3 ms·

Interesting that it can be quantified somewhat… but the suggested interventions (extra tutoring, summer school, longer days) are just not going to happen. That

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.

satysin 4y ago
> If they happen anywhere, it’ll only be rich kids. This is a very sad truth. We are very fortunate and were able to afford private tuition for our son along with more free time to put into home schooling during the lockdowns to ensure he didn't fall behind. Unfortunately a lot cannot afford private tutors nor have free time they can commit to consistent home schooling so it will further separate those on lower incomes. Something we will not truly see for maybe a decade or more when younger kids (my sons age) enter higher education. This is something I feel strongly about and have written to our local education governmental body about but all I have had back is generic soundbites :( Part of me is wondering if I should just take this into my own hands and try to organise something with the local schools and social centres directly for weekend and summer programmes.
- makomk 4y ago
  The fundamental problem here is that when we chose to shut down society, most of the capacity that went unused is gone and cannot be brought forward into 2022 to fill in the gaps left behind. So for example, all of the teaching time that was wasted on ineffective distance learning or just didn't happen is gone. Want to organise a bunch of catch up sessions? You'll have to find a bunch of extra teaching time from somewhere (and likely a bunch of extra teachers) on top of normal teaching along with extra time in those kids' days - easy enough to do small scale for a wealthy few, much harder for all of society. The same has happened everywhere, from factory production to restaurant meals and hotel stays, which limits our ability to pay teachers to do this - in order to pay them more in real terms they have to be able to buy more, but the amount of stuff available to buy isn't even enough to support people's existing quality of life. Any attempt to pay teachers generous overtime to teach extra would have to come out of other peoples' real-terms income in a world where that is already dropping for most, and the bigger the program the more painful and broadly felt that would be.
sodality2 4y ago
I disagree. Gifted programs exist and students in it receive more personal and one-on-one support. Personally I didn't pay for my gifted program (or my parents, of course) throughout the entirety of elementary and middle school. Only in high school did I have to pay for the extra exams, which was approximately $400 (I shoveled snow to pay for it).
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  Kids from poorer households are much less likely to be in these programs. Of course plenty of individuals defy this, but from a broad sociological context mostly kids from wealthier educated backgrounds end up in "gifted" programs. In the US household income is one of the most reliable ways to predict academic success. We're already seeing Covid widen some of these existing gaps. This is also kind of irrelevant to the parent article. All kids lost out during the pandemic. Without additional efforts beyond what was happening pre-pandemic, everyone will slide down a little.
  - sodality2 4y ago
    That's very true. I think that having a target that a student or parent can push for, that is independent of wealth (directly, if the program is free), is a really good thing to have. I don't have any magical solutions other than that. I do understand that being able to provide resources for a student in early life is directly influenced by wealth and greatly improves the odds of success. How do we encourage this among parents who don't have this wealth? My mom used to wake me up early on weekends and put me up on the counter, making me recite times tables. Small things like that, that can help equalize the playing field because they are not directly tied to wealth, should be encouraged for parents.
randomtwiddler 4y ago
Parents can educate their own children. The costs for well outlined curriculum in the digital age are minimal.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  This kind of comment usually comes from someone very young, or maybe unfamiliar with the state of many family's lives in the US. Parents aren't often educated well themselves. They don't know how to teach anything to anyone. Some of the working poor don't even have time to cook their kids reasonable meals. Locally we're experiencing a bus driver shortage (more like a pay shortage), and the school district knows that on days without buses... some kids don't show up because there's no one home that can take the time off of work to bring them to school. Parents with the education, time, and money can educate their own children. Outside of the upper-middle class... it's rare to encounter parents who have all of those. If we were to rely on parents for education, we'd be setting half the country back by a good 50 years. Literacy rates would absolutely plummet.
  - randomtwiddler 4y ago
    This is a problem of responsibility. Regardless of conditions, ultimate responsibility for a child's education is with the parents. This notion that it is the governments job is backwards and dangerous. Teachers don't love my children. Administrators don't love my children. I love my children. Anything someone might claim is love, doesn't hold a candle to a loving parent. Taking responsible for education doesn't mean you have to do it all yourself. You see that it happens and accept the personal cost. Your assumptions about me is not only wrong it's irrelevant. Not only do I have more experience raising children than any two men you are likely to know (I have many), I've lived among much much poorer people than 99% of hacker news. In places that struggle with running water and electricity to say nothing of Internet (none). You're feeding me a bunch of excuses. Yes, some people struggle and it can impact their ability to do it. But where there is a will there's a way. Good parents find a way, it has much less to do with wealth and much much more to do with good family structure - which even poor people can do perfectly fine. Cause and effect are often reversed. You aren't going to have good families because you are wealthy. Families get wealth when they are good families. When children are well loved and have good characters they will prosper. They will understand good families and tend to have good families themselves. A lack of love creates behavioral problems that can dominate a life and can easily be passed into the next generation. A society centered around school life will not provide children with love in a life devoid of it. Society can't fix the problems at home but it can certainly stop getting in the way.

satysin 4y ago

> If they happen anywhere, it’ll only be rich kids. This is a very sad truth. We are very fortunate and were able to afford private tuition for our son along with more free time to put into home schooling during the lockdowns to ensure he didn't fall behind. Unfortunately a lot cannot afford private tutors nor have free time they can commit to consistent home schooling so it will further separate those on lower incomes. Something we will not truly see for maybe a decade or more when younger kids (my sons age) enter higher education. This is something I feel strongly about and have written to our local education governmental body about but all I have had back is generic soundbites :( Part of me is wondering if I should just take this into my own hands and try to organise something with the local schools and social centres directly for weekend and summer programmes.

makomk 4y ago
The fundamental problem here is that when we chose to shut down society, most of the capacity that went unused is gone and cannot be brought forward into 2022 to fill in the gaps left behind. So for example, all of the teaching time that was wasted on ineffective distance learning or just didn't happen is gone. Want to organise a bunch of catch up sessions? You'll have to find a bunch of extra teaching time from somewhere (and likely a bunch of extra teachers) on top of normal teaching along with extra time in those kids' days - easy enough to do small scale for a wealthy few, much harder for all of society. The same has happened everywhere, from factory production to restaurant meals and hotel stays, which limits our ability to pay teachers to do this - in order to pay them more in real terms they have to be able to buy more, but the amount of stuff available to buy isn't even enough to support people's existing quality of life. Any attempt to pay teachers generous overtime to teach extra would have to come out of other peoples' real-terms income in a world where that is already dropping for most, and the bigger the program the more painful and broadly felt that would be.

sodality2 4y ago

I disagree. Gifted programs exist and students in it receive more personal and one-on-one support. Personally I didn't pay for my gifted program (or my parents, of course) throughout the entirety of elementary and middle school. Only in high school did I have to pay for the extra exams, which was approximately $400 (I shoveled snow to pay for it).

micromacrofoot 4y ago
Kids from poorer households are much less likely to be in these programs. Of course plenty of individuals defy this, but from a broad sociological context mostly kids from wealthier educated backgrounds end up in "gifted" programs. In the US household income is one of the most reliable ways to predict academic success. We're already seeing Covid widen some of these existing gaps. This is also kind of irrelevant to the parent article. All kids lost out during the pandemic. Without additional efforts beyond what was happening pre-pandemic, everyone will slide down a little.
- sodality2 4y ago
  That's very true. I think that having a target that a student or parent can push for, that is independent of wealth (directly, if the program is free), is a really good thing to have. I don't have any magical solutions other than that. I do understand that being able to provide resources for a student in early life is directly influenced by wealth and greatly improves the odds of success. How do we encourage this among parents who don't have this wealth? My mom used to wake me up early on weekends and put me up on the counter, making me recite times tables. Small things like that, that can help equalize the playing field because they are not directly tied to wealth, should be encouraged for parents.

randomtwiddler 4y ago

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

micromacrofoot 4y ago
This kind of comment usually comes from someone very young, or maybe unfamiliar with the state of many family's lives in the US. Parents aren't often educated well themselves. They don't know how to teach anything to anyone. Some of the working poor don't even have time to cook their kids reasonable meals. Locally we're experiencing a bus driver shortage (more like a pay shortage), and the school district knows that on days without buses... some kids don't show up because there's no one home that can take the time off of work to bring them to school. Parents with the education, time, and money can educate their own children. Outside of the upper-middle class... it's rare to encounter parents who have all of those. If we were to rely on parents for education, we'd be setting half the country back by a good 50 years. Literacy rates would absolutely plummet.
- randomtwiddler 4y ago
  This is a problem of responsibility. Regardless of conditions, ultimate responsibility for a child's education is with the parents. This notion that it is the governments job is backwards and dangerous. Teachers don't love my children. Administrators don't love my children. I love my children. Anything someone might claim is love, doesn't hold a candle to a loving parent. Taking responsible for education doesn't mean you have to do it all yourself. You see that it happens and accept the personal cost. Your assumptions about me is not only wrong it's irrelevant. Not only do I have more experience raising children than any two men you are likely to know (I have many), I've lived among much much poorer people than 99% of hacker news. In places that struggle with running water and electricity to say nothing of Internet (none). You're feeding me a bunch of excuses. Yes, some people struggle and it can impact their ability to do it. But where there is a will there's a way. Good parents find a way, it has much less to do with wealth and much much more to do with good family structure - which even poor people can do perfectly fine. Cause and effect are often reversed. You aren't going to have good families because you are wealthy. Families get wealth when they are good families. When children are well loved and have good characters they will prosper. They will understand good families and tend to have good families themselves. A lack of love creates behavioral problems that can dominate a life and can easily be passed into the next generation. A society centered around school life will not provide children with love in a life devoid of it. Society can't fix the problems at home but it can certainly stop getting in the way.