Kids are far behind in school • Hacker News Board

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#321

Post by digisign » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #202

philipov wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being smart and understanding the material are the important endpoints. This statement contains a serious misapprehension and requires revision. My grandfather would often say that "understanding" swimming won't help you when you're drowning. You need to be able to swim. You can't get to a point where you can swim through mathematics without solving a lot of math problems. You don't become good at something by stop…

It's really hard to practice and develop study skills with material that the student is proficient in without effort. You can understand what study skills are, but not really apply them and experience them working. Study skills can be super important, and it's nicer to develop them early rather than just in time in your third year of undergrad, but access to challenging subjects at a challenging pace in high school o…

If you're bored, move forward in the material on your own. I can't remember a school ever trying to stop me from starting the next chapter. Go far enough and you may be moved up a year.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#322

Post by wiredfool » Mon, May 23, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #237

diputsmonro wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you think that every single child was previously slacking off and is capable of effectively working double time without getting overwhelmed, then it's still a problem to be concerned about.

> Unless you think that every single child was previously slacking off and is capable of effectively working double time without getting overwhelmed I actually do think this. "John Stuart was educated by his father, with the advice and assistance of Jeremy Bentham and Francis Place. He was given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his s…

This sounds suspiciously like JEDD Mason in Terra Ignota.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#323

Post by epage » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #38

bigDinosaur wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people have stated that 'the kids will be fine' quite consistently. Also, all costs other than deaths have been underplayed by people in favour of lockdowns. Memory-holing this is literally insane (where insane = disconnected from reality). That's not to say that what was done wasn't the best of a suite of bad options. But I saw nothing but fairly extreme downplaying of the consequences of lockdowns from people…

It might have to do with the media enviroment we're exposed to; I'm from Norway, and I feel like the impact on children has been on the forefront of everyone's mind all the time, in domestic news, in domestic policy, and in my impression of international news. But the view from within the US might be completely different. One problem I've seemed to notice in the US is that you have the "somewhat reasonable" side and…

Part of it is how we do discourse in the country puts people on the defensive which leads to them being polarized. I sit in the middle of this in a couple of spots and its maddening. For brevity, I'll stick to just vaccines and anti-vaxxers.

My wife had a negative response to a vaccine as well as her brother. My mother-in-law passed before we had children and never thought to ask for more details until we had a kid. When we were touring hospitals for our first, we asked about vaccination policies. We tried to explain that we didn't want our kid vaccinated at the hospital but at the pediatrician's appointment a couple days later so we could first develop a base line so could identify any negative response if one shows up. The nurse talked over us about how important vaccines are, acting like we didn't want them at all. Turns out my daughter did have an unexplainable neurological response after the second dose. Our first pediatrician's office was fully supportive of us not continuing just that series (I suspect their "expert" we saw after the incident was anti-vax). We moved and had to find a pediatrician's office that carried the combo shot without the problematic one. We found an office that had it but the pediatrician they assigned us kept giving us problems until we saw a neurologist and the neurologist told them to back off (they were the one to classify it as unexplainable).

We understand the value of vaccines and encourage them. While our kid isn't completing a series, we understand the importance of everyone around them completing it to keep our kid safe. Pro-vaccine people treat us like we are anti-vaxxers. I could easily see this leading other people into the anti-vax camp because most people don't listen but anti-vax people would. Another social pressure that could push someone in our circumstance to be anti-vax is the laws. Anti-vax people have been abusing the system so pro-vax people have been tightening things down. We've been keeping an eye on this, worried what it'll take to get our kid through these legal requirements if we live in some of those states. The only political group that would protect our kid is the anti-vaxxers.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#324

Post by randomtwiddler » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:24 PM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #4

Interesting that it can be quantified somewhat… but the suggested interventions (extra tutoring, summer school, longer days) are just not going to happen. That education is gone. If they happen anywhere, it’ll only be rich kids.

Parents can educate their own children. The costs for well outlined curriculum in the digital age are minimal.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#325

Post by micromacrofoot » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:26 PM UTC

oneoff786 wrote: post #310

micromacrofoot wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US 200,000+ children lost caregivers to covid. So technically most were fine, but that's also not a number to scoff at. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/200000-us-children-lost...

That seems… impossible? There’s been about 70k deaths in the range of 20-49. What’s a child? What’s a caregiver? I’d also point out it’s not “technically most” it’s 99.7%

It's from this study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Children are people under 18.

> We considered parents and custodial grandparents as primary caregivers, and co-residing grandparents or older kin (aged 60–84 years) as secondary caregivers.

Lot of kids are raised by their grandparents.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#326

Post by dsadsadsaddsa » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #44

criddell wrote: post #16

Any guesses what the long term consequences might be? I have a hard time imagining anything more dire than the immediate consequences of social isolation during the pandemic. In other words, I think the kids that make it through are going to be okay.

Probably not much, is my gut. Catching up on relevant academic items is easier than we typically acknowledge. Is why those kids that were reading at an early age are typically not that ahead in a few years. Not that this should be dismissed. But I hazard it is not a panic item.

I can only agree, if we are talking about kids who are already going to do well. For those kids who only went to school because it was socially demanded and part of life, then I could not disagree more. I know a headmaster of multiple schools in a deprived area near where I live, who said his kids will never recover because they've forgotten how to go to school (or never learned, depending on the timing).

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#327

Post by em-bee » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #309

em-bee wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not what i meant to say. what's wrong is that we keep trying to find out who or what is at fault instead of trying to find out how to actually make things better. the question is: how do you encourage men to stick around? what makes them leave? who or what is incentivizing single motherhood? if it is economical factors, then those factors need to change. those are what i gave as examples. what i hear is: being…

It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state. But for starters at a high level: - Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much…

please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids?

do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly?

what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision.

children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents.

your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem.

the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA.

the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia.

i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents.

it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority.

brave new world indeed.

(UPDATED)

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#328

Post by brightball » Mon, May 23, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #299

brightball wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reply tip. :-) I honestly don't remember. I know we did have a chess club. We had "Mathletes" that was very popular. A lot of people were involved in it.

It is certainly possible that you also had a great school and environment. They do exist. :)

More and more, it sounds that way. At one of three 4A public high schools in a mid-size town in South Carolina no less.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#329

Post by lordnacho » Mon, May 23, 2022, 8:22 PM UTC

namelessoracle wrote: post #289

lordnacho wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because they won't be prepared for exams. But not because they aren't educated.

I dont think you understand how certain key points and milestones can completely make certain educational goals almost unachievable. Let me give you an example. In 8th grade a kid will learn math that will basically put them on STEM trajectory or not. They learn Algebra that sets them up for taking high school calculus or they dont. If they dont, they may get into college, but they will have an up hill battle with ST…

Well yes if they don't have the prerequisites then they can't progress. But there's no reason you have to have that exact set of lessons to learn algebra. There's the books that you're given, you can read them yourself, there's other books by other people, there's videos, there's catch-up classes, there's tutors you can hire.

Re: Kids are far behind in school

#330

Post by nemo44x » Mon, May 23, 2022, 8:23 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #327

nemo44x wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state. But for starters at a high level: - Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much…

please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids? do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision. children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents. you…

> do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly?

No, they won't want to lose their kids. But if they have no means to support them then they will. So because they aren't receiving any financial assistance for shelter, food, and clothing then they will rely on having a partner. We have now incentivized that type of behavior. Failing that, if they can't provide a safe environment for their kids then we will take the kids out of the home. We do this today. We could altar the civil rights act to include children in these situations.

> children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse.

Adopted kids do great. It's about structure and predictability.

> your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids.

Correct. All the evidence says they are not capable.

> the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive.

Correct - as stated above we incentivize them to create a supportive environment or we will create one for their kids.

> the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own.

We will teach them how. They will be so removed from their environment of shattering poverty, drugs, abuse, etc. They won't even recognize that world and will be disgusted by it. They will learn how to be productive people that can not only take care of themselves but can care for others. These are learned behaviors. One of the reasons we have generational poverty is because bad habits are passed down. The cycle never gets broken.

> children in institutions is not children with parents.

Institutions are a surrogate.

> it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority.

Or we can continue to double down on the same bad ideas we've been trying for the last 60 or 70 years. Talk about hubris and arrogance!

The main difference is I'm actually trying to help the kids. Not create government dependent parents that will vote for me because I get scraps sent their way.