Hacker News Reader

Comment by zdragnar | Hacker News Reader

Most states don't have much or any regulation of home schooling compared to public schooling.

Per the article, school choice advocates want home schooling to qualify for the same funding parents get for choosing a school. Home school advocates don't want the money out of fear that taking the money will raise the likely that they will be forced to take it, and any regulations or restrictions that come with it.

One angle the article overlooked is that parents may have to pay union dues if they do take it. This is how the SEIU got access to payments make to families of disabled people in Minnesota; they pushed the government to classify home caretakers as "employees for the purpose of bargaining" and therefore were required to pay the SEIU dues. This process was repeated in Michigan, I think, and probably other states.

View on HN

The rise of totally unregulated and unassessed homeschooling probably scares me more than any other long term problem we have in the country. Most of the other problems we face can be fixed by an educated population, but if we lose that, we won't be able to fix anything. We're eroding our global edge in terms of having an educated population, and the constant efforts towards chipping away public school are accelerating this. The possibility of taxpayers funding this erosion is just icing on the cake.

Yes, there are good examples of homeschooling. I'm not saying they aren't. How many of these "as many as 2.7 million home-schooled children" (they don't even have a way of counting them!) are ending up with a better-than-public education, and how many of them are ending up at a 2nd grade math level and believing Jesus rode dinosaurs?

If you disagree, please read the article! These "schools" are totally unmonitored. Literally anything can be taught and it counts as education. And many states actively forbid oversight or even disclosure by parents.

Your comment makes it sound like the only people choosing to homeschool are ultra religious nuts. That is absolutely not what the numbers say.

It is two things:

1. The pandemic exposed to parents that many teachers were doing a poor job and lazy educators.

2. A small number of politically biased teachers being allowed to push views onto children.

Get teachers unions to hold teachers accountable and to some minimal standard and the problem is resolved.

Instead, teachers unions put all their efforts into resisting any accountability and protecting political activist teachers.

Why can’t we all agree to make teachers do their jobs and stop them from politically indoctrinating students?

Practically speaking, homeschooling will usually require one parent stay at home. That isn't a luxury that a lot of families have and will tend to be higher income families which usually goes with higher educated parents. Higher educated parents tend to have value education so I don't think there's a risk for them to get a poor education.

> That isn't a luxury that a lot of families have and will tend to be higher income families which usually goes with higher educated parents. Higher educated parents tend to have value education so I don't think there's a risk for them to get a poor education.

The most non sequitur.

You got any of them datas to back up those claims?

Or did you get that from the school home.

Oof

The article has examples of "bad" homeschooling, but the growth trend the past few years is largely driven by the total failure of some public schools.

I went to a particularly good public school growing up, and I'm not opposed to them in principle. Just pointing out that when your only public option is a school that is utterly failing (https://www.illinoispolicy.org/1-in-6-chicago-third-graders-...) you might want a different option.

> The article has examples of "bad" homeschooling, but the growth trend the past few years is largely driven by the total failure of some public schools.

Public education is undermined by the very people who want homeschooling and public vouchers. It's being dismantled deliberately. As a strong supporter of education, in general, I'm horrified by the future we're creating for future generations.

> Public education is undermined by the very people who want homeschooling and public vouchers

The whole article is about how those are two distinct groups who are at odds with each other- home schooling parents don't want to receive vouchers on the whole.

In any case, public education has plenty of challenges; homeschoolers are the least of them.

From the utter lack of involvement of parents (child tardiness, behavior issues) to lack of teacher authority (unable to prevent disruptive behavior from derailing classes) to some districts having too many students who don't know English and not enough funding for sufficient ESL teaching resources, all the way down to funds being drained by oversized administrations and unions (remember the NYC rubber rooms?).

Some of the worst performing schools get the most per-child funding. All of that money is going somewhere, and it's not going to teaching kids.

I was fortunate enough to go to a good public school system and had friends who cared about getting good grades, but would have floundered in an environment like what you see in some rural schools, or Chicago or Boston.

Oh for sure! I have no doubt that terrible public schools exist, parents who are focused on academics exist, and good homeschooling resources/groups exist. And when you get that magical combination, homeschooling might be justified.

So, measure to ensure that's what's happening! Monitor and assess. Know how many kids are being pulled out, and know how adequate their alternate education is. And provide a regulatory regime to ensure it's adequate.

Pulling a kid out of a bad school and providing an academically rigorous education should be fine. Pulling a kid out of a not-bad school so that unqualified high-school drop-outs can teach from the Bible that pi=3 and that the Earth is 6,000 years old should not be fine. The public should be able to differentiate between theses cases, allow one, and disallow the other.

I don't object to the concept of some line being drawn, but your line is so broad and blunt that I and many others would definitely have issues with it.

What issue could you possibly have with the reasonable and sensible line drawn in that comment? Are you ok with "science" being taught from a magical religious text?

American has laws which force you to join a Union even if you hate them, want nothing to do with them and don't want them to represent you!?

No wonder so many Americans hate Unions.

Some states are "right to work" states that allow you to not join or pay dues. They tend to be the more conservative / Republican learning states.

More liberal states allow unions to form closed-shop contacts, and most government positions are the same. If you want to be a teacher, you must join the union that contacts with the school you want to teach at.

If you want to get a summer job as a teenager or college kid at a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota, you must join the union.

I think you have you details wrong?

"The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop

Perhaps you are thinking of how the teachers' union could collect agency fees from non-union public school teachers?

As I understand it, that ended when Janus v. AFSCME was decided in 2018. "The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME

That decision only applies to the public sector, not a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota. However, you are still not required to join the union to work in the warehouse, even in Minnesota, only make "fair share" payments:

https://www.findlaw.com/state/minnesota-law/minnesota-right-...

> Minnesota does not have a right to work law, which means employees that are part of a unionized workforce must join the union or make "fair share" payments equivalent to the cost of union dues.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em...

> Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_Amer...

> Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.[1] The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," ...

You're right, I should have said "agency-shop" rather than "closed-shop". The main point I was driving was that you don't get to join a union, then go work someplace and expect that union to be involved on your behalf.

You go to work some place, and the one union that represents your class of workers at that shop runs the negotiations.

Regardless of whether or not you "join" the union, you're paying them. The only difference is

   a: In theory, you're not paying for their political activities (ymmv)
   b: You have zero say (which is about the same as being in a large union)

As a relative matter, you should expect the union to be more involved on your behalf than the company you joined. You have little say in a large company either, and companies can engage in political activities that you disagree with, funded in part by the profit you help bring to the company.

That of course doesn't guarantee the union will always work on your behalf. For a simple and clear example, historically many unions discriminated against their black members. In general though, unions are run more like a democracy than most companies, so you should have more representation as a union member than as an employee.

You do understand that many companies place requirements on their employees which effectively takes money and time from them, right?

Like, a company can have a dress code which requires people to buy and maintain more expensive clothes they otherwise wouldn't have. And while some positions have a clothing allowance, that's not common for places with a dress code.

Or, a company can require you to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day, but not pay you for the time you spend waiting (see Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk).

Why then should a job requirement to join a union be any different than other sorts of job requirements that force you to spend your own time and money for something that doesn't benefit you? You look at total compensation, and not each line item benefit and cost, right?

If you have a problem with the company, it's you versus the company. Maybe it can be resolved amicably, maybe you move on.

If you have a problem with the union, it's you versus your peers, and you're basically SOL- you gave them all the power they need when you joined.

See what bigger unions will do- including file lawsuits in courts- when members are fed up and vote to decertify the local chapter.

Comparing the average case for a company to the worst case for a union seems more like you have a grudge.

It's a per-state thing, but yes; it's one of the reasons for the hatred.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com