Or the poorest. Especially if you cannot find a job that pays more than daytime child care costs. Then it’s cheaper to have a parent stay at home, despite the poverty level, because any daycare available costs more than any available job brings in.

That's true for young kids, but not preteens. By that age they're old enough to stay home alone for a couple of hours after school. Hence the term 'latchkey kid'.

It isn't always a choice: Most child care places simply do not take pre-teens - they stop after elementary school, as do many after-school programs.

I'll also add that it isn't just a couple hours after school: It is holidays that parents don't get off work. It is summers without school. It is 6-8 hours after school while parents work second shift. It, in general, doesn't matter if your child is mature enough to stay home during the summer or late into the evening, the child care isn't for them.

Return to employment after years at home can be quite hard. Not saying impossible, but options are severly limited and plus it is massive adjustment.

Any gap in employment or long-term unemployment is difficult to get over, but staying home with children seems to have its own stigma. My mother had quite a problem with this: She stayed home as she could while we were growing up, occasionally working when we really needed money. She started working more when my brother finally didn't need as much care (my brother is 11 years younger, so there was quite a stretch).

She got told no because she didn't have recent work experience. Childcare simply doesn't count unless you are getting paid to watch other people's children.

That's true if you were just managing the home. I know that "homework" and caring for kids alone may sometimes be exhausting, but regularly allocating time for studying is usually worth it for everyone. I personally know two mothers who successfully changed their careers for better during their stay-at-home years.

Your assertion that only families among "the wealthiest in the world" have non-school childcare arrangements is incorrect.

I agree that everyone should have access to better child-rearing opportunities than are offered by school, especially public school in North America. I'd love to see homework eliminated, more time in school devoted to play, more tracking & opportunities for everyone to develop their strengths (be they calculus or auto mechanics), and the elimination of compulsory secondary schooling (let the kids come who want to come & make it rewarding enough that they do, rather than threatening to jail their parents to bring them to heel).

I am ignoring the aspects of your comment directed towards me personally.

I think some of the replies that add "poorest" may have taken your comment too literally. Truly there is no greater treasure in the world than be able to spend that amount of time with your child. We have some neighbors who are not too well off that homeschool their kids, and they are the most engaged and loving family I know on our block. It makes me smile any time I see them interact.

> We have some neighbors who are not too well off that homeschool their kids

This is exactly the type of situation ttul seems unaware of. The "only rich white people homeschool" trope is a myth from people who are unfamiliar with the much more complex reality of the situation.

I am sorry. But if you are rich enough to have one parent stay home and school your kids, you are rich by any reasonable measure.

Does being at-or-below the median family income for your location make you "rich by any reasonable measure?"

As someone who grew up in a fire trap of a falling apart trailer that was 25 years older than me deep in the Appalachian mountains, generally what most would consider poor as hell for an American, I was homeschooled. You can try and convince me we were rich I guess, but it wouldn't work.

If they're buying iPhones for their kids like the original author's post they're also wealthy. So your point is moot.

Or bad with money.

It's ridiculous that you were downvoted because this is exactly right. Assuming one works federal minimum wage for 40hrs/week and 52 weeks a year with no days off and no taxes, they make roughly $15k by my math. How could a three-person family, with two parents making $30k total, possibly afford to homeschool the child?

It's right, but it's kind of a non-sequitur. It seems to be a response to "you should be homeschooling your kid", which sequoia didn't actually say. They suggested the problem is "school taking up 100% of her time, energy, and attention", and obviously homeschooling is how they are addressing it themselves, but you can imagine other solutions. Off-hand:

* For starters, school doesn't last until 6:30pm unless you let it. Extracurriculars are extra. If you need afternoon child care (and most of us do), there may be less directed, more creative options available.

* Schools can make changes, and you can encourage your teacher / school / district to do so. Less homework (an idea which has some science behind it iiuc) at least. Maybe a later start time (although this runs into tension with parents' schedules).

Every time there is discussion about kids on HN, someone wants me to leave the work and stay at home. Usually someone who would not do it himself. I did not downvoted, but I see how it is getting old.

Also, middle school that is from morning till 18:30 is definitely not the norm here. There is also this part where every single flaw of every educational system is assumed to be unchangeable and universal.

So it is not even like the argument would made sense.