4 ms·

I went to public school through grade 7, and my parents pulled me out to home-school me through high school. It worked out really, really well for me. Most im

I went to public school through grade 7, and my parents pulled me out to home-school me through high school. It worked out really, really well for me. Most immediately, it relieved a bunch of social pressure to "fit in". My curriculum was self-paced so I was able to work through the material I already knew at a fast clip. I did grades 9-12 in 3 years instead of the typical 4, and was able graduate the same year as my then-girlfriend, now-wife (hold the jokes please, she's not my sister). Beyond my personal experience being home-schooled, I'm now a father of 5, and I think the biggest thing missing from the other comments in this discussion is the concept that the education of children is just one of the many responsibilities of parents. As a parent, it's your personal job to make sure your children are fed, clothed, bathed, socialized, educated, moralized, understood, and secured. Everyone worries about the "socialization" of home-schooled kids. But the parent who is taking an active interest in the education of their child is almost certainly also taking an active interest in their child's social development. I think it's rather more likely that parents today are all too happy to abdicate and outsource those responsibilities to whatever institution is willing to take them on. Don't get me wrong. That we have freely available public education is undoubtedly a great thing. The capacity to read and write effectively and to think critically is an amazing economic mobilizer. There's a reason slave-owners in the deep south wanted to keep their slaves from learning to read. But having that education available is supremely preferable to having it mandated by the state.

r00fus 10y ago
> I think it's rather more likely that parents today are all too happy to abdicate and outsource those responsibilities to whatever institution is willing to take them on. s/too happy/required to/ Try to get by with a high-earning single income in the south bay area or a median income in any metro. Housing prices and health costs force families to move to dual income.
- joeclark77 10y ago
  The answer to that is, "get out of the metro". Cities are designed for singles and DINKs. There's a reason people talk about moving to the country, building a little house, starting a garden, etc... it's a better life for a family, and sustainable.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    I've got bad news for you--you're not going to escape wallet-crushing Bay Area housing prices by moving to Walnut Creek or Pleasanton.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - joeclark77 10y ago
      How about Idaho or Nebraska...?
  - dpark 10y ago
    Living in the country is in no way more sustainable. It's far less sustainable for the environment as people must drive everywhere. Infrastructure for water, sewer, trash, etc. all cost more (regardless of whether the homeowner pays the increased cost) and cause more environmental impact as they're less efficient due to lower density. You might find it to be a better life (I don't) but it's not more sustainable.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      > people must drive everywhere You're assuming city life and country life are largely the same. In the country you don't pop down to the market 3-4 times a week when you run out of milk or want to grab a sandwich -- you buy a deep freeze and go "big shopping" once every week or two.
      - dpark 10y ago
        I lived in the country for years. Yes, you buy a deep freeze. You also drive 20 minutes to the grocery store and 20 minutes to drop off your kids and 45 minutes to work. Yes, you optimize for bigger grocery trips, but the fact is that you still drive everywhere and you drive further because nothing is close.
        10y ago
- notdonspaulding 10y ago
  You're right, I shouldn't have imported motive to those parents. And I can empathize with parents in this situation. I don't think it's necessarily easy to go the single-income route. Still, in my calculus, the benefits outweigh the risks. Here's another anecdote: Once a week my kids get together with several other home-schooled families. In one of those families, the father is a math professor at the local community college. He's smart. He could work at any of a number of universities and make better money, but he's chosen to work at a community college because it gives him a more flexible schedule to be around to raise/educate his children. His family of 7 lives in an 1000 sqft home. His decision to take an active role in educating his children required sacrifices, and he's chosen to trade off the career benefits for home life benefits. (BTW, when people talk about "diversity", this is the kind I think that matters most. Diversity of viewpoints on how to live your life and raise your children. I'm glad in the US we don't have to all agree on the best way to do these things.)
  - pklausler 10y ago
    s/imported/imputed/
- pattrn 10y ago
  According to United States census data, more than half of homeschooling families have two working parents, compared to half of non-homeschooling families having one working parent and one non-working parent [1]. This data was collected in 2007, so it may differ from today's distribution. I'm not sure how these families pull it off, but academic scores indicate that they apparently do. It's possible that when the data refers to two parents in the labor force it means that both parents are employable, as opposed to employed. That doesn't make sense to me, however, as it would indicate that half of non-homeschooled families have only one employable parent. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the time to drill down into the raw data to investigate the definition they used. https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/educ.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/educ.pdf (Table 240)
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Is that just an all-day nanny/private tutor? So what does dual-income homeschooling mean? Seems like a stretch of the terminology to call it "homeschooling".
    - pattrn 10y ago
      With only a third of homeschooling households making over $75,000 per year, I can't imagine that a significant portion have a nanny. Then again, having never hired a nanny, I have no clue what they cost. Perhaps one parent works at night, or one parent works from home. Either way, it's definitely a curious statistic.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> As a parent, it's your personal job to make sure your children are fed, clothed, bathed, socialized, educated, moralized, understood, and secured. Focusing in specifically on "educated": That means more than handing them off to the school system, even if they go there. That means that you have to pay enough attention to know when they're not getting it, when the school's failing to teach them, or whatever. You can't just put them in public school and wash your hands of your responsibility for their education.

r00fus 10y ago

> I think it's rather more likely that parents today are all too happy to abdicate and outsource those responsibilities to whatever institution is willing to take them on. s/too happy/required to/ Try to get by with a high-earning single income in the south bay area or a median income in any metro. Housing prices and health costs force families to move to dual income.

joeclark77 10y ago
The answer to that is, "get out of the metro". Cities are designed for singles and DINKs. There's a reason people talk about moving to the country, building a little house, starting a garden, etc... it's a better life for a family, and sustainable.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  I've got bad news for you--you're not going to escape wallet-crushing Bay Area housing prices by moving to Walnut Creek or Pleasanton.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - joeclark77 10y ago
    How about Idaho or Nebraska...?
- dpark 10y ago
  Living in the country is in no way more sustainable. It's far less sustainable for the environment as people must drive everywhere. Infrastructure for water, sewer, trash, etc. all cost more (regardless of whether the homeowner pays the increased cost) and cause more environmental impact as they're less efficient due to lower density. You might find it to be a better life (I don't) but it's not more sustainable.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    > people must drive everywhere You're assuming city life and country life are largely the same. In the country you don't pop down to the market 3-4 times a week when you run out of milk or want to grab a sandwich -- you buy a deep freeze and go "big shopping" once every week or two.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I lived in the country for years. Yes, you buy a deep freeze. You also drive 20 minutes to the grocery store and 20 minutes to drop off your kids and 45 minutes to work. Yes, you optimize for bigger grocery trips, but the fact is that you still drive everywhere and you drive further because nothing is close.
      - 10y ago
notdonspaulding 10y ago
You're right, I shouldn't have imported motive to those parents. And I can empathize with parents in this situation. I don't think it's necessarily easy to go the single-income route. Still, in my calculus, the benefits outweigh the risks. Here's another anecdote: Once a week my kids get together with several other home-schooled families. In one of those families, the father is a math professor at the local community college. He's smart. He could work at any of a number of universities and make better money, but he's chosen to work at a community college because it gives him a more flexible schedule to be around to raise/educate his children. His family of 7 lives in an 1000 sqft home. His decision to take an active role in educating his children required sacrifices, and he's chosen to trade off the career benefits for home life benefits. (BTW, when people talk about "diversity", this is the kind I think that matters most. Diversity of viewpoints on how to live your life and raise your children. I'm glad in the US we don't have to all agree on the best way to do these things.)
- pklausler 10y ago
  s/imported/imputed/
pattrn 10y ago
According to United States census data, more than half of homeschooling families have two working parents, compared to half of non-homeschooling families having one working parent and one non-working parent [1]. This data was collected in 2007, so it may differ from today's distribution. I'm not sure how these families pull it off, but academic scores indicate that they apparently do. It's possible that when the data refers to two parents in the labor force it means that both parents are employable, as opposed to employed. That doesn't make sense to me, however, as it would indicate that half of non-homeschooled families have only one employable parent. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the time to drill down into the raw data to investigate the definition they used. https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/educ.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/educ.pdf (Table 240)
- r00fus 10y ago
  Is that just an all-day nanny/private tutor? So what does dual-income homeschooling mean? Seems like a stretch of the terminology to call it "homeschooling".
  - pattrn 10y ago
    With only a third of homeschooling households making over $75,000 per year, I can't imagine that a significant portion have a nanny. Then again, having never hired a nanny, I have no clue what they cost. Perhaps one parent works at night, or one parent works from home. Either way, it's definitely a curious statistic.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> As a parent, it's your personal job to make sure your children are fed, clothed, bathed, socialized, educated, moralized, understood, and secured. Focusing in specifically on "educated": That means more than handing them off to the school system, even if they go there. That means that you have to pay enough attention to know when they're not getting it, when the school's failing to teach them, or whatever. You can't just put them in public school and wash your hands of your responsibility for their education.