Hacker News Reader

Comment by samirmenon | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps I am clouded by my own positive experiences with school, but I disagree on two levels.

Firstly, your use of the phrase 'in the west' implies that outside of the 'west' there is some different, better elementary education system. This has not been my experience in India, where capacity for rote memorization is regarded as equivalent to intelligence from an early age. What countries fit your boundaries of 'the west'?

Secondly, school serves as a valuable social and educational center to most children. Even though elementary education is imperfect, it does not mean that a viable solution is to simply do away with it. In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships.

View on HN

In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships.

And unfortunately social interaction is severely restricted and punished in K-12 education (in the US, which is the extent of my familiarity).

I volunteered at an elementary school for a year, and the kids there had little opportunity to socialize freely. Recess and lunch were limited to a combined 40 minutes, including transition periods to and from the classroom. Gym/physical education was a "unit", only attended one week out of every three, and much like I remembered from my own schooling, more than half of that time is spent explaining the rules to some highly-structured, barely-constitutes-exercise activity.

You'd still get far more social interaction than what unschooling would get you.

I was home educated. I had far more time for out of schooltime activities than my friends in schools did. I was part of the town band, the church band, the local drama school (learning, and then helping to teach the younger kids, and touring with the team and performing in schools), Karate, etc. Some of my friends had no social life outside of school at all, really. They had school, homework, TV, and sleep.

I had far more time hanging out with adults who were interested in the same kinds of things as me. Wonderful, lovely people who were interested in mechanics, drama, etc. and spent time mentoring, teaching and helping me.

I feel like I had a really good social experience, as I didn't feel any kind of peer pressure, or pressure to conform or like things (like football) that I found pointless, or to do drugs, or whatever. When I was older, I felt secure enough in who I was, and the acceptance I found in likeminded (and differently minded, but good) people, to not feel like I had to conform, or that I had to judge or conform others. We're all different, and all totally valuable.

>Secondly, school serves as a valuable social and educational center to most children. Even though elementary education is imperfect, it does not mean that a viable solution is to simply do away with it. In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships.

Great, let's make primary school a place to park children so their parents can go to work where children can do whatever the hell they want. These exist. They are called Sudbury or democratic schools.

While I have your attention, some links.

Teaching arithmetic to children below sixth grade has either no effect or negative effects, seeing as the extra education makes them worse at word problems.[0][1]

Homework has no positive effects on learning in any non-mathematical subjects and no positive effects whatsoever before middle school.[3]

[0]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/whe....

[1] L. P. Benezet (1935/1936). The teaching of Arithmetic: The Story of an Experiment. Originally published in Journal of the National Education Association in three parts. Vol. 24, #8, pp 241-244; Vol. 24, #9, p 301-303; & Vol. 25, #1, pp 7-8.

[2]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775711... Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (Impact Factor: 0.46). 06/2011; 43(3):195-202. DOI: 10.1037/a0022697 ABSTRACT Although homeschooling is growing in prevalence, its educational outcomes remain unclear. The present study compared the academic achievements of homeschooled children with children attending traditional public school. When the homeschooled group was divided into those who were taught from organized lesson plans (structured homeschoolers) and those who were not (unstructured homeschoolers), the data showed that structured homeschooled children achieved higher standardized scores compared with children attending public school. Exploratory analyses also suggest that the unstructured homeschoolers are achieving the lowest standardized scores across the 3 groups.

Got a newer reference than Benezet 1936?

Got a reference where they tested it with good math teachers?

Has the study been replicated in a country with a different (better) math tradition, such as France?

[1] looks a pretty reasonable overview of the research on homework effectiveness. The meta-analysis is quite supportive of homework as an effective way of improving results:

With only rare exceptions, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant. Therefore, we think it would not be imprudent, based on the evidence in hand, to conclude that doing homework causes improved academic achievement.

[1] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar0...

Not OP, but it wouldn't matter that a good math teacher would've had a more positive effect.

Most teachers are shit at what they do and that won't change.

There are too many advantages in a lot of countries for becoming a teacher (civil servant) - salary excluded.

Improving education involves improving the approaches used by teachers, whether teachers already employed or new teachers. These kinds of things don't change overnight, but they can be changed over generations. Studies are, in theory, an effective way to determine what aspiring teachers should know and apply.

I don't think driving down the advantages of becoming a teacher is an effective way to improve performance. Many people interested in making a difference would, rightfully, forgo being a teacher for their own sakes and take a different approach.

Thank you for these references, these are all good things to know.

I did not imply anything about school systems outside the western world, I used the term simply because I know close to nothing about education outside the west and therefore did not want to include it in my description.

I also certainly did not imply that children should be educated in isolation. I agree that social interaction with other children is fundamental to kids' development throughout elementary education. In fact, if you followed my suggestion and let kids do, to a certain extent, what they were interested in, I assume you would see most of them gravitate towards social learning, because that's how most humans are wired.

> I did not imply anything about school systems outside the western world,

You obviously don't know anything about the plethora of different systems inside the Western world, either.

Hey, thank you for this sharp and insightful one-liner.

I am keenly aware of my own ignorance, and always looking for opportunities to learn. Care to enlighten me?

Start with Beeby in New Zealand.

> In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships.

But is putting 30 kids together in a room with one adult the right way to do it?

I question the belief that school is necessary for socialization. Obviously home school for everyone isn't an option, but there are plenty of studies that show home schooled children turn out just as well off or better. So where is the evidence that socialization in a school environment is necessary or even beneficial.

>> "So where is the evidence that socialization in a school environment is necessary"

Just anecdotal but might help. I had a younger family member who had to miss a few weeks of school and stay home. After a few days he was itching to get back for the sole reason of social interaction. If you don't go to school you see your friends for maybe 1 hour in the evening. If you go you see them for 20mins on the bus to school, in-between classes, 45 mins of recess per day, and the 20 min bus ride home. Not to mention the interaction during group activities or lulls in classes. If everyone was homeschooled there would need to be a substitute for this and suggestions I've seen like "all parents should take their kids to the park for an hour" don' suffice. I think the length of the interaction isn't important, the fact that it happens throughout the day is. Seeing someone for 5 mins an hour every hour is different than seeing them for 1 hour, even if it works out to be less time. It's a different experience and one that's hard to replicate.

>It's a different experience and one that's hard to replicate.

I agree that it's different and hard to replicate, but again where is the evidence that the school socialization model is actually beneficial--that we need to replicate it? The studies I've seen from home-schooled children seem to suggest that it isn't necessary for a successful productive adult life.

If people are going to argue that homeschooling is detrimental because it doesn't replicate institutionalized socialization, there needs to be some evidence that this kind of socialization is necessary other than "lots of kids do it".

I wouldn't argue that home schooled children can't lead successful productive lives. It would be nice to see a study of which children are happier though. Those in school socializing all day; or those at home socializing for an hour or two in the evening. You get to interact with a wide variety of people at school from many different backgrounds. You can learn a lot from that and it can help you in many ways when you enter the real world. Homeschooling you're with your parents or a tutor all day and your social circle would likely be limited to those who live in your street. At this stage I think it's impossible to say which scenario is better, there needs to be a lot more research done. Personally though I am very happy I was not homeschooled. I would have been educated well - maybe even better - but I think I would have missed out on a lot of important experiences.

More anecdotal evidence:

When I was 0-8 years old we lived in neighborhoods full of kids. Then we moved to a place with none. I was much happier in the first place because of the socialisation. It didn't matter that the new places we lived were nicer or more convenient for certain things. I think this also hurt my social skills. I was pretty sociable at a younger age but compared with my peers my social skills have lacked since then. This can impact on interview performance, networking, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com