6 ms·

Prepare to build a fuckton more prisons then. Most kids can get turned around from a bad path if they get the right support early on. I don't want to live in a

Prepare to build a fuckton more prisons then. Most kids can get turned around from a bad path if they get the right support early on. I don't want to live in a world where we write off 7 year olds forever.

monero-xmr 1y ago
If anything we need to double the amount of money paid to build high-intensity “schools” for those kids, and then reduce the amount of money needed for the good kids, because honestly all of that money is wasted now on the bad ones. We should also imprison criminals but that goes without saying. If we don’t have enough prisons to house violent criminals then we simply need more prisons, or release them only into communities that vote for such a thing (maybe rich liberal communities only etc.)
- Nevermark 1y ago
  > We should also imprison criminals but that goes without saying. Obviously we need effective justice. But since we are on the topic of ineffective schooling, there is an argument to be made that US prisons are more effective at punishment than rehabilitation. Which seems to please some people, but just adds another undertow to society. A loss for criminal inmates, and everyone they impact, family or stranger, after they are released. Education is worth looking at with respect to an entire culture, with many important contexts beyond/outside school. From before school age (huge), onward.
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  There's a great early TED talk from a Lawyer trying to stop death row inmates being executed. He realises that the simplest and easiest intervention is to stop the violent crime happening in the first place, and the cheapest and easiest way to do that is to intervene in the future murderers childhood. The specific example he gives is a client with a schizophrenic mother who needed more support.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Instead of imprisoning all criminals we should be streamlining the process to execute murderers, drug dealers, etc.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    Yes precisely. But baby steps
somenameforme 1y ago
There was a famous study that tried to test this - the Perry Preschool Study. [1] Basically they enlisted a number of high risk children - black, low iq, low income children. Half were placed into a high quality specialized preschool program (that lasted two years for 2.5 hours a day) with small class sizes, half were not, and they followed what happened over the next 40 years. The results were definitely impactful, but not the sort of major turn around one might hope for. So for instance 55% of the control group ended up being arrested 5+ times by age 40, while 'only' 36% of the experiment group did. I think the thing this demonstrates is that intervention can help, but is also insufficient alone. Students who are in a sufficiently high risk scenario need ongoing support and treatment that they're not going to receive at a normal public institution. And not only that but they will remain disproportionately disruptive to other student's educations at normal institutions, even with years of ongoing care. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighScope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighScope (overview) [1] - https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/perry-preschool-summary-40.pdf https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/perry-presc... (detailed paper)
- Biganon 1y ago
  Imagine the moral dilemma of having to choose which kid goes in which group
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    For the experiment, you don't want it to be a "moral dilemma" at all. If the group-splitting decisions are made by humans, it inevitably introduces a systematic bias. That bias then will show up in the outcomes, and confound the very data you got out of your way to gather. The easiest way to avoid that is to split the groups randomly.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  I'm surprised that 2.5 hours a day for 2 years was enough to make that big a difference on outcomes through age 40. Like... damn, that's a big effect!

monero-xmr 1y ago

If anything we need to double the amount of money paid to build high-intensity “schools” for those kids, and then reduce the amount of money needed for the good kids, because honestly all of that money is wasted now on the bad ones. We should also imprison criminals but that goes without saying. If we don’t have enough prisons to house violent criminals then we simply need more prisons, or release them only into communities that vote for such a thing (maybe rich liberal communities only etc.)

Nevermark 1y ago
> We should also imprison criminals but that goes without saying. Obviously we need effective justice. But since we are on the topic of ineffective schooling, there is an argument to be made that US prisons are more effective at punishment than rehabilitation. Which seems to please some people, but just adds another undertow to society. A loss for criminal inmates, and everyone they impact, family or stranger, after they are released. Education is worth looking at with respect to an entire culture, with many important contexts beyond/outside school. From before school age (huge), onward.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
There's a great early TED talk from a Lawyer trying to stop death row inmates being executed. He realises that the simplest and easiest intervention is to stop the violent crime happening in the first place, and the cheapest and easiest way to do that is to intervene in the future murderers childhood. The specific example he gives is a client with a schizophrenic mother who needed more support.
lupusreal 1y ago
Instead of imprisoning all criminals we should be streamlining the process to execute murderers, drug dealers, etc.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  Yes precisely. But baby steps

somenameforme 1y ago

There was a famous study that tried to test this - the Perry Preschool Study. [1] Basically they enlisted a number of high risk children - black, low iq, low income children. Half were placed into a high quality specialized preschool program (that lasted two years for 2.5 hours a day) with small class sizes, half were not, and they followed what happened over the next 40 years. The results were definitely impactful, but not the sort of major turn around one might hope for. So for instance 55% of the control group ended up being arrested 5+ times by age 40, while 'only' 36% of the experiment group did. I think the thing this demonstrates is that intervention can help, but is also insufficient alone. Students who are in a sufficiently high risk scenario need ongoing support and treatment that they're not going to receive at a normal public institution. And not only that but they will remain disproportionately disruptive to other student's educations at normal institutions, even with years of ongoing care. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighScope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HighScope (overview) [1] - https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/perry-preschool-summary-40.pdf https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/perry-presc... (detailed paper)

Biganon 1y ago
Imagine the moral dilemma of having to choose which kid goes in which group
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ACCount37 1y ago
  For the experiment, you don't want it to be a "moral dilemma" at all. If the group-splitting decisions are made by humans, it inevitably introduces a systematic bias. That bias then will show up in the outcomes, and confound the very data you got out of your way to gather. The easiest way to avoid that is to split the groups randomly.
yepitwas 1y ago
I'm surprised that 2.5 hours a day for 2 years was enough to make that big a difference on outcomes through age 40. Like... damn, that's a big effect!