5 ms·

If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. For par

If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. For parents who do so for political or culture war reasons, that must seem profoundly unfair. To be driven out of the public schools means to be denied resources. Public schools using public money should be especially sensitive and as neutral as possible on political or culture war issues. That's increasingly difficult, but without that, public school doesn't have a good future. Normally schools are thought of as Democrat-controlled, but that's not true everywhere. So rather than just saying that everything is OK the way it is, think about how it will be when your political opponents are in control.

keiferski 3y ago
I believe that some states have programs that give you the money if you home-school. There seem to be some restrictions, though: https://idealschool.education/full-day-program/utah-voucher-program/ https://idealschool.education/full-day-program/utah-voucher-...
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  Our state does - we did not take it, because the money comes with enough strings to make it distasteful. We homeschool to keep our kids out of government schools. Inviting that same government into our home for a bit of money would make no sense whatsoever.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Makes sense, and looking at some of the requirements, understandable.
burkaman 3y ago
> as neutral as possible on political or culture war issues I don't think it's really possible to be neutral about culture war issues, sort of by definition, especially when many of the wars are about schools themselves. A school is part of American culture, it can't somehow choose not to participate. To use a historical example, there was a culture war over teaching evolution in schools. A teacher at the time could describe the history and facts of the controversy without stating their opinion on it, but when the students leave that classroom, they are still in a school that either teaches evolution or doesn't. By existing and having a curriculum, the school takes a position in the culture war. Imagine if your country held a referendum on a certain issue, and said "if more than 50% of citizens vote yes, the law passes, otherwise it fails". You could have a genuinely neutral opinion on the issue ("I don't care which side wins"), but you cannot take a neutral action, because not voting makes the law less likely to pass. This is unfair, and you can be mad about it, but the only way to be "neutral" would be to leave the country and renounce your citizenship so that you are no longer part of the equation. Similarly, in a culture war, the only way to be neutral would be to not participate in the culture in question, which is even more difficult than leaving a country. Let me give one more example: whether or not to tip your server in a restaurant. Tipping 10% instead of 20% is not neutral. Tipping 50% of the time you go to a restaurant is not neutral. You could say "I don't wish to take a position, so I will no longer go to restaurants", but I'm confident the anti-tipping side would claim you as one of their own. Again it feels unfair, but it's just how culture works.
- chmod600 3y ago
  Lack of perfection doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be more neutral. Trying by itself (even if failing) earns the trust of voters. And if you live in an area where evolution is a controversial topic, then you should leave it up to the parents. You don't have a right to use their money to teach something that a lot of people don't want to be taught. Of course, there's some line where something is fringe enough and you don't have to accommodate every last person. Again, try to be neutral, don't aim for perfection. And you know what? Evolution is a nuanced topic. The actual claims that can be backed up by first principals using the scientific method are fairly narrow. Much of the reasoning is very prone to confirmation bias and all kinds of after-the-fact fitting rather than forward-looking predictions. To stick to the science on the topic of evolution you have to be pretty careful and most teachers are not. Not saying it shouldn't be taught... I think it has a lot of explanatory power outside of pure science and represents a large body of important observations. But I don't think it's a good example of science-vs-idiots.
  - Tyr42 3y ago
    Okay, but there are claims like: "Dinosaurs existed over 100 million years ago, before humans existed" which are controversial enough that it's part of the "culture war". And teaching it (and carbon dating) counts as taking a side. We aren't talking about fine points of evolution, we are talking about the earth being older than mankind at all.
    - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
      As someone who was taught all of the silly, unscientific religious “theories” like Creationism as a child, and then had to unlearn it as an adult, my position is that it is absolutely never the governments place to tell a parent what they are allowed to teach their child. It is not the responsibility of the state, in any way, shape, or form, to dictate information to a child that the parents take issue with, even if that topic is something with no scientific basis akin to creationism. Parents should always have the final say in what their children are being taught, even if it’s patently unscientific. Anything else feels like an incredibly slippery slope of, “Daddy Government knows what’s best for your kids better than you do, so we’re chipping away at your parental rights until we can save your child from your non-governmentally approved ideas!”
brodouevencode 3y ago
You've just made a strong case for a voucher type of program.
kashunstva 3y ago
> For parents who do so for political or culture war reasons, that must seem profoundly unfair. I homeschooled my daughter for reasons other than culture wars or politics (she’s a violinist and public schools didn’t regard practice time as particularly important.) But I never thought of public school funding as transactional. We did not take direct advantage of the benefit; but a reasonably well educated populace benefits me in a host of other ways. So I harboured no resentment when paying my public school levy.
- chmod600 3y ago
  "We did not take direct advantage of the benefit; but a reasonably well educated populace benefits me in a host of other ways." But that's precisely the point: what does "well-educated" mean? If the money is going toward reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, then few will disagree. When the curriculum, environment, or manner of teaching drift into more controversial areas, then you might start to see things differently. Imagine the school starts teaching things that don't align with your values, and they leave out things that do. How would you feel about the way your tax dollars are spent?
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
> If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. That's not money you have a right to as a parent. I don't take part in all the social programs my government offers, but I don't get all that money back.
- chmod600 3y ago
  Public schools don't have some inalienable right to that money either -- they are entrusted with the money by popular vote. If we want that to continue, then there needs to be very broad consensus that the things teachers are teaching are the right things, or at least not the wrong things.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    What other institutions do people try to claw back money from when people decide they can do a better job?
    - chmod600 3y ago
      Schools are one area where there's a lot of money involved, it's a direct service to normal people, and those people actually can do a pretty good job without the school (not saying that everyone can or that it's easy). Some communities highly dissatisfied with their police attempted to defund and/or defunded their department. That's not a great example because self-service policing doesn't work very well, but it's kinda close. Ultimately, if you want the voters' money, you need to convince them that you at least won't use it against them. And it's really easy for people to start thinking that it's being used against them when engaging in culture war or political issues.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        > Some communities highly dissatisfied with their police attempted to defund and/or defunded their department. That's not a great example because self-service policing doesn't work very well, but it's kinda close. This is a great example for what should happen - demands for systemic reform, not taking what you think is "your" money and going home. It's one thing to opt out of a system, it's another to think you're justified to get money back for it. As someone without any children am I justified in getting 24k/year back because I'm not using the school system for my (average) 2 non-kids? Of course not, but I do pay taxes for that service.
gnicholas 3y ago
> If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. Money spent ≠ value provided. My kid's class has over half a million dollars spent on it per year. But many parents see it as merely childcare, and then spend more money on after school tutoring and activities. I can see the appeal of skipping the schooling and doing the other activities during the school day. It's probably much easier/cheaper to get appointments before 2, when most kids are in school. And there's more flexibility in terms of scheduling. I just heard today that a family was threatened with being kicked out of our local school if they accrued 10 days of unexcused absences (which includes vacation days). While I don't think the school would actually kick the family out, the fact that this is even floated as an idea sounds crazy.

keiferski 3y ago

I believe that some states have programs that give you the money if you home-school. There seem to be some restrictions, though: https://idealschool.education/full-day-program/utah-voucher-program/ https://idealschool.education/full-day-program/utah-voucher-...

Ancapistani 3y ago
Our state does - we did not take it, because the money comes with enough strings to make it distasteful. We homeschool to keep our kids out of government schools. Inviting that same government into our home for a bit of money would make no sense whatsoever.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Makes sense, and looking at some of the requirements, understandable.

burkaman 3y ago

> as neutral as possible on political or culture war issues I don't think it's really possible to be neutral about culture war issues, sort of by definition, especially when many of the wars are about schools themselves. A school is part of American culture, it can't somehow choose not to participate. To use a historical example, there was a culture war over teaching evolution in schools. A teacher at the time could describe the history and facts of the controversy without stating their opinion on it, but when the students leave that classroom, they are still in a school that either teaches evolution or doesn't. By existing and having a curriculum, the school takes a position in the culture war. Imagine if your country held a referendum on a certain issue, and said "if more than 50% of citizens vote yes, the law passes, otherwise it fails". You could have a genuinely neutral opinion on the issue ("I don't care which side wins"), but you cannot take a neutral action, because not voting makes the law less likely to pass. This is unfair, and you can be mad about it, but the only way to be "neutral" would be to leave the country and renounce your citizenship so that you are no longer part of the equation. Similarly, in a culture war, the only way to be neutral would be to not participate in the culture in question, which is even more difficult than leaving a country. Let me give one more example: whether or not to tip your server in a restaurant. Tipping 10% instead of 20% is not neutral. Tipping 50% of the time you go to a restaurant is not neutral. You could say "I don't wish to take a position, so I will no longer go to restaurants", but I'm confident the anti-tipping side would claim you as one of their own. Again it feels unfair, but it's just how culture works.

chmod600 3y ago
Lack of perfection doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be more neutral. Trying by itself (even if failing) earns the trust of voters. And if you live in an area where evolution is a controversial topic, then you should leave it up to the parents. You don't have a right to use their money to teach something that a lot of people don't want to be taught. Of course, there's some line where something is fringe enough and you don't have to accommodate every last person. Again, try to be neutral, don't aim for perfection. And you know what? Evolution is a nuanced topic. The actual claims that can be backed up by first principals using the scientific method are fairly narrow. Much of the reasoning is very prone to confirmation bias and all kinds of after-the-fact fitting rather than forward-looking predictions. To stick to the science on the topic of evolution you have to be pretty careful and most teachers are not. Not saying it shouldn't be taught... I think it has a lot of explanatory power outside of pure science and represents a large body of important observations. But I don't think it's a good example of science-vs-idiots.
- Tyr42 3y ago
  Okay, but there are claims like: "Dinosaurs existed over 100 million years ago, before humans existed" which are controversial enough that it's part of the "culture war". And teaching it (and carbon dating) counts as taking a side. We aren't talking about fine points of evolution, we are talking about the earth being older than mankind at all.
  - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
    As someone who was taught all of the silly, unscientific religious “theories” like Creationism as a child, and then had to unlearn it as an adult, my position is that it is absolutely never the governments place to tell a parent what they are allowed to teach their child. It is not the responsibility of the state, in any way, shape, or form, to dictate information to a child that the parents take issue with, even if that topic is something with no scientific basis akin to creationism. Parents should always have the final say in what their children are being taught, even if it’s patently unscientific. Anything else feels like an incredibly slippery slope of, “Daddy Government knows what’s best for your kids better than you do, so we’re chipping away at your parental rights until we can save your child from your non-governmentally approved ideas!”

brodouevencode 3y ago

You've just made a strong case for a voucher type of program.

kashunstva 3y ago

> For parents who do so for political or culture war reasons, that must seem profoundly unfair. I homeschooled my daughter for reasons other than culture wars or politics (she’s a violinist and public schools didn’t regard practice time as particularly important.) But I never thought of public school funding as transactional. We did not take direct advantage of the benefit; but a reasonably well educated populace benefits me in a host of other ways. So I harboured no resentment when paying my public school levy.

chmod600 3y ago
"We did not take direct advantage of the benefit; but a reasonably well educated populace benefits me in a host of other ways." But that's precisely the point: what does "well-educated" mean? If the money is going toward reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, then few will disagree. When the curriculum, environment, or manner of teaching drift into more controversial areas, then you might start to see things differently. Imagine the school starts teaching things that don't align with your values, and they leave out things that do. How would you feel about the way your tax dollars are spent?

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

> If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. That's not money you have a right to as a parent. I don't take part in all the social programs my government offers, but I don't get all that money back.

chmod600 3y ago
Public schools don't have some inalienable right to that money either -- they are entrusted with the money by popular vote. If we want that to continue, then there needs to be very broad consensus that the things teachers are teaching are the right things, or at least not the wrong things.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  What other institutions do people try to claw back money from when people decide they can do a better job?
  - chmod600 3y ago
    Schools are one area where there's a lot of money involved, it's a direct service to normal people, and those people actually can do a pretty good job without the school (not saying that everyone can or that it's easy). Some communities highly dissatisfied with their police attempted to defund and/or defunded their department. That's not a great example because self-service policing doesn't work very well, but it's kinda close. Ultimately, if you want the voters' money, you need to convince them that you at least won't use it against them. And it's really easy for people to start thinking that it's being used against them when engaging in culture war or political issues.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      > Some communities highly dissatisfied with their police attempted to defund and/or defunded their department. That's not a great example because self-service policing doesn't work very well, but it's kinda close. This is a great example for what should happen - demands for systemic reform, not taking what you think is "your" money and going home. It's one thing to opt out of a system, it's another to think you're justified to get money back for it. As someone without any children am I justified in getting 24k/year back because I'm not using the school system for my (average) 2 non-kids? Of course not, but I do pay taxes for that service.

gnicholas 3y ago

> If you home school, you don't get the money back. Public school is something like $12k/yr. That's a lot of money that you're essentially opting out of. Money spent ≠ value provided. My kid's class has over half a million dollars spent on it per year. But many parents see it as merely childcare, and then spend more money on after school tutoring and activities. I can see the appeal of skipping the schooling and doing the other activities during the school day. It's probably much easier/cheaper to get appointments before 2, when most kids are in school. And there's more flexibility in terms of scheduling. I just heard today that a family was threatened with being kicked out of our local school if they accrued 10 days of unexcused absences (which includes vacation days). While I don't think the school would actually kick the family out, the fact that this is even floated as an idea sounds crazy.