The drop from 2018 to 2022 is as big as the one from 2022 to 2026, so it's not obvious whether AI had a role at all, although it's highly plausible.
I suspect the bigger culprit is the optimized monetization of human attention, because pre-algorithmic social media doesn't seem to be as destructive. The fact that science wasn't as affected as math and reading (both of which rely more on attention/practice than rote memorization) somewhat supports this.
Between 2018 and 2022, we saw the widespread adoption of social media and the rapid digitalization of education. Focusing on these key shifts, it seems clear to me that any kind of electronic learning has had a negative impact on education :p
I worked for an education tech company in the 90s. Seemed to clear to me even then that computers in the classroom were not going to be a positive influence. The way things have gone since then, it is no wonder that kids’ brains have turned into pudding.
I think that computers in the classroom can have a tremendous positive influence in specific areas when see with correct guidance. I think where we went wrong is replacing the classroom with ChromeOS and iPads.
Those digital devices should be an augmentation of their education, not a replacement for what has already existed.
Teaching kids is incredibly challenging -- if they view school as torture or a prison then we have failed them.
I have three kids who've gone through K12 public schools and have been lucky enough to do so in well-funded school districts. Adding to that, we did our best to augment that with a parent organized weekly sessions with a host of different teachers hired to give lessons on things that the school curriculum did not cover.
We also had them participate in Odyssey of the Mind for many years (it's a really cool program worth checking out: <a href="https://odysseyofthemind.com/" rel="nofollow">https://odysseyofthemind.com/)
Even with all of that, it was clear that while much of their education stuck, other parts were effectively just tolerated.
I think there are really two core factors that lead to educational success:
1. A good teacher who can connect with students and inspire them to learn
2. A curriculum that can be understood by the student as having value and aligns with their life needs.
Teaching anyone is effectively futile unless they are curious or can find value in the subject material. Good teachers are the foundation of that, and outsourcing that to some sort of "educational platform" is doomed to failure.
Parenting definitely plays a role, but if you are the parent of more than one child you quickly learn that it is nature, not nurture that defines the child. Nurture is a vital part of guiding acceptable behavior, but what their brain responds too is not under the parent's control.
And obviously a kid that is a disruption in the classroom degrades the experience for all the other students.
There are two fronts. If they like the discipline and if they follow rules.
In both cases I disagree (to some extent)
Parents are not powerless.
You can’t force love for geography, but you can choose to ignore or give full attention when child asks some geographical question.
Same with setting boundaries and teaching to follow the rules. Kids definitely test boundaries, and thats good, they should learn to negotiate and sometimes win, but still kids that know boundaries at home will know boundaries in the classroom.
Are you a parent? I am, and your comment indicates you probably aren't.
Of course engaging with your children is vital, and their curiosity should never be dampened.
Boundaries are about social discipline and that's akin to training a dog. Sure, every parent should do their best to make sure their children grow up to good members of society (including classroom behavior).
But when you say that "parents are not powerless" your implication overstates that power. There's no way to force a child to be curious or to care about a subject. Some kids are just "born that way" and are a challenge even for the most caring and engaged parents.
And once that kid becomes a teenager, that power starts to ebb really quickly as they learn that parents only have so many tools to enforce that discipline.
But I do have quite close relationships to several families and their children.
Some parents actively teach kids to read before going to school (despite certain developmental challenges the kid has), while others see it as a job of teachers to teach meaning of left/right or how to tie a shoe (not joking).
Btw. Most (All?) management techniques could be compared to dog training (positive and negative reinforcements), it does not make it bad or immoral.
> But when you say that "parents are not powerless" your implication overstates that power. There's no way to force a child to be curious or to care about a subject.
By “not powerless” I meant exactly what I said, power is NOT 0%. And yes, as person grows, that power/influence diminishes fast, so I would say early influence is especially crucial.
Btw. If all kids of a same parents have “bad manners” (kick and scream when others silently read), while all kids of other parent are well behaved (to a reasonable extent), then either manners are a genetical trait or maybe nurture part is quite an important thing.
I recall having access to an Apple II in first grade to play Oregon Trail, and later the full color Macintosh LC II with a mouse in 2nd grade. I think besides using a word processor once a week in computer lab, and typing class in middle school, there was little to no value in computers in school. I was a heavy user of Encarta in the library during rainy day recess. Giving every kid a laptop or tablet seems like a financial hand out to whatever company is selling them.
dumberquestions · · focus · HN ↗
I suspect the bigger culprit is the optimized monetization of human attention, because pre-algorithmic social media doesn't seem to be as destructive. The fact that science wasn't as affected as math and reading (both of which rely more on attention/practice than rote memorization) somewhat supports this.
asutekku · · focus · HN ↗
voakbasda · · focus · HN ↗
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
pstuart · · focus · HN ↗
Teaching kids is incredibly challenging -- if they view school as torture or a prison then we have failed them.
I have three kids who've gone through K12 public schools and have been lucky enough to do so in well-funded school districts. Adding to that, we did our best to augment that with a parent organized weekly sessions with a host of different teachers hired to give lessons on things that the school curriculum did not cover.
We also had them participate in Odyssey of the Mind for many years (it's a really cool program worth checking out: <a href="https://odysseyofthemind.com/" rel="nofollow">https://odysseyofthemind.com/)
Even with all of that, it was clear that while much of their education stuck, other parts were effectively just tolerated.
I think there are really two core factors that lead to educational success:
1. A good teacher who can connect with students and inspire them to learn
2. A curriculum that can be understood by the student as having value and aligns with their life needs.
Teaching anyone is effectively futile unless they are curious or can find value in the subject material. Good teachers are the foundation of that, and outsourcing that to some sort of "educational platform" is doomed to failure.
falserum · · focus · HN ↗
pstuart · · focus · HN ↗
And obviously a kid that is a disruption in the classroom degrades the experience for all the other students.
falserum · · focus · HN ↗
In both cases I disagree (to some extent)
Parents are not powerless.
You can’t force love for geography, but you can choose to ignore or give full attention when child asks some geographical question.
Same with setting boundaries and teaching to follow the rules. Kids definitely test boundaries, and thats good, they should learn to negotiate and sometimes win, but still kids that know boundaries at home will know boundaries in the classroom.
pstuart · · focus · HN ↗
Of course engaging with your children is vital, and their curiosity should never be dampened.
Boundaries are about social discipline and that's akin to training a dog. Sure, every parent should do their best to make sure their children grow up to good members of society (including classroom behavior).
But when you say that "parents are not powerless" your implication overstates that power. There's no way to force a child to be curious or to care about a subject. Some kids are just "born that way" and are a challenge even for the most caring and engaged parents.
And once that kid becomes a teenager, that power starts to ebb really quickly as they learn that parents only have so many tools to enforce that discipline.
falserum · · focus · HN ↗
But I do have quite close relationships to several families and their children.
Some parents actively teach kids to read before going to school (despite certain developmental challenges the kid has), while others see it as a job of teachers to teach meaning of left/right or how to tie a shoe (not joking).
Btw. Most (All?) management techniques could be compared to dog training (positive and negative reinforcements), it does not make it bad or immoral.
> But when you say that "parents are not powerless" your implication overstates that power. There's no way to force a child to be curious or to care about a subject.
By “not powerless” I meant exactly what I said, power is NOT 0%. And yes, as person grows, that power/influence diminishes fast, so I would say early influence is especially crucial.
Btw. If all kids of a same parents have “bad manners” (kick and scream when others silently read), while all kids of other parent are well behaved (to a reasonable extent), then either manners are a genetical trait or maybe nurture part is quite an important thing.
9x39 · · focus · HN ↗
The winner of classroom tech is classroom tech vendors, not students, not collective test scores.
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
My point is that we tried to make computers universal and one size fits all, and it doesn’t seem to have helped.
hadlock · · focus · HN ↗