Steep enrollment declines in public education in major US cities

As someone who was homeschooled for most of my childhood, I would say the results of it are as much or more of a mixed bag than public schooling is. It depends largely on how much time and energy the parents pour into it, and it's very easy for them to not be doing enough even if they have intentions otherwise.

Additionally, homeschooling has a tendency to produce adults who lack real world experience and perspective due to the unavoidably sheltered nature of such arrangements. This is something that has taken me many years to overcome to become a functional person, and if I'm being honest, is still a work in progress even in my mid-30s. It's not something I'd want to saddle any potential children of my own with.

Probably not fair to single the schools out. You could look at other factors like single parent households, which are very strongly associated with negative outcomes and on the rise since like... 1950. Dual-income households which fall between the "we can't afford private tutors" and "we can't afford extracurriculars" income brackets but solidly in the "we've maximized our minimal time with our child" category. Not to mention the huge wealth disparity in some metros. Rapidly growing metropolitan areas that simply can't accommodate the masses. There's also all the federal benchmarks, and that's shit that rolls downhill, but from my experience the teachers I personally know don't like the system as it is - it's just that their bosses and on up demand quantifiable results on standardized tests because continued funding is contingent on it. In a lot of cases hands are tied by legal and ethics.

I also expect the unions are representative of their constituents. Where I live all the teachers wanted to be back, and we were among the earliest states back in action. Coincidentally highly conservative and rural (mostly one and the same).

But I don't disagree with the more general statement as things stand, and funding is dealt with by a headcount of students - this might provoke positive reactions in the market.

That WSJ article is an opinion piece. From 2012. And literally nowhere does it claim that teachers are statistically more likely to abuse children than priests; the word priest does not appear in the article. You may need to provide evidence for your claim.

Examining further, that WSJ opinion piece claims that 97 teachers were charged with sexual misconduct over 5 years, including remarks made to students. The NYC Public School system had 75,000 teachers in 2019. [1]

In contrast, there are 37,000 catholic priests in the US [2], with 2700 individual catholic clergy members accused of gross sexual abuse of children [3].

Additionally, the NYC Department of Education charged their wrong-doers, while the Church continues to protect criminals and avoid restitution, going so far as to dissolve dioceses to avoid paying lawful judgements.

There appears to be a massive disparity between the 2 situations, natch. Pinch of salt, and all that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Department_of_Ed... [2] https://www.usccb.org/offices/public-affairs/clergy-and-reli... [3] https://www.abuselawsuit.com/church-sex-abuse/

School is a warzone, any learning that happens there is accidental.

It would be better to make schools better. Most people cannot afford to homeschool their children.

Although homeschooling may help with academics, what about socializing? Traditional schools are by far the better option for making friends as a kid

You left so close to the end of classes that you were still guaranteed to graduate? That’s a pretty hollow statement. If anything, it looks like a case of senioritis.

What principle was that?

Doesn't almost everyone spend 12-13 years in public schools?