Comment by spandrew

"Adult-level social skills" for children was historically normal, and it's only in the past century that children are assumed to be incapable of speaking plainly and intelligently to adults, or vice versa.

You might want to do some looking into the "invention of childhood"; what we understand as "children, teenagers, young adults, adults" is a fairly modern way to look at "stages of development". In the distant past, children participated far more comfortably and fluently in adult society than they do today, when they're sequestered away.

It is very difficult to see any representations of this in the US, where most children are in school, so I'll point to examples in fiction: fictional novels or movies where the protagonist is taken confidently through an unfamiliar city by a child who seems to know every location, has a sleeping place, weapons, a method of finding money, and a network of friends. In these works of fiction, the child is almost always a semi-homeless "urchin"; but this is mostly because modern writers can't conceive of a child that capable without also assuming that the child's parents must not be involved in their life, because modern people equate "parenting and raising children" with "making sure children only ever do child-appropriate things".

My question to you: what do you think it would look like if two loving, attentive parents tried to raise a kid with the confidence and skills of those fictional street children, but also actually fed them and gave them a place to live?

It is very likely that the answer to that question is far closer to the way that children used to behave and live than the way that children are today.

I also recommend looking at old tests and study material (pre-1900, ideally pre-1800) for young children. Children can read, figure, write, and remember at a level far superior than they're assumed to be able to today, and that goes for adult socialization as well.

It didn't mess me up and I didn't treat any interaction as a peformance. They were just fun conversations.

It takes more effort to homeschool than farming it out to public schools, so you're naturally selecting for involved parents. To the detriment of public schools, it should be noted.

It also skews the perspectives of homeschool parents into thinking "this is the best system, why doesn't everybody do it?" The answer is, of course, to take the good aspects of each system and make the public school system more viable again, but there are too many entrenched interests on both sides for this to be easy.

There's also a variety of kids' ages at these events, so the younger can learn from the older (and parents can easily intervene if this isn't going well). And you know who your kids are interacting with: you know something about the families, or at least know someone who knows them, so the odds of malign influences are much lower.

I can attest to this exact same scenario with my children and their schools. I observed both types: the parents who immediately entered the school combative towards administration (not looking to collaborate on a solution, just shouting loudly to "fix it"), and parents who spent time engaging with administration towards a description of the problem and ideas for resolving them.

That being said, there are and were definitely limits to what public schools can do. They are resource strapped, procedurally constrained, often fighting their own political bureaucratic battles within the school districts, and even within the academic departments.

We ended up leaving the public school for those reasons, and could not be happier.

My observation was: public schools have become much like enterprises, and private schools tend to be more like startups. The public school has so much inertia and tends to have "guardrails" and policies to keep even bad administrations functioning, but at the cost of exceptionalism and performance. Private schools have less of this, and more direct accountability.

You absolutely can have a private school that doesn't educate better than a public school, but I'd argue at least one of two things happen: 1) the school fails to attract student, and closes.. or 2) the school focus shifts away from education to other priorities (e.g., social status, culture, or sports), relegating academics to a secondary role.

>We simply talk to the teachers and administrators, and you would not believe the results.

It would depend on what you're asking for. It depends on the school district/state, but anything that gets close to the curriculum isn't easy or simple to change.

For example, one of my kids who went to public school had to use this program (I forget the name) for algebra that the school paid for. You used a weird toolbar to input your equations that appeared to be some monstrous Javascript nightmare. It more or less worked, but it wasn't great. To my mind it would have been simpler to teach them LaTeX or something, but whatever.

As a parent, you can't go in and say "why don't you just let them write the answers on paper like everybody else did until 9 minutes ago?" The teachers loved this program, because it did all the teacher work for them. The school administration already paid for it, plus paying for the computers for the kids to use, plus the IT overhead to keep the computers running.

That's a fundamental structural problem that no parent can surmount. "What do you mean use a screwdriver? We paid for all these hammers!"

The incentives that drive public education are often orthogonal to actually teaching the public. It's not a mystery, any trough where money collects will get snouts rooting for some of it. The parents don't have much say in how all this money must be spent because they don't have any say about the money at all, other than moving to a different district or writing off what they pay in property taxes and paying again to do something else.