Have you ever noticed, whenever a group of adults talks about their school days there are always lots of stories about being bullied and general unpleasant experiences. At first it seems statistically improbable - those damn bullies didn't pick on everybody did they?
Maybe the truth is that kids are generally just fucking horrible to each other. That, apart from a few isolated cases, the meme of the Nelson Muntz style "school bully" is a myth. Many (most?) kids are both the bully and the bullied. This brutal experience gives us all the baggage we need to work through in the future.
Maybe we should be honest about what school is really for. I always thought Paul Graham was right when he said it's really just a place to put teenagers until they're useful to society.
> Now adults have no immediate use for teenagers. They would be in the way in an office. So they drop them off at school on their way to work, much as they might drop the dog off at a kennel if they were going away for the weekend. [0]
I also wanted to mention that there is a place where the Lord of the Flies approach has been taken to its logical extreme, in a long-running experiment which continues to this day.
That place is the British boarding school system. It messes people up so badly that it even has its own psychological condition: Boarding School Syndrome [1].
The fact that many of our political leaders come from this system should be a cause for concern.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/1166...
(And yes, being bullied does not stop one from bulling - on other occasion, in another place.)
Of course with schools the ratio of peers to adults is dangerously close to Lord of the Flies.
Good GPA? Wear what you like, except distractions (naked) mean back-of-class seating. Bad GPA? You wear a one-size-fits-all jumpsuit made of faded rose-colored velvet.
Good GPA? Eat what you like. Bad GPA? You get that squishy nutriloaf thing normally reserved for misbehaving prisoners.
Good GPA? You get first choice for slots in sports teams, drama club, choir, cheerleading, and all the rest. It doesn't matter if you suck at the activity. Bad GPA? No participation permitted.
Enforce prom date pairs having a minimum average GPA. Those with the highest GPA can pick anybody. Those at the midpoint can pick the better half of the school. Those at the bottom get only one choice, and will thus need to make nice with the top-performing student.
Good GPA? Wander in and out of school as you please. Bad GPA? You pass through metal detectors, get a pat-down, and are sniffed at by the drug-detecting dog.
Good GPA? Move around and chat with friends during lunch. Bad GPA? You get assigned seating and must eat in total silence.
People will invent new ways to attempt dominance. Brutally crush this for any student who fails to perform academically.
Agreements can be made to extend incentives beyond the school:
Good GPA? You can drive a car at age 14, with reduced-rate insurance and school-provided training. Bad GPA? You must wait until age 25.
Good GPA? The local cops welcome you to go shooting with them. You get any needed state licensing at age 12. Bad GPA? Forget it; no 2nd amendment for you!
Good GPA? The local mall welcomes you by yourself. Bad GPA? You are not permitted entry. (Moderate GPA: only with parents)
Good GPA? Public transportation is free. Bad GPA? You don't ride without a parent. (Moderate GPA: standard fare applies)
Good GPA? Wander the city as you please. Bad GPA? There is a curfew.
It's my opinion that children learn much more from their time with adults. It's likely that there's another aspect to the "Lord of the Flies" effect - Children are being socialized by other savages at school all day, then they come home and are virtually ignored by mommy and daddy.
>I've argued this many times when "socialization" comes up. So, other undisciplined brats should teach my kids how to behave in society?
EVERY child is unique and so there is no one way fits all to raising well-behaved and well-socialized children, so I adapt. I stay engaged with teachers at school and follow up when something goes wrong.
Teachers are often afraid to tell parents "bad things" about their child because so many parents are defensive and think their child can do no wrong. I try to recognize my children's shortcoming so that I can help then to improve.
When I first meet with a teacher I tell them this and that I truly want to hear about issues. I will tell the teacher, "In the past we have seen that X is an issue for him/her and s/he is working on improving on that area. If this or any other issues comes up let me know right away so we can correct it at home before it gets worse." I have found that this is more effective than just saying I want their feedback as teachers often think that is just lip service.
I set strict boundaries and rules and then I consistently enforce them. Often times I explain why a rule is there, but sometimes I just say, "I have my reasons." I find that in general children are more compliant with rules when they understand the reasoning, but the reasons behind some rules are too complicated for children to understand.
Apparently, these things work as my children are all high achievers and very well behaved compared to the majority of children I encounter on a daily basis. Other parents often ask me what is the trick to having such well-behaved kids.
My youngest daughter was a real handful the first couple of years in school and my wife and I had to put in a lot of work to change her behavior. Things that worked for the first two children had zero impact on her. Eventually, we figured it out. One of the most interesting things was that she had the same teacher for 1st grade and 2nd grade due to some re-org that happened at the elementary school. Out of the blue one night I received a phone call from her teacher (while she was in 2nd grade); when I answered the phone I assumed the teacher was calling to tell me there had been some sort of incident. Instead the teacher said how she just wanted to call to say what a pleasure it was having her in class and how she didn't know what we had been doing, but that it was amazing how well behaved she was.
So to sum up; if you are going to have kids then step up and be a parent.
If you look at the tone and language of your comments, there is quite a bit of detectable judgement and condescension. I'm sure your kids have great parent(s) who are involved, but I'm not sure you recognize the privilege your family enjoys. I think this point-of-view is troubling when looking at how we might approach the real problems facing society re: children, education, etc.
Either way, it's hypocritical for you to pass such harsh judgement of other parents while snapping at GP in the same breath.
There you go passing judgement just like I did, assuming that isolated events you may see in interactions between your kid and other kids is indicative of them being raised in an environment lacking discipline or involvement.
Regardless, I enjoy the conversation. I feel like using the word "savage", while it makes sense to me, may have distracted from the point I was trying to make. I have a pretty cynical view of human nature in general.
Maybe these parents always had been and would continue to be in denial; I don't know; but Susan thought the problem was much worse in fourth grade than in first, because the parents weren't staying abreast of their children's expanding capacity for mischief.
I've never had kids, though I think I would have liked to, but hearing things like this does leave me with the impression that a lot of parents are not really very much on the ball.
I honestly think a majority of education dysfunction comes with dual-income scenarios with "extended daycare" - If the children spent more time with their parents, it would help them really "socialize".
And some states, IIRC, don't even have equal funding mandates to start with.
Of course, infrastructure quality effects operating costs, so there is a source of inequality right there.
At least I had martial arts training.
It was a source of discipline, and the dojo was one of my main social groups growing up through every sort of school.
But there are some positive peer-induced socializations. Both my boys had some quite annoying habits of speech and mannerisms that are gone now. I think part of the reason is that their peers are less understanding and forgiving of such behavior than their parents. Similarly, they are more receptive to peer criticism, as it packs more of a threat. Other kids will ostracize you; parents, not so much.
I wish there was a way to mix the educational quality of public school (which I do believe is better than I could provide--im not a world history or literature expert) with the socialization of homeschool.
Against School - John Taylor Gatto http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
(Previously on Hacker News)
I don't see how promoting homeschooling as the alternative to schools is a good solution here.
Also, a turn toward homeschooling can be a total wildcard based on the values and intent of the individual parents. The movie Dogtooth[1] is somewhat relevant here.
But I don't think the values and intents of parents keeping their kids at home for schooling are always acceptable, which is emphasized in an exaggerated way in the Dogtooth film.
I'm sure in some cases homeschooling could be beneficial and "better" for an individual child than the existing school system. I just think mistaking homeschooling as an "alternative" to trying to solve problems of the school system is its own dangerous path.
She always worried that her inability to teach was ruining us. My dad said her teaching was not that important; her main job was just to be someone with a pulse who cared about us to the exclusion of all else. And it worked, I entered honors engineering at age 16.
Someone has to decide what the kid learns. It might as well be someone who has a better chance of actually caring about them.
This is a salient point. But I don't think the answer is "parents homeschooling" which can only ever address privileged individuals.
Might there be some way we can get more people involved in the the lives of all children that fit the description of "someone who has a better chance of actually caring about them"? That's the problem I believe homeschool ignores.
My father became disabled when I was 8 or 9 and could no longer work. There were years when our christmas tree was a potted plant and our presents were cereal boxtop prizes. Yet I was able to be educated at home.
If you are interested in allowing more people to have the privilege of home schooling, then perhaps we should examine the inequity of home schooling parents being taxed for public educations there children are not using?
I point this out because the premise of your argument assumes that state run public education is the default solution, and that home, or 'alternative' schooling is in the position of needing to prove why it is superior, when in fact, the situation is exactly reversed. It is public education which needs to prove empirically, why it is intrinsically better than the traditional forms of education.
And what was required to be functional in historic societies (say prior to the last 50-200 years[EDIT: 0]) was no literacy, no history, no mathematics, no basic economics, no civics (in the sense of understanding the theory, not the practice).
For the vast majority of human history we lived much, much simpler lives in many ways. Now, you need basic literacy and numeracy to be able to contribute to any non-manual-labor jobs. And even then, you need numeracy to manage your own finances or risk being taken advantage of.
What's required of the modern adult in the West is not a level of education that can be provided solely by two parents to more than two to three children (and that'd be pushing it). Instead, they rely on external resources (texts, videos, tutors, like minded parents) along with their own capabilities of education and instruction.
[EDIT: 0] Because the future isn't distributed evenly. But I should've specified further back than I did.
Even in a situation where the world requires a new solution to education, the burden of proof in terms of a particular solution's efficacy lies not with the old approach but the new.
That is to say, public education needs to demonstrate how it is objectively better suited than historic methods of education.
https://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/lit_history.asp
We had poor literacy, we introduced public education, literacy improved.
One major advantage of public education is breaking a particular cycle that would occur without it for many people. If you're uneducated or undereducated you are not in a position to educate your own children. You need a school or a tutor to help. Without that, your children are likely going to end up similarly undereducated.
Public schools are a democratizing factor that can significantly reduce inequality in education, and consequently inequality in life outcomes (as measured by financial and other success).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3...
>Public schools are a democratizing factor
That's true, everyone get's an equally poor education.
You can argue all you want about current school systems, but I think we can all agree that it's far, far, far better that everyone receive a baseline level of education, regardless of family background, than the way things were before.
This view of education, however, is not reflected either socially or in legislative reality when it comes to America education in general.
The reason why public education became wide spread starting in the middle of the 19th century was the industrial revolution and the need for a more educated work force. Prior to that, an economy primarily devoted to subsistence farming, can can get by with an uneducated work force as it had for thousands of years. Suddenly with mechanization, you actually needed people that could do math.
Today, in the first part of the 21st century, with automation, and wealth inequality, the efficacy of education as the great leveler is clear by pretty much every economic study. In light of this, it doesn't make sense to go back to a hodgepodge curricula at best.
Second, and perhaps most important, in the 19th century and before you had women whose jobs were to stay home and raise children to the ripe age of 12, at which point if they were a boy, they'd start working with their father in the fields until the they reached 17 at which point they'd marry the 15 year old girl from down the road and start a new farm.
Today, 60% of the households in the United States are dual income, and it's been about this high since the 1990s.[0] the reason for that are many, including the growth of secondary education among women who don't want to stay home all day, to the harsh reality that it's hard for most people to make do with a single income.
Let's not pussy foot around this. One of the modern roles of public education is child care, albeit crappy child care because it starts at 8am and ends at 3pm, thus leaving late afternoons a problem for dual income families.
So let's be honest here. If you abolished public education for homeschooling, you're cutting household income in half, and getting a lower quality educational product, because most people can't adequately educate their children both from a curricula and by a methodological viewpoint.
And while you haven't brought it up, going to a completely private educational system won't work either because quite frankly, most people can't afford to pay the equivalent of buying a car every year per child. Again, we tried this as society in the 18th and 19th centuries. It didn't work.
We don't need to repeal the 20th Century. We already had the 18th and the 19th. They sucked.
[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-20...
You don't even believe this.
Your point is accurate re: historical perspective, but don't you think you have to take that in context? From a historical perspective, children have been brutally exploited, especially from the poor and middle-class.
It does get quite amazing, doesn't it. And, thank you. :-S
Rational arguments require comparisons, and if we narrow the scope of comparison to the repetitively new era and scope (american public education) then we ignore the preponderance of evidence from human history.
I don't see how promoting organizational improvements as an alternative to educational freedoms is a good solution here.
In the industrial era when the system started, there was a somewhat defensible position that a conformist generation of young people indoctrinated with the same beliefs and an inclination to defer to authority was exactly what the factories needed. That era has passed. Education is priceless, but schooling and its associated credentialism is arguably the worst market distortion of the past century.
The former New York Teacher of the Year wrote a book on this topic: https://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-An...
Toddlers have atrocious fine and gross motor skills but we don't tell them to just sit still and do nothing until they're older: We let them play, explore, and yep... hurt themselves. We let them do things the hard way, so they can think to do it an easier way in the future. And I think the same philosophy can be applied to socializing.
I do understand there are school districts that serve large bodies of "latchkey kids." I was fortunate enough to avoid that in my public education, but I have less fortunate friends who came out fine-- several of whom had a much better experience in school that I did, weirdly enough.
And although I didn't exactly enjoy my time in school, I would never trade it for homeschooling. I had the foundation necessary to pursue my interests. And during my time in public schools, I've met several people in school I'm still friends with almost 20 years later.
This is not a view shared by developmental psychologists. Playing with children their own age is fertile ground to learn how to share, how to take turns, etc. As far s the child is concerned, they are on even footing in the social hierarchy with their peers and must resolve conflicts with their peers without falling back on defaults. Moving into adolescence things become more complicated and nuanced-- coping with peer pressure, dating, developing a sense of self etc. But that's all very critical.
Do groups of closely-aged children (or people in general) act as peers, or do they cue on other factors to form a hierarchy from? This is what the LotF effect is. In the absence of an established social hierarchy children will create their own based on arbitrary things such as body size, clothing, manner of speaking, etc. In schools we see this manifested as bullying.
Having a child interact outside their peer group gives them a template of maturity that they can emulate within other children their same age. The established hierarchy of age may make it less likely that they will resort to arbitrary hierarchies and could be measured by a decrease in bullying between children of the same age. (There may be age related bullying as older children abuse their seniority.) They will still have to learn the things you mention, but instead of stumbling across the rules on their own, or having them dictated by the fiat of an authority figure, they learn by the example of those who came before.
Then as those children mature they are encouraged to work with younger children and act as role models. When seeing they can correct the mistakes of the children following them, it provides positive reinforcement of the good behavior.
I was curious about this, so I searched for developmental psychology on the difference between mixed-age and same-age socialization. But what I found (from a very brief search) didn't match what you said. An example study is this - Children’s Social Behavior in Relation to Participation in Mixed-Age or Same-Age Classrooms:
"Findings suggested a significant positive effect on children’s prosocial behavior as a result of participation in a mixed-age classroom context. In addition, fewer children appeared to experience social isolation in mixed-age classrooms than in same-age classrooms. Aggressive behaviors were significantly less likely to be noted by teachers in mixed-age than in same-age classrooms." - http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n1/mcclellan.html
But that's just one study. Is it an area of ongoing debate in development psychology? What sources would you recommend for the other side?
What you're looking for is a study that shows something like the following: The difference in social development between at least 2 groups of children: Where one group did not socialize at all, and another that socialized with similar-aged peers.
Also, while the study you link is interesting, it's really just looking at pro and anti-social behavior over what seems to be one school year. It's not doing a formal assessment of social development over a long period of time. There's certainly evidence it could be beneficial long-term, but long term effects aren't studied in that paper.
I think your mistake is that this does not describe homeschooled children at all. They just socialize in locations other than prison-style government run daycare centers.
If RMS were a homeschooling advocate, this is the kind of statement I'd expect from him.
If you are on the "right" side, there's no need to exaggerate.
In what way is that statement an exaggeration?
Do I need to spell out how public schools are run like prisons? Or do you not believe in their critical function as daycare facilities?
I stole that from somewhere, but it makes the point. Much "socialization" in public schools is not a net win.
Of course a fun aspect of human behavior is that a kid might be mature and self actualized around their parents and then be a bully at school because they are friends with bullies.
Most schools (even some of the good ones) turn kids into asses through the "Lord of the Flies" effect. Think about it: You have inexperienced little people with underdeveloped judgement spending most of their waking hours for most of the year with other little people who are in the same boat.
And people call this socialization! "I do not think that means what you think it means."
If kids had a little more contact with mature, self-actualized people growing up, they wouldn't have as much baggage to work through in adolescent/adult life.