Hacker News Reader

Comment by spraak | Hacker News Reader

We do a free schooling approach. My daughter speaks 3 languages and learned to read all 3 simultaneously on her own* once she was ready (around 9). I felt a lot of pressure from everyone (family, friends, etc.) to teach her earlier, but now she reads just as well as her peers, and most of her peers/friends only speak/read one language.

*literally on her own in that one day she wanted to learn to read, so we got a stack of books and she started stumbling through each word and asking how to pronounce it. She already knew some words from the environment, which provided the foundation. I also guided her on the books to choose so that she wouldn't feel overwhelmed, which was in the beginning board books for babies, that way she could feel satisfaction without giving up.

View on HN

I don't know much about home schooling (I assume that's what you mean by free schooling). It seems to me that it could work well for some cases. But most parents couldn't survive economically with one parent not working (and what about single parents). Also most parents don't know enough academically to be able to do it well, and most students are not as smart as I am guessing your daughter is. So if your goal is to have a well-educated society, free schooling is not the answer.

Check out the book I mentioned, Summerhill by AS Neill for how it could work at scale. We do it ourselves because there is no analogy to Summerhill where we live, so I agree with you in that regard

I really wish people wouldn’t trying “hacking” education. Sure the system has its faults but it’s far better than the alternatives (eg waiting until your child is 9 before teaching them to read).

Ultimately it’s your own children that your disadvantaging in life.

> I really wish people wouldn’t trying “hacking” education.

Does innovation in general bother you? Besides, what we're doing isn't a very new idea. We are predominantly inspired by the 1960 book Summerhill by A. S. Neill, and even he was inspired by prior art (This isn't the only inspiration, but it's a good tldr in a way)

> Sure the system has its faults

For us, those faults are deal breakers, but I understand if they aren't for you or others.

> better than the alternatives (eg waiting until your child is 9 before teaching them to read).

Well again, we didn't exactly teach her, she taught herself with our guidance. She speaks English, Swedish and German, and she's learning French and Spanish. We live in a mono-lingual environment, so it's interesting to me you would think that she is somehow doing poorly. What has she missed out on during the time that she could have been reading? As I said, she already reads as well as her peers.

> Ultimately it’s your own children that your disadvantaging in life.

With all that I wrote originally, and with this added context, I fail to see how she's disadvantaged. In many respects, I think she has it way better than her peers. She has two personal tutors with her that guide her into learning what she wants. Public school does not offer that. Also I find the typo here [1] a tiny bit ironic [2]

[1] `s/your disadvantaging/you're disadvantaging`

[2] In the Alanis Morissette kind of way

Not Op but I work in education. What I would stress is to be aware that it is difficult to understand one's own limitations. So this may or may not be true in your case, but while sometimes parents think their kids are ahead (or behind) on something the opposite can be the case. So just a plea to make sure you get outside feedback (eg on whether she learns all languages 'right', whether she lacks/excells in other skills, ...) rather than just rely on parental intuition.

Yes, we don't see ourselves as the only teachers, but more of meta teachers, so yes we reach out to others more specialized in a subject when needed and appropriate.

Agreed. I wouldn't say there is a right and wrong way to teach (for starters, every child learns differently) but it can be extremely hard to retain objectivity when it is your own offspring.

> Does innovation in general bother you?

Only when I have numerous first hand accounts of where it doesn’t work. Just as I have from my extended family, most of who are teachers and all of who state that kids who have been taught outside of the standard educational system are always behind kids who were not.

This is often even true for kids who have received additional tuition outside of school where their tutors haven’t taught them the same learning tools as what the school teaches (eg different methods for long division, or ways of teaching phonics) because this can often leave the child confused between the two systems when getting taught in class.

> what we're doing isn't a very new idea

Just because it’s not a new idea it doesn’t mean it isn’t also total garbage.

> Well again, we didn't exactly teach her, she taught herself with our guidance. She speaks English, Swedish and German, and she's learning French and Spanish

Learning to read is not just about learning the shapes of spoken languages. Learning to read also teaches literacy and creative writing. It engages parts of the imagination that other forms of creative play do not. Plus it also teaches mental discipline as well.

You claim she can read as well as her peers (which I doubt you’ve done an actual impartial comparison. Partly because kids would never agree to a study under such conditions and partly because of your emotional connection to the “test subject”) but what about those other skills that reading teaches?

My own experience also mirrors that which my family of teachers have observed. I showed very little interest in reading when I was a child. The only things I chose to read were technical schematics and programming manuals for 70s and 80s computing hardware. That had a really significant impact on my writing skills; to the extent that I massively struggled to pass my English exams. The amount of extra hours I had to put in towards the end of my teenage years to compensate cannot be understated.

> She has two personal tutors with her that guide her into learning what she wants. Public school does not offer that.

It’s not an “either/or”. You can still teach your kids things they’re interested in outside of school as well. Just make sure you don’t contradict the curriculum when you do this :)

> Also I find the typo here [1] a tiny bit ironic [2]

Yeah, typing on a phone while getting ready for work will lead to some autocorrect fails. To be honest I’m surprised that was my only error.

Almost all of your points boil down to homeschooled children not being convenient for teachers used to children who have been in day school since they were of school age. If the only bad result of your reading lots of manuals was poor grades in English for a few years this is of no consequence. Learning to express one’s thoughts about things you care about is a very different skill from imitating research in English literature.

If you want to learn more about democratic and child centred education as practiced at Summerhill I can highly recommend the founding Headmaster, A.S. Neill’s book on the school, Summerhill[1]. You are of course free to believe whatever you want about child centred methods of education but Summerhill’s students are not handicapped in life success or exams by the freedom to attend lessons or not as they choose, not are Sudbury’s[2].

You do not need an “impartial assessment” to know how well children are reading if you can read at the level of a university graduate. You can look at the books they read for pleasure and assess the level for yourself. If the child doesn’t quite get it but they’re close enough to try to read those books and enjoy them that’s a good thing.

The idea that you should take care not to contradict the curriculum is ... Education is meant to be for children, not teachers.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school

I did say in my former post that the reason for not contradicting the curriculum is because it is confusing for the child (this is something teachers up and down the country observe day to day).

Sure, it’s also easier for the teacher as well but that’s irrelevant to the discussion.

> most of who are teachers and all of who state that kids who have been taught outside of the standard educational system are always behind kids who were not.

Would you admit that your perspective then is heavily biased? I don't claim to be unbiased, but I myself come from a family of educators, and I chose a different direction (see also John Gatto). That is, I'm very unsurprised that traditional educators would think that homeschoolers are behind, but it's very not true.

> Just because it’s not a new idea it doesn’t mean it isn’t also total garbage.

Public school is total garbage, in my experience and opinion.

> Learning to read is not just about learning the shapes of spoken languages. Learning to read also teaches literacy and creative writing. It engages parts of the imagination that other forms of creative play do not. Plus it also teaches mental discipline as well.

I don't disagree. You say it as though my daughter has none of that, which I again find strange.

> The only things I chose to read were technical schematics and programming manuals for 70s and 80s computing hardware. That had a really significant impact on my writing skills; to the extent that I massively struggled to pass my English exams.

Right. Well you have a good lesson to share about that, then. And that's the same reason why I still guide what my daughter reads, and still encourage and recommend a variety of works.

Just out of interest, which country are you based? I wonder if the reason perspective is so polarised from mine is because our education systems also vastly differ.

From the perspective of the UK, most of what you said is completely untrue.

From their perspective the people who are against school are against it for basically the same reason you’re against being hit in the head, because it’s harmful and subjecting children to it is wrong. The difference between being punched in the head, punched in the head by someone wearing boxing gloves, hit with a goofball in a sock don’t change that someone is getting hit in the head and that’s wrong. It’s like a Christian trying to convert an apostate from Islam on the basis that they’ve rejected Allah when they became an atheist because the arguments for God’s existence are insufficiently strong. The atheist will reject the Christian and any other theist as well.

The U.K. system is probably slightly more curiosity crushing and stress inducing than average as school systems go, they certainly start academic instruction well before its age appropriate, but the entire system of child warehousing under the authority of people who are to train children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told, giving them no or minimal choice in what they do for most of their waking hours is wrong, and he system is Many have tried, they even teach their writings in Ed schools. End result, nothing.

I've found that very much depends on the teacher and - to a lesser extent - the school policies as well. Each teacher will have their own teaching style. Some do favour "sit down and copy from a worksheet" style of teaching but I'd argue those are the lazier teachers. Others, however, do find more creative and interactive ways for kids to learn the same curriculum.

Source: my wife is a primary school teacher and really enjoys creating fun lessons.

I presume your wife follows the national curriculum. If she does the subjects children study, the content they learn and their progression within that curriculum are mandated. Children have extremely limited freedom to explore within those narrow guidelines. They are not free to pursue their own interests, to decide what they want to do with their time or to spend the amount of time playing that they would naturally. They are not free to socialise across age groups and they learn little to nothing about the deep, abiding interests of other children in the environment where they spend most of their waking hours for the majority of their childhood. They are not in any meaningful way free.

The curriculum is a mandatory set of topics (crudely speaking), yes. But how you teach that doesn't have to be sterile and unimaginative.

In terms of your point about kids having the freedom to explore the subjects they want, I think a fair amount of structure is actually beneficial rather than counter productive. Again, this doesn't mean lessons have to be boring.

If it was entirely down to the child me to control my learning, there is a lot of subjects I simply wouldn't have studied that adult me is glad are covered under the curriculum. There are children who, if given the choice, wouldn't do any studying at all and they really benefit from having structure. There are also children who simply don't know what that like yet and they really benefit from having exposure to the diverse range of subjects on the curriculum.

It's worth baring in mind that what the UK education system does works for the majority most of the time. There will be outliers of people who are disruptive and need more specialised attention just as there are people who are naturally inquisitive and might excel better in environments where their learning is left to themselves to structure. Given the demographic of HN, it wouldn't surprise me if we fall more into the latter category than a common slice of society normally would. However that doesn't mean that the net worth of our education system isn't there.

I live in the UK. Everybody complains about the public ("state" or whatever) schools. I'd never enroll my kids in public schools here (pre-university), only in private schools, if I had the means. Continental Europe is much better IMO/E.

People moan about a great many things but it doesn’t mean they’re right (hence Brexit, Trump, “Christian values”, racism/homophobia/etc, those who moan about computer security from a lazy ux perspective (eg “why can’t my password be the same as my user name?”).

I take much more stock in the opinions with those who actually have to work under those conditions and see those systems in use first hand.

I agree it’s not perfect and there are plenty of areas it can be improved but some of the comments on here are throwing out the baby water (as others have also pointed out). If you can afford private education then that’s also an option. But you’re still part of the same education system with the same flaws. You are just (hopefully) paying for better teachers (that isn’t always the case - more about that below). For all of its warts, public schools are still a far better option than homeschooling in the vast majority cases.

Its worth noting that I’ve provided IT services for a few private’s schools in my time and frankly some of them were worse than the public school I went to! Both in terms of teaching staff and school equipment. It was a real eye opener for me because up until that point I was planning on sending my (then theoretical) kids to private school too.

> I take much more stock in the opinions with those who actually have to work under those conditions and see those systems in use first hand.

Check out John Taylor Gatto's works [1]. He was a public school teacher for 30 years, but later advocated for homeschooling.

[1] E.g. Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, and The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling

I know of his work. I just disagree with it. He isn’t the only teacher with 30 years of experience in public schools under his belt and plenty of other teachers have the opposite opinion of homeschooling to him.

While I do think it’s good that people like him create a discussion I still see him as somewhat of an outlier when all of the other teachers I know - both retired and those still in “active service” - take a dim view of homeschooling.

But if that’s what you want to do for your kids then I genuinely hope it works out for you.

Schools with worse equipment and worse teachers can sometimes do very well. They might have far less classroom disruption because the rules are different and the families are different. In a school that is free for all to attend, the most important quality of a teacher is probably the ability to control mayhem without having the authority to do much of anything to stop it.

You can’t argue that bad teachers don’t matter in private schools because if a teacher is unable to teach the subject effectively then it doesn’t matter how well the class behave, they’re still not going to learn the subject.

One of the private schools I was referring to had successfully been sued by several ex-pupils because they failed exams because the teachers were that poor they didn’t even touch large sections of the syllabus.

Another school was trying to teach ICT on hardware that was more than 10 years out of date and their ICT teacher was actually a geography teacher who’s only qualifications in IT was a passing interest in the subject.

Sure, if you pay a high premium then I’m sure you can make some guarantees about the quality of your child’s education. But honestly, some private schools are actually a whole lot worse than your average public school.

Curious what you mean by a different direction? I'm a fan of John Gatto so I wonder what direction you mean..

I think Wikipedia explains it well:

> John Taylor Gatto ... was an American author and school teacher who taught in the classroom for nearly 30 years. He devoted much of his energy to his teaching career, then, following his resignation, authored several books on modern education, criticizing its ideology, history, and consequences. He is best known for his books Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, and The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling, which is sometimes considered to be his magnum opus.

I.e. he was a former public school teacher who criticized public education and advocated for alternatives.

The "kids who have been taught outside of the standard educational system" seem to be behind for at least two reasons:

1. You have a biased sample. You're getting the failures. If homeschooling doesn't work, parents give up. If homeschooling works well, parents keep at it. You'll almost never see the successes.

2. You don't check everything. If a student in 6th grade is at a 5th grade writing level but is at 9th grade for math and science, you'll really notice the writing deficiency but you won't realize that the math and science are ahead of grade level. This is simply a matter of an incompatible curriculum schedule, the same as if the student arrived from a different country.

1. You make a valid point there

2. Any half decent teacher will know if that were the case because teachers (at least in the UK) have to set different levels of work for their class anyway to compensate for the natural discrepancy in children’s ability. They know which kids are stronger in what subjects and who struggle. I’m not saying it’s something that every teacher is great at picking up on but there are plenty of telltale signs that help you spot this - even without going as far as testing the kids.

Eg when creating lesson plans my wife will often say out loud to herself things like “I need a 4th challenge for this topic because Charlie and Alice are clever and will do the other tasks quickly” (highly paraphrased and names made up).

> kids who have been taught outside of the standard educational system are always behind kids who were not

This is awfully overgeneralized.

Was this guy “behind” the “standard system kids”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Demaine

Was he a rule or an exception?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com