nuclear fusion is evidence of evolution. Fine. To me, alongside the rest of Creation, it is evidence of God.
Therefore, you will reason a certain set of things, and I will reason a different set of things. Because we have different starting points, we will reach different conclusions.
They prove their is something fundamentally wrong with your logical reasoning and evaluation of evidence.
You use God as an explanation for why the universe exists but cannot explain where God came from so you are just adding an extra unnecessary step.
Your software engineering background gives you a unique perspective to understand this: When debugging code, you follow the evidence (logs, stack traces, reproducible errors) rather than starting with assumptions about what should be happening. Evolution works the same way - we follow the evidence rather than starting with assumptions about how life should have developed.
The power of evolutionary theory isn't just that it explains what we see - it's that it makes testable predictions. For example, evolutionary theory predicted we would find transitional fossils in specific geological layers before we actually found them. It predicted specific genetic relationships between species that were later confirmed by DNA sequencing. Just as in software engineering, a theory that makes accurate predictions is more valuable than one that only explains what we already know.
You're absolutely right that being religious doesn't make someone intellectually impaired. But perhaps consider that accepting evolution doesn't require abandoning faith in God - it might instead lead to a deeper appreciation of the elegant mechanisms through which creation could have unfolded.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of people who were killed in the witch trials (medieval and contemporary), among so very many other examples.
Few things are more personally relevant than not getting tortured and executed by your neighbors because you were granted no defense against spectral evidence.
But how about this: the first time that any relevant powers decided that slavery was wrong at a global level was due to Christian beliefs, fancy that. And luckily they went on to impose that moral belief to the rest of the world. (England, France vs. Slavery)
It's true that a lot of evil has been done in the name of Christianity, but that's not of Christianity. If I came to your home and punched you in the face in the name of your mother, would you blame your mother?
But Christianity and the Bible have been abused very wrongly by evil powers as tools for control, something possible through deceiving illiterate, uneducated people.
As some other comments mention, Protestant Evangelicals made a big push for literacy precisely so people could read and interpret the Bible themselves, without depending on interested third parties.
Anyone taking a little time to read the Bible will see and understand that the Crusades were wrong, racism is wrong, oppressing women is wrong, and so on.
As @arkey points out, this happens with atheistic beliefs as well. By numbers communist purges have killed vastly more people than all religions combined just due to the numbers of people involved in modern ages.
The denunciations are very similar with actual evidence rarely being required or needed. Or it’s based on some characteristic of being on an outside group. Netflix’s adaptation of the Chinese authors book “Three body problem” gives a visceral showcasing of what that would’ve been like as one of the characters father is denounced and killed during that time for having “anti-Marxist” beliefs like gravity.
I’ve been to the Pol Pot’s killing trees in Cambodia where they slaughtered millions of people. Anyone who was educated in any way were considered polluted by capitalism and killed. Things like having spectacles was sufficient evidence.
I’ve seen the holocaust monuments in Berlin and Tel Aviv where the ideals of racial purity based on pseudo scientific interpretations of evolution were a key philosophical underpinning.
Actually much of the anti-evolutionary zeal in the US can be partially traced back to progressives (of that period) use of “evolution” to justify mass forced sterilization of “undesirables” by several US states during the 1910-1930’s.
Really humans are pretty flawed with any belief system. You fool yourself if you think “scientific” or “atheist” are any hindrance to these group behaviors.
There are no such things as atheist beliefs any more than there are a-unicorn beliefs, even if many things have been done in its name. The same goes for evolution. And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic than German fascism was inherently Catholic (it certainly wasn't atheistic) nor US democracy inherently Protestant. Anyone doing anything "in the name of evolution" is projecting their own hate and small-mindedness onto whatever convenient vocabulary at hand, as has happened over and over and over long before science. Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications. But xe also expect the same of others in kind. Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime? Because actual science has no patience with such nonsense whereas xir original point still stands. We can resume this discussion after that.
That’s just silly. Of course there are atheistic, theistic, along with myriad of other classifications of belief systems. If you decide to try and redefine all commonly accepted terms based on your belief system you’re not participating in a fair discussion.
> And no, communism isn't any more inherently atheistic
Perhaps it’s not, but all the major communist states have embraced atheism as a matter of course and that is what pertains to my comment. Most scholars consider Karl Marx an atheist and he was certainly secularist.
> Avoid confusing belief with confidence in replicability, not when only one was sufficient for humanity to reach the moon.
Confidence in something is a form of belief. You believe something will occur or is a certain way based on prior information.
Again you’re trying to insert your idiosyncratic definition of belief into the discussion.
> No, as a science-minded secular materialistic atheist, xe are burdened with expecting nuance, detail, precision, specificity, and consistency of xirselves and in xir communications.
As I pointed out above a couple of times you are not being precise but rather are injecting your own idiosyncratic non-standard definition of things. Defining your own unique pronouns is a good exemplar of this.
This all comes across to me as you not being open to genuine conversation.
> Tell xe again how belief will save you from junk forensic science if you are ever accused falsely of a crime?
Having fair trials, hearing of evidence in a court, having impartial judges, etc is based on a societies belief that those things are important.
Junk science goes against those sort of beliefs in a country like the USA and has been used to fight against such things.
As a counter, a science minded secular materialism belief system doesn’t have to believe in things like fair trials or the need of evidence to convict. Some rationalist scientific minded have argued that belief in fair trials and equality of people is illogical as common people don’t have the intelligence or expertise to properly judge things.
The CCP for example is arguably generally more scientific-minded secular materialist society than the USA. Yet they have no problems eschewing things such as trials as in their (dare I say logical and self-consistent) belief system the needs of the state subsume those of the individual.
Xe were raised young earth creationist and that requires gaslighting your own child on established science, going so far as to regularly test them on their willing to believe or lie about believing patent untruths. Oh, plus the constant repression of one's identity, the lack of exposure to a wider range of perspectives and experiences, and the panopticon of surveillance by people with near total control of your socializing, especially in the suburbs. That really fucks a child up.
That kind of homeschooling is a cult, no matter how much our wider culture has normalized the literal insanity.
Is it though? Any sources to back that?
From what I know CC denialists come in all shapes and sizes, from Christians to Conspirationist Atheists to people who are hoping for the return of the Anunnaki. As well as firmly Creationist Christians that don't deny the climate change at all.
That's an absurd belief and any system of education that results in that level of ignorance in science has failed.
Worse is that the majority pupils around the world will be taught both the Abrahamic creation story, the origin of man according to evolution, and usually a third or even fourth creation story from local pre-Abrahamic mythology. In the same school and from the same teacher. Talk about confusion of the highest order!
This really gets my hackles up, because my kids grew up in schools with a 50% Spanish speaking population and my partner is a dual-language teacher in a district where Spanish, Russian, and I believe Vietnamese are all taught as first-languages in specialized classrooms. Your assertion around English is misguided. This isn't to say that we don't need to get our kids proficient in English (it is the lingua franca after all), but there's more here than meets the eye. In my area we are headed toward universal bilingual education, which I see as only a good thing. That means that it may take longer to reach full proficiency, but the overall outcome is more capable and prepared students.
I don’t want my kid in a classroom where everything has to be repeated in Spanish. It’s already this way for school meetings and it slows information sharing down to a crawl.
If there was mandatory English and Spanish in elementary school classrooms I would consider home schooling.
Outside of certain fields (skilled trades primarily) my children will not need to be proficient in Spanish to be successful in the United States. It’s a nice to have and should not slow down everything else.
If your outcome is students that are more capable at languages but less capable in virtually every other subject, is the result really "more capable and prepared students"? I'm not opposed to bilingualism but you're lying to yourself if you think this comes at zero cost to at least some students.
I'm not pretending to have solutions, and I'm certainly empathetic for all involved. Just stating the reality that this is a suboptimal learning environment.
I have observed that any two-tier system accentuates inequality, be it health, education, security, or anything. When one group pays to have a system better than a universally provided one, the differences between both tend to increase, as the incentive to keep the universal system only as a fall-back to the private one by investing less on it (or by receiving generous donations from the private sector) is tempting to politicians.
A former colleague of mine, who grew up in communist Yugoslavia, remembered how he cherished summer vacations when kids from different schools went together to state-operated summer camps. I thought this was an excellent way to build inter-group bonds between kids that would never have met in other circumstances, learning to work together in team-building and educational activities. It didn't turn out well for the country, or, at least, it wasn't sufficient to prevent the breakup and the disaster that happened because of it, but still seems like a good idea.
Over time, my opinion changed from a strong supporter of free market economics to more deliberate models. I would support banning homeschooling along private schools completely. If a country wants to build a society that sees itself as a group of individuals with equal rights and obligations, you need to start early.
Of course, this would never pass any legislative body in the US.
If true, that also provides an explanation for the rise home schooling: more people can afford to do it.
IME it's a lack of trust, sending your kids to be raised by strangers. I grew up in a small town and some of my teachers were basically neighbors.
For some reason outside my understanding, a lot of small towns have shuttered the school in walking distance and moved to "consolidated" schools which might serve a thousand students from 4 different towns it's placed somewhat equidistant to, ie, in the middle of nowhere
Also, unlike your other examples of strangers working on things, there's not really a feedback loop of review and rework where mistakes can be corrected. If your child gets a bad education, that's time lost that's really hard to recover and can set them back for life.
Edit: To add, the "ideological capture" perception is important because of what education is. When you're dealing with an electrician, it doesn't matter who they vote for because electricity works the same way regardless. Teachers don't just regurgitate information but promote a set of values and expectations in their classroom so their personal opinions can matter a lot. And that's not even getting into teachers who explicitly try to teach students their worldview.
If the water you drink is having problems, you'd have campaigns over it, protests, people trying to get it resolved and potentially lawsuits. People would band together to do whatever they could to fix the problem that they see.
Education is seeing the exact same thing. Parents see a lot of problems. They are going to school board and council meetings, people are campaigning on solving the issue and people are taking whatever measures are in their power to fix it...like home schooling.
When people see problems, they want to fix them. It's exactly the same thing.
Many people research safety ratings before purchasing a car as a proxy for how reliable a given manufacturer is at ensuring good outcomes in a crash.
I have some friends who live in area with the bad water quality... They end up drinking/cooking with store-bought water, instead of city-provided one from the tap.
When I need electrician/plumber/general contractor/etc..., I choose one based on recommendations and reviews.
If you know (say from conversations with other parents) that your local school is bad, why would you send your kids there? It is like choosing an electrician with bad reviews only because their office is next door to you, or living in bad-water area, drinking city water and getting sick every week.
Schools are limited for choice, expert evaluation is limited, outcomes are potentially unclear... That's before you get into issues with the politics of a teacher or problem students.
Same is true for home schooling
Education is massively different. It's not a simple one-off deliverable, like making sure wires are insulated or water is filtered. It's something that's has different success criteria for each person who consumes it. It overlaps significantly with normative considerations and subjective values. And the current infrastructure that provides it via public institutions is badly distorted by perverse incentives, ulterior motives, and dysfunctional mechanisms of accountability.
People haven't been having nearly as many kids for a while. Fewer kids means fewer students. Revenue to operate the building is tied to number of students; fewer students means less revenue to keep things operating satisfactorily.
When the majority of the homes surrounding the elementary are filled with retirees whose kids have moved elsewhere instead of young families it is no surprise the school closes.
In my experience it's because schools are being treated as a business, and businesses are usually more efficient when there's consolidation of expenses. Why pay for 3 schools with 10 teachers each when you could instead consolidate classes and pay for 1 school with 15 teachers? To a business, the decision is purely made out of cost. Alas, a lot of governments have such tight budgets (for many legitimate and illegitimate reasons) that cost benefits outweigh the human benefits.
My (not data based) impression of school levies is that they nearly always get approved by voters, even in tax-averse areas, so if there is a lack of funding, it is usually real, rather than through a misplaced need to be "efficient".
What gets approved by voters? Ahh, right, government services. How are those paid? By taxes. Who collects taxes? Governments, of course.
I don't know where you are in the world. In the US, public schools are funded by government money counted by number of students and their test scores. So more students = more funding, better scores = more funding. There are other kinds of schools, private schools and charter schools come to mind, with different funding types. But often those include additional costs to the parent on top of the taxes they already pay.
How do public schools get managed by the district? Again I'm not sure where you are, but here the public school administration gets voted in during government elections. The public education system's requirements are defined by law and, above the district level, managed by county or state education services.
> if there is a lack of funding, it is usually real, rather than through a misplaced need to be "efficient"
Don't get me wrong, I think efficiency has its place. But I think it is extremely easy for school administrators to end up in a business-first mindset instead of a serve-people-by-educating-them mindset.
And, as you say, they are regulated by the government but so is everyone and everything else. In my view, its appropriate to describe public schools as part of "the government" but I also respect the GP's view that they're independent enough to be describe as not "the government".
???
But ultimately its a complex issue. eg voucher systems would resolve the above issues, but create entirely new sets of problems which may be worse along the way.
You're right that something is definitely lost. It's an externality that's forced on you and your children. There are compensations, but it's not an unambiguous win.
If that is done by the parents / family, then it's almost like home schooling. But I don't like home schooling because the kid is left out of the system and the studies are not recognized. At some point they will have to take traumatizing equivalence tests, which can be entirely avoided by playing along - go to a public school, or in my kid's case, a private school which follows the same curricula.
But I stress again, even with private school, there's no replacement for private tutoring if you want your kid to succeed in life.
The equivalence tests are going to be country/US-state specific though. Many do not require such tests at all.
I had trouble in the public schools because of bullying linked to my schizotypy (then undiagnosed despite what I'm told later was an exceptionally good psych eval for the late 1970s) They were going to drug me so my parents took me out for two years, I skipped three and was successful in high school. (In the single year my parents were able private school I was treated as I had some rights and dignity)
My son struggled in elementary school in a different way. Our school got labeled as a "persistently dangerous school" because we had an principal who, unlike others in the district, filled out the paperwork honestly (and got fired for it.) I lost faith in the superintendent when he first words in a meeting were "we're going to appeal it" as opposed to something like "we're going to do everything in our power to make this school safe".
I was active in the PTA (maybe the only dude; that same superintendent was dismissive of my wanting to be active in my son's education at the same time he welcomed the mother of a 'special' child who could call the state and light a fire under his ass to do so) and was very impressed with the teachers for one year, but the next year they seemed disorganized and the precipitating incident was when my son made a horribly violent doodle and the teacher wrote "Great!" with an underline on it. We didn't take him back the next day and kept him out for two years. We couldn't get him on a good reading program but we got him far above grade level on math with Kahn Academy. (As an adult circumstances got him interested in reading, now he's reading The Economist every week, books on chess openings, psych textbooks I loan him, etc.)
We never quite filled out the paperwork but two years later we slotted him into middle school where he was successful.
The majority of my teachers were good. The dynamic was completely different compared to being around my parents.
Leave the teaching to the professionals.
Among current K-12 teachers in the United States, what would you estimate is the median number of academic/research papers related to education or adjacent fields that they have read in the past 24 months?
A teaching degree is neither necessary not sufficient for effective teaching. There are thousands of ineffective teachers with US teaching degrees. There are thousands of effective teachers without teaching degrees."There are thousands of effective teachers without teaching degrees."
I doubt it. And there are countless thousands more that are terrible and whose kids are very behind.
I'd imagine there are approximately zero homeschoolers who are managing a classroom of 20 kids.
The skills, knowledge and behaviors required to obtain and keep a job as a public school teacher are not the same as those required to homeschool your own kids.
How is this different from "I went to teachers' college so I know how to teach"?
Ah, the experts. I have no sort of education in education at all. Why was I better (and still am) at helping mates learn and solve CS exercises at Uni than some of the expert and qualified teachers? A friend of mine recently started a CS course to pivot his professional career. When he doesn't understand what the teacher is on about, he comes to me for help.
I have huge respect for the concept of teachers, but sadly a lot of people are teachers because they didn't know what else to be.
> from my limited experience the kids who are home schooled have huge holes in their education
I don't want this to sound snarky at all, but I'd honestly be happy to provide you with real life cases that would broaden your experience and hopefully tilt your viewpoint.
Teachers would anticipate that I would be terrible and then when I got perfect scores on all the tests, they would be pissed off.
I think there are a lot of tech people that are neurodivergent and had terrible experiences in school and would love to avoid my child having that experience.
Also, I’m not super happy about the extreme views on race, sex and religion that are going through the school system. I would like the opportunity to teach a more moderate view. I feel like people who don’t have kids who make comments about this trully don’t understand many parents perspectives on this.
Also, when you are a parent, you find that you have to move to specific areas to get good schooling and homeschooling would allow you to live where you want to and not pay and go through the application for private school.
It’s interesting that everything in this article that’s anti-homeschool relies on the parents not doing something correctly, which I think most people just assume they correct for that. I’m not worried about abusing my own kids, because I’m not going to abuse them. Honestly, my mom was a teacher and she was anti-homeschool and many of the anti-homeschool bullet points were provided by the union and I think she just wanted to get full funding for the school and the state wouldn’t provide funding to the school when the homeschoolers didn’t show up and wasn’t really caught up in those arguments.
However, my wife is never going to homeschool our kids or allow me to do it, so it’s just not going to happen.
When my son was in middle school he was quite inspired by a curriculum unit on the Harlem Renaissance and liked the school's black principal.
Later on he felt the attitude about gender (man vs women as opposed to something else) was very oppressive and that it contributed to him and other students falling victim to incel ideology and sometimes body dysmorphia. Today he struggles to talk to girls not because he's afraid of being rejected but because he's afraid of being reported.
Why would anyone be reported to any authority figure for speaking to girls?
Back when I was in middle school about a decade ago, the principal got up on stage with a police officer and explained that sexual harassment is when you talk to a girl and she feels uncomfortable. He then went on to assert that the school had zero tolerance for sexual harassment, describe various authorities to whom victims could report instances of sexual harassment, and implore students not to risk their future by engaging in sexual harassment.
If you weren't super confident in your ability to predict or control other people's feelings, probably your takeaway from that assembly was that talking to girls was a risky thing to do.
I was bullied in elementary school and graduated the same way Ender Wiggin did.
I was out two years and skipped three, started in the middle of freshman year.
I had no idea how I was going to find a mate. The world my parents grew up in, where my mom was introduced to my dad by his sister, was long gone. I knew I couldn't trust anything I saw on TV or in the movies. Adults, including my parents, were completely dismissive of my concerns. Might have made a difference if I had a sister, but she was born premature and I never saw her before she died.
I sat next to a beautiful girl in English who left me feeling entirely outclassed. [1] I came home crying from school about this every day for most of a year until I met the new physics teacher who let me hang out in the lab during study breaks, which gave me some meaning in my life and led me to get a PhD in the field. I still was afraid I'd wind up alone forever and went to a "tech" school which had an unfavorable gender ratio; I did find a girlfriend in my senior year, then was lonely and miserable in grad school. I found someone who was a friend of a friend and I've been involved in a love triangle ever since which he lost out in. My partner is a 100% reliable person from the same culturally Catholic background of myself (my parents did not involved me with the Church, she did all the things and has a positive orientation towards religion but doesn't take communion because she doesn't believe it literally.)
Boys today don't have it any easier. My immediate reaction is to be sympathetic towards "incels" but as an organized group they teach boys self-loathing which is primary to the 50% attraction-50% hate that they express towards women (hmmm... something a lot of people who are more or less healthy feel towards their parents because the conflicts that come out of being dependent on people)
[1] She was traumatized by her parents going through a nasty divorce. She teaches the Quechua language in Hawaii now. There's a photo of her next to a huge dog, no sign of any human relations. I probably did better at love than she did in the end.
The missing piece here might be that, as a teenager, it's pretty easy to convince yourself that the main way girls will reject you is by expressing that they're uncomfortable. (I believe this is called "getting the ick" in modern slang; the old movies your parents like call it "get lost, creep".) So if you're afraid of rejection, it's plausible that you'd be afraid of the legal consequences of making someone uncomfortable more than the personal embarrassment or emotional pain of the actual rejection.
My best friend in college was transsexual, knew who she was in childhood, couldn't be talked in or out of it. She was kicked out of the Air Force Academy which was my gain but our nation's loss. I was proud of my country when I heard this policy changed, not just for the individuals but because the US struggles to attract officers to match the quality of our enlisted warfighters.
I've cross-dressed at times (high heels, fishnets, all that) such as for Halloween and I also know the undercurrents of violence you can feel from ignorant people. Sometimes I bum around the house wearing a long skirt.
I was inclined to be supportive of the modern transgender movement when I first heard about it and when my exposure was through the media. It is their own speech that has alienated me from them.
Once I met people affected and after I joined Mastodon where I've had to add rules to completely block out their continuous hateful spew which frequently gets reposted by people who should know better. I'd be glad to hear "I'm so happy I found a new way to put on makeup that makes me feel like myself" or "I'm really inspired by electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos" or "Thank Lynn Conway for that phone in your pocket".
I can't deal with large volumes of negativity from strangers and on leftie corners on the web people from that community are the worst. [1] Whether or not they should exist is beyond my pay grade but I don't want them in my feed at all.
For that matter I feel less safe and not more safe expressing non-conformant gender characteristics because: (1) so many people have gotten inflamed, and (2) I don't buy into the politics.
[1] I just plain couldn't stand the MAGA nuts on Twitter, never mind all the equally hateful people who spew hate against transgender people (who I suspect want people to spew hate at them to justify their world view as much as Benjamin Netanyahu likes Palestinian attacks that justify his world view.)
Trans people behaving badly does not make me want them to cease existing, or make me feel less for their cause. "Trans people want hate spewn at them to justify their worldview" feels like a hilariously backwards belief outside of a few professional activists, who I am not particularly inclined in listening to in the first place.
This is a reductive view that presupposes gender as a pre-existing discernable static fact of a person's biology as opposed to an apparently extant human phenomena. The idea that they are the same is a profoundly simplistic view of the issue, one not supported by modern psychology or human archaeology, littered with happy societies full of folks we would now consider "gender non conforming". It's not a new cause, nor is it attempting to "redefine" anything.
> We can already see the effects and they're not good
People living authentically is great, actually. Respecting others and their preferences, also good. It genuinely doesn't hurt anyone. The effects to my life are roughly equivalent to my friend Phillip telling me he prefers Phil.
> harmful to women and girls in particular.
In very hypothetical, "just asking questions" ways that have yet to be borne out in any sensible reality. What has happened many times is cis and trans women being harassed for baseless, paranoid reasons. It's especially repugnant a defense when you consider that trans folk - trans women in particular!- are among the most vulnerable to attack and abuse.
If we were worried about harm to women and girls in a tangible, meaningful sense, we would be quick to punish actual perpetrators of verifiable assault than play feminist only when we find a more vulnerable throat to crush.
And yours is a subjective take that opposes this rather basic, verifiable fact.
So I am like ok, sure, I don't care much about this gender ideology, but if society does not think I am a man, then I am a woman!
Then people are not happy again. They call me a man who just wants to become a woman.
Maybe I'm living under a rock; what extreme views are going through the school system?
One example is the idea that a bio man should and must be called a woman if they declare themselves to be so. Regardless of whether or not you agree, it is an extreme viewpoint that has only just now become acceptable to believe in terms of history.
Not op and not taking a stance on any of these here, but:
1. Critical race theory (CRT)
2. Gender fluidity
3. Endorsement and use of Christianity/Bible in public schools
These are all hot-button issues in education today, at least in some states and districts.
Yes and no.
You are correct that almost no one is learning full CRT legal theory in K-12.
That said, CRT principles have expanded beyond legal studies, and they have certainly made their way into classrooms. Here is an example of an article that makes a case for it:
https://www.uclalawreview.org/yes-critical-race-theory-shoul...
I’m not sure if you know many education academics, but I assure you that CRT and derivatives thereof have been some low-hanging fruit in education research for over two decades (i.e., relatively easy to get published).
This included "Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project." [1]
Which is pretty wild, because that's a great summary of everything conservatives were objecting to in social studies classes, and provides a good wording for Christopher Rufo's redefinition of CRT.
However, I agree with you that this was a very recent redefinition of the term Critical Race Theory: As far as I can tell, the application of legal scholarship's CRT to education scholarship in the late 1990s was focused on the Critical analysis of teaching outcomes [2, 3, 4], especially racial discrimination in school districts. This seems to have been focused on administrative things rather than course content. There was a subsequent movement around 2016 to bring "Critical Race Praxis" into school districts, which again seems to be focused on removing inequities from school administration and teaching counter-narratives to "K-12 leaders". So I think that this is where conservatives found the term and decided to repurpose it to label the antiracist content which was being incorporated into social studies courses.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210705234008/https://ra.nea.or...
[2] https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/22/02/state-critica...
[3] https://thrive.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/Just%20what%2...
[4] https://ed.fullerton.edu/lift/_resources/pdfs/multicultural_...
[5] https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Envisioning-a-Critical-R...
Anecdotally, if I were to stack rank my education in k-12 based on quality of teacher, it would essentially be all professors followed by k-12 teachers, with those receiving more teacher instruction being lower on the list. I was once instructed by a history teacher, to not use examples on a history essay that we didn't learn in class, because she had to look them up.
I find it incredibly easy to believe that I can teach my children better than the average teacher.
We think we have a relationship with our own child that allows us to understand what they need and how to communicate with them in a way that works for them. We think we have the time (assuming one parent is full time parenting) to give our child the attention they need to excel. And we believe that a combination of relationship and individual attention goes further in K–12 than any amount of formal training in education.
I work on homework with my kid every day and after all those things it's not like we have time (or she has energy) to fill in holes in her at-school learning
Next time you're in the car, try teaching your kid about solving systems of equations where both are linear vs one is linear and the other is parabolic. It's a lot easier to sketch it out on scratch paper than to pontificate from the driver's seat.
Sure those things (history/philosphy/etc) matter but in our society you still have to do well on math tests to do well in life.
As a parent you can teach them directly (homeschool) or augment a public school education, but the augmentation route needs to be done in slack time, which is tough.
And what would be the point? If we're right that their mom is better equipped to teach them than a teacher is (because of time to dedicate to them and a personal relationship and understanding) then what do we gain by having a teacher do it too?
(This isn't the thread for the socializing argument, because OP started with teacher qualifications. I'll just add that we are aware of that concern and have strong mitigations in place.)
While this is a good and rational awareness of one's own capabilities, as someone who grew up in Bible-belt homeschooling circles and saw a wide variance in approaches and effectiveness, the "homeschool co-op"/"homeschool group" model where one parent teaches one subject to many kids, classroom-style, is super common. See, for example, "Classical Conversations" [1], a pretty common one in my area, that leans on "parent as classroom teacher to many kids", without much in the way of prerequisite qualifications.
[1] https://classicalconversations.com/
100%. But this also applies to people with degrees in education, teaching certs, and employment at your local school.
How do parents judge the ability of local teachers to be a good (pedagogical) teacher? If they discover a bad teacher, what is their recourse?
Sufficient erosion in the meaning and value of 3rd party teaching credentials then diminishes the relative value of outsourcing the process vs. doing it in-house: literally.
Multiple members of my wife's family are teachers in the local public school system. From what they have told me: they don't want to be in that place. Parents demand it of them, despite their strong attempts to push back and say "hey this one is your job as the parent to solve". So that's the reason in at least some cases, although probably not all.
HOWEVER... remember that "home schooled" doesn't mean "as a parent you are the only teacher" right? You can hire tutors, you can form teaching groups with other parents, you can use online resources, etc. If done WELL and with a sense of one's own limitations, and the need to socialize your child, homeschooling can work.
It's just unfortunate that so often homeschooling is used as a way to ensure that no outside influences interrupt a parent's particular brand of ideological indoctrination... although in the narrow case of tech parents, I suspect that's less of a driving force.
I love that phrasing! I think I'm going to use it – thank you.
As an example i once lost a mark on a math test because when rounding to the nearest whole number, i put 3.0 as the answer. Wrong. 3 is a whole number, 3.0 is not i was told, and threatened with suspension on protest. That kind of thing sticks with you.
I agree with your sentiment however, i just dont think its a powerful retort.
You also shouldn't try to mention INT_MAX, negative zero, rounding error, or other computer science topics which do not exist in mathematics.
negative zero isn't in any math I know of. It is only in obsolete computer science though.
> The right answer they were looking for was 3, not 3.0. Adding that .0 implies a precision which is not correct.
In contemporary mathematics, 3 is 3.0 . Both 3 and 3.0 belong to the set of integers. There is no additional precision being demonstrated by adding a 0 at the end of the 3. This is simple notation, not refering to a new concept.
We definitely spent more time discussing different kinds of infinity than we did discussing rounding error!
I can believe that the situation might be different in "applied mathematics" or definitely in "engineering mathematics" - but at least at Berkeley, the latter degree is in the College of Engineering, not under the Math Department at all.
For example, 10 / 3 = 3.333... right? We're then asked to round to the nearest whole number, and the answer should be 10 / 3 = 3. It is not correct to then say 10 / 3 = 3.0, because that is just wrong.
I'd end up siding with the teacher on this one. Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.
If you round 3.05 down to 3, 3.00 is not arbitrary precision, its explicit precision that's reflective of the rounding operation you did. I wasn't claiming that `type(3.0) == type(3)`. I was claiming that:
And that such a representation was valid within the context of the question. This was long before I was wise enough to understand that sir, this is a public school, just do what the book says and don't make me talk with the students more than I need do.10 / 3 != 3.000000000000000000000000 no matter how many times you refute it. You should really learn to accept it and continue on and look deeper inside yourself into this. It's sad you still haven't learned this lesson from elementary education. Maybe they should have suspended you.
In no world does 10 / 3 = 3.0. This is just a falsehood as much as 2 + 2. = 5. I don't care about your large values of 2.
Teachers not having the time to muse about such ideas and instead needing to package everything into a presentation appropriate for an entire room full of children is one of the more obvious failure modes of industrialized education.
It is perfectly reasonable to define 3: ℕ = succ(succ(succ(zero))). It's also perfectly reasonable to define 3: ℝ as the image of succ(succ(succ(zero))): ℕ under the canonical embedding. Or you can define 3: ℚ with the obvious element. You can also define 3.0: ℚ or 3.0: ℝ as the obvious elements. If you were really a deviant, I suppose you could even define 3.0: ℕ, and people would roll their eyes, but everyone would understand you. Obviously, there are reasonable ways to define things so that `3 = 3.0` is a meaningful sentence (typechecks) and also literally true.
Again, different conventions are used in different contexts. The "user" of mathematics should pick the conventions and notations that make sense for what they're doing to communicate what they're trying to say. That itself is an important lesson. The sigfig convention you learned in middle school isn't the word of God.
Not being aware of these things to be capable of musing about them is I suppose another issue with our education system.
Similarly, we calculated those ± values using the chain rule/uncertainty propagation, not with the simple decimal place rules you learn as a kid. I assume no one serious uses the child rules when CAD software can just as easily use the real ones.
> we calculated those ± values using the chain rule/uncertainty propagation
Yes, that's common in detailed engineering documents. It still doesn't change the fact if I ask for 3.000 and you give me 3.001 I'm not going to consider that in-spec despite not giving a ±. It's assumed if I wrote it out to that decimal point I'm caring about that level of precision.
> Using decimal points to indicate uncertainty was not a thing I believe I did after high school
Well, I'd imagine since the topic of lesson was understanding whole numbers at a basic level this was probably a high school or lower class, probably more like elementary or middle school. You know, in that time when you did use decimal places to indicate precision. This person wasn't talking about losing points at their engineering job.
>
> 10 / 3 will never = 3.0.
You should read what they wrote again. They wrote with `≈`, which is a different operator than `=`.
What they wrote is correct.
.
> It is sad you still haven't learned this lesson after many decades.
>
> I hope I'm never on a bridge you build or plane built to the specs you write if you truly think 10 / 3 = 3.00000.
HN doesn't allow this sort of behavior.
Math terms like "whole number" are not defined in terms of the behavior of computer programming languages.
In math, not only are 3.0 and 3 the same thing, but also, so is 2.9999999...
.
> They weren't looking to see if you knew the arithmetic with that question, they wanted you to show you understood what they meant by "whole number" and understand you can't just leave arbitrary precision after rounding.
Can you show any math reference that supports this viewpoint? This goes against my college mathematics training.
.
> You didn't give the right answer
According to mathematics, 3.0 and 3 are the same thing (and so is the Roman numeral III, and so on.) So is 6/2.
It is deeply and profoundly incorrect to treat an answer as incorrect because the mantissa was written out.
The teacher is simply incorrect, as are you.
.
> Just acknowledge you didn't understand what they were looking for and do better next time.
If a teacher asks "what is the country north of Austria," in an English speaking school, and you write "Germany," and the teacher says "no, it's Allemande," they're just incorrect. It doesn't matter if the teacher is French. There are only two ways to look at this: either the correct answer is in the language of the school, or any international answer is acceptable.
A normal person would say "oh, ha ha, Germany and Allemande are the same place, let's just move forwards."
A person interested in defeating and winning, instead of teaching, might demand that the answer come in in some arbitrary incorrect format that they expected. That's a bad teacher who doesn't need to be listened to.
Yes, we know there's also some kid who is explaining to just do as teacher instructs, but no, we're there to learn information, not to learn to obey.
> The word integer comes from the Latin integer meaning "whole" or (literally) "untouched", from in ("not") plus tangere ("to touch"). "Entire" derives from the same origin via the French word entier, which means both entire and integer.[9] Historically the term was used for a number that was a multiple of 1,[10][11] or to the whole part of a mixed number.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer
The question was to understand the idea of a "whole number" aka an integer.
The takeaway from trying to really nail down a definition of "integers" (or anything, really) is going to be something along the lines of "if it quacks like a duck up to unique isomorphism, it's a duck". The encoding is not important and one frequently swaps among encodings when convenient. In any case, no one who knows any math is going to say to a child that 3 and 3.0 aren't interchangable outside of some extremely specific contexts. In fact that's not even encoding: it's notation. They can be literally equal, not just equivalent. Those particular contexts aren't ordained, and e.g. propagation of uncertainty is "better" than significant figures if you're doing engineering anyway.
Writing something like '10/3=3' is likely to trigger the mathematicians because lots of people get confused about what '=' is supposed to mean (and often use it to mean something like "next step indicator"). '3=3.0' not so much.
The exact context was given. They wanted only whole numbers.
> Writing something like '10/3=3' is likely to trigger the mathematicians
Sure, when lacking the context of all answers should be rounded to the nearest whole number. But that was the context, and it's astounding so many people with alleged math backgrounds arguing things like intergers aren't a thing to understand.
Being equal to 3, 2.9999... is also a whole number.
Teaching to use '=' in a statement like '10/3=3' is an example of where teachers don't know math in depth and make errors about details that are actually important/later cause confusion. 10/3 is not equal to 3. '=' doesn't mean "answer". Then not accepting 3.0 which is equal to 3 just layers on that confusion. '=' is transitive. If a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Saying 3.0≠3 is a subtlety you really only get into in math when defining these things, and then you immediately redefine them so that 3.0=3 and you don't have to think about it again.
But the question wasn't testing that you knew how to divide and round. The question was testing if you understood what the teacher was trying to teach about whole numbers, integers, rational numbers, real numbers, etc.
6/2 as written is not an integer. It is not a whole number. The value it represents can be written as a whole number, I fully agree, but as written it itself is not a whole number. Whole numbers are the set of numbers Z including -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,... I doubt any math teacher, upon teaching "what is a whole number", draws a number line and proceeds to label it -3.999, -6/2, -12/6, -5/5, 0, 5/5, 12/6, 6/2, 3.999..., and on.
The notation was the key part of the question and was a key part of the answer.
The teacher wasn't looking for a value (which is what you're so focused on looking at), they were looking for a notation, a format.
6/2 is a whole number. 6/2 = 3. 3 is a whole number. They are equal. Usually, they are the exact same mathematical object. It is not merely that they share properties. They are literally definitionally the exact same thing (the same set in ZFC). "n is a whole number" is a proposition. It is true for n=6/2.
If a teacher is teaching that 6/2 is not an integer, unless they are in the middle of constructing the rationals and need to make a distinction between integers and equivalence classes of pairs of integers, then they are wrong. The very first thing you do after you're forced to make that distinction is you make it go away. They shouldn't be teaching the student to hyperfocus on a specific notation or format. That's a bad lesson to teach, and is something a real teacher will need to fix later. Actual mathematics professors are happy to let you write "let <christmas tree>∈ℝ". An intro proofs professor will definitely put something like "-3.999..., -6/2, -12/6, -5/5, 0, 5/5, 12/6, 6/2, 3.999..." on a number line to illustrate the point that these are just different ways to write the same thing. Fluidity in switching through and following different notations without getting distracted is a centrally important mathematical skill.
Finally, you're starting to understand the context of the question at hand.
I'm also happy you're starting to show you do understand there's a notational difference between 6/2 and 3. That the values are the same the notation is quite different, thus there are some differences. Not functionally, true, but notationally.
The notational difference was the point of this lesson. You may think it'll only be a barrier in the future to point it out like that (maybe it is!), but the notational difference was the lesson.
> Fluidity in switching through and following different notations
If you don't really have an understanding of the notations, you're going to have a hard time being fluid switching between them.
> An intro proofs professor
An intro proofs professor wasn't leading the lesson, it was probably an elementary or middle school math teacher. The point of the lesson is different, the context of the lesson is different.
In any context that a child is working in, 6/2 and 3.0 are a whole numbers. If the teacher says otherwise, they are wrong. Just because the teacher wants to teach a lesson doesn't mean that lesson is actually correct. The teacher is just confused.
If they weren't confused, it would be highly inappropriate to go into that level of detail with anyone other than a curious gifted kid that's asking questions that are years ahead of a normal curriculum. So much so that it's beyond the level of knowledge expected of a schoolteacher.
You also wouldn't mark it wrong because the entire point is to define things in a way that makes the distinction go away. Even after that distinction has been presented and is front-of-mind, you still generally write down whatever representative is convenient.
It's either literally wrong, philosophically/pedagogically wrong, or both.
Pretty sure all teachers I had even in elementary school studied at least high school level algebra. In middle school and above they all had masters or better in mathematics.
> the distinction is not relevant
> I highly doubt that the teacher was making that distinction, or even aware it exists
> the teacher was making a distinction that does not exist
The distinction both exists and does not exist. Incredible.
> it would be highly inappropriate to go into that level of detail
The detail of a thing that does not exist, right?
> it's beyond the level of knowledge expected of a schoolteacher.
Right, the teacher is wrong because you wouldn't expect the schoolteacher to be smart enough to be right about it.
There's similar logical snags when trying to define real numbers because technically you'll need distances which have to be rational because you don't have real numbers yet, but really you'd like distances to be real. It's not actually an issue though, and as far as everyone is concerned, distances are real.
Or you define things only up to unique isomorphism by their properties and wash your hands of the whole ordeal. The construction is merely to show that some object with those properties exists.
The teacher is wrong because if they are being pedantic about it to a child, they're a bad teacher. And they're missing the point.
I got threatened with suspension on protest once. It was about the meaning of a word, but still.
Luckily, I'm a university brat, so I just waited a couple days until my dad was keeping me at his office, then I wandered down the hall, and I asked some professors for a detailed and referenced way to push back. I brought candy and tums, because that's what professors want from children who can't bring beer.
About a week later, I went in with a 30 page computer printed essay. As a nine year old. It had six phone numbers in the back, four to PhDs, which could be called for further detail if needed. It was addressed to both the teacher and the principal.
An opening note was "please look into how Marilyn vos Savant was treated when she explained the Monty Hall problem, when considering whether teachers are permitted to threaten students for disagreeing politely. Are you really so afraid of being incorrect?," written by an internationally renowned mathematician.
I was carrying an etymological breakdown that to this day I can barely read, stretching all the way back to the hypothetical proto-indo-european roots.
Professors don't like kids being threatened.
I did not hear about that teacher doing that again while I was in that school.
Definitely not a great school! both my brother and I ended up going to college and getting engineering degrees, and had zero issues with academics in high school. My mom did a pretty okay job but it was absolute hell on her, I entered high school ahead on mathematics/history but pretty behind on writing and science. The science I dont blame my mom for, all the curriculum at the time was insanely religious, so the ones we could find were very dry.
1. Teachers develop skills in managing rooms of ~30 kids. I believe this is completely different from tutoring someone 1:1 and likely has very little overlap.
2. Part of my day job is already mentoring/teaching. I enjoy that part of my work. I've received feedback that I'm good at it. Actually when I was younger I thought I'd switch into teaching after building up some savings with programming. I've since heard/read enough about the realities of being a teacher that I can't imagine doing that job (especially with public school). Homeschooling or teaching a homeschool pod seems like the best way to actually be able to teach if that's your inclination.
3. The k-12 curriculum is not really much to cover. Schools move at a pace appropriate for the slower kids in the room. It doesn't seem like a high bar to beat, and most of what I've found looking into it indicates that homeschool parents generally do outperform schools with a fraction of the time spent.
3a. I've already been teaching my 3 year old phonics and reading when she's in the mood. She doesn't really have the attention to sit and focus for more than ~5 minutes, but that's okay, and it's still going alright. I expect she'll already be years ahead of the school curriculum before it's even time to start. So initial results have been promising and suggest I am indeed capable of teaching a child.
4. When it comes to more advanced/in-depth understanding, I don't expect teachers to have the background. Like just looking at the math education program at my alma mater, there's no requirement for real analysis or algebra. There's no requirement for science courses (physics, chemistry, etc.). All of the options in the math department except education require at least a minor in another STEM subject. It's no surprise that a common trope is that teachers (particularly math) don't know how to answer how something gets used in the real world, but that's insane to me as a status quo. There are tons of applications of pretty much any math you might learn before graduate level in pretty much any field you examine (conic sections stand out to me as a niche thing that we covered in high school. Not that they don't have applications to e.g. orbits, but they don't seem to apply to other fields, and I don't believe the connection to physics was made in my high school class anyway (presumably because math teachers where I grew up aren't required to learn physics)).
Honestly I think school is mostly more useful for socializing and something like arts/crafts that entail mess and require a bunch of energy to do at home, especially before high school/AP classes. The academic part seems trivial. Once you've reached that conclusion, it makes sense to ask whether there are alternatives that are better suited/are more aware of and aligned to their purpose as enrichment.
This applies equally to paid teachers, along with numerous downsides that don't apply to parents (i.e. being able to tailor education to a single individual, developing a relationship that lasts close to two decades, ability to slow down and speed up course material where necessary, and more). Paid teachers, contrary to semi-popular mythology, are not special and don't do anything that an average person couldn't do (they are not extra-"competent"). In the natural course of being a parent you learn how to interact, guide, and teach your children.
This argument also fails in many concrete situations. For example, where I grew up there is a decent homeschooling community made up of people with average levels of education, low to average income, and yet the kids perform very well academically and are well socialized. Saying that these parents are not competent because didn't get a badge (education-related degree) is absurd considering they do as well as the people who did get that badge.
Go spend some time in a classroom and get a fucking clue how much more there is to teaching than what your layman's view entails. You, and this disrespect for our educators and the potential of what we could be offering in our public schools is why we are the laughing stock of the developed world.
Yes, there are educators who are so great they can teach all 20 kids amazingly well, but those are super rare. Most likely kids who are learn much faster or much slower than the rest will be left behind. If you child is in this group, it's better off to stay away from public school.
(It could have been much better if there were advanced classes, "magnet" schools, etc.. but in many states those programs are being cancelled and everyone is being forced into rigid programs.)
At a minimum you need to use your judgement to vet good from bad practitioners in those fields.
Also "disrespect our educators" is so funny. Sorry, they're not that serious, mostly dumb. And we're not the laughingstock of the developed world, we are the rulers of the developed and undeveloped world
How, by the lack of it?
A lot of people bet for home schooling because, not despite of, their perspective from inside a classroom.
The fact is that in many places school standards have been so low and social promotion has been going on for so long that we now have people coming out of high school and college that have never achieved anything academically. Many of these people go into teaching (even when schools were academically rigorous, majoring in education was always regarded as one of the least challenging areas of study).
That isn't to say that there aren't good teachers, or that there aren't smart teachers - there certainly are. It is to say that having an education degree or a teacher's certificate does not mean that one is qualified to do anything.
Does this mean every parent is smart enough or cut out to properly home school their child? Of course not! What it means is that (many) schools have effectively failed as institutions and until they are improved many people are going to look for alternatives.
It absolutely does in Finland. It absolutely carried meaning when I was educated in my (non Finnish, non US) country.
What is revealed here is that a New York State teachers certificate doesn't mean much.
There's a lot of competence necessary to teach two dozen kids with different backgrounds and mastery levels, even in the rare moments when 2-4 of them aren't actively trying to derail the entire class.
The base level of competence necessary to go through a curriculum with one/a few of your own children is much, much lower. Could I do better with one/a few of your children given as much time and attention? Pretty definitely. Can I do better if your kid is in my classroom? In most cases, no.
Sure, there are things I could explain or guide a kid through because of my background and skills that homeschooling parents can't (though it mostly just takes more time and effort), but there's a huge amount they can do because of their relationship, access, and ability to devote time and attention that I couldn't hope to. And with modern homeschooling resources, tutors/group microschooling, online courses and group study, etc., the deficits have never been easier to overcome.
Also, two underdiscussed points: 1. An untrained, literate adult probably needs less than two hours to help a kid through what they'd learn in an eight-hour day at school. That time can go to other things. If they're productive, great. If they're not, no huge loss.
2. People significantly overestimate the level of care and competence average teachers have. You remember some fantastic ones. If fantastic and caring was the norm, you were quite lucky.
Parents are no better at this unless they are incredible focused on utilizing a curriculum and addressing their own issues along the way- And even then, learning with other kids is incredibly helpful. Talking to a computer is not a replacement for a teacher (yet).
I agree. The limitless patience and non-judgement of a computer is very valuable in a learning context. LLMs won't be better than the best private tutors, but its very likely they'll be better than 80% of junior high through college teachers.
At the local elementary school, we are told the kids are being kept safer now thanks to being tracked by AI cameras.
Some parents, maybe especially those with insight into tech fact vs. tech marketing, may have reservations about "tutors" whose services (perhaps for free) come with the stipulation that they are free to record every bit of data about your kid and do with it as they please.
The're being silly, right? Because?
As everyone on HN knows: software is super safe, and the entities/corps controlling it, so, so benign. Data doubly so -- hacks basically never happen, am I right? No one cares about your kid?
Or?
[0] https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/facts-grounding-a-new-...