4 ms·

> The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." They really don't. The book in question is specifically titled "A case against educa

by kloop 2y ago

> The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." They really don't. The book in question is specifically titled "A case against education", and it's not an anti-learning book. It's a case against the education system specifically, because he argues that the system isn't really about learning (and the things it is about cause large negative externalities).

sanderjd 2y ago
I'll have to read the book, my questions about this weren't answered in the OP, but possibly are in the book. But something I think both sides of this debate seem to miss, or not want to talk about, is that the childcare aspect of the education system is useful on its own terms. My pro public education friends who work in that system don't love this point, because they are highly trained educators damnit, not babysitters! And I'm very sympathetic to that. And the formal education skeptics also don't love this, because caring for their own children should be the responsibility of parents and families. I have some sympathy for this too. But I think every "normie" parent I know who doesn't really have any particular dog in this fight would say that an important part of kids going to school is that they have a safe and stable place to go for a good sized chunk of most days while the parents get adult things done, either at work or for the household. The schooling / education side is very important too of course, but it's not the only important thing schools are doing. Now, I do personally tend to think that a better setup would be like a big family or community commune with a relatively small number of adults watching a relatively large number of children throughout the day, and a few hours of dedicated schooling peppered in. But the path dependency to get to a setup like that from the way our society is currently set up is mind boggling to me. Neither side of this debate has the goods here, in my view. Homeschooling is a totally different thing than that. Yes, there is usually some community component, but it's limited and fundamentally still requires an extremely large time investment by a large number of parents per child. I think this probably is truly better for the right parents; if one parent really wants to be with the kids all day and is excited and able to teach them, and another parent is capable of making enough income to make it work, and there is enough of a family or community nearby to incorporate with socially, then yeah, I do think that can be excellent. But that's a lot of ifs! Many (I'd say most, but I don't have data, so I'll keep it vague) parents have their own ambitions and want to work in the adult world, or even if not, they find it draining to be solely focused on their children all the time, and need time to be adults. And I think it is very lonely during the day, both for kids and parents, as everyone else in the neighborhood is working or at school. A larger community sharing this work across more children per adult in a community speaks to all these issues, but such a setup just isn't readily available to most people, and it's unclear to me how to make it be. (I always wonder if this is something that draws people to cults. They often seem to have a setup closer to this. If it weren't for all the brainwashing, maybe they'd be onto something.)
- kloop 2y ago
  That's an interesting point. I don't think either the book or the blog post say there's literally zero value in the system. But if the main value is taking care of the kids during the day, we can change the system A LOT. And probably get more value for a lot less money. Say, by hiring local grandparents to take care of 2-5 kids each for a while
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I don't think I'd say it's the main value, but I think it is an underrated value. But yes, my sense is that the current system under-utilizes a lot of professional educators' time by having them do childcare.

by kloop 2y ago

sanderjd 2y ago

I'll have to read the book, my questions about this weren't answered in the OP, but possibly are in the book. But something I think both sides of this debate seem to miss, or not want to talk about, is that the childcare aspect of the education system is useful on its own terms. My pro public education friends who work in that system don't love this point, because they are highly trained educators damnit, not babysitters! And I'm very sympathetic to that. And the formal education skeptics also don't love this, because caring for their own children should be the responsibility of parents and families. I have some sympathy for this too. But I think every "normie" parent I know who doesn't really have any particular dog in this fight would say that an important part of kids going to school is that they have a safe and stable place to go for a good sized chunk of most days while the parents get adult things done, either at work or for the household. The schooling / education side is very important too of course, but it's not the only important thing schools are doing. Now, I do personally tend to think that a better setup would be like a big family or community commune with a relatively small number of adults watching a relatively large number of children throughout the day, and a few hours of dedicated schooling peppered in. But the path dependency to get to a setup like that from the way our society is currently set up is mind boggling to me. Neither side of this debate has the goods here, in my view. Homeschooling is a totally different thing than that. Yes, there is usually some community component, but it's limited and fundamentally still requires an extremely large time investment by a large number of parents per child. I think this probably is truly better for the right parents; if one parent really wants to be with the kids all day and is excited and able to teach them, and another parent is capable of making enough income to make it work, and there is enough of a family or community nearby to incorporate with socially, then yeah, I do think that can be excellent. But that's a lot of ifs! Many (I'd say most, but I don't have data, so I'll keep it vague) parents have their own ambitions and want to work in the adult world, or even if not, they find it draining to be solely focused on their children all the time, and need time to be adults. And I think it is very lonely during the day, both for kids and parents, as everyone else in the neighborhood is working or at school. A larger community sharing this work across more children per adult in a community speaks to all these issues, but such a setup just isn't readily available to most people, and it's unclear to me how to make it be. (I always wonder if this is something that draws people to cults. They often seem to have a setup closer to this. If it weren't for all the brainwashing, maybe they'd be onto something.)

kloop 2y ago
That's an interesting point. I don't think either the book or the blog post say there's literally zero value in the system. But if the main value is taking care of the kids during the day, we can change the system A LOT. And probably get more value for a lot less money. Say, by hiring local grandparents to take care of 2-5 kids each for a while
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I don't think I'd say it's the main value, but I think it is an underrated value. But yes, my sense is that the current system under-utilizes a lot of professional educators' time by having them do childcare.