Hacker News Reader

Comment by eduction | Hacker News Reader

Not sure where you get “superficial” but all the home schooling parents I know care deeply about their kids’ education and future — that’s why they invest the tremendous time homeschooling takes and deal with the pushback from friends and family - rather than just making the easy default choice that comes with many hours of free child care.

The idea that parents would go out of their way to give a “superficial” education doesn’t make sense if you’ve ever been a parent. People care deeply about their children and their future.

I’d argue what is superficial is just going along with the easy default rather than examining what is best for your specific child.

View on HN

Note the difference between being superficial in fact and being superficial in the opinion of the parent. Certainly, (barring some egregious exceptions) all parents want to do what's best for their children and think they're doing so with every decision they make. The real question is - are they, in fact? They might earnestly feel that giving their wunderkind a STEM-only drill-style education is what's best for them - little budding engineers that they surely are. Conversely, having had a dislike for mathematics from an early age, they might unconsciously feel that their future Picasso doesn't need that boring stuff at all, or in very limited quantities. An important upside of attending school is that it exposes a child to a lot of different educators with different perspectives, and different biases. Their chances of discovering what they're good at and what they truly enjoy, as opposed to what mommy sincerely thinks they enjoy, is thus higher.

(Also I hate that this article has just been censored on HN and most likely no one will read this reply).

Caring deeply and knowing what to do aren't the same.

Your comment boils down to “Dave’s a great guy so I’m sure he does right by his children”.

But thanks to extreme lobbying by the HSLDA, we have no way of actually knowing that. We don’t know their test scores or even if they’re reading at their grade level.

And although Dave appears outwardly great, we don’t know if he neglects or beats his kids. Just no way to know that. Abusers don’t look or act outwardly like abusers, that’s how they get away with it.

Cmon man, think a little before sharing a personal anecdote that is just “my friend good guy”.

Excuse me, are you suggesting that teachers are some kind of saints, who never, ever abuse children?

> We don’t know their test scores or even if they’re reading at their grade level.

We do know that only one in three students in (e.g.) Chicago Public Schools can read at grade level. Obviously reading at grade level isn't a very high priority.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2022/12/25/23523556/r...

In any case: who is "we" here? They're not your children, dude.

The problem starts with children not learning "enough." The first question is, "Why?"

Fortunately, Smart people have studied these issues and found that the usual culprits are poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, and family stress (divorce, parents unhappy, etc.). Kids do better when they get breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack/meal in school and have a safe place after school for studying and socializing. Teachers do better with enough money to eliminate their financial stresses and total funding for classroom basics such as properly maintained buildings, heating and cooling, and classroom supplies.

But instead of addressing these issues, some people shake their fingers at the teachers, proclaiming the teachers union is the problem.

> Fortunately, Smart people

Umm... that's highly questionable.

Besides, you are simply attempting to change the subject. The OP was (allegedly) concerned that home-schooled children wouldn't be "reading at grade level". In many areas, public school children aren't "reading at grade level" either.

If "reading at grade level" is the metric, then why would public school be preferred over the home school? No one has cited any evidence to the effect that 66% of home-schooled children fail to learn how to read.

Why they're not "reading at grade level" is irrelevant. Whether it's because of the reasons you claim, or other reasons, it is clear that the public schools a) cost billions of dollars and b) are ineffective at fixing the problem.

I googled homeschooling and reading level; I found no discussion or documentation of the reading capabilities of homeschooled children. I don't believe it's possible to get an accurate indication of the reading level of homeschoolers. The dominant thought seems to be that "grade level doesn't matter" and that parents refuse to evaluate their children using the same tests as public and private school children. This refusal to participate in society and work by the same rules is part of why I think homeschooling is a considerable disadvantage for most kids.

If a process or organization is ineffective at solving a problem, it's usually because it solves the wrong problem. Understanding why the problem occurs is part of finding the right solution.

Look: if you took your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic's only response, ever, was "It's not my fault. I can't fix it. Oh, by the way, here's a gigantic bill."

You'd soon stop taking your car to that mechanic.

Blaming societal problems for failing to teach children to read is exactly analogous to the mechanic above.

Even if true, that just means they're taking money under false pretenses. Taking money from people when you know you won't/can't provide the services you are offering is generally known as "fraud".

> I googled homeschooling and reading level; I found no discussion or documentation of the reading capabilities of homeschooled children.

Some research done in Australia found that homeschooled children performed above-average on standardised tests, including reading: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/homeschooled-kids-perfor... ("NAPLAN" is Australia's nationwide standardised testing program for years 3 and 5; the "HSC" is the state of New South Wales' statewide year 12 exams, used for university entry)

There are parents who don't care about their children at all or whose love is so warped as to be unrecognizable. Thousands of children die from neglect every year. Over ten percent of children reported being abused or neglected in the last year. Millions of people in this country have been raped by their parents.

If you assume all families are gentle and kind, you are condemning children to misery and death.

On the other side, who's going to love them at school? Overloaded teachers? Administrators? Other still very immature students?

Lack of love is a problem. School is quite clearly not a solution to that.

Some teachers genuinely love and care for their students. The system, on the other hand, definitely does not.

> Some teachers genuinely love and care for their students

I agree. And they are among the best of teachers. But the ability of such a person to meet the love needs of a wanting child in the setting of schooling is near zero.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com