←back to thread

Homeschooling hits record numbers

(reason.com)
193 points bilsbie | 4 comments | 21 Nov 25 00:31 UTC | HN request time: 1.166s | source
Show context
ec2y ◴[21 Nov 25 03:03 UTC] No.46000762[source]▶
Lemme just question how home schooling is at all possible without one parent (statically more likely to be a woman) staying home to supervise the learning. I don’t think we’re talking about remote ranch situations where you either do online school or have to send them to boarding school.

So I’m genuinely wondering if there’s a corresponding exit from the workplace or other demographic trends allowing/pushing this boom in home schooling to happen?

replies(6): >>46000865 #>>46000917 #>>46003797 #>>46007390 #>>46007473 #>>46008092 #
Yizahi[dead post] ◴[21 Nov 25 12:15 UTC] No.46003797[source]▶
[flagged]
PKop ◴[21 Nov 25 18:45 UTC] No.46007507[source]▶
Why do you assume wives just want to work and many wouldn't jump at the chance to be able to stay home with their children, and also socialize with other friends outside of some office job environment?
replies(1): >>46007964 #
lurking_swe ◴[21 Nov 25 19:26 UTC] No.46007964[source]▶
that’s a great fantasy but when you consider, statistically, how many marriages end in divorce - that’s a foolish plan. EVERYONE thinks their marriage is different or special.

Maybe working part time is OK, you at least have some job history. But no work history for 10+ years? Great ways to put all your eggs into 1 basket and potentially end up a poor single mom. And i say this as a husband and father.

replies(3): >>46008282 #>>46009690 #>>46010229 #
1. toasterlovin ◴[21 Nov 25 19:58 UTC] No.46008282[source]▶
Optionality has costs. If you live your life like it's going to go astray, then you miss out on a lot of the upside if it doesn't go astray (such as by being a stay at home mom, if that's what you actually want to do). The statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce is often bandied about, but it also means that 50% don't. Which means that going all-in on your marriage is a completely reasonable thing to do.
replies(1): >>46009262 #
2. lurking_swe ◴[21 Nov 25 21:35 UTC] No.46009262[source]▶
what you say is true. But consider, the “cost” of going back part time is not very big. It’s not very stressful, and _greatly_ reduces long term risk.

Your take is a bit like saying in the year 2000 “i believe Apple is an amazing company, i’ll go ALL IN with my life savings”. If you’re right the you think you’re a genius. But what if you were wrong? What if apple turned out like IBM? Then you’d look back and think “how could i have been so stupid? so naive”.

replies(1): >>46009996 #
3. toasterlovin ◴[21 Nov 25 22:52 UTC] No.46009996[source]▶
It's a really bad analogy. And the "cost" of working part time for someone who doesn't want or need to work is literally every single hour they spend working. If they're working 20 hours per week, that's 20 hours per week spent doing something they don't want or need to do. It's a huge cost.
replies(1): >>46010755 #
4. lurking_swe ◴[22 Nov 25 00:22 UTC] No.46010755{3}[source]▶
and the cost IF you become a single mom at 40, and you’re unemployable? How would we quantify that cost?

We can agree to disagree. :) Hope you at least appreciated my different perspective.