Hacker News Reader

> If your child is gay, the local church youth group is very likely one of the most intense bullying experiences that child will ever experience.

Not only that, but if your child isn't of the inclination to be religious, it will also be a painful experience. Questioning the why behind and benefits of the religious faith of the group leaders and other youth group participants is a great way to be bullied and not only that, told you're wrong for thinking logically. That, plus the associated moralizing (i.e, "there is only one way, the right way, to be") I think are pretty damaging for kids.

Societally we are accepting of many more ways than the one proscribed by many churches. Being of one sexuality or another, or one morality or another, as long as you respect and help your fellow human beings when they are in need, should not matter. I wouldn't expose my kid to anything saying otherwise if I could help it.

Shootings, stabbings, ass-kickings and all kinds of other shenanigans occurred at my high school. At least in the neighborhood, I can choose to stay home if I wish.

> At least in the neighborhood, I can choose to stay home if I wish.

But then we're right back to the socialization problem that started this thread.

I understand what you're saying but hey, staying home is better than having the shit kicked out of me.

what school did you go to - drugs and weapons were everywhere in my school. I bought pot off my classmates.

Wouldn't these same classmates also be likely to participate in extracurricular sports, attend religious events, etc?

If drugs were everywhere in school, the kids aren't leaving them in lockers when they go home, and it's not like there's a big tall wall that separates these alleged weapon-smuggling drug dealers from the "good kids" on the home-schooled side either.

Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids. School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued. It is very different with other groups like churches or sports teams.

If any other organization had anywhere near the track record for deaths and serious injuries and addictions that government run schools had with our children, it would be shut down in no time.

> what school did you go to

Nice enough to have a few decent AP classes, bad enough that we walked through metal detectors. But my assessment is even more colored by the dozens of schools I've volunteered in.

What kind of school did you go to?

> Because church groups and extracurricular sports teams and home schools all have a stake in protecting the kids

What about unstructured socializing? Or are you suggesting that children should spend the first 18 years of their life under constant adult supervision?

Basically, my point is this: whenever there are weapons and drugs in the school, there are a lot more of those same weapons and drugs outside of school.

So either you have to keep a constant eye on the kids and and strictly control the social group until they leave for college, or else these problems are more pronounced outside of school than inside of school.

> School shootings, stabbings and drug dealings happen every day, and no one gets fired, no one gets in trouble, no one gets sued

Nothing you're saying here is factually accurate.

School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed.

School officials (teachers, etc.) are often themselves killed during school shootings. Complaining that those officials aren't posthumously fired seems... crazy.

Families effected by school shootings do sue.

And people definitely get in trouble all the time for dealing drugs and bringing weapons to school. Which is why both are far more common outside of school.

> What about unstructured socializing?

I disagree with vivekd on many points, but I don't think that schools offer many more unstructured opportunities for socialization than their examples. They get a few minutes in the hallway, and then maybe lunch, and then extracurricular activities - which he's already suggesting anyway.

Yes, I'm not making that argument. My argument is only that you aren't going to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons" by avoiding school -- at least not without being overbearing.

I.e., if you rule out all unstructured socializing, then avoiding school might be an effective way to avoid "bullying, sex, drugs, weapons". But if you don't rule out unstructured socializing, then ruling out school isn't going to help much.

I think public schools foster an environment of sex, bullying, drugs and weapons by getting large groups of children together and offering very little supervision. I don't think those kinds of environments could exist outside of modern schools.

Yes giving kids alone time is fine, but leaving a large group of kids together under the supervision of very few adults and repeating this 5 days a week for several years is going to have some effect.

And I think that opinion is both unsubstantiated and incorrect, especially wrt drugs and sex. Do you have any data backing this assertion?

There is some evidence:

For example this study shows that home schooled children are significantly less likely to drink or do drugs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652803/

but I will admit that studies comparing home school children to public school children are too few and far between to draw meaningful scientific conclusions. Also the large numbers of religious homeschoolers throws the numbers off.

I'm just relying on reasoning. A child who spends most of their time being raised by their parents is in a much better position to avoid negative outcomes than those raised by a paid supervisor, no matter how well qualified. Love makes a difference, parents love their children, teachers, while no doubt caring, don't have the same love and definitely lack the resources to provide the same individualized attention.

Further, public school, due to powerful teachers unions and parent counsels are anything but meritocracies. The good teachers are not always the ones that thrive and rise to the top.

I wonder if anyone's done a study of their attitudes towards these things after graduating high school; do they smoke, drink and/or do drugs in college?

I think the goal of moderating drug use in adolescence should be 1) harm mitigation, and 2) instilling healthy drug use habits and mindsets.

2 is particularly important. We tend to think of drugs as "bad" when talking about kids, and then turn around and have a beer, smoke a cigarette, drink way too much coffee/caffeine/sugar, or in some jurisdictions consume cannabis. So our goal shouldn't be adolescent abstinence -- rather, the goal should be setting kids up for a life of healthy interactions with drugs. In a few rare cases that will be actualized in the form of abstinence, but in most cases it will take some other form. For this reason, I tend to ignore data that doesn't distinguish between "healthy" and various forms of "unhealthy" drug use.

Interpreting this data is extremely difficult.

Your interpretation is that schools are causing increased substance abuse.

But an equally reasonable (which is to say, not at all reasonable) interpretation is that home schooled students are more likely to have a flat, legalistic, and ultimately unhelpful understanding of drug use that will come back to bite them in the ass later in life.

For example:

* homeschoolers are more strongly disapproving of any alcohol consumption, but there's no difference in opinion about smoking 1+ packs a day. Even though the former can be non-harmful or even healthy, while the latter is pretty uniformly incredibly unhealthy. Perhaps this is because they're more concerned with following laws than healthy drug use patterns?

* Late adolescent home schooled students and early adolescent home schooled students are equally disapproving of peer alcohol consumption. To me it's weird/creepy that a 13 y/o and 18 y/o would have the same attitudes toward peer alcohol consumption, and indicates that maybe the 18 y/o's opinion is more indicative of ignorance or blind rule-following than any sort of healthy attitude about drug use per se. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about an 18 y/o occasionally consuming alcohol (or anyways, no more unhealthy than a 21 y/o).

* A lot of the questions refer to any drug use, as opposed to abuse or modes of unhealthy use. And home schooled kids tend to be equally disapproving, or in some cases more disapproving of healthy use of stigmatized drugs than of unhealthy use of less stigmatized drugs.

* Some of the related work suggests that "homeschooled adolescents engage in less substance use than non-homeschooled adolescents, although religious ties was an important moderator in this relationship". Which makes a lot of sense, given that the overall range of opinions tends to be more indicative of unscientific moralization of drug use than of health-conscious substance use patterns.

(There's also some weird effects in this data, like home schooled kids having a harder time getting alcohol but not having a harder time getting LSD...)

To be clear, I don't think this interpretation is particularly reasonable. But I also think it's about as reasonable an extrapolation from the data as your interpretation that schools are causing the gap in the data.

> public school... are anything but meritocracies

I largely agree with criticism of educational quality provided by our schools.

I don't think it's correct to blame unions and tenure though, because non-elite private schools tend to be pretty crap as well. In both cases, the solution is probably a combination of high social status and (much) higher pay for teachers. This can be paired with eliminating tenure and unions, but doing that without significant improvements to pay will only make the job less attractive and thereby decrease quality.

It certainly is unhealthy for an 18 y/o to consume alcohol, and your "no more unhealthy than a 21 y/o" comment doesn't change that. Alcohol causes stomach cancer (really sucks), liver cancer (that sucks too), mouth and throat cancer (totally sucks), breast cancer (also sucks). Alcohol deforms the unborn. Alcohol indirectly causes car crashes, pregnancy, STDs, drowning, and all sorts of criminal charges. If homeschooled students disapprove, good!

The equal LSD availability, combined with reduced alcohol availability, suggests that "turn around and have a beer" isn't happening in these homes. LSD use is rare everywhere, but alcohol is only rare in the homeschooling homes.

Your fear of alcohol is incredibly irrational. There is absolutely no evidence that moderate alcohol consumption causes any of those things.

All of the cancer risks are linked to heavy drinking (usually 3+ drinks a day over a prolonged period of time), and there's absolutely no evidence that occasional moderate alcohol consumption poses a health risk greater than any number of other extremely low risk activities. Certainly not greater than a pack a day of cigarettes. (Furthermore, some studies have indicated that moderate alcohol consumption can even have positive health benefits, including decreased risks for some cancers.)

Similarly, alcohol in moderation causes none of the "indirect" things you mention.

You are free to assert an arbitrary moral superiority for abstention, but don't pretend like you have a rational basis for your opinions on the effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Pretending like all use is unhealthy is just as ignorant as the opposite extreme.

How do you know that your consumption will be moderate?

Some people lose control of their consumption. How do you justify any confidence that you won't be one of these people?

It's not as if the typical alcoholic just decided one day to be an alcoholic. For most it just... sort of happened. That could be you. Maybe not, perhaps probably not, but why would you take that risk? For little gain, you risk throwing away your life.

By consuming alcohol in moderation in the presence of a support network that will hold you accountable to that moderation. If people are not going to abstain for life -- and most won't! -- then learning how your body reacts to substances and how to moderate is an important life skill.

Tons and tons of people manage to drink without going am addiction.

And regarding risks, the same could be said for lots of things that are sometimes psychologically addictive -- internet, video games, shopping, etc.

Oh, I see, I completely misunderstood your point. My bad.

> School shooters typically kill themselves or are killed.

Mass shooters, yes. Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much.

Note well: When I was in school, we never had a shooting, so my statement is unsupported by firsthand evidence.

> Two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot? Not so much.

Uh, no. Discharging fire arms at or around a school is taken incredibly seriously pretty much universally. Doing something like this would be more than enough for hard jail time.

This happened at my school while I was in high school (late at night, and had nothing to do with school -- it was just a shooting that by pure chance happened to take place right next to the school -- neither of the people involved were from the community or even school aged). There was a huge police investigation and the shooter was caught within days of the shooting.

e: If you think "two kids exchanging fire in the parking lot" is an example of tolerated behavior at schools, you should take it as an indication that you have a wildly inaccurate mental model of what schools are like.

Tolerated? No. You'd have to figure out who did it, though. (Maybe it's easier now. Back in my day, there weren't a lot of security cameras...)

Who do you expect to get fired for a school shooting? And what do you mean, no one gets sued? That's flat-out not true.

http://www.heraldnet.com/news/teacher-wants-out-of-marysvill...

http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/350k-lawsuit-filed-madis...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/families-washington...

Only one of those incidents is of a lawsuit against a teacher, the other two incidents are of a lawsuit against the families. And there is a very good reason for this. There is state immunity granted to teachers and schools in that they cannot be sued for grossly negligent supervision that allows a stream of drugs, guns, knives and sex to flow into children under their care.

You can see it mentioned in your first article:

>her attorneys cite a state law that gives school districts and their employees immunity from liability if they make a good faith effort to report threats of violence.

so even if a student threatens violence, as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence or supervise the children adequately. This statute is actually more lenient than other areas where it is complete immunity.

Now this immunity is limited to state actors and does not apply to private schools, churches or sports teams. And I believe that without these protections public schools would have been sued out of existence long ago for the horrible things constantly happening to children under their care.

> as long as the teacher reports it, there will no liability to her or the school even if they didn't do anything to stop the violence

I'm not sure what you expect a teacher to do. Break the student's arms? Search their bag, home, neighborhood for any guns and remove them? Duct-tape them to their desk and set a bucket underneath?

No I just meant that under ordinary cirumstances, where there is no explicit threat made, there can be no legal liability on part of the school or teacher. And even when there is a threat made, so long as some report is made to her superiors (under the statute it's made reasonable attempts to report, not actually report and says report not call law enforcement or take steps like suspension or talking to the kid") there can be no legal liability. That's an extraordinary amount of protection from legal liability that private sector actors do not enjoy. In the private sector you can get sued for negligent supervision, and failing to act on threats can get you sued, you can't just say "I reported it to my supervisors" and leave it at that.

I'm not faulting the teachers, I'm talking more about legal liability in terms of sovereign immunity which limits or negates the liability of states from lawsuits.

http://usedulaw.com/340-immunity-educational-law.html

Among high schoolers, within the month they were surveyed: 35% drank some alcohol 21% binge drank (consuming an excessive amount) 22% rode in someone’s car who’d been drinking 10% drove after drinking

The stats show that marijuana use is rampant: 35.1% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the past year 21.3% of 12th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 16.6% of 10th graders have smoked pot in the last 30 days 6% of 12th graders say they use marijuana every day 81% of 12th graders say it would be easy to get marijuana Only 32% of 12th graders feel that regular marijuana use is harmful — https://www.teenrehabcenter.org/resources/high-school-drug-u...

...checks out.

No one is denying that students experiment with sex and drugs.

Rather, the observation is that these things happen mostly outside of school, so avoiding schools isn't an effective way of avoiding this things.

The link between school and these activities is, IMO, largely specious. Or at the very least completely unsubstantiated by evidence.

Or are you seriously suggesting that kids are binge drinking and lighting up in between history and chemistry?

Basically, vivek's argument is that by not sending your kids to school you avoid all of these behaviors. But these behaviors are far more common outside of school that within school.

Home schooling doesn't replace effective parenting, and sending your kdis to a school doesn't preclude effective parenting.

Finally, I think it's worth asking so what?! to a lot of your statistics. Particularly the "drank some alcohol" and "smoked pot in the last 30 days" statistics. These things aren't a priori bad, and drinking at that age isn't even illegal in a lot of developed countries (and even in some places in the US, under adult supervision).

Also, I REALLY hate that link you posted. It's my observation that this sort of propaganda does far more harm than good.

Kids are smart. Claims that "marijuana and drinking are bad" tend to only have the effect of discrediting the speaker. Those claims are mostly specious, and kids know how to use Google. Citing something like "68% of 12th graders have tried alcohol" in a page decrying substance abuse makes one look like a scare mongering idiot. Seriously, these are 18 year olds -- that number is almost certainly close to 100% in a lot of developed countries.

But kids are also stupid. If you go on to tell them "binge drinking is bad, avoid it" or "prolonged marijuana use really can cause serious harm", they'll extrapolate that you're BSing them about that too.

Basically, scare mongering about any drug use only has the effect of making it far harder to warn kids about actual dangers.