5 ms·

There’s a lot of data showing the importance of a school-like environment in acquiring language and social skill for young children, who were in no real danger

by ch4s3 4y ago

There’s a lot of data showing the importance of a school-like environment in acquiring language and social skill for young children, who were in no real danger from COVID and poor spreaders on top of that. I keep seeing people arguing that school isn’t important, but also against things like school choice and I really wonder what’s motivating them.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
If you think school isn't important why would you want to spend the extra money on school choice that such a program would entail?
- DavidSharff 4y ago
  I think his point's logic is as follows: If you don't think the default school is important, why would you care if a kid switched? -- If the response was that it's too expensive to allow them to switch that'd be logical, but I don't think that's the common response. Tbf I am not really aware of people matching the initial premise either. Edit: formatting
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    The argument I’m making is that there is a cynical thread in the politics around COVID in schools in the US driven by teachers’ unions. This leads people to make these self contradictory arguments.
- InvaderFizz 4y ago
  I think this is a false premise. My understanding of school choice is that there is little to no difference in the overall money spent. It is just that it is assigned to each student. If the student population were then to remain in the same schools, nothing changes. It is only when students move to other schools and take the money with them that there is a change.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    >My understanding of school choice is that there is little to no difference in the overall money spent. It is just that it is assigned to each student. ok, I would expect some significant change in investment because of needs of bureaucracy, IT systems etc. I mean if kids go by default to school they should go to, then there has to be a process for kids that want to change, there has to be a way to register and keep that knowledge of change through the next sequence of that child's schooling etc. I would expect it to cost something noticeable, and that it might also cost more or less depending on which part of the U.S. one were in.
    - InvaderFizz 4y ago
      How is this different from what has to already be supported today with kids moving in and out, even mid-semester? The processes and tools to support this are already in place, we're only talking about scale. There certainly would be a significant amount of disruption over the first five or so years as kids move around, schools would need to figure out expansion/contraction of facilities and faculties.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        Ok, and so again, if someone thought school was unimportant - why would they support school choice given the significant amount of disruption? The only way I can see someone wanting to take the extra effort that school choice would take, whether it is my supposition of extra effort or yours, is if they thought school was really important.
        DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        Is anyone in this thread making the point you’re arguing against?
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        The original poster I replied to thought that for some reason people who thought that school was unimportant should not be against people being allowed to choose what school to go to. That being against it was somehow contradictory. To quote: >I keep seeing people arguing that school isn’t important, but also against things like school choice and I really wonder what’s motivating them. so what did I say, I said >If you think school isn't important why would you want to spend the extra money on school choice that such a program would entail? for which I got three downvotes, because reasons I guess. someone said it wouldn't be expensive, I said ok it seems to me like logically it would but I could be wrong, here are my points why I think it would be expensive. The guy above the post of mine you're replying to said it wouldn't be expensive for any of those reasons but there would be a lot of disruptions the first few years, and I said ok, so then a person who thought schools were unimportant wouldn't want you to shift schools for that reason, because who wants to deal with a bunch of disruptions in an unimportant system? (and in my world systems that have lots of disruptions tend to be expensive) I think the thread should be pretty clear.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I don’t think that, and that’s not how school choice programs work.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I didn't say you think that, you said you thought they were self-contradictory viewpoints, I can see how someone might want to not allow school choice, but also think school is unimportant.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      School choice isn't more expensive than compulsory district based schooling though. Nationwide charter schools and similar average $6,585 per pupil spending compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        Ok, I didn't know that. It seems to me like it would be more expensive because, but sometimes what seems intuitive is wrong.
mmastrac 4y ago
I'd really love to see a citation for young children being in no real danger and poor spreaders, especially considering they are the hardest group to ensure mask compliance with.
- ramblerman 4y ago
  not being spreaders seems dubious, they certainly get it and spread it imo. But no real danger is easily verified by the stats. Mortality in kids and young adults is a very small percentage. - https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    "Danger" has other dimensions than mortality. Some of polio's worst effects emerge a decade or more after infection for example. The confidence of these assertions about the effects on children are not warranted at all. I'm grateful they don't die at the same rates but that's not an indication it doesn't affect them.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Maybe. We know what language skill acquisition loss does to children, especially the poor. And now with the extreme virility of newer variants it seems impossible to prevent infection over the medium term. So we’ve probably stunted the development of a generation of kids for no benefit to them.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        It sounds like you're making a case for "a necessary or acceptable risk" which I don't really agree with but I think is a valid position. But that's very different from the "no real danger" claimed above, which again I don't think anyone has the knowledge to honestly and confidently assert right now.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
Socialization is important, but the instructional portion of school is mostly garbage, even at fancy private schools. The difference there is the caliber of peers. Just like ivy league schools don't teach you anything you wouldn't learn at a decent state school, but the peer group is wealthier and more motivated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ch4s3 4y ago
  For basic social skills development for ages ~4-7 it only matters that they are around other children. Ideally this is with a lot of unstructured time. The "quality" of the other 5 year olds doesn't matter, humans are social animals and childhood play with other children is know to be critical in development. Closing schools for a year in much of the US was an unmitigated disaster for childhood development. No other OECD nation did this.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    I can tell you with 100% certainty that by age 7 the average quality of peers has diverged significantly between bad schools and good ones. Do you want your children hanging out with defiant, unmotivated children who view school as a jail and run around shooting spitballs, spewing racial slurs, and even bringing weapons to school?
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      You're totally missing the thrust of the discussion. Being around other children is necessary for normal language acquisition, learning emotional regulation, self-regulation, speech skills, and on and on. Children below a certain age HAVE to be around other children to develop normally. This is well established and has nothing to do with the proper behavior or socioeconomic status of the other children.
      - naasking 4y ago
zelphirkalt 4y ago
They might be poor spreaders, but they are spreaders, which largely udnerminded efforts to reduce (indirect) contact. They are basically a tunnel for spreading from one family to another.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  The CDC summary I link to elsewhere in the comments points to numerous studies showing very little spread by grade school age children. > They are basically a tunnel for spreading from one family to another This wasn't and generally hasn't been the case for children under 12 as the aforementioned research points out. Spread generally goes from adults to each-other and to children and rarely in the other direction. It was a very poor rationale for closing schools, especially elementary schools. These kids have missed out on critical milestones in social and psychological development that far outweigh any known risk they face from COVID.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  > which largely udnerminded efforts to reduce (indirect) contact One of the worst things that happened the last two years is this myopic focus on exactly one thing with zero regard to other competing problems. Everything has costs. Keeping kids out of school for a year plus has costs. I am fairly certain history will show that the costs to children vastly outweigh the marginal benefits gained from closing schools to "reduce the spread". It turns out there are other problems in the world than just a myopic fixation to covid... the inability for "the experts" to balance covid against the rest of human existence is one of the greatest fuckups of our time.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    > the inability for "the experts" to balance covid against the rest of human existence is one of the greatest fuckups of our time Even in other OECD nations, they kept kids in school and mostly unmasked to facilitate learning.
    - AndrewUnmuted 4y ago

by ch4s3 4y ago

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

If you think school isn't important why would you want to spend the extra money on school choice that such a program would entail?

DavidSharff 4y ago
I think his point's logic is as follows: If you don't think the default school is important, why would you care if a kid switched? -- If the response was that it's too expensive to allow them to switch that'd be logical, but I don't think that's the common response. Tbf I am not really aware of people matching the initial premise either. Edit: formatting
- ch4s3 4y ago
  The argument I’m making is that there is a cynical thread in the politics around COVID in schools in the US driven by teachers’ unions. This leads people to make these self contradictory arguments.
InvaderFizz 4y ago
I think this is a false premise. My understanding of school choice is that there is little to no difference in the overall money spent. It is just that it is assigned to each student. If the student population were then to remain in the same schools, nothing changes. It is only when students move to other schools and take the money with them that there is a change.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >My understanding of school choice is that there is little to no difference in the overall money spent. It is just that it is assigned to each student. ok, I would expect some significant change in investment because of needs of bureaucracy, IT systems etc. I mean if kids go by default to school they should go to, then there has to be a process for kids that want to change, there has to be a way to register and keep that knowledge of change through the next sequence of that child's schooling etc. I would expect it to cost something noticeable, and that it might also cost more or less depending on which part of the U.S. one were in.
  - InvaderFizz 4y ago
    How is this different from what has to already be supported today with kids moving in and out, even mid-semester? The processes and tools to support this are already in place, we're only talking about scale. There certainly would be a significant amount of disruption over the first five or so years as kids move around, schools would need to figure out expansion/contraction of facilities and faculties.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      Ok, and so again, if someone thought school was unimportant - why would they support school choice given the significant amount of disruption? The only way I can see someone wanting to take the extra effort that school choice would take, whether it is my supposition of extra effort or yours, is if they thought school was really important.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        Is anyone in this thread making the point you’re arguing against?
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        The original poster I replied to thought that for some reason people who thought that school was unimportant should not be against people being allowed to choose what school to go to. That being against it was somehow contradictory. To quote: >I keep seeing people arguing that school isn’t important, but also against things like school choice and I really wonder what’s motivating them. so what did I say, I said >If you think school isn't important why would you want to spend the extra money on school choice that such a program would entail? for which I got three downvotes, because reasons I guess. someone said it wouldn't be expensive, I said ok it seems to me like logically it would but I could be wrong, here are my points why I think it would be expensive. The guy above the post of mine you're replying to said it wouldn't be expensive for any of those reasons but there would be a lot of disruptions the first few years, and I said ok, so then a person who thought schools were unimportant wouldn't want you to shift schools for that reason, because who wants to deal with a bunch of disruptions in an unimportant system? (and in my world systems that have lots of disruptions tend to be expensive) I think the thread should be pretty clear.
ch4s3 4y ago
I don’t think that, and that’s not how school choice programs work.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I didn't say you think that, you said you thought they were self-contradictory viewpoints, I can see how someone might want to not allow school choice, but also think school is unimportant.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    School choice isn't more expensive than compulsory district based schooling though. Nationwide charter schools and similar average $6,585 per pupil spending compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      Ok, I didn't know that. It seems to me like it would be more expensive because, but sometimes what seems intuitive is wrong.

mmastrac 4y ago

I'd really love to see a citation for young children being in no real danger and poor spreaders, especially considering they are the hardest group to ensure mask compliance with.

ramblerman 4y ago
not being spreaders seems dubious, they certainly get it and spread it imo. But no real danger is easily verified by the stats. Mortality in kids and young adults is a very small percentage. - https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  "Danger" has other dimensions than mortality. Some of polio's worst effects emerge a decade or more after infection for example. The confidence of these assertions about the effects on children are not warranted at all. I'm grateful they don't die at the same rates but that's not an indication it doesn't affect them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Maybe. We know what language skill acquisition loss does to children, especially the poor. And now with the extreme virility of newer variants it seems impossible to prevent infection over the medium term. So we’ve probably stunted the development of a generation of kids for no benefit to them.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      It sounds like you're making a case for "a necessary or acceptable risk" which I don't really agree with but I think is a valid position. But that's very different from the "no real danger" claimed above, which again I don't think anyone has the knowledge to honestly and confidently assert right now.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

Socialization is important, but the instructional portion of school is mostly garbage, even at fancy private schools. The difference there is the caliber of peers. Just like ivy league schools don't teach you anything you wouldn't learn at a decent state school, but the peer group is wealthier and more motivated.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ch4s3 4y ago
For basic social skills development for ages ~4-7 it only matters that they are around other children. Ideally this is with a lot of unstructured time. The "quality" of the other 5 year olds doesn't matter, humans are social animals and childhood play with other children is know to be critical in development. Closing schools for a year in much of the US was an unmitigated disaster for childhood development. No other OECD nation did this.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  I can tell you with 100% certainty that by age 7 the average quality of peers has diverged significantly between bad schools and good ones. Do you want your children hanging out with defiant, unmotivated children who view school as a jail and run around shooting spitballs, spewing racial slurs, and even bringing weapons to school?
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    You're totally missing the thrust of the discussion. Being around other children is necessary for normal language acquisition, learning emotional regulation, self-regulation, speech skills, and on and on. Children below a certain age HAVE to be around other children to develop normally. This is well established and has nothing to do with the proper behavior or socioeconomic status of the other children.
    - naasking 4y ago

zelphirkalt 4y ago

They might be poor spreaders, but they are spreaders, which largely udnerminded efforts to reduce (indirect) contact. They are basically a tunnel for spreading from one family to another.

ch4s3 4y ago
The CDC summary I link to elsewhere in the comments points to numerous studies showing very little spread by grade school age children. > They are basically a tunnel for spreading from one family to another This wasn't and generally hasn't been the case for children under 12 as the aforementioned research points out. Spread generally goes from adults to each-other and to children and rarely in the other direction. It was a very poor rationale for closing schools, especially elementary schools. These kids have missed out on critical milestones in social and psychological development that far outweigh any known risk they face from COVID.
spookthesunset 4y ago
> which largely udnerminded efforts to reduce (indirect) contact One of the worst things that happened the last two years is this myopic focus on exactly one thing with zero regard to other competing problems. Everything has costs. Keeping kids out of school for a year plus has costs. I am fairly certain history will show that the costs to children vastly outweigh the marginal benefits gained from closing schools to "reduce the spread". It turns out there are other problems in the world than just a myopic fixation to covid... the inability for "the experts" to balance covid against the rest of human existence is one of the greatest fuckups of our time.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > the inability for "the experts" to balance covid against the rest of human existence is one of the greatest fuckups of our time Even in other OECD nations, they kept kids in school and mostly unmasked to facilitate learning.
  - AndrewUnmuted 4y ago