Hacker News Reader

Comment by qsymmachus | Hacker News Reader

  For various reasons, the mainstream regard homeschooling as
  a niche approach suitable only for the weird or the wealthy.
  That’s a prejudice that doesn’t reflect the reality of the
  growing movement I've observed in the Bay Area.

I'd like to see the author back this claim up, rather than ask us to trust him. Homeschooling is a feasible choice for families where one parent does not have to work full time, which rules out many poorer families.

This is a roundabout way of saying that the idea that homeschooling (or "outschooling") is the future is, frankly, a pipe dream. It is and always will be a niche option.

View on HN

Before the modern system of mass schooling (whether private or public) came into being, in-home education, via tutors, tailored for individual childrens' needs was the norm for the aristocracy and the very wealthy commoners.

Is it a big surprise that we're starting to see inklings of that again, given the growing gulf of inequality in the Bay Area?

I'm sure it's wonderful if you can handle it logistically and financially. I do wonder, though, if hybrid approaches may be more accessible to the middle class.

I grew up homeschooled in the Phoenix area, and and most of my friends' families had a single income. My dad is an engineer, and even though I have ten siblings we lived just fine on that income. My mom worked briefly as an engineer before she decided to forgo that to homeschool us. It's definitely a cost, and if this article is missing anything it's not clear enough that homeschooling is a large commitment.

Many of my friends' parents weren't engineers, and some would fall into the "poorer families" category, but they still decided that forgoing an extra salary to homeschool their kids was worth it. It's a very real trade-off, but given most people's level of spending, it's not that hard to cut down quite a bit while maintaining an excellent quality of life, if you have a good enough motivation.

> I'd like to see the author back this claim up, rather than ask us to trust him. Homeschooling is a feasible choice for families where one parent does not have to work full time, which rules out many poorer families.

In the Bay Area, this would likely rule out families with incomes below $90k and one or more kids, assuming they want at least a 2BR apartment.

My impression is that Amir only had people like himself in mind when he wrote this article.

This is where schools with the Sudbury model fits in well. There the kids both have the social environment and the ability to explore their own interests (even if it involves activities outside the school), and without the need for a stay at home parent.

I am actually surprised that there only is one Sudbury school in the Bay Area (http://diablovalleyschool.org), given how well it fits with the sentiments here.

Diablo Valley is a badass name for a school.

"So where did you graduate from?"

"Diablo Valley."

"... Whoa, you can probably beat up a deathclaw."

I've known some homeschooling families that were flat out poor. Plenty that were lower middle class-ish. Only a few that seemed wealthy.

I'd be surprised if there were many people who really wanted to homeschool but felt they could not because of finances. Some, I'm sure. *

Not wanting to homeschool in the first place is the bigger barrier.

* Homeschooling as a single parent, is, of course, tough. Some single parents do manage it.

This assumes that the future will always be like the present. In the past, the methods of schooling and the number of parents at home has varied. I see no reason whatsoever to assume we have reached a situation which is permanent and will never change.

>It is and always will be a niche option.

If we ever advance to the point where we agree to provide a basic minimum income, I expect the popularity of home schooling will explode. Since many people think that a basic minimum income is a likely consequence of automation, I think your use of always is incorrect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com