Hacker News Reader

> (Many Europeans and Asians I’ve spoken to went to classes each day and then left school to do other things with other people, forgoing the elaborate excess of extracurricular activities that is found at American schools.)

Those extracurricular activities are opt-in activities to be done with other people.

The more kids are surrounded by technology, the more I appreciate structured social activities. Some kids are definitely motivated to get up and out of the house and do things in the real world day after day, but now that everyone is surrounded by endless digital entertainment it's tempting to just stay home and do... nothing.

I have great memories of school-centric extracurricular activities. All of my friends at the activities enjoyed them too. With few exceptions, we weren't forced to be there. We actually enjoyed it and had fun.

I understand that some people had negative high school experiences, but I'm always stunned to read HN comments insisting that everyone must have had a miserable time in high school.

That said, there were a few families who opted out of our high school and decided to home school. The few kids I knew who were forced into home school by their parents were not happy about it. I don't exactly see how forcing everyone out of the high school structure would somehow improve that situation.

To be fair I stayed at home a lot during my high school years and I wasn't doing nothing. I was teaching myself how to code, working on cryptocurrencies, and interacting with people on forums that felt a lot more authentic than social media today. One of those interactions turned into a long term relationship. It's not all bad.

Definitely think it's important to have physical learning and the social interactions that come from that though, but beyond that you don't need to force people to do extracurricular stuff at school.

(The standard subjects should be well balanced and have a mix of things, from maths and science to art and PE, etc, with a gradual increase in flexibility and self-choice in what to keep).

I just wished I had had a choice. In my country, homeschooling is illegal and alternative schools get shut down by the police.

I am always surprised when I hear about home schooling. When I was a kid it was a given that a school is mandatory. Parents worked, and also what qualifications do they have to teach? At least in early education, pedagogical knowledge is really important.

Early stuff is pretty easy to remember and curriculums exist for home schools. Tutoring communities have formed, too.

In most homeschooling families, one of the parents stays home to be the primary teacher.

Many of the best teachers I've ever had didn't have education degrees and were totally outside of the formal academic system.

The worst teachers I've ever had were all in the academic system.

I don't think the pedagogical knowledge and credentials have much to do with whether someone is a good teacher.

> Many Europeans and Asians I’ve spoken to went to classes each day and then left school to do other things with other people, forgoing the elaborate excess of extracurricular activities that is found at American schools.

This doesn't ring true to me. Unless you played sports there was really no reason to hang around after school. Contrast this to many Japanese schools where being part of a school club is more or less expected.

> Many Europeans and Asians I’ve spoken to went to classes each day and then left school to do other things with other people

In China those things would often be cram schools. In Korea that’s even more common, practically universal. If you think the college rat race and obsession with prestige in the US is bad it’s nothing like as bad as in developed East Asia. (Japan may be slightly less awful but still much worse than anywhere in the cultural as opposed to political West.)

Australian here, a more limited role of extracurricular activities do t always mean more cramming. I know that's not what you said, but that's the implication I got from your comment

One of my fondest memories of my childhood in Germany was trying out all the different sports clubs in my home town during summer break. All the sports clubs organized events where they showed their sport, with the hope of recruiting new members, and there was a "vacation-pass" which listed all these events along with other stuff like free entry to museums and the like. It was a great way to spend the vacations at home, being entertained at very little cost, especially for less affluent families who didn't go on vacation abroad.

voluntary extracurriculars outside school are the privilege of affluent families. extracurriculars at school help kids from less educated background to do choir, theatre, arts and team sports, ...

In my experience in Germany this was not the case at all. Sports clubs see youth work as a way to ensure their own future, not as a profit center. I suspect youth work is also often subsidized.

you have to go to your sports club. who gets you there initially? if your family doesn't support you, getting into sports needs quite some luck. I'm with you once you're in other parents might compensate and support you. Vive le "Ehrenamt". greetings from Bavaria.

Whenever a teacher got stuck trying to explain something I always jumped the opportunity to do it for them. Since I just learned the subject myself I understood how one could fail to understand it.

edit: of course there is also something to be said for surrounding yourself with knowledgeable people if one wants to learn something. (as opposed to oblivious teens)

I suppose it depends on whether it is important to build long-lasting relationships in early life. A lot of people I knew ended up back together in their later life despite living hundreds of miles apart for over a decade. I’m not sure there is any better opportunity for this. No other time in life comes even close to the bond permanence of high school.

"This all essentially boils down to “freedom.”"

But school is about creating obedient subjects so that the government can maintain status quo. I don't see them promoting anything that is radically different which has the potential to undermine the thought processes that support out institutions.

Ok. Where is the evidence that schools are created to create obedient subjects for governments to maintain status quo?

The UK government uses public schools to push their preferred narrative around British history and “Britishness”.

However, I think the real reason for schools is that the government sees a return on investment via taxation of a higher skilled workforce.

Schools kind of are for that, but it's not actually a bad thing despite the negative framing.

The goal of the public school system is to create active, disciplined, stable, civilized citizens with strong bonds for each other despite natural tribal tendencies.

Seems like they are failing then. A substantial majority of people do not understand thw way the government is supposed to work nor their parts in it.

https://woodrow.org/news/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-a...

It is working. Americans generally feel American, Chinese feel Chinese, Romanians feel Romanian.

That's the great end product of school education up to about 14-18 years.

I meant in the active category.

Just look at stuff like voter turnout. How many people write their representatives, or read the actual text of a bill (usually easier at local and state level single the federal ones tend to be much longer), or send a comment to an agency about a proposed regulation change? Pretty often I hear people say things that are wrong about their rights. How can we demand and protect our rights if people don't even know what they are? Even if you read the constitution, the actual implementation is greatly different and even contrary to the text.

Active doesn't only mean politically active. I actually meant it more in the "economically" active. Free, public schooling has lifted many, many people out of poverty and into the middle classes.

Most people aren't political. I don't think there's any way to change that, they just don't care.

I don't just mean politically. There are civic duties that are apolitical. Take jury duty for example. Many people make up excuses to get out of it. Being an informed voter, regardless of party, is a civic duty.

"Free, public schooling has lifted many, many people out of poverty and into the middle classes."

Has it though? Maybe historically (generations ago). The poverty rate has been largely stagnate for the past 30 years at about 13% give or take. Even 50 years ago it was about 19%. Desegregation and safety net programs arguably played a bigger role in that improvement. There are some public high schools that have abysmal graduation rates and college readiness rates in the single digits.

Things don't necessarily progress indefinitely, they can also regress.

Take away the free public schools and illiteracy rates will surge and we'll be not that far off from the poverty rates before free public schooling began. Sometimes maintaining something is an achievement in itself.

I'm not talking about taking then away. I'm saying they aren't doing a very good job, especially in some locations and in some subjects. Are they better than nothing? Sure. It would be pretty sad if this is the best we could possibly expect though.

Well, this is going to be one of those things Americans wouldn't conceive, but the US should probably have federal schools.

As far as I know there are public schools, but the curricula are dictated by states and paid by states and by local taxes, primarily.

I might be wrong, that's just based on what I read in the US press.

Here's some good background.

https://fee.org/articles/the-origins-of-the-public-school/

He's an economist, with an ideological bent, not a historian.

So? Do you want to post some links that you feel are credible that refute this? Because based on your current argument/reasoning you own comment is invalid because you're not a historian.

John Taylor Gatto was an award-winning public school teacher who argued roughly that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto

He isn't an historian.

You didn't ask for a historian, you asked for evidence.

Historians are the only sources you'd accept for evidence?

I guess that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to put in any further effort to help you find the evidence you asked for.

FYI, I don't necessarily agree with Gatto, but he makes the strongest case I've seen for the position you're arguing against. You should start with him if you want to refute it.

Anecdotally, I know a lot of teachers, and not a one of them is the least bit interested in creating minions subservient to the state.

I know a lot of teachers as well, and almost all of them bemoan how the curriculum they're forced to teach to is structured - especially those in the social sciences.

It's by and large not the teachers that are the problem with schools, it's the system itself.

Then why all the fighting over politically based things covered in many schools, like CSE, anything religious, critical race theory, guns, etc? Most schools and teachers are looking for answers that fit their own ideas or preferences and grade outside-the-box answers as wrong, even when there's merit to them. There are people on both sides of the political spectrum that believe that specific topics should not be covered because it amounts to indoctrination, even if the teachers are attempting to cover in a nonindoctrinaring way.

School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is.

Ivan illich

Age segregation moderates bullying.

Does it though? I feel like the classes in which I had the most camaraderie with others were the mixed-age ones (math, grouped by ability, AP classes, and swim, a mixed bag). Likewise, the significant majority of my friends were first in grades above, and then below me. And it's not as if people of the same age can't bully each other.

Even with younger children I don't think it's as much of an issue for bullying. In fact, if such mentorship programs are voluntary, I'd wager there would be less of a problem; you'd be surprised at how empathic children can be when placed in an older/younger pair. There's also an self-evident dynamic of power there - it's when children are expected to act as peers that squabbles for power most frequently manifest as bullying.

I really doubt that and given that there are no school systems that don’t age segregate I am virtually certain there’s no evidence to that effect.

Smaller classes and teachers who aren't checked out moderate bullying.

It's expensive because you have to pay for a lot of good, motivated teachers, but it works.

If you put a 14 year old with a 12 year old, the 14 year old doesn’t feel any need to bully the 12 year old. They are naturally higher in the hierarchy and don’t feel any threat from the 12 year old.

The same is not true with two 14 year olds.

I went to a mixed age school and then left that to go to a segregated school. The first had no bullying and the second had a lot.

WTF? I was definitely bullied by kids 2 years ahead of me.

I believe bullies choose weaker victims, and fear almost-equal rivals. Other explanations are possible for your anecdatum.