Hacker News Reader

> The high-income districts couldn't be more excited

This is a very unfair characterization. I live in a "high income district" and have a strong relationship with several of my kids' teachers.

None of them is "excited" about this, and neither is the district. It's a shitty situation and they're doing the best they can. That it's possible for them to do it is great but even in high income districts, you have kids who can't attend , and the impact of the delivery is weak compared to in-classroom (double for special needs kids).

Everyone is losing out, and some kids in rural or low-income districts are going to greatly suffer education-wise.

Few, other than with a dedicated non-working parent will benefit from this.

Speaking up for a household that has one “non-working parent”: they aren’t benefiting either. Nobody is.

We have three kids (8, 6, and 3) and my wife and I are just happy if we can get through the day without anyone breaking an arm, which I’m sad to say we failed at a few days back. Oops!

> Those that have, will have more, better experiences due to involved parents (because they have flexible or even just able-to-be-completed remotely jobs).

There's a lot of us that are able to do our jobs remotely, but are still struggling to home school our children. Sure, it's better for us than it is for people that must go in to work, but please don't portray it as some sort of utopia. It's physically, emotionally, and mentally draining doing your normal, full time job AND home schooling your child.

Plus, I'm a horrible teacher.

> This will be an enrichment period for those students

It certainly isn't for my child. We're trying; we're trying really hard.

> "Plus, I'm a horrible teacher."

not to minimize the struggle you and other parents face, but that seems to frame the problem as one of being able to structure the learning in a certain, standardized way.

kids are innate, natural learners. they'll learn things by you just letting them be a part of whatever it is you're doing, for even part of the day (totally understand needing a break from kids too). this kind of learning also reaches farther down into, and better engages, the whole brain vs. classroom learning. it's ok if they don't perfectly learn about past participles, acute triangles, and the magna carta this school year.

I am not able to involve my child in my job. If I tried to do so, I wouldn't get anything done. I'm either working with her or doing my work. We try to find a balance by setting her up with lessons for the day (some specified by her teacher, some by us), helping her out when she encounters hurdles, and checking in on her now and again to see how she's doing. Then we discuss what she did during day later that evening.

It's worth noting, her teachers have been great. As much as I'm frustrated by some of the online stuff, they're doing a great job with very little time to prepare for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "excited". No one seems to be excited by the current situation. Parents in high-income districts aren't excited at either losing their jobs, or having to work from home, and still doing home-school on top of all of that.

I see the point you're trying to make about rural areas having it even worse, but it's inflammatory to paint the picture in the stark contrast you portrayed.

If it's really so great for the high income students, then maybe the schools there should be shut down permanently so the money can be redirected to where they are necessary.

Then the dual income parents would have to find another place to put their kids in during the day.

The only real reasons schools exist in the first place.

I don’t know what your feelings on qz.com are but it disagrees.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1314814/universal-educat...

> Factory owners required a docile, agreeable workers who would show up on time and do what their managers told them. Sitting in a classroom all day with a teacher was good training for that. Early industrialists were instrumental, then, in creating and promoting universal education.

We shouldn't confuse aspiration with environmental constraints. Just because some company says their product, XYZ, was designed to change the world and increase IQ doesn't mean you can go around stating that XYZ changed the world and increased IQ, or analyzing the various characteristics of the product solely in terms of the claims. Rather, in reality almost everything of substance about such a product follows from exogenous constraints--cost, feasibility, etc.

To explain the seemingly arbitrary and stifling demands of a typical Prussian-style universal education system, the obvious place to look first would be cost--instructors, facilities, organization, etc.

Also, the beginning of industrialization coincided with the end of serfdom in much of Europe. Were capitalists trying to create and exploit compliant workers, or were they trying to create workers, period? That is, there were no workers beforehand, just serfs or recently emancipated serfs, depending on territory. Social reforms were so wildly successful in Prussia that they swept the Western world, even places like the U.S. where industrialization (but not universal education) was already well under way. Was that because it produced virtuous, Christian workers, or just because it was efficient at improving basic literacy?

I'm a teacher, so I know I'm biased, but I definitely don't agree with this (and didn't even before I became a teacher).

First off, there's a sizable chunk of the US that can't access online learning, whether it's due to poverty or just living out in an extremely rural area where all you can get is satellite internet that may or may not work.

Second, there's something to be said to being there in-person learning something. Having the teacher explain it to you and go over it with you is something that just can't be done as well on video for all students. Yes, some can get it and do great with self-directed learning and video explanations, but some students do need the extra work that they can get in school; there's more to school than just babysitting, even if some parents (and others) don't think so.

That said, if we could guarantee students had internet access, I'd totally be for a flipped classroom, especially in math and science. Students could then practice with the teacher present and able to give feedback and correct understanding during the school day, without having to use two days for a topic (which is what I currently do; one day explaining a concept, the next letting students practice it with me answering questions).

If I recall my US history class, universal public education (in the US) was a Great Depression policy created to prevent children from taking jobs from adults.

Nope, by 1918 every state had mandatory public schooling. And a significant push for education came from industry, which needed more educated workers, and had nothing to do with the Depression. The ability for teenagers to drop out & enter the workforce went unchanged throughout the depression (and long after). Though I have heard that places with job openings often reserved them for people with families to support.

By 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws; four were in the South. Thirty states with compulsory schooling laws required attendance until age 14 (or higher). As a result, by 1910, 72 percent of American children attended school. Half the nation's children attended one-room schools. By 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_Un...

Literacy & numeracy rates prior to widespread public schooling would disagree with you on this.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there are a couple of other reasons.

Middle-class families are not just the state's tax livestock.

> a high achieving middle schooler at a high income district, this would be amazing for their development

the builders of tomorrow are getting even better education right now? is that what you're saying? that sounds great

Would you like to continue your line of thought all the way and return to having poor children work in factories?

Are you only allowed to be a “builder of tomorrow” if you’re a high achiever from a high income district?

That would be a sad indictment of our society if true.

> That would be a sad indictment of our society if true.

You say that like it's evidence against (rather than for) it being true.

Let's assume it is true that richer areas have more builders of tomorrow. That's going to be true whether or not they get better schools. And giving them better schools does a disservice to the population. So "it sounds great" is severely misguided.

Giving better schools to students that highly achieve at least has some justification, but is probably unnecessary if we get all the schools up to 'competent' and have some money for various kinds of advanced placement programs.

I meant that "[You are] only allowed to be a "builder of tomorrow" if you're a high achiever from a high income district[.]" is, at least approximately (there are almost always exceptions of course) and in practice, true. I wasn't making any claim about whether that was good thing, either normatively or pragmaticly.

That is probably true though.

So that's the positive, but you completely ignored the negative. I know you did it on purpose, but I don't know why.

The kids who were already statistically bound for a positive outcome due to family and income are fine, and locking that in even tighter. The kids who have hurdles have EVEN HIGHER hurdles now.

why do people need to be consumed by the negative all the time? must everybody be an activist? what do you realistically expect people to do besides talk about it online? is this really the place to virtue signal?