How To Homeschool
#1
The modern Homeschooling movement began in America in the 1960s after John Holt's 1964 book How Children Fail. The thesis is, after years of serving at a private boarding school, that all standard education merely educates a student on how to behave in school and learn the classroom game. It can be summed up simply by its foreward:

Quote:Why do they fail? They fail because they are afraid, bored, and confused.
They are afraid, above all else, of failing, of disappointing or displeasing the many anxious adults around them, whose limitless hopes and expectations for them hang over their heads like a cloud. 
They are bored because the things they are given and told to do in school are so trivial, so dull, and make such limited and narrow demands on the wide spectrum of their intelligence, capabilities, and talents. 
They are confused because most of the torrent of words that pours over them in school makes little or no sense. It often flatly contradicts other things they have been told, and hardly ever has any relation to what they really know— to the rough model of reality that they carry around in their minds.

If anyone is interested you can find a pdf of it here, there are many good anecdotes that I may post here later. Holt was himself writing at a time when schools were comparatively incredibly productive and high-performing, so many of the problems that we know about modern education are absent from the book simply because they did not exist to the same degree in the 1960s. John Holt himself was a New Age weirdo, so he does have many disagreeable ideas as well. His belief that children are all born with a natural intelligence and desire to learn no doubt comes from teaching at a high-IQ selected private de facto all-White school in 1950s Colorado; contrast his ideas on natural intelligence with Marty Nemko's experience teaching black students. There is also an almost peaty message in Holt's book that I enjoy, that of the child as the platonic human ideal; of pure openness and malleability to new information. The so-called "unschooling" should, in Holt's ideal, be about the lengthening of a student's childhood, not as in coddling them into numaleitude, but to nurture an extrospection about the world and a thirst for information that extends as long as possible.

It's universally accepted on this forum that public schooling and the vast majority of private schooling are a non-option for raising future young, but there is not much breath given how to exact do the alternative, save for a few core things like being a strong father figure or imparting bibliophilia. Modern day homeschoolers typically use a few different named strategies, which I'll outline:
  • SAH (School-At-Home) - School-at-home is the most "normal" style compared to standard public education, based around purchased curriculum books from private school-affiliated publishers for a ~4-6 hour daily classroom time and a quiz & exam structure designed to prepare a student for mandated federal testing. It's structured as close to standard education as possible, with kid's curriculum being age-based K-12 grades. It's also the most expensive system by far because of its aforementioned reliance on curriculum books. Naturally, this is probably the "easiest" for stupid families who want only took their kids out of school for problems like bullying or drug use. Beyond which institution to buy books from, there is little control over what you're being taught your kid, allowing whatever you're trying to run away from by homeschooling your kids to come right inside your house.
  • Unschooling - Unschooling is the method created by John Holt in the 1970s to capitalize on the success of his book. Holt's newsletter website describes the method as "student-centered, unconventional, and individualistic", which practically equate to a style which puts little (if any) order on a child's learning, allowing them to pursue whatever interests them, with an emphasis on crafts and art. There is no quantifiable school day or instruction time because Unschooling has neither school time or instructional periods, save for short-term cramming in order to pass mandated federal testing. This style, like Holt himself, presupposes that every child has the innate ability to be a savant if just given the environment to flourish. Unschooling parents have a nearly cult-like reverence for this system and John Holt himself, and dislike this method even being referred to as a method ("because it's, like, a way of thinking, man"). This style was popular in the 90s and 00s, especially among parents of autistics, leading to a whole class of archetypal "Weird Homeschooled Kid" you may have met.
  • Classical - The Classical Method, is the approach that many "trad homesteaders" attempt. It relies on a three-tiered system called "The Trivium" of rigorous teaching of grammar and the Bible (& other classics) in adolescence, the logical application of the concepts in the books, and then their rhetorical application. A less popular approach relies on the teaching of secular "Great Works" as defined by Encyclopædia Britannica, and an even less popular approach relies on the teaching of Greek & Latin as was done in traditional American schools. Because of it's overt Christian nature, the term is often also applied to all forms of Bible-based homeschooling. Its emphasis on high-prestige classics means creates many bibliophiles and many "homeschooled savants", but its lack of self-instruction means the student often only becomes as smart as their parents, leading to an equally large amount of dumb Baptists who can hardly string a sentence together. It is probably the most popular style today as the homeschooling movement pivoted from New Agers to Baptist Conservatives in the 2000s.
  • Montessori - Created for the education of autistic children, the Montessori Style is most popular for Maria Montessori's more broader parenting style, but it is often applied to modern homeschoolers as well. Similar to Unschooling, Montessori stresses self-directed learning and unstructured education time, but is somehow even less proactive. The style places importance on "hands-on" expression using a multiple of toys, leading to an entire subgenre of kid's toys branded as "Montessori". Practitioners often identify themselves as "Montessori Moms", a type of upper-class mom who doesn't spend much time tending to her children. There's even an official Montessori Certification that some practitioners undergo.
  • Charlotte Mason - The Charlotte Mason method was designed for actual homesteaders who had no access to schooling, and as such is today sort of an intermediary for parents who don't want to bother giving their kids books but feels bad having them do zero schooling. CM's most unique quality is it's sub-hour long instructional periods (and significantly less than that for younger kids) and emphasis on simple allegorical morality stories education tools, dubbed "mind-food". Like Montessori and Unschooling styles, it falls flat on teaching maths and sciences, and most CM parents end up supplementing this style with SAH curriculum books.
  • Waldorf - Waldorf Education, or Steiner Education, is the archetypal New Age homeschooling, placing little importance on curriculum of any form until teenage, and instead nurturing a soul-body connection through "imaginative play". Waldorf Education is a common form of Private Schooling, but the curriculum is also employed by homeschoolers. Schooling is done in broad weeks-long genres and relies on the open free-association of ideas by the student as guided by the teacher. In practice, this means the student is rarely "taught" anything except general morals until they reach ~14. If the Classical Method is designed to ingrain a solid moral base through classic works, the Waldorf style attempts to create the same through soul-searching introspection in the students. Despite it's hand-off approach, the Waldorf Style is an enormous industry of special-made toys, how-to books, and teaching seminars.

This is more a list to make people think about preexisting options. The question for the thread: What is the Correct, Amarnite Way to homeschool?
#2
the best option for any one child is the sort of aristocratic tutoring the benefits of which are depicted in the first part of dune. this suffers the drawback of requiring a large per-child investment of human capital: in practice this has to come from hierarchical inferiors (such as retainers) and is thus incompatible with a social structure composed of a few peers who each do not wish to compromise on fecundity.

what is needed then is a way to educate several children of varying ages with the only available instructors being the immediate members of the parents' generation, who may well require their time for important work. one should first establish which subjects require direct instruction, for which autodidactism suffices, and which can rely on passive life experience--of the strategies you mentioned this will probably most resemble the classical method. the next thing to consider is the end-point of education or in other words the goal of "schooling" in the first place. where the need is a baseline level of world-knowledge this can be completely rather quickly and the children can help each other; where the goal is expertise this will demand both motivated self-study and expert tutoring. here the network of connections can serve to match children with adults and allows for a cross-pollination between "cells" which doubly provides a worldliness and genuine adventure for the kids.

the circumstances of raising children will vary wildly even within the small-decentralized-groups paradigm so the specific strategies adopted will have to vary in response to the demands.

i should clarify how the narrow sort of tutoring i envision differs from aristocratic tutoring. in the latter the child is the hierarchical superior of his retainers and has several tutors (covering each relevant domain) whose jobs are primarily or even exclusively to teach him. what i am describing is closer to a sort of apprenticeship where the youth, already relatively well-versed in the basics, is subordinated to the tutor and may even be one of a few students.
#3
I have posted at length about this in the "child rearing" thread, but to consolidate my position here, I would say that...

1) Academic excellency is one of many variable attributes that your children could possess, and from my perspective, is the most middling and simple virtue for home-schooled children to attain. You could very easily go "by the books" and have your child out-perform the average public-schooler, all because home-schooling has the innate advantage of providing maximum focus and attention to the student on behalf of the teacher (parent[s]). I don't consider this route to be of utmost importance, because realistically, much of what is taught is for the purposes of career attunement, you could say, and there are so few noble professions one can enter into nowadays that my child's ability to perform at mathematics or some such thing is irrelevant to me. Prioritize this path if you want your child to be a milquetoast, mundane accountant.

2) Expertise for your child across several different planes is not a realistic goal. You likely possess neither the capital nor the expertise to impart itself: between two people - man and woman - you can be good at a lot of different things, but you can really only be great at a few. Atreides-style home-schooling, which I posted about in the other thread, is made possible only because of royal influence: can you afford a Leto, a Jessica, a Thufir, and a Gurney, or can you be these things for your child(ren) by yourselves? Probably not. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not you want your child to be an expert at one thing, or just competent at a few. Multi-generational family businesses are "aristocratic tutoring" for the middle-class.

3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.

4) I consider pursuits in the artistic, athletic, or martial sectors to be the only noble "career paths." Pursuits that are a commitment to expression of the self, or a commitment to serving something larger than yourself. Working for animals has the potential to be noble, also. All of these avenues are perverted in the modern world, of course, but they still hold within them all the virtues that humans consider most objective. If you do not test your child's mettle in one or all of these things, early and often, you will most likely be resigning them to a lifetime of ineffectual mundanity. Watch Whiplash.
#4
(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: I have posted at length about this in the "child rearing" thread, but to consolidate my position here, I would say that...

1) Academic excellency is one of many variable attributes that your children could possess, and from my perspective, is the most middling and simple virtue for home-schooled children to attain. You could very easily go "by the books" and have your child out-perform the average public-schooler, all because home-schooling has the innate advantage of providing maximum focus and attention to the student on behalf of the teacher (parent[s]). I don't consider this route to be of utmost importance, because realistically, much of what is taught is for the purposes of career attunement, you could say, and there are so few noble professions one can enter into nowadays that my child's ability to perform at mathematics or some such thing is irrelevant to me. Prioritize this path if you want your child to be a milquetoast, mundane accountant.

2) Expertise for your child across several different planes is not a realistic goal. You likely possess neither the capital nor the expertise to impart itself: between two people - man and woman - you can be good at a lot of different things, but you can really only be great at a few. Atreides-style home-schooling, which I posted about in the other thread, is made possible only because of royal influence: can you afford a Leto, a Jessica, a Thufir, and a Gurney, or can you be these things for your child(ren) by yourselves? Probably not. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not you want your child to be an expert at one thing, or just competent at a few. Multi-generational family businesses are "aristocratic tutoring" for the middle-class.

3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.

4) I consider pursuits in the artistic, athletic, or martial sectors to be the only noble "career paths." Pursuits that are a commitment to expression of the self, or a commitment to serving something larger than yourself. Working for animals has the potential to be noble, also. All of these avenues are perverted in the modern world, of course, but they still hold within them all the virtues that humans consider most objective. If you do not test your child's mettle in one or all of these things, early and often, you will most likely be resigning them to a lifetime of ineffectual mundanity. Watch Whiplash.

Although you tried to mitigate against these specific criticism I will still bring them up.

Academia shouldn’t be conflated with the fields it covers, they are not mutually dependent. Acadamia means studying new ways “whity be evil and sheeeeiit.” These fields should still be studied but Academia is currently trying to destroy them so I would recommend independent study. 

Sociability and mixing with the “unwashed masses” is not advisable.  To be accepted by the masses is to espouse GNC. Best to focus on networking with the right people and only associate with a small clique of high iq relatively wealthy people, be elite.
#5
(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: 3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.

A more likely outcome, and one that I myself saw more than once during my public education, was a homeschooled child being put into a public school would, no matter how good their homeschooling was, instantly flounder socially, and then be either scooped up by the first bottomfeeder caste (gay kids, band kids, etc) before the child could learn the social hierarchy, or completely cut themselves off from social life. In fairness, many of these weird homeschooled kids come from, rather obviously, weird homeschooling parents; it's a decision that self-selects for strangeness. Is there any way to mitigate this happening? I have heard the advice before to get your son(s) involved with scouting or a team sport, but considering how increasingly these organizations resemble public education, is that still advisable?
#6
I would say so. Seems like the best tradeoff. I'm sure some scout troops are pederast cults but you could probably figure that out. I don't see baseball, hockey, and soccer, maybe even tennis being too leftist. Basketball and football avoid because of negro worship and brain damage from the latter. There's lots of stuff kids can do to interact with other kids and adults. You can take them to chess club, rock climbing, have them set up a lemonade stand. Not going to school for 35+ hours a week +homework frees up like 40 hours to have all kinds of hobbies, develop skills, and have adventures.
#7
(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: I have posted at length about this in the "child rearing" thread, but to consolidate my position here, I would say that...

1) Academic excellency is one of many variable attributes that your children could possess, and from my perspective, is the most middling and simple virtue for home-schooled children to attain. You could very easily go "by the books" and have your child out-perform the average public-schooler, all because home-schooling has the innate advantage of providing maximum focus and attention to the student on behalf of the teacher (parent[s]). I don't consider this route to be of utmost importance, because realistically, much of what is taught is for the purposes of career attunement, you could say, and there are so few noble professions one can enter into nowadays that my child's ability to perform at mathematics or some such thing is irrelevant to me. Prioritize this path if you want your child to be a milquetoast, mundane accountant.

2) Expertise for your child across several different planes is not a realistic goal. You likely possess neither the capital nor the expertise to impart itself: between two people - man and woman - you can be good at a lot of different things, but you can really only be great at a few. Atreides-style home-schooling, which I posted about in the other thread, is made possible only because of royal influence: can you afford a Leto, a Jessica, a Thufir, and a Gurney, or can you be these things for your child(ren) by yourselves? Probably not. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not you want your child to be an expert at one thing, or just competent at a few. Multi-generational family businesses are "aristocratic tutoring" for the middle-class.

3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.

4) I consider pursuits in the artistic, athletic, or martial sectors to be the only noble "career paths." Pursuits that are a commitment to expression of the self, or a commitment to serving something larger than yourself. Working for animals has the potential to be noble, also. All of these avenues are perverted in the modern world, of course, but they still hold within them all the virtues that humans consider most objective. If you do not test your child's mettle in one or all of these things, early and often, you will most likely be resigning them to a lifetime of ineffectual mundanity. Watch Whiplash.

I've always entertained the idea of a sort of selected group tutelage as opposed to one on one home schooling. Even relatively wealthy families will struggle to commit the capital needed to retain a single tutor much less a designated tutor for each general subject. If one can find other likeminded families who would be willing to invest in high quality instructors wouldn't it be possible to effectively have all the benefits of public schooling: socialization, a somewhat standard curriculum, competition (especially for males); without all the negatives that come along with sending your kid to what is essentially a glorified prision? 

Of course there would be the issue of what to teach and how to decide on pacing, ammount of dedication to each subject and even if your children were well socialized they would probably lack the skills necessary to deal with your average retard.
#8
Nice. A schooling thread. If you want to cover a history and types of homeschooling I think a mention and understanding of RJ Rushdoony is necessary. I wrote about him on amarna1. But for now I just feel like back and forthing on limited points. Generate some energy and stimulate things a little.


(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: I have posted at length about this in the "child rearing" thread, but to consolidate my position here, I would say that...

1) Academic excellency is one of many variable attributes that your children could possess, and from my perspective, is the most middling and simple virtue for home-schooled children to attain. You could very easily go "by the books" and have your child out-perform the average public-schooler, all because home-schooling has the innate advantage of providing maximum focus and attention to the student on behalf of the teacher (parent[s]). I don't consider this route to be of utmost importance, because realistically, much of what is taught is for the purposes of career attunement, you could say, and there are so few noble professions one can enter into nowadays that my child's ability to perform at mathematics or some such thing is irrelevant to me. Prioritize this path if you want your child to be a milquetoast, mundane accountant.

This feels like a very Chinese approach. Totemic appreciation of academic excellency divorced from purpose or innate value. It's a stat bar you max out so that stupid white people give you power and prestige. What's really weird here is your calling it an "attribute". You clearly aren't describing any kind of serious true learning here. You're describing gaming institutional process. I know you're aware, but the fact you'd still call this "academic excellency" seems like a problem. Can you imagine actual value in learning? Considering some of the stuff you've written elsewhere I might doubt this.



Quote:2) Expertise for your child across several different planes is not a realistic goal. You likely possess neither the capital nor the expertise to impart itself: between two people - man and woman - you can be good at a lot of different things, but you can really only be great at a few. Atreides-style home-schooling, which I posted about in the other thread, is made possible only because of royal influence: can you afford a Leto, a Jessica, a Thufir, and a Gurney, or can you be these things for your child(ren) by yourselves? Probably not. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not you want your child to be an expert at one thing, or just competent at a few. Multi-generational family businesses are "aristocratic tutoring" for the middle-class.


I make a point of your odd reading of the value of academic pursuits above because it seems like a running theme here. Expertise... If you weren't so fixated upon high school movie cliches and white people aaron sorkin neurosis elsewhere I would figure you are Chinese. Expertise, being good at things, what is an aristocrat to you?


Quote:3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.


Utmost importance to what? Not even getting into what you mean by sociability and charisma. Actually, I think answering the former would be the best way to lead us to your appreciation of the latter.

You say "spread their social wings and fly". This is the first time you've written anything that suggests an aspiration towards a general human flourishing rather than sheer practicality... and you're telling us that PUBLIC SCHOOL is necessary to prevent children from becoming DORKS. Logo, is that you behind that Guest veil? Neil Clark perhaps?

More seriously, you're being very ambiguous and conflating baseline social competency with acclimation to underculture and shifting back and forth within this created ambiguity to hector and harass people with an unrealistic and moronic paradigm. You say that one should be able to reach the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I don't believe that either of these faculties have anything to do with the public schooling experience, but a more coherent case could be made for the former (I still believe completely wrong), and you seem to be attempting to use that edge to smuggle in the latter suggestion (that everyone who does not acclimate to a public school becomes a snaggle toothed trad cath at the bowls meetup).

The idea that acclimation to underculture will engender any kind of nobility or depth or character or meaningful social competence is on the level of being lectured on the important of having a normal one with the abuelitas at the bar. It's stupid. It's grotesque. It's pure normopathy. As I said in the other thread, I went to school. Schools all the way. I started kindergarten when I was three (and did not have a good time there).

There's an implication that "isolation" is somehow innate in homeschooling. Of course unfortunately first world life in the 21st century has largely been broken down into segregated modules of clinicspace to be engaged with along mandated lines, with school being the primary one for youth. But this does not mean these places have a monopoly on human contact. Some kind of institutional experiences to get a touch of familiarity with the lower elements of the human experience and just a lot more contact with more people might not go astray, might even be a good idea. But your prescription, thousands of hours in one of the worst institutional environments devised solely to acclimate to the company of worse people, is one of the most obscenely bad ideas I have ever seen. What I would suggest, which unfortunately society REALLY DOES NOT LIKE OR WANT, so may not be practical, is job experience. Holt's old disciples, who were not snaggle toothed veggietales watching retards, used to try to get their children local jobs. And this used to be quite possible. This is the interesting problem your suggestion does bring to mind. School is awful, but what is left for an experience of integration into a complex social environment? The schools do not yet have a monopoly on early social experience, but they're obviously trying to get one, and have been gaining ground for decades.

Other point on my mind, you do not need to be the masses to reach them. Trump tried this and probably seriously hurt his second election. The undermen loved him best when he was a golden god. He did not speak like them. He did not relate to them. The whole appeal was that he was unlike them, but admirable. These people do not hate commie libtards for being unlike them. They hate them because they're weird retarded faggots who conspire to annihilate them.

Excellence is excellence, it has nothing to do with the underman and owes him nothing. The thousands of hours you're proposing the best spend imbibing his nature would be better spent blowing so far past him he doesn't matter anymore.


Quote:4) I consider pursuits in the artistic, athletic, or martial sectors to be the only noble "career paths." Pursuits that are a commitment to expression of the self, or a commitment to serving something larger than yourself. Working for animals has the potential to be noble, also. All of these avenues are perverted in the modern world, of course, but they still hold within them all the virtues that humans consider most objective. If you do not test your child's mettle in one or all of these things, early and often, you will most likely be resigning them to a lifetime of ineffectual mundanity. Watch Whiplash.


How about as pursuits other than career paths? I have a serious question. Are there things you like?


Last thing I'll leave this thread with, an old tv appearance with John Holt and a family who took to his ideas.


[Video: https://youtu.be/fXLWPpln0rQ]

Don't watch this for Holt's ideas. He is a brilliantly concise and readable writer. Get the theory from his books. Particularly How Children Fail and How Children Learn. I intend to post about those later. This is a sociology viewing. Holt, his people, other people reacting. Something I want to go into is perceptions of the homeschooled. Consider this a first contribution towards that end. Take this in as a scene, not a lecture or a presentation.

I'll be back to post about Holt's books and how RJ Rushdoony was the worst thing that could have ever happened to the tradition started by Holt.
#9
(03-06-2023, 11:30 PM)Guest Wrote: I've always entertained the idea of a sort of selected group tutelage as opposed to one on one home schooling. Even relatively wealthy families will struggle to commit the capital needed to retain a single tutor much less a designated tutor for each general subject. If one can find other likeminded families who would be willing to invest in high quality instructors wouldn't it be possible to effectively have all the benefits of public schooling: socialization, a somewhat standard curriculum, competition (especially for males); without all the negatives that come along with sending your kid to what is essentially a glorified prision?

Of course there would be the issue of what to teach and how to decide on pacing, ammount of dedication to each subject and even if your children were well socialized they would probably lack the skills necessary to deal with your average retard.

It could work in theory, but in practice, I think it would just end up being a compromise to the vision for your children just the same as public school would be. People home-school for different reasons, and I think what you're describing is liable to implode because of differences of opinion between parental groups. Cooperation would be needed to make it work, which means you would essentially have to cuck to someone else's ideal, and vice-versa: too volatile. At least public school isn't as intimate.

(03-07-2023, 01:31 AM)anthony Wrote: snip

This post is such a horrible, tangential slog. Please, get better at extracting the salient points out of whatever posts you're replying to, and also try to keep it concise. There are a dozen different questions that you're asking me to answer - even if I had all the time in the world, it wouldn't be worth it to me. Your posting behaviour exhibits neither "sociability" nor charisma.

(03-07-2023, 01:31 AM)anthony Wrote: Logo, is that you behind that Guest veil? Neil Clark perhaps?
Reddit.
#10
(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: 3) Sociability and charisma are of the utmost importance. I caught flak in the other thread for believing that the cut-off age for home-schooling should be around twelve, with children then being hardened off in the public school system so that they may spread their social wings and fly. While they are under your direct purview, this should also be a great concern for your - greater than academic competency. The intelligence, physical fitness, or general ability to perform at tasks is meaningless if they cannot affect the hearts and minds of their contemporaries, or at the very least hold a conversation. I realize people, especially young people, are vapid and utterly retarded nowadays, but nevertheless, what would it say about your offspring if, due to their isolation, they couldn't keep up with them? It pays to know how to dumb one's self down to fraternize with the unwashed masses.

This suggestion to enter public school at 12 is just baffling to me. Whatever socialization benefits you would garner from public schools would be achieved before teenage, not after it. Like I said before (and anecdotally, so take it as you may), homeschooled kids do not "spread their social wings and fly" when put into standard education at that age. Arguably, the only anecdote to the faggotry of public school is to have been in it from a young age, realize you were smarter than your peers, and completely tuned out years ago— a strategy I assume many of us here used during our schooling years. If I were to design an environment to ensure a child is as susceptible as possible to the mind-altering authoritarianism of schoolmarmotry and the effete cliques that form around it, I would subject them to Asiatic rigorous and isolatory self-education for a decade, and then hand them directly into the arms of a Education Degree-having fat old instructress the gates of the nearest Doctor Reverend Martin Luther King Junior High School. "It pays to know how to dumb one's self down" is a slippery slope; intellectual rigor is a muscle, a muscle that will become atrophied if neglected. "Dumbing yourself down" should more accurately be rendered as "act retarded until you are retarded". I knew kids who went to prestigious Waldorf Schools until high school and promptly lowered their IQ by 20 through a mix of weed and association with homosexuals. I must ask: are you non-American? Is there some element of public education that you have some cultural reason to see that I do not?

(03-06-2023, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: I have posted at length about this in the "child rearing" thread

Was this guy Retarded Guest #1 or Retarded Guest #3?
#11
Great thread. I was homeschooled since 2nd grade because my parents were not satisfied with public or private schooling. I attended a Classical school until the end of freshman year, at which point I started dual enrolling at a local college full-time.

I will tell any parent interested in homeschooling that suitability for homeschooling is entirely in the hands of the capability and quality of the parent. The vast majority of these parents likely don't understand that I wish to convey that they would be better off leaving their kids in public school. Assuming that the "Amarnite" is of utmost capability and quality, the School At Home method is the most superior. Every product of Unschooling that I have met is painfully mediocre. Every other method on the list besides SAH and Unschooling involve time wasted in "socialization" in the classroom. Such socialization is necessary, but not in an academic context. SAH provides an option for an isolated and controlled learning experience, assuming that the parent is competent and has enough time to learn and teach. For more specialized topics it would be best to take advantage of equally competent friends that can serve as tutors or mentors. All time spent before high school should be directed towards exposing the child to as much as possible and creating a thirst for Greatness. This can't be completed efficiently with anything but SAH.

The importance of "socialization" is real in that a child must realize what he is not and become disgusted with intellectual and social malaise. Recognition of an "other" is very important. The intention of this type of schooling is to create someone who is above the majority and that understands that fact. For this reason I advocate for participation in community-based clubs and dual-enrollment in high school. Community-based clubs, not being based out of a high school, tend to attract people above the median. For me, these clubs were competitive robotics and math. Athletic and "hard science" type clubs work best, simply because of the types of people you find there. Dual enrollment provides academic rigor, which is worthwhile as an exercise in discipline and pattern recognition. If a child cannot comfortably achieve academic/career success, you've done something wrong and something needs or needed to be changed. Dual enrollment also provides access to people at and below the median, which lends the the self-differentiation I've mentioned. An added bonus is that it provides credits for completing high school twice as fast, so you have more options for how much time you want that stage of life to last. I only stayed all 4 years because I wanted to take classes in a paralegal program.

So, socialization kept completely outside of academic environments up until high school. In high school, academics provided as a bare minimum and socialization introduced to only solidify self-differentiation and striving for something beyond. Not "spreading social something wings" nonsense and not normopathy, it's just necessary to immerse yourself in mundanity and ridiculousness in order to reject it totally.
#12
(03-06-2023, 09:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: I would say so. Seems like the best tradeoff. I'm sure some scout troops are pederast cults but you could probably figure that out. I don't see baseball, hockey, and soccer, maybe even tennis being too leftist. Basketball and football avoid because of negro worship and brain damage from the latter. There's lots of stuff kids can do to interact with other kids and adults. You can take them to chess club, rock climbing, have them set up a lemonade stand. Not going to school for 35+ hours a week +homework frees up like 40 hours to have all kinds of hobbies, develop skills, and have adventures.

I completely agree with this. The inefficiency of public schooling is literally criminal, both because public and most private school pupils alike are fucking retarded (low IQ), and also lazy (any actual respectable curriculum would be universally panned by the longhouse's education wing; all of these criticisms would boil down to, as always, "it's too hard Sad" "it's too much work Sad" "makes kids sad Sad" etc. I refuse to dilute the thread any further with spergage about how much I hate public school and its underlying slave moralism, so I'll leave you with a simple heuristic: how long do you think it should take a student to learn all math up to calculus? Go ahead, look back and try to remember what comprises all of K-12 math education (yes, I know none of you were the ones that took calculus senior year or not at all--think about normies and even "gifted kids" here, though). They spend several years learning material that could be covered in a fraction of the time! The more I ponder it, the more egregious it is revealed to be. What a neat microcosm for our entire sociopolitical structure (i.e. the misallocation, on an astronomical scale, of resources on babysitting human biomass and genetic refuse).

The point of my post is to shill sports like hockey as socialisation. I imagine you need only look at the demographics of an activity, both at the personal-local and national level (this has to do with what you said about basketball and football). As it turns out, Reddit is presently freaking out about another NHL team cancelling their pride night jerseys. Hundreds of comments in a couple minutes--anything else would be lucky to attract such buzz. They routinely sperg about players being from upper-middle-class households and families (they are irritatingly smug while doing so, like they're privy to some objective social and political truth that these dumb athletes just don't understand). It's just what you'd expect, dysgenics, overweight people who can't skate, and hicklib wannabe leftists crying about typical, happy families. It's enough to make a grown man cry!

Tennis, badminton, lacrosse, and hockey all stand out as great options. I imagine chess club, as you said, would be full of good influences. The crux of the matter must just be to monitor demography, because it is destiny, as always. Traditional sport culture will continue to resist change; it's exponentially more permissible to make gay or racist jokes in the locker room than it is a classroom headed by some crone with an education degree. Leftists wherever I find them seem to be despondent about this and see little prospect for that changing. It's obviously not the same environment as your twitter group chat posting sonnenrad gifs and clamouring for TND (nigger music, in particular, appeals to very many young White athletes), but you have to get a kid socialising somehow, and you have all the rest of their time to teach them the rest of the way and make whatever adjustments are necessary.

(NB: Hockey can be hard on the body wrt injuries, much like football, since it's really a bunch of little bumps and not a couple large hits that lead to issues like CTE, IIRC. Women's hockey is non-contact entirely, so girls can play it much more safely.)

Apologies for the disjointed post. Multitasking more than a bit at the moment.
#13
(03-07-2023, 08:12 AM)Guest Wrote:
(03-07-2023, 01:31 AM)anthony Wrote: snip

This post is such a horrible, tangential slog. Please, get better at extracting the salient points out of whatever posts you're replying to, and also try to keep it concise. There are a dozen different questions that you're asking me to answer - even if I had all the time in the world, it wouldn't be worth it to me. Your posting behaviour exhibits neither "sociability" nor charisma.

(03-07-2023, 01:31 AM)anthony Wrote: Logo, is that you behind that Guest veil? Neil Clark perhaps?
Reddit.

There are about three serious questions contained within the post. It's quite easy to just ctrl+f question marks in this thread. If extracting salient points is such a fine art why don't you show us how it's done? You can sigh and act superior like a high school english teacher. And I can call you a vapid posturing moron for it. There are no upvotes here so everyone will just make what they will of both of our contributions to the thread. You can say I lack italicised charisma, but I have Amarna Forum. What do you have to show for your efforts running obtuse defense for normalfreak anti-culture?

Your answer here is fundamentally unserious and incurious. I didn't like your posts. I don't like you. But I take you as a prompt to think. The issue is open, not closed. You take my response as a prompt to close off and shut down. You don't want to talk about this, and you don't want it talked about. Why are you here? All I see you offering are inconsistent and poor invocations of normopathic order in the face of vital curiosity looking away from the status quo.

Replying to this thread in parts to read it all and break up writing.


(03-07-2023, 05:29 PM)godvvins Wrote: The importance of "socialization" is real in that a child must realize what he is not and become disgusted with intellectual and social malaise. Recognition of an "other" is very important. The intention of this type of schooling is to create someone who is above the majority and that understands that fact. For this reason I advocate for participation in community-based clubs and dual-enrollment in high school. Community-based clubs, not being based out of a high school, tend to attract people above the median. For me, these clubs were competitive robotics and math. Athletic and "hard science" type clubs work best, simply because of the types of people you find there. Dual enrollment provides academic rigor, which is worthwhile as an exercise in discipline and pattern recognition. If a child cannot comfortably achieve academic/career success, you've done something wrong and something needs or needed to be changed. Dual enrollment also provides access to people at and below the median, which lends the the self-differentiation I've mentioned. An added bonus is that it provides credits for completing high school twice as fast, so you have more options for how much time you want that stage of life to last. I only stayed all 4 years because I wanted to take classes in a paralegal program.

As I said in my post, the state is on track to monopolise as much human activity as possible, but it's not done yet and varies place to place. These socialisation activities you mention sound neat, but how many are there, how accessible are they really, what kind of pick and choosing power is there? This is something I see potentially rising as a market opportunity in the future, or something which the state recognises in time and starts cracking down on. Optional, unintegrated, largely for its own sake activity and interest groups forming irl.

Frankly I think people are too far gone to want this for their own sakes, and if this does emerge it'll likely be as a self-conscious supplement to homeschooling niches, which now seem to be taking off in response to COVID and increasingly hard to ignore decay in the school system. Basically more intelligent and concerned parents getting concerned about extracurriculars. Would be interesting to observe. I wonder a lot if anything could organically emerge that gets as much sincere support and enthusiasm, and generates similar opportunities for competition and social participation as sports, which isn't sports. The thing I'm most pessimistic on for youth is access to opportunities which aren't railroading modules which bind one to institutional pathways and obligations. There is a striking lack of things to do of this sort offline, in an organic social setting. This of course I believe is one of the key reasons why the internet was able to completely eclipse grass-touching in human appeal.

(03-07-2023, 08:53 PM)Guest Wrote: hockey

Aryan.


[Video: https://youtu.be/TFHxSNIMMGY]
#14
i was having a dialogue in the post you quoted. i'm more than happy to engage in certain topics, but i'm not going to be the punching bag for your mental masturbation pedantic dissection of my each and every word. your post is ironically a perfect encapsulation of what i was trying to emphasize, which is that you can be the smartest man in the world and be right about everything and still affect NOTHING because your self-important intelligence is off-putting to people. if you're comfortable with being intelligent and well-read at the expense of being able to meaningfully connect with others then fine, but i believe there is a value in being balanced and not taking yourself so seriously. i will not be replying to you again
#15
(03-08-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: i was having a dialogue in the post you quoted. i'm more than happy to engage in certain topics, but i'm not going to be the punching bag for your mental masturbation pedantic dissection of my each and every word. your post is ironically a perfect encapsulation of what i was trying to emphasize, which is that you can be the smartest man in the world and be right about everything and still affect NOTHING because your self-important intelligence is off-putting to people. if you're comfortable with being intelligent and well-read at the expense of being able to meaningfully connect with others then fine, but i believe there is a value in being balanced and not taking yourself so seriously. i will not be replying to you again

This forum is living proof of my ability to reach people. I'm not concerned on that front. And fine if we don't have to read anymore of you here, but for the sake of the next site you visit fix your shift key. Might give you a better chance for passing as smart on your next attempt. Wherever that might be.
#16
(03-08-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: but i believe there is a value in being balanced and not taking yourself so seriously.

Why do they always trout this out.
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
#17
(03-08-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: i believe there is a value in being balanced and not taking yourself so seriously. 

I took your advice and I have nothing to show for it, other than a lifetime of letting shitty people walk all over me to make sure I'm still being humble. Anthony won't take your advice and he has his own forum. Hock this stuff if you want, but take some time to consider whether your advice is actually affecting people positively or if it's just creating more room for mediocrity in the world.
#18
(03-08-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: i was having a dialogue in the post you quoted. i'm more than happy to engage in certain topics, but i'm not going to be the punching bag for your mental masturbation pedantic dissection of my each and every word. your post is ironically a perfect encapsulation of what i was trying to emphasize, which is that you can be the smartest man in the world and be right about everything and still affect NOTHING because your self-important intelligence is off-putting to people. if you're comfortable with being intelligent and well-read at the expense of being able to meaningfully connect with others then fine, but i believe there is a value in being balanced and not taking yourself so seriously. i will not be replying to you again

[Image: https://media.tenor.com/pr9ydI4YLTMAAAAM...-wojak.gif]
#19
Okay that's enough of that. Here's more Holt, if anybody's curious. John Gatto was more committed to the idea of putting together proper lectures and talks on all of this, but I consider Holt the far more interesting character.


[Video: https://youtu.be/N1yAGsX1DJk]


[Video: https://youtu.be/Ep5SkRUkoCg]

I like the idea of making forum threads rich in different media, for now I'm mostly just sharing videos and such, but trying to get into the idea of sharing more stuff to look at all the time. Holt was an interesting guy. Not really a speaker. That's why I particularly like what talk we have from him. Very socially unrefined outsider trying to be straight with people. I might share some excerpts from his books soon. In particular I think How Children Learn might be interesting. Also his actual practice of homeschooling stuff.
#20
(03-07-2023, 11:49 PM)anthony Wrote: As I said in my post, the state is on track to monopolise as much human activity as possible, but it's not done yet and varies place to place. These socialisation activities you mention sound neat, but how many are there, how accessible are they really, what kind of pick and choosing power is there? This is something I see potentially rising as a market opportunity in the future, or something which the state recognises in time and starts cracking down on. Optional, unintegrated, largely for its own sake activity and interest groups forming irl.

Frankly I think people are too far gone to want this for their own sakes, and if this does emerge it'll likely be as a self-conscious supplement to homeschooling niches, which now seem to be taking off in response to COVID and increasingly hard to ignore decay in the school system. Basically more intelligent and concerned parents getting concerned about extracurriculars. Would be interesting to observe. I wonder a lot if anything could organically emerge that gets as much sincere support and enthusiasm, and generates similar opportunities for competition and social participation as sports, which isn't sports. The thing I'm most pessimistic on for youth is access to opportunities which aren't railroading modules which bind one to institutional pathways and obligations. There is a striking lack of things to do of this sort offline, in an organic social setting. This of course I believe is one of the key reasons why the internet was able to completely eclipse grass-touching in human appeal.

Homeschooling is popular in my state, so ease of access and diversity of choice was there. I don't believe I see a market opportunity in this unless homeschooling explodes in popularity, which I don't think it will. I don't believe the state will crack down on homeschooling for the same reason. Unless there's reason to believe that enough parents are smart enough to see the alternative option and take initiative, I am not convinced there will be a mass exodus from conventional schooling. Homeschooling will get more popular, but these groups will remain small and self-contained. There's probably a lot of coping from parents that they don't do what's best for their child for the sake of convenience. Transportation, meals, extracurricular activities all "free" and paid for already is quite easy to get comfortable with. In a way, that is the state's way of "cracking down" on independent groups. Homeschooling is expensive, time-consuming, and can't tap into tax dollars. My community-based extracurricular groups were only a fraction as well-funded as the public school ones. If the state wanted to enrich human activity, it would subsidize those independent groups. It's exactly as you said.

I'm not upset about it, though. The vast majority of the kids that are in public school really just do belong in public school. Any unlikely initiative taken by their parents would be wasted.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)