[Kman]

Yes, they pick up the basics on their own, but a child doesn't know what paragraphing is, or how to use a semicolon, or even how to avoid using English ambiguously, without someone actually telling them at some point.

And why couldnt I as a parent tell them what semicolons are for? If I have a kid then I can read the stuff they write and tell them if it sounds weird and whether they are putting semicolons in the wrong places.

[Rei Murasame]

You could, but are you also willing to take the time to teach them all these different words and their roots and the synonyms of those words, and then to repeatedly test them on those words?

And the assign essay-writing homework and coldly circle every single mistake with red or green ink and suggest ways that they can improve on it? Are you also willing to challenge their dialect and keep it close enough to a standard that is mutually intelligible to the rest of the country?

Now imagine how hard that is, and then make it doubly hard by taking into account difference of social class and/or ethnicity. Even if you answered yes to all those questions I just asked, how can you be sure that 100% of parent will say 'yes', and that they'll attempt to follow through?

There's no way to be sure, and seeing as actually we both know that nowhere near 100% of them will do it, it means we know that productivity will be negative affected and that social class divisions will sharpen, along with the wealth-disparity that accompanies it, which will breed more resentment and hopelessness, which in turn would actually cause you to spend more on security and police because people who are socially excluded will be more criminal.

[Sceptic]

And why couldnt I as a parent tell them what semicolons are for? If I have a kid then I can read the stuff they write and tell them if it sounds weird and whether they are putting semicolons in the wrong places.

Not all parents are that educated or even want their kids to learn, Kman.

The ones that make good homeschoolers can teach their kids, if they meet the right standards. Otherwise, it's only fair that the child has the chance to learn (public school).

[Rei Murasame]

Indeed, there is even a thread running presently here which seems to be about one such instance where someone was removed from the school system even though they should not have been.

You just can't leave these decisions up to parents Kman, there is no way to be sure that they will actually make the correct choices for their children.

[Daktoria]

Few parents teach their kids what a colon's for.

The last thing I want is parents teaching their kids how to use semi-colons with style.

Talk about queering things up.

[Kman]

Not all parents are that educated or even want their kids to learn, Kman.

''That educated'', we are talking about reading and writing and basic math here, something that the vast majority of people can do, we are not talking about teaching someone how to build a nuclear bomb.

Indeed, there is even a thread running presently here which seems to be about one such instance where someone was removed from the school system even though they should not have been.

So because one mum acted like a heartless cunt not bothering to take an interest in her son this somehow invalidates all homeschoolers? You are aware that this type of heartlessness takes place in public schools in large numbers also right? Many public school teachers dont give a shit about the bad students and just let them sit in the back of the class instead of taking on the humongous task of getting them to catch up with the rest of the class.

Atleast the biological parents have a genetic interest in helping their off-spring, the same is not true of public school teachers, the incentives they have for treating their students well are much lower than for the biological parents.

You just can't leave these decisions up to parents Kman, there is no way to be sure that they will actually make the correct choices for their children.

Who else should make these decisions? Government officials? They are more likely to make decisions that impact the child in a negative manner since unrelated bureaucrats dont have nearly the same kind of incentives for helping the child in question.

[Sceptic]

''That educated'', we are talking about reading and writing and basic math here, something that the vast majority of people can do, we are not talking about teaching someone how to build a nuclear bomb.

Not everyone.

And it certainly wasn't the case that everyone could read and write (and do maths) during the industrial revolution, for example. That is to say, before public schooling was widely accessible in western society.

And the minority who don't have these basic skills, their children still deserve that opportunity, even if they are in the minority (that's utilitarian thinking, Kman).

[Eran]

Not all parents are that educated or even want their kids to learn, Kman.

What possible reason do we have to suspect that public-school teachers are either interested in, or capable of educating children?

Since public schools are available to all, isn't the fact that certain parents bother to go through the huge trouble of home-schooling a very good indication that their children and their children's education is very important to them?

Wouldn't you expect a child to do much better under the supervision of a caring parent, than of a disinterested public school teacher, one whose pay depends in no way and to no extent on his performance as a teacher?

And it certainly wasn't the case that everyone could read and write (and do maths) during the industrial revolution, for example, i.e. before public schooling was widely accessible in western society.

Which is why home-schooling is not the only alternative to public schools. Private schools are another, far superior option.

[Kman]

And it certainly wasn't the case that everyone could read and write (and do maths) during the industrial revolution, for example. That is to say, before public schooling was widely accessible in western society.

According to the articles I have read illiteracy was basically non-existant in the US in the early 19th century, it was something like 0.4% of the population that could not read.

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor131.html

In 1812 (forty years before the passage of our first federal compulsory school laws), Pierre DuPont de Nemours published the book, Education in the United States. Dupont, one of the founders of the DuPont fortune, known to be brutally honest and direct, spoke of the phenomenal literacy rate in the United States; was amazed by the difference he saw when compared to European literacy. Dupont said that less then 4 people out of every thousand in the new nation could not read and do numbers well.

So basically literacy rates dropped when the government started regulating education.

[Rei Murasame]

According to the articles I have read illiteracy was basically non-existant in the US in the early 19th century, it was something like 0.4% of the population that could not read.

Was he counting women there, or were they invisible?

You are aware that this type of heartlessness takes place in public schools in large numbers also right? Many public school teachers dont give a shit about the bad students and just let them sit in the back of the class instead of taking on the humongous task of getting them to catch up with the rest of the class.

That can't happen in setups where two (or more) teachers are present to play catch-up with the ones that are lagging behind, and there is always the option of extra after-school tutoring for people who are behind. And even those who are not behind but are just paranoid.

Atleast the biological parents have a genetic interest in helping their off-spring, the same is not true of public school teachers, the incentives they have for treating their students well are much lower than for the biological parents.

I'm pretty happy you've invoked this, since in a relatively homogeneous country, the children seated in a classroom are at a genetic distance just a tiny bit further away than a nephew or niece.

And in some communities it's actually probably even closer because studies show that some communities in the UK actually have mostly had children with people who live within fifteen miles of themselves (not done consciously!), so there's almost no way to really describe what means in a way that doesn't involve the word 'inbreeding'.

Among Asian British communities that is assuredly even tighter since migrants start with a smaller pool to begin with.

Maybe the USA is some kind of exception to this rule, and somehow magically no-one is related to anyone, but that is why they should not be used as a reference-country, especially since you are in Denmark and I am in the UK.

[Sceptic]

What possible reason do we have to suspect that public-school teachers are either interested in, or capable of educating children?

That's why I don't want to abolish homeschooling; the kids who are taught well by their parents (for a start learning basic skills, such as maths, reading and writing) can stay homeschooled. The children of the parents who do not want to educate their children, or pay for private school, will go to public school. There is no method to ensure public school teachers will be perfectly interested in teaching but it is better than the alternative of no education whatsoever.

Since public schools are available to all, isn't the fact that certain parents bother to go through the huge trouble of home-schooling a very good indication that their children and their children's education is very important to them?

And those parents should be allowed to homeschool their children: you are speaking to someone who was homeschooled.

Also, I'm a bit sceptical of your statement that 'a disinterested public school [teacher's] ... pay depends in no way and to no extent on his performance as a teacher'.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Austrian argument that performance in the public sector is not incentivised by profit motif but that would only be truly relevant in an economics argument. As we know, value is not always accurately resembled in price systems which only reflect subjective estimations of value.

[Eran]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Austrian argument that performance in the public sector is not incentivised by profit motif but that would only be truly relevant in an economics argument.

This is not at all an Austrian argument.

In fact, it is much more like a classic (or, in modern incarnation, Chicago School) argument. Austrians are well aware of the range of values that animate and motivate people, not all of which are (and often not even primarily) monetary.

In fact, I would be very comfortable trusting my children to well-motivated volunteers who get very little pay, but care about children.

The problem with public school teachers is that they are interested in money. But the link between getting paid and performing has been severed by their unions. You don't have to be an Austrian, or even a libertarian, to be very worried about the state of the public system.

[Sceptic]

This is not at all an Austrian argument.

Let me rephrase: I'm aware of the Austrian argument that the state is an economically blind institution: its for this reason that theoretically, public authorities and consumers (student/parent) cannot objectively measure the performance of teachers. *Insert narrative about prices and value*.

The problem with public school teachers is that they are interested in money. But the link between getting paid and performing has been severed by their unions. You don't have to be an Austrian, or even a libertarian, to be very worried about the state of the public system.

You present that argument like I think the public school system at the moment is not optimal.

I actually would prefer everyone received decent homeschooling over public AND private education. I just don't think that's realistic.

So instead I propose we promote homeschooling as much as possible through both voluntary and public means and improve the state of public education.

[Eran]

I'm aware of the Austrian argument that the state is an economically blind institution: its for this reason that theoretically, public authorities and consumers (student/parent) cannot objectively measure the performance of teachers.

Indeed, the state has no way of rationally allocating resources. Specifically, the state has no non-arbitrary way to decide how many teachers to have, or what to pay them.

Private schools, by contrast, can measure success based on continued backing from willing parents.

So instead I propose we promote homeschooling as much as possible through both voluntary and public means and improve the state of public education.

I am with you. In an ideal world, homeschooling would be great, just as would growing your own vegetables or building your own furniture. The upside is personal quality control, and ability to customize curriculum, pace and method to your (or your children's) particular needs.

The downside is lack of specialised knowledge and skills, and not being able to take advantage of economies of scale.

Ultimately, I believe technology would make this debate almost moot. Apple has already launched a massive campaign to make textbooks electronic. More and more educational resources are available online. By the next generation, one hopes, the distinction between home- and school-schooling will become less noticeable, as most learning will be done electronically in both places.

[Orestes]

According to the articles I have read illiteracy was basically non-existant in the US in the early 19th century, it was something like 0.4% of the population that could not read.
So basically literacy rates dropped when the government started regulating education.

As far as I know compulsory elementary-level education laws had already been enacted by most state governments in New England before the end of 18th century (Massachusetts' as first in 1640's).

[Eran]

Historic records are almost beside the point.

Without compulsory education, people will take care to educate their children if two conditions hold:
1. They can afford to, and
2. They perceive the advantage to the child in so doing.

Being able to afford elementary education is very easy. In Indian slums and rural villages you will find for-profit schools fully funded for by tuition paid by local parents, often as little as $3-5/month.

If an Indian slum-dweller can afford to educate his children, so can any American. For the few who genuinely cannot, charity (prevalent in those same schools, btw) can pick up the bill.

The advantage of education has increased over time. Subsistence farmers might find relatively little value in it, compared to almost any person today. That is why historic evidence understates the level of literacy we would expect in a modern society without compulsory education.

[Drlee]

Which is why home-schooling is not the only alternative to public schools. Private schools are another, far superior option.

What possible reason do we have to suspect that private school teachers are either interested in, or capable of educating children?

[mikema63]

What possible reason do we have to suspect that private school teachers are either interested in, or capable of educating children?

parents send them, teachers have degrees, and kids that graduate from private schools tend to be able to read and such.

[Drlee]

I was simply quoting what Eran asked about public school teachers. It would appear to me that he somehow believes that teachers in private schools are better than those in public schools. At least in the US that is not true.

In the US public school teachers are paid more and tend to have masters and higher education in greater numbers. What IS different is that in private schools:

The kids come from a higher socio-economic class.

There is FAR greater discipline in the classrooms.

The teaching methodologies are different.

Expectations are higher.

The cirriculum is more advanced and of greater variety.

But all of that pales in light of this:

.....The study suggests vouchers for private schools are unnecessary because — once you control for socioeconomic status — students at private schools aren't performing any better than those at public schools. The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. That's a message the teachers' unions and Democrats in general love: The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality.

Except that's not exactly what the data shows. It's true that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) eliminates most of the public-school/private-school differences in achievement-test scores in math, reading, science and history. But even after you control for SES, Catholic schools run by holy orders (not those overseen by the local bishop) turned out to perform better than other schools studied. True, as the study says, there are only a small number of religious-order schools. But the data suggests that the type of school a kid attends does affect how well he will do — and that we could learn something from how holy orders run their schools. The Center on Education Policy, however, is an advocacy group for public schools, so it didn't look into why holy-order schools are succeeding where others fail.

The center also downplays another finding: While controlling for SES eliminated most public school/private-school differences in achievement test scores, it did not eliminate differences in the most widely used test of developed abilities, the SAT. (As I explained more fully here, developed abilities are those nurtured through schoolwork, reading, engaging a piece of art, and any other activities that spark critical thinking. Developed abilities aren't inborn traits but honed competencies, more akin to athletic skill gained through practice rather than raw IQ. By contrast, achievement tests measure the amount of material students have committed to memory in any particular field.) Combined with high-school grades, SAT scores are the best predictor of how kids will do in their freshman year of college. And the data in the new study shows that private-school students outperform public-school students on the SAT.

Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.

In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree.

[url]Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... z1vKVpTeP4[/url]

This study is telling. We are to assume that "controlling for socioeconomic status" somehow ought to matter to the parent wishing to find a school for his kid. It should. The parents should send their children to the highest socioeconomic levl school that they can. Right?

[Eran]

What possible reason do we have to suspect that private school teachers are either interested in, or capable of educating children?

Excellent question.

Private schools can only survive if parents choose to send their children there. Assuming most parents want their children educated at school, owners of private schools are thus both motivated and empowered to hire those people they believe would contribute to the satisfaction of the parents, i.e. to educate their children.

Contrast with the public system. Those running schools are not directly motivated by keeping parents happy (and, consequently, educating children). Their motivations are fundamentally political, with the education of children being at best secondary.

Second, union power severely limits the power of schools to select only those teachers who actually do a good job educating children.


Thus I see the difference as a matter of incentives/motivation and empowerment, rather than teacher's formal qualifications.