I don&#x27;t suppose I can argue your point about the origin of the term. Perhaps &quot;professional shit-stirrer&quot; would be more accurate.<p>Certainly homeschooling isn&#x27;t scalable. There are techniques, methods, curricula, which can be (and are quite widely) shared, but no one can systematize it into something which will guarantee a good result in every case. Unfortunately, I see no reason to imagine anyone can so systematize anything else, either. After all, the current lamentable state of affairs is the result of concentrated effort, over a period at least of decades, on the part of many of the world&#x27;s finest minds. If <i>they</i> can&#x27;t come up with a &quot;one size fits all&quot;, why expect that anyone else can? Perhaps the &quot;social sciences&quot;, so called, are fundamentally in error. Perhaps every family and every child is unique, a non-reproducible n=1 experiment -- and perhaps, cast in those terms, it becomes a little easier to see just how wrongheaded the concept of a &quot;one size fits all&quot; solution for human beings might possibly be.<p>As far as I can tell, the most common objection to homeschooling is that it doesn&#x27;t work in the absence of parents who are interested and closely involved with the progress of their children -- not in the modern &quot;helicopter&quot; style borne only of a desire <i>not to be seen</i> to parent <i>badly</i>, but rather in a consistent and, to the extent possible, effective fashion, out of both genuine interest in the wellbeing and success of their offspring, and a sense of the duty to society which also inheres in parenting, that is, to bequeath upon the world children whose presence is more likely to be overall a benefit than a detriment. Or, to put it simply, that homeschooling can&#x27;t work reliably because it doesn&#x27;t work at all without good parents.<p>Unfortunately, as the last decades have also shown us, without good parents, nothing <i>else</i> works, either -- and a sufficiently broken system can easily overcome the effects of even the best parents, if only by being vastly larger than them and all but inescapable. Here we have a Yale professor telling us that the existing system is sufficiently broken -- and not really telling us anything we didn&#x27;t already know. Do we assume that nothing else can work either, and that our kids are doomed? Or do we seek alternatives, even those which are utterly alien to the sort of systems-first thinking that got us into this mess?<p>I can&#x27;t speak for anyone else, of course, and I&#x27;m not raising any kids of my own, but it seems to me that the only option compatible with even the most basic concept of parental responsibility is the latter one. After all, we&#x27;ve not only seen ourselves that what we&#x27;ve got doesn&#x27;t work; here we have one of its highest exponents <i>telling</i> us it doesn&#x27;t work, which should be authoritative enough for just about anybody. Perhaps something else might work better? It&#x27;d be very hard for anything else to work <i>worse</i>.