3 ms·

It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children. If an environment tailored for education isn't effective, how could a home environm

It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children. If an environment tailored for education isn't effective, how could a home environment filled with distractions sans any full-time adult motivation be considered an upgrade? Plus, once-in-a-100-years or not, a substantial portion of a generation of kids spent their formative years in a world that enforced physical separation, covered faces and general agoraphobia for a world bearing an unseen, airborne and contagious horror (with a fatality rate between 0.001 and 0.003 for ages 0-19, established since late 2020[1]). Children born during the pandemic have already demonstrated decreased IQs, and that's just in the short-term. We're probably going to see an upward trend in childhood neuroses and maladaptive social behavior in the years to come. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0

quadrifoliate 4y ago
> It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children It's not remote learning that is being discussed here, it's remote learning during a pandemic. That's what repeatedly keeps being ignored. We have never had a proper experiment with remote and in-person learning side-by-side when, you know, there weren't headlines about the number of deaths in the paper every day. > Plus, once-in-a-100-years or not, a substantial portion of a generation of kids spent their formative years in a world that enforced physical separation, covered faces and general agoraphobia for a world bearing an unseen, airborne and contagious horror (with a fatality rate between 0.001 and 0.003 for ages 0-19, established since late 2020[1]). Children born during the pandemic have already demonstrated decreased IQs, and that's just in the short-term. We're probably going to see an upward trend in childhood neuroses and maladaptive social behavior in the years to come. Yeah, this is all fair and should be discussed – I just don't understand why a 2% decrease in average scores during a pandemic is considered the gold standard of evidence for it.
confidantlake 4y ago
I have no strong feelings either way but presumably the students need to be taught be teachers who are going to have a much higher fatality rate than the .001 number.

quadrifoliate 4y ago

> It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children It's not remote learning that is being discussed here, it's remote learning during a pandemic. That's what repeatedly keeps being ignored. We have never had a proper experiment with remote and in-person learning side-by-side when, you know, there weren't headlines about the number of deaths in the paper every day. > Plus, once-in-a-100-years or not, a substantial portion of a generation of kids spent their formative years in a world that enforced physical separation, covered faces and general agoraphobia for a world bearing an unseen, airborne and contagious horror (with a fatality rate between 0.001 and 0.003 for ages 0-19, established since late 2020[1]). Children born during the pandemic have already demonstrated decreased IQs, and that's just in the short-term. We're probably going to see an upward trend in childhood neuroses and maladaptive social behavior in the years to come. Yeah, this is all fair and should be discussed – I just don't understand why a 2% decrease in average scores during a pandemic is considered the gold standard of evidence for it.

confidantlake 4y ago

I have no strong feelings either way but presumably the students need to be taught be teachers who are going to have a much higher fatality rate than the .001 number.