First, I really appreciate what you are saying here about education as ultimately an exercise in cultivating self-governance; and how this applies to both teacher and student. The teacher, too, must become self-governing enough that they don't outsource their role to an 'outside' system. This is the type of virtue that must be cultivated for entrepreneurship, too. (There is a political commentary to be made here about the fact that this type of self-governance is an essential pre-requisite to wide-scale liberty, but I'll leave that aside for now).
On a broader view, the clash between viewing education as values-focused (or character-focused) versus skill-focused has always been a tension in Western society. (Well, more than Western society, but we are having this discussion in a Western context, so I'll limit the frame to that). When I took a year-long course in Greek Thought & Literature at UChicago, I was exposed to how much this battle has always played out going way far back into Western history.
The best characters always tried to blend the two, i.e., Aristotle with his 'practical wisdom' (phronesis, φρόνησις); or Xenophon who emphasizes both the need to 'manage a household' but also develop 'civic virtue'. Even certain Greek plays are written exactly about this tension: Sophocles writes Creon to represent the figure who prioritizes practical education (governance, management), while Antigone represents moral or cultural education (literature, history).
The modern, i.e, post-WWII framework of public education introduced an implicit agreement that 'school' would be for skills-development in a global economy, while the 'home' would remain be the primary place for 'values-development'. However, what we've seen over the past several decades is that 'school' more and more tries to intervene and usurp the private domain of character-building, all while it fails to transmit skills. (One of most pernicious trends, of course, being a curriculum that tries to cultivate various socio-sexual 'identities' in students from a young age, instead of you know, teaching multiplication tables.)
I think in this emerging 'networked age', families are re-negotiating both the terms of physical and digital community – usually trying to somehow integrate both. The postwar consensus on centralized knowledge delivery is dying, if not dead already.
Thus, you have people like Joe Norman (@normonics) who has, on the one hand, completely embraced the back-to-the-land homestead lifestyle of the New England Catholic, and on the other hand works for a startup (@synthesisschool) creating really effective and interactive AI tutors for all levels of mathematics. That's a pretty good example of a novel approach to education that promotes self-governance. In the morning, set your kid up for an interactive lesson on geometry, and take them skiing and wood-chopping in the afternoon.
But, even if one doesn't lean into technological solutions as hard as Joe, I can imagine an emergent network of topic-specific tutors within a given physical and/or digital network. Basically, trustworthy individuals who have aligned-enough values with parents, that create content and learnings that supplement the parents' overall educational framework, and fill in essential gaps that go beyond foundational or general skills; kind of an adaption of the aristocratic rotating governess model, but for the internet age.
I've often thought that if someone wanted to, they might be able create a profitable business model where they travel to homes or communities to teach highly intelligent kids about calculus and organic chemistry (something their parents can't do) for some weeks. Because the kids are at home, they get to spend afternoons and weekends doing craftwork, community service, sports, performance arts, etc. – something even the tutor could participate in. (This is something I've seriously thought about, and yearned to participate in, but I'm not in a position to make it happen well, unfortunately.)
Alright, this turned out to be a way longer ramble than I intended. I've just been situating myself at the intersection of technology, education, civic development, etc. for many years, so on a post like this, it all comes flowing out. The point is, there is a ton of room for innovation here, and it's exciting to see people look at the vast potential here and approach it with the seriousness that you do.
Thanks for your insight Rajeev. Always appreciated. There is incredible potential here and the myopia and inertia that we approach education with often frustrates me and I wish the postwar consensus on education would die a little faster.
I like the idea of a traveling tutor. As I understand it, early American education in rural areas was done this way: you'd board a tutor and they'd teach your kids. Funny to think that 150 years ago educational reformers were pushing for public school, education for all to rescue the ignorant masses. It worked and now any real reform is in getting as far away from that model as possible.
> The modern, i.e, post-WWII framework of public education introduced an implicit agreement that 'school' would be for skills-development in a global economy, while the 'home' would remain be the primary place for 'values-development'.
Oh, modern education is also "value focused". It's just that the "values" it focuses on are completely insane.
Extremely thought-provoking essay, Mr. Perrone, eliciting observations and comparisons with other aspects of child development and how it both leads and follows changes in the social contract.
Great article and thanks for the Scientific American link. Reading that it always astounds me how scientists are more than happy to advocate for blatantly unconstitutional laws, like federal monitoring of all homeschoolers, without worrying about the legal repercussions. I’m glad homeschooling is as prominent as it is now, but we always have to be vigilant that the government doesn’t try to change that.
Great article. Homeschooling is hard mode, like the new term gaining popularity in SV: "founder mode".
But I would like to dig a little deeper into what appears, at least on the surface, to be a big difference in my philosophy and yours. You emphasize the need to have status within the family system instead of the external system. I tend to embrace the outer system (in part) as a good testing ground.
I want young men to embrace the competition, go on their journey and prove themselves. And I want young women to embrace being judges of excellence and choosing those young men who embody it. To do this you need a venue outside the family and outside the close community.
Outside status is both risky (you can lose and you can get lost) and noisy (status doesn't perfectly match fitness/ability). But risk is an essential part of masculinity (including, in my view, spiritual risks).
Great question. I'd say our views are not wholly incompatible. But I believe two things about the external system to be (generally) true: 1) the external system is toxic to families, and therefore unsustainable and 2) the external system doesn't offer great competition or a real proving ground for most men. If you're going to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, etc., the external system is probably going to be a good bet. (probably)
But for the rest of us, the external system is lethargic, induces apathy and doesn't produce men who have gone on a journey and come home the victor. I believe it's up to families and communities to rebuild the structures that can give men this chance. And then, young women will have something good to choose from.
I agree completely that risk is an essential part of masculinity. Does any of that make sense?
Just to be sure, but you went out there and proved yourself in the external system, right? Like you got a prestigious job at the very least to prove that you could do it? Of course it's bullshit, but aren't you proud of it, too?
I did take a traditional route... AP classes, college degree, internships, jobs, MBA, Fortune 100 companies, sure. I'm not too proud of it no. I believe everything that was positive from that route, anything I am proud of, could've been done in another way.
Am I proud I worked for 3+ years at Amazon HQ? That I was once a management consultant? That I have 2 degrees? Kind of? maybe? not too much. Certainly some useful skills and lessons I can apply elsewhere in my life. But like I said, I don't think those skills had to come from the external system.
EDIT: I don't think the external system was all that challenging, at least on the path I took.
Oh, man, I have a lot to say about this one.
First, I really appreciate what you are saying here about education as ultimately an exercise in cultivating self-governance; and how this applies to both teacher and student. The teacher, too, must become self-governing enough that they don't outsource their role to an 'outside' system. This is the type of virtue that must be cultivated for entrepreneurship, too. (There is a political commentary to be made here about the fact that this type of self-governance is an essential pre-requisite to wide-scale liberty, but I'll leave that aside for now).
On a broader view, the clash between viewing education as values-focused (or character-focused) versus skill-focused has always been a tension in Western society. (Well, more than Western society, but we are having this discussion in a Western context, so I'll limit the frame to that). When I took a year-long course in Greek Thought & Literature at UChicago, I was exposed to how much this battle has always played out going way far back into Western history.
The best characters always tried to blend the two, i.e., Aristotle with his 'practical wisdom' (phronesis, φρόνησις); or Xenophon who emphasizes both the need to 'manage a household' but also develop 'civic virtue'. Even certain Greek plays are written exactly about this tension: Sophocles writes Creon to represent the figure who prioritizes practical education (governance, management), while Antigone represents moral or cultural education (literature, history).
The modern, i.e, post-WWII framework of public education introduced an implicit agreement that 'school' would be for skills-development in a global economy, while the 'home' would remain be the primary place for 'values-development'. However, what we've seen over the past several decades is that 'school' more and more tries to intervene and usurp the private domain of character-building, all while it fails to transmit skills. (One of most pernicious trends, of course, being a curriculum that tries to cultivate various socio-sexual 'identities' in students from a young age, instead of you know, teaching multiplication tables.)
I think in this emerging 'networked age', families are re-negotiating both the terms of physical and digital community – usually trying to somehow integrate both. The postwar consensus on centralized knowledge delivery is dying, if not dead already.
Thus, you have people like Joe Norman (@normonics) who has, on the one hand, completely embraced the back-to-the-land homestead lifestyle of the New England Catholic, and on the other hand works for a startup (@synthesisschool) creating really effective and interactive AI tutors for all levels of mathematics. That's a pretty good example of a novel approach to education that promotes self-governance. In the morning, set your kid up for an interactive lesson on geometry, and take them skiing and wood-chopping in the afternoon.
But, even if one doesn't lean into technological solutions as hard as Joe, I can imagine an emergent network of topic-specific tutors within a given physical and/or digital network. Basically, trustworthy individuals who have aligned-enough values with parents, that create content and learnings that supplement the parents' overall educational framework, and fill in essential gaps that go beyond foundational or general skills; kind of an adaption of the aristocratic rotating governess model, but for the internet age.
I've often thought that if someone wanted to, they might be able create a profitable business model where they travel to homes or communities to teach highly intelligent kids about calculus and organic chemistry (something their parents can't do) for some weeks. Because the kids are at home, they get to spend afternoons and weekends doing craftwork, community service, sports, performance arts, etc. – something even the tutor could participate in. (This is something I've seriously thought about, and yearned to participate in, but I'm not in a position to make it happen well, unfortunately.)
Alright, this turned out to be a way longer ramble than I intended. I've just been situating myself at the intersection of technology, education, civic development, etc. for many years, so on a post like this, it all comes flowing out. The point is, there is a ton of room for innovation here, and it's exciting to see people look at the vast potential here and approach it with the seriousness that you do.
Thanks for your insight Rajeev. Always appreciated. There is incredible potential here and the myopia and inertia that we approach education with often frustrates me and I wish the postwar consensus on education would die a little faster.
I like the idea of a traveling tutor. As I understand it, early American education in rural areas was done this way: you'd board a tutor and they'd teach your kids. Funny to think that 150 years ago educational reformers were pushing for public school, education for all to rescue the ignorant masses. It worked and now any real reform is in getting as far away from that model as possible.
> The modern, i.e, post-WWII framework of public education introduced an implicit agreement that 'school' would be for skills-development in a global economy, while the 'home' would remain be the primary place for 'values-development'.
Oh, modern education is also "value focused". It's just that the "values" it focuses on are completely insane.
I literally implied that in the next sentence.
Sorry, I glossed over part of your comment.
Great article! As a father of 2 young boys (3 & 2) a few things are becoming clear to me:
First, that I need to lead in the networking aspect. , the ones we've found so far are fully run by moms and Im the only dad showing up..
Second that the more I take on passion projects and business ideas in my bucket list, the more I can teach my boys.
Fantastic! This is exactly when men need to be doing.
Extremely thought-provoking essay, Mr. Perrone, eliciting observations and comparisons with other aspects of child development and how it both leads and follows changes in the social contract.
Really solid insights! Practical and idealistic. Thank you
Thank you! That's exactly what I'm aiming for.
Great article and thanks for the Scientific American link. Reading that it always astounds me how scientists are more than happy to advocate for blatantly unconstitutional laws, like federal monitoring of all homeschoolers, without worrying about the legal repercussions. I’m glad homeschooling is as prominent as it is now, but we always have to be vigilant that the government doesn’t try to change that.
Thank you, and agreed. Urgent need to ensure that the right to be self-governed is protected in as many ways as possible, including homeschooling.
Great article. Homeschooling is hard mode, like the new term gaining popularity in SV: "founder mode".
But I would like to dig a little deeper into what appears, at least on the surface, to be a big difference in my philosophy and yours. You emphasize the need to have status within the family system instead of the external system. I tend to embrace the outer system (in part) as a good testing ground.
I want young men to embrace the competition, go on their journey and prove themselves. And I want young women to embrace being judges of excellence and choosing those young men who embody it. To do this you need a venue outside the family and outside the close community.
Outside status is both risky (you can lose and you can get lost) and noisy (status doesn't perfectly match fitness/ability). But risk is an essential part of masculinity (including, in my view, spiritual risks).
Are these views compatible with your perspective?
Great question. I'd say our views are not wholly incompatible. But I believe two things about the external system to be (generally) true: 1) the external system is toxic to families, and therefore unsustainable and 2) the external system doesn't offer great competition or a real proving ground for most men. If you're going to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, etc., the external system is probably going to be a good bet. (probably)
But for the rest of us, the external system is lethargic, induces apathy and doesn't produce men who have gone on a journey and come home the victor. I believe it's up to families and communities to rebuild the structures that can give men this chance. And then, young women will have something good to choose from.
I agree completely that risk is an essential part of masculinity. Does any of that make sense?
Just to be sure, but you went out there and proved yourself in the external system, right? Like you got a prestigious job at the very least to prove that you could do it? Of course it's bullshit, but aren't you proud of it, too?
I did take a traditional route... AP classes, college degree, internships, jobs, MBA, Fortune 100 companies, sure. I'm not too proud of it no. I believe everything that was positive from that route, anything I am proud of, could've been done in another way.
Am I proud I worked for 3+ years at Amazon HQ? That I was once a management consultant? That I have 2 degrees? Kind of? maybe? not too much. Certainly some useful skills and lessons I can apply elsewhere in my life. But like I said, I don't think those skills had to come from the external system.
EDIT: I don't think the external system was all that challenging, at least on the path I took.
I'm looking for some guidance and recommendations on homeschool curriculum for my 2nd grader? Thank you
What topics? What have you tried?