Been chipping away at something related to this for a while. Can't for the life of me come up with a good name for it, so I've settled on a descriptive one: Meaning-Grasping Subcultures.
It's a common pattern during periods where the current sources - institutions, ideologies, etc - of purpose are failing. People naturally begin experimenting.
Most fail. A few catch on. Some of the old ones die off, while others adapt, and some create hybrids with some of the new ones that caught on.
In a virtual school, it is very financially sustainable. Our FT tuition is $14,000 per year, multiplied by 15 is $210,000. As of 2023, the average US per pupil expenditure was almost $16,000 (not including capital expenditure),
We spend less than the average public school. Yet at scale, we are definitely profitable.
I created an earlier version of this program in San Francisco where we had to charge $40,000 per year almost a decade ago - it is probably closer to $55,000 today. In a brick and mortar setting in a high cost city like SF, both facilities and salaries are much higher.
We have staff from around the world - some of them are making in the 90% percentile of wages in their regions, and it is still much cheaper than low wages in SF. Very little of the average public school expenditure goes to classroom teachers. As a virtual school, we can pay teachers better while spending less and still being profitable.
I doesn't seem as though you understood the question. The ratio as presented - "Our adult to child ratio is 15:1 ..." - is 15 adults to one child, not 15 children to one adult. The latter is reasonable. The former is bonkers.
This is magnificent (do acquire the book Another Sort of Learning for a spectacular bibliography, and a theory compatible with your own).
But what if students, parents LACK “some shared belief in ideals, the heroic, and the sacred?”
Many believe in a more-or-less meaningless universe, so moral direction, much less formation is impossible. Don’t we have the task of disabusing people of nihilism? But this, in turn is only possible if the universe does betray signs of a telos, an ordering principle or principles.
Here the religious person, the Christian apologist perhaps, is needed to address the abyss, the lack of shared societal meaning
I would describe myself as a Platonist, and ultimately secular rather than religious. That said, I also would agree that a religious foundation provides a clearer foundation for many.
That said, as the world seems to becoming more secular, perhaps we need to develop robust secular virtue cultures. But in a world of educational choice, I'm in favor of whatever supports young people in living flourishing lives. I'm a radical pluralist on that front.
I used to think homeschooling or extreme school choice would solve this quickly, but I think the parents would be overwhelmed, and the masses would scream for a dictator (bringing us back to square one).
So an open market would be great for many, but the vast majority of parents would be so lost, that there would need to be some other resources for them to figure out what to do with the responsibility and agency to actually educate their children.
Even at the rapid pace at which the US is moving into choice, parents will find their ways. Of course we need resources for parents to make better choices, and many people are developing many such resources. But I see gradually a movement in which becoming more sophisticated about education becomes normal.
You might enjoy this piece which I wrote many years ago,
Been chipping away at something related to this for a while. Can't for the life of me come up with a good name for it, so I've settled on a descriptive one: Meaning-Grasping Subcultures.
It's a common pattern during periods where the current sources - institutions, ideologies, etc - of purpose are failing. People naturally begin experimenting.
Most fail. A few catch on. Some of the old ones die off, while others adapt, and some create hybrids with some of the new ones that caught on.
"Our adult to child ratio is 15:1 ..."
15 adults to each child? How is that financially sustainable?
In a virtual school, it is very financially sustainable. Our FT tuition is $14,000 per year, multiplied by 15 is $210,000. As of 2023, the average US per pupil expenditure was almost $16,000 (not including capital expenditure),
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/public-school-spending-per-pupil.html
We spend less than the average public school. Yet at scale, we are definitely profitable.
I created an earlier version of this program in San Francisco where we had to charge $40,000 per year almost a decade ago - it is probably closer to $55,000 today. In a brick and mortar setting in a high cost city like SF, both facilities and salaries are much higher.
We have staff from around the world - some of them are making in the 90% percentile of wages in their regions, and it is still much cheaper than low wages in SF. Very little of the average public school expenditure goes to classroom teachers. As a virtual school, we can pay teachers better while spending less and still being profitable.
I doesn't seem as though you understood the question. The ratio as presented - "Our adult to child ratio is 15:1 ..." - is 15 adults to one child, not 15 children to one adult. The latter is reasonable. The former is bonkers.
Really interesting post. I see what you mean, which is that any education has to have a moral component.
This is magnificent (do acquire the book Another Sort of Learning for a spectacular bibliography, and a theory compatible with your own).
But what if students, parents LACK “some shared belief in ideals, the heroic, and the sacred?”
Many believe in a more-or-less meaningless universe, so moral direction, much less formation is impossible. Don’t we have the task of disabusing people of nihilism? But this, in turn is only possible if the universe does betray signs of a telos, an ordering principle or principles.
Here the religious person, the Christian apologist perhaps, is needed to address the abyss, the lack of shared societal meaning
I would describe myself as a Platonist, and ultimately secular rather than religious. That said, I also would agree that a religious foundation provides a clearer foundation for many.
That said, as the world seems to becoming more secular, perhaps we need to develop robust secular virtue cultures. But in a world of educational choice, I'm in favor of whatever supports young people in living flourishing lives. I'm a radical pluralist on that front.
I used to think homeschooling or extreme school choice would solve this quickly, but I think the parents would be overwhelmed, and the masses would scream for a dictator (bringing us back to square one).
So an open market would be great for many, but the vast majority of parents would be so lost, that there would need to be some other resources for them to figure out what to do with the responsibility and agency to actually educate their children.
Even at the rapid pace at which the US is moving into choice, parents will find their ways. Of course we need resources for parents to make better choices, and many people are developing many such resources. But I see gradually a movement in which becoming more sophisticated about education becomes normal.
You might enjoy this piece which I wrote many years ago,
https://edreform.com/2006/09/why-do-we-have-better-product-information-on-sports-cars-than-we-do-on-schools-michael-strong/
Michael, ping me. I would love to discuss
what about that "subculture" that is scouting?
Is this an ad? They should make you put something at the top of this indicating that you're trying to sell something.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
― Carl Gustav Jung
I wish I liked being lied to.