
Outschooling - ctulek
https://avc.com/2019/05/outschooling/
======
momokoko
I think EdTech forgets that student success has much less to do with
schooling(home or otherwise). This is why education has bounced from trend to
trend over the last 50 years. Because we constantly think we've found a silver
bullet, but then after a decade or so, we realize it was once again
correlation.

If you really look at the data, student outcomes essentially boil down to
parents and the students themselves. We've see this with how standardized
testing has gone over so poorly. The truth is that, outside of gaming the test
system with essentially test prep style cramming, schools really have not been
able to make any real meaningful changes to student outcomes.

Absolutely, schools can move the needle a bit in either direction, but outside
of edge cases, I feel as though it may be a challenge to show the kind of
outcome data that makes any EdTech product a must have in US education.

~~~
jacobolus
If by “student outcomes essentially boil down to parents and the students
themselves” what you mean is “largely boil down to structural societal factors
out of individuals’ hands, such as poverty, pollution, homelessness,
unemployment, neighborhood crime, state-supported violence, lack of access to
nutritious food, ...

Then sure.

~~~
momokoko
I do. But those are all things still end up with parents and the students.

If you have a single mother that works odd hours and can't do basic algebra,
it's very unlikely you'll excel as a student. That isn't a judgement of
anyone, that is just a fact based on the data we have.

How to prevent that situation is a different discussion, but does illustrate
that resources may be better used fixing the root of the problem as opposed to
putting all the effort and responsibility on education.

------
up_and_up
My wife are secular homeschoolers and have homeschooled our 3 kids: 10,8,5 for
5 years. We use outschool regularly, its a great platform to introduce random
topics. I would invest in it honestly. AMA I guess

~~~
charliesharding
What were the primary motivations for homeschooling? Cultural? Political?
Quality? Access?

Also how do you go about socializing them? I've been considering it myself

~~~
up_and_up
My wife was from a very competitive school district which forced
overachievement and I got beat up by bullies in a small town school. Besides
the personal anecdotes,

1\. we felt like time was passing too quickly and wanted to have them around,
we wanted to be together basically.

2\. with 3 kids my wife hasnt been able to work (her line of work is not well
paying), so it made sense to start homeschooling vs private schooling.

3\. I have issues with what public schools are now, hyper focused on testing,
lack of critical thinking, no outdoor time.

The "socializing" concern is a farce imo. Granted we live in area with plenty
of groups. Maybe a solo kid way out in the sticks will have problems. Our kids
also regularly play with kids 2-5 years older or younger so things are
different. Our kids have activities with other homeschool kids 4 days a week.

The schedule looks like this:

M: Outdoor Nature camp: think building fire with bow drills, axes, skinning
animals, foraging for wild plants

T: Academic day at home then occasional horseback riding

W: Academic day at home, private music lessons, then playdate at friends house

TH: Homeschool meetup group: think art, music, dance, karate, extracurricular
classes with a group of 100 kids and 10 teachers

FRI: another Homeschool meetup group: with various classes and open play

SAT: Climbing, iceskating, skiing, biking, something outdoors

Our life is a mellower version of "Captain Fantastic"

~~~
iambateman
I was homeschooled for 8 years and this schedule sounds very familiar, except
it was surfing and working a part time job for me. School does not need to
take 8 hours to be effective.

As far as socialization, I’ve been asked this a hundred times:
“so...like...how do you talk to people when you’re at home?” Now, I understand
they mean well. But for someone who just implied their superior social
capabilities, they sure seem rude and unsocialized. ;)

~~~
winchling
It's also worth pointing out that the social environment within most schools
is far from ideal.

~~~
ekianjo
Most schools are just like jails: you are forced to be there, and forced to be
there with people who don't want to be there either. A good recipe for
disaster as soon as the group becomes large enough. And don't expect the
guardians/educators to do anything when someone picks up on you.

~~~
ultrarunner
> And don't expect the guardians/educators to do anything when someone picks
> up on you.

Well that's not entirely fair. I know of several situations (including my own)
where students were punished for fighting when attacked by other students. You
can't say that's not "doing something", I guess.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
It's "doing something," but it's doing something stupid, which isn't better.

------
somethoughts
The one I would be interested in would be "home-after-schooling". I would love
to have more resources to help support K-8 students learn how to do original
research for science fairs, MOOCs for non-math subjects and programming.
Basically Khan Academy type courses that can enable teaching economics,
literature, philosophy to a 12 year old. The interesting non-math stuff for
Khan Academy doesn't start until 9-12th grade.

I'd be curious as to why there is not an option to watch a recorded version
with Outschool.

~~~
amirnathoo
It's a matter of focus. We'd love there to be more self-study content
available for kids also. But MOOCs have a famously low completion rate and
it's hard to stay motivated without interaction. So we're focused on
connecting learners and teachers and having them interact over video chat.

~~~
droithomme
_> low completion rate_

Most people who sign up don't actually want a certificate and aren't trying to
complete. They are interested in the subject, watching some videos, move on.
When you have class sizes with 1000-30,000 students, it's OK if 90% don't
complete the certificate since many more did than in a brick and mortar
school, yet it cost much less per student to deliver the class.

In online classes where you need to pay to get the certificate, it's been
found that paid students have the same completion rate as brick and mortar
university students.

[https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/fee-payments-
lift-...](https://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/fee-payments-lift-mooc-
completion-rates-20150409-1mhw76)

 _> Students in massive open online courses (MOOC) who pay a modest amount for
a "verified certificate" are just as likely finish their course as regular
university students, according to a new large-scale study of online
education._

~~~
geomark
This. Low completion rate of those who enrolled for free is, in a way,
actually a positive indicator because it shows a lot more people getting a
chance to "taste" a subject. Many decide it isn't for them or they learned
what they wanted and are not interested in the certificate at the end.
Something not possible with in-class courses.

------
GuiA
Interesting blog post and theory.

A core counter argument to their base premise is that learning effectively is
done in person, as part of a social group, in a physical space dedicated to
learning, with hands on practice. It certainly seems to be the core takeaways
of Waldorf/Montessori/constructionist/etc. approaches.

 _> When our kids were in school and struggled with a class/teacher/subject,
we would get them a tutor to come to our home in the evenings._

In other words, there's a reason they paid the tutor to come in person, and
not tutor over Skype or the phone.

The author speaks of their intent being to open up access to education, and
replace the "outdated tech" of physical schools and classrooms. I need to be
convinced that successful execution of this plan (and its inevitable
percolation into policy if it makes financial sense - which I have no doubt it
does, for a VC to take interest in it) won't result in a two tiered system,
with students from poorer families getting free, public education over video
lessons, and students from wealthier family being able to attend private, more
expensive, in person schooling.

~~~
the_watcher
> In other words, there's a reason they paid the tutor to come in person, and
> not tutor over Skype or the phone.

I'll refrain from posting the ages and names of his kids in the interest of
privacy (you can figure it out with very light Googling), but his older
children are in their late twenties, meaning they are nearly my age. When I
was in high school "Skype tutoring" wasn't a thing, because reliable video
chat didn't exist, and very little of my schoolwork used a computer for more
than web processing. Isn't it a lot more likely that the sentence you are
referencing is referring to that experience than evidence "in person" was the
reason he paid for a tutor to come in person?

~~~
GuiA
I buy that it would be a combination of both factors. I don’t buy that it
would be exclusively due to the lack of Skype (I assumed his kids had grown up
in the last decade or so, but fair enough) because I myself have been paid
tens of thousands of dollars tutoring students of fairly wealthy family when I
was in grad school and not once was I asked to do it over Skype.

------
jaden
Homeschooling seems like an ideal solution for those with a parent at home to
improve their children's academic learning. But it's concerning that those
actively involved parents are removed from the public school system.

~~~
inetknght
> _it 's concerning that those actively involved parents are removed from the
> public school system._

As someone who was homeschooled: it's _extremely_ scary. I've missed out on
social experiences and also on actual education and consider myself generally
worse-off for it.

Consider: Texas permits homeschooling and has effectively zero oversight. How
many homeschooling families are also anti-vaxxers or feed into anti-government
paranoia? Especially consider the bitterness of such parents whose taxes pay
into the school system but those same taxes aren't utilized for homeschooling
families: so it's literally the government taking money to pay for a service
for all citizens -- except you, you're not getting what you paid for.

~~~
camelNotation
I don't think this is a problem with homeschooling as much as with a subset of
homeschoolers - particularly religious fundamentalists and anarchist types.

My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their grade
level in every subject. She had a teaching license up until a couple of years
ago (they do expire after a while) and taught for several years before we had
kids. Then, once they arrived, she decided this was a natural fit. Meanwhile,
they're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that
they meet up with several times a week.

Homeschooling can be used to keep kids out of the system and deny them a good
education, but it can also be the platform for an elite education like no
other. There's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private
tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one from
a capable instructor.

As my kids grow older, they'll get one-on-one training in the arts, foreign
language, and various extra-curricular skills like swimming, dance, etc. from
instructors that we hire to assist them. They'll walk away from this better
equipped than any of their peers in traditional school.

Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it's that it
is only available to middle and upper class families.

~~~
inetknght
You present one well-honored experience. I present a stark contrast to it.

> _My wife and I homeschool, but we have our kids pushing well beyond their
> grade level in every subject._

My parents told themselves the same thing. I apparently had top percentile
test scores in several early years, particularly in math. Despite that, my
parents completely failed to provide an education after choosing to
homeschool.

> _She had a teaching license up until a couple of years ago (they do expire
> after a while) and taught for several years before we had kids._

Neat! Not that it really matters, but I am curious: what did she teach?

> _they 're also plugged in with a local co-op with more than thirty kids that
> they meet up with several times a week._

That's also something my parents told themselves and others. Despite that, it
wasn't exactly an honest statement. We met with other church members about
once every week for about a month. Then about once every quarter of a year for
about a year. Then basically never, while my parents fell deep into paranoia.

> _it can also be the platform for an elite education like no other._

Yes, it _can_. But my experience brings with me a _very_ skeptical mind.

> _There 's a reason the wealthiest families in American pay for private
> tutors and elite schools with tiny class sizes. Nothing beats one on one
> from a capable instructor._

While you're right in that there's a reason for private tutors and elite
schools, I think you're wrong about your conclusion for the wealthy. I think
wealthy parents don't want their children to _associate_ with poor people who
can't afford to hire their own private lessons. I think that's also a
despicably-elitist action.

> _They 'll walk away from this better equipped than any of their peers in
> traditional school._

It's almost as if you're parroting the same things my parents said. Indeed, I
walked away better equipped for computers than pretty much anyone I know. But
that's more of a byproduct of spending years in front of a computer than
anything that my parents actively tried to teach. Where I gained knowledge
about computers there's also loss of other opportunities and knowledge.

> _Honestly, if there is anything wrong with homeschooling itself, it 's that
> it is only available to middle and upper class families. _

You are wrong. I consider myself middle class. Almost all of my family are
somewhere between poor and destitute.

~~~
ericd
Sorry you had such a bad time of it.

I know some people who were homeschooled as kids (unschooled, in one case),
and they turned out to be exceptional people. It seems pretty clear from
interacting with them that their attitudes and abilities are a direct result
of their schooling (and having parents who would be willing to school their
kids in that way).

But I'm sure homeschooling can also turn out very badly if the parents aren't
fully committed to doing it well.

~~~
alain94040
Survivorship bias? By definition, you are not likely to meet all the kids who
failed miserably with homeschooling. Instead, you are more likely to interact
socially or at work with the ones that did great. Therefore, your observation
is likely to be biased.

~~~
ericd
Yeah, fair. I haven’t taken a broad sample of homeschooled kids.

But I do think there’s some signal in the fact that I’m dealing with the
success cases of public and home schooling, and the homeschooled ones stand
out as exceptional in that population.

What kinds of conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that, though, I don’t
know.

------
jpm_sd
Students can also access "real time group classes taught largely by very
experienced K12 teachers" by... going to school.

~~~
forgotmypw
I completed grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the USSR, right before its breaking
apart. (I skipped grade 4 not because I was exceptionally smart, but because
of the conversion from 10- to 11-year system.)

I went to an average public school, not like a specialized math-heavy school,
which also existed.

Then I moved to the U.S. and started 6th grade, decent public school in a
major city.

I went to ESL class instead of regular English. Some of the history stuff was
new to me. I struggled with integrating and being bullied, though not too
badly.

But as far as math and science goes, I was _coasting_ up until 9th grade, when
I started high school.

In 8th grade, I was added to the "gifted" program, which basically meant I
spent one period a week hanging out with the other gifted kids doing I don't
even remember what.

I've been told that while USSR designed its cirruculum to be passable by 80%
of the students, in the U.S. it's designed to be passable by close to 100%.
Which means that even if your child is smart, they'll be dragging along with
the least capable 20% of the school population, doing busywork and being
bored, wasting their time instead of learning all they could be at the most
capable time of their life.

(Russia's current education system has been stripped and crippled, so it's on
par or worse than U.S. now.)

------
master-litty
I interviewed with Outschool a few months ago, happy to see them here!

They're a wonderful team. I've never seen a group of people with so much
positive chemistry before; I've started asking more culture-centered questions
in my interviews since then, now that I think about it.

I think it's the best kind of team to front an educational endeavour and it's
one big reason I believe in them. It's easier to have a healthy classroom
environment if the providing workplace is healthy too.

~~~
mdaniel
And perhaps related to this post, there was a YC "ad" a few links above this
post saying:

> Outschool (YC W16) Is Hiring a Senior Software Engineer in SF

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20048401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20048401)

------
hoytech
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Air](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Air)

------
iambateman
In the late 90’s my parents homeschooled me. We had a subscription to a
teaching service that broadcast lessons on Satellite at 2am. My parents set
the VCR to record each night and then we played the tape back for “class”.
Everything was awful. To this day, my understanding of elementary science is a
little worse than one would expect because my mom didn’t enjoy teaching
science.

I’m so glad for advanced services making more forms of schooling possible for
people.

Just to throw some ice on some of the heat in the comments...

\- homeschooling isn’t for everyone, but it works wonderfully for some. My
sister hated it and I loved it. People are different and need different
approaches to learning.

\- some people who homeschool are religious, and some of them are
“fundamentalist”. But most of the people I encountered were simply
“religious.” There’s a difference. ;)

------
the_watcher
I'm slightly torn on models like this. On the one hand, the cost savings and
potential to improve outcomes by scaling the impact of the best classes is
obviously wildly important. At the same time, it does seem like there is hard
to quantify value in the social aspects of a traditional school. As I write
this, however, I realize that there are plenty of private and parochial
schools where the class sizes are so small that you could probably replicate
the social value pretty easily, since you wouldn't need too many students in
the same place to do things like "class trips".

------
falcor84
>...students in the US who need to learn things like Algebra, European
History, Biology, etc...

HN, what's your take on the above? Do you believe that there is any particular
curriculum of subjects that students "need" to have studied to be prepared for
doing well in the world they will be living in?

~~~
burfog
economics, law, financial planning, accounting, cooking, how to repair things,
business writing, estimation

That's all. No, we mostly don't teach this stuff anymore.

For those going the college route, obviously the STEM prerequisites must be
satisfied. This means AP Biology, AP Chemistry, AP Physics C (both halves),
and AP Calculus BC.

~~~
falcor84
Thanks for responding. I wanted to contest the word "need" \- given that the
best majority of students aren't taught (in a schooling setting) even 1 of the
subjects you mentioned, and we still live in an arguably quite civilized
modern society, would you agree that they don't actually "need" to be taught?

------
jonny_eh
Hiring a high school student to tutor a kid in math is not a "1%er" solution.
Maybe 50%er?

------
HNLurker2
This sounds to me like an American problem

------
carlob
I think this is going to be very controversial on the typical HN crowd: maybe
too European, or too socialist. However here it goes.

Some ten years ago I was convinced that private schools had a right to exist,
but that they should never impact the funding of public schools, not even
indirectly.

Then I discovered that homeschooling was a thing in the US.

Now I tend to believe that private schools should not be allowed to exist.
School is far too important as a social mixer and a way to educate well-
rounded citizens to leave it to the whims of parents. Parents already have a
large enough impact on their kids, to let them take over 100% of their time.

I also strongly believe that parents whose beliefs prevent their kids from
getting the medical care they deserve (from refusing transfusions, to refusing
vaccines) should get a hard look from social services.

In general I don't believe that parenthood trumps some things that as a
society we consider basic human rights. I think most people would agree with
me when it comes down to issues like violence, exploitation and child labor,
but I think this should extend to the access to healthcare and to a secular
education.

~~~
hawkesnest
My children receive a secular homeschool education. They score well on
standardized tests, interact well with their peers in extracurricular
activities, and have healthy and meaningful relationships with other children
and adults in their lives.

I recognize that there are some in the homeschool "community" who are ruining
their children (imho). For the sake of freedom, I accept that there are
terrible people in the world who should not have reproduced, but for me to
have rights they must have them too.

~~~
carlob
I'm sure your kids are great, as you are probably well educated and wealthier
than the average. Have you ever asked yourself what is the effect of removing
your kids for public schools on the less fortunate?

Let me put it another way: most children who have some medical doctor in their
extended family don't really need to be visited regularly by a pediatrician.
That doesn't really imply that most people who refuse to take their kids to a
doctor are in their right mind to do so: a lot of them have some weird belief
that might put their kids life at risk. And even if they weren't a majority,
but a tiny minority, the law needs to protect that tiny minority even if that
means being a bit overbearing on people who have doctors in their families.

~~~
surge
The less fortunate are the ones bullying other children, holding back the
curriculum so that no child is left behind, putting someone else's child in
harms way because of some undefined benefit to other's with worse parents
isn't a fix. Fix the socio economic problems first so those kids have better
parents. Don't put my kid in with them thinking its going to socialize other
kids better rather than what normally happens is they get harassed and bullied
by those who are hostile and the teachers have no power or are apathetic to
confront.

It creates greater harm putting good kids in with the bad then it does for the
unfortunate but angry, hostile children. Same as it does putting a prisoner in
for a non-violent crime with a bunch of felons, they're likely to come out a
worse, more hardened criminal. You have this theory that it brings the other
kids up, maybe slightly, but often it just brings everyone overall down.
Collectivist mentality should be what's the greatest good.

~~~
carlob
Except that most of the research that has been done on this subject shows
exactly the opposite: social mixing in schools has a great positive effect on
the less fortunate and almost negligible effect on the more fortunate (we're
talking here about a situation where the composition of a class reflects that
of society as a whole, not some extreme example like throwing a wealthy kid in
a inner city class).

Also societies that have good public schools (that are universally attended)
like Finland, tend to have much less socioeconomic inequality in the following
generations. That is: school is the solution to social inequality, not
viceversa.

~~~
surge
Most research? What research? By research do you mean an opinion piece you
read once? Most research says homeschoolers perform massively better on
average then public school kids do. So what research addresses that, if kids
perform not as well in public school.

[https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-
number...](https://www.dailyinfographic.com/homeschooling-by-the-numbers-
infographic)

~~~
carlob
It is well known that school results are mostly explained by socioeconomic
status (I read somewhere up to 75% of the variance can be explained that way).
So if you don't take into account other factors that graph doesn't prove
anything other than people who can afford private schools and homescholing are
on average richer. My guess is that the rest of the data can be explained by
smaller class sizes and better resources.

If you want more research this [0] article has a good bibliography on the
effects of socioeconomic diversity in schools

[0]
[https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=mjlr_caveat)

~~~
merpnderp
Socioeconomic status doesn’t explain why parents with only high school degrees
who homeschool in the US will still have kids performing at the top of public
school kids’ scores, while strong parental involvement does. Over and over the
only truly meaningful external factor in student performance is parental
involvement, of which homeschooling is highly indicative.

------
killjoywashere
Unless this results in better education outcomes spread across the entire
population in the red states, this is effectively a bid to support the
Republican agenda. This will follow the same pattern as standardized testing:
those with the means will pursue the best investments. Those without will be
left behind. And so the cycle of inequality worsens. This is "greed is good"
politics.

Think about it. If they were serious about education, why are they not
investing, Koch-style, in local politics? Why are they not funding candidates
who will advocate for stronger school systems, better transportation, school
lunches, etc?

This has nothing to do with kids. This has everything to do with extracting as
much money as possible from the most anxious, which is incidentally the
rapidly vanishing elbow of middle class in the ever-steepening power law curve
of wealth distribution in the US.

~~~
carlob
Thanks for pointing this out. I, too have the impression that most of the
commenters here are completely oblivious to the effects of their choices on
society at large. The fact that I have been accused multiple times of not
having children is evidence of an appeal to emotion: "You can only understand
this if you think about your own family".

~~~
burfog
The accusation of not having children is the polite one, assuming no malice.
The worse ones are that you would exempt your own children (the rest of us get
to sacrifice ours), or that you wouldn't exempt your children (due to not
caring about them).

------
dnprock
I think public school system provides a good return for dollars spent. It has
the scale that is difficult to match with other schooling methods. This is my
experience from shuffling between private preschools. I think other schooling
methods are appropriate if your circumstance forces you (e.g. bad public
school system.)

You can always opt out of the crazy things that happen at public schools.
After school, you can homeschool your kids. This way you can get the positives
of both systems.

Education is complicated. We need to avoid comparing and optimization. It's
idiotic to make a personal stance in education.

