Imagine you were raised by parents who had unpleasant experiences with formal education and/or by parents who had an attitude themselves of "my kid isn't getting any use out of those six hours" anyway. That's often the mindset behind the attitude, not so much as that parents don't love their kids and want what they see is the best for them. (Of course there's plenty of abuse and full-on neglect motivating such absenteeism, too.)

Perhaps instead of doing something didn't work, we just split the kids into 2 groups, Monday-Wednesday, and then Tuesday-Saturday. Then we'd only have 10 - 15 kids per class. Give them more self directed study and homework. Have some pre-recorded video classes they can do on other days and have a proctor to help handle a larger # of kids.

There are many alternatives to remote only learning.

While that might be good for reducing the achievement gap, it doesn't help parents who are being kept from returning to work by the need to care for their children

I’m not sympathetic to parents that view school as daycare.

I feel bad for those kids, but the education system shouldn’t cater to this behavior.

I feel like these kids are also consuming a larger share of education resources due to goofing off, etc because their parents may not be involved enough or setting higher standards/expectations for their kids.

It always gets framed as the hard working low income family who values education as a generational vehicle of mobility. The stereotypical immigrant family with mom and dad both working 3 jobs.

However, I feel like that is not the norm. There is a lot of people who just don’t care about education except for the free daycare and meals it provides. Many parents care more about their kids place on the sports team/etc than their test scores. They’ll let there kid play video games all day then cry about how remote learning doesn’t work.

The idea being to limit the exposure / quarantine size, facilitate remote learning where it was otherwise unavailable.

It was definitely much better than remote-only.

Why is split learning even on the table? Who are we trying to protect? The kids? The teachers? Are most people in these hyper-partisan democrat areas (I'm speaking from a US perspective, but it's largely the US that has voluntarily wrecked now almost 2 years of education) aware that the kids are not at serious risk of COVID? Are they aware that, not only is the mortality of common comparisons like Influenza way higher, but that the common rebuttal of "but what about long COVID" is basically an evidenceless assertion and there is no evidence that children are getting permanent damage from their largely asymptomatic COVID infections? Are they aware that, even if it were right to try to prevent kids from ever getting infected with SARS-2 (spoiler: it's not), that we don't even have quality studies proving that going to school is even associated with greater COVID infection?

Are they aware that, unlike the H1N1 pandemic, it's actually pretty miraculous that SARS-2 almost entirely spares children? That therefore to undergo these measures like school closures and constant indoor masking of toddlers, and 6 foot distancing, and plastic dividers, and restricted extracurricular events, has no relation to actually keeping children safe, except insofar as those measures very clearly harm the wellbeing of children?

I weep for what we've done to children throughout this. We as adults are supposed to be the ones saying, "hey, even if there's risk to us adults, you guys are more important, and we're never going to ask you to sacrifice your life out of some misguided effort to prevent the transmission of an endemic highly infectious human coronavirus, and on the contrary we will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to keep you guys growing and developing". Instead we turned around and said, "kids are inherently gross, they're spreading this killer virus like crazy, if they develop a cough and hug their grandmother and the grandmother later dies of COVID then they killed their grandma".

As someone who lives in California - which together with New York and Illinois has led the country in absurd and ineffective and incredibly authoritarian COVID policy - I feel like I don't recognize my fellow citizens.

* Well, any changes because of COVID specifically. Obviously there's things like later school start times for teenagers, etc that are no-brainers that should have been implemented long ago

It was to protect staff & their families, and generally reduce community spread.

Schools this year, that are fully back in person, are barely holding it together. There aren't enough subs. Trying to go fully in-person everywhere last year probably would have fallen apart, for that reason. It still might, this year. It's bad.

I agree that the harm outweighed the benefit by a long shot if we're talking just about the kids, but I don't think we'd have been able to keep fully in-person school running last year anyway. The ones that went in-person suffered badly, in some cases worse than fully-online cohorts. The only way to fix it would have been a policy of having teachers & students who very likely were COVID-exposed but not actively ill-feeling come in until it was proven that they were COVID-positive—but that policy would also have increased spread, so I wouldn't guarantee that'd actually improve the situation of having too many staff out for quarantine.

There is no evidence that school closures had any positive impact on community spread, FWIW. Hell, even for Influenza, which kids are much less resistant to than they are for COVID, studies have often found that school closures are counterproductive due to actually ending up with an increased number and diversity of contacts/events.

> but I don't think we'd have been able to keep fully in-person school running last year anyway.

But why do you think this? Are you aware that many parts of the world have returned to fully in-person school for several months or longer at this point? That here in deep blue parts of the US we are unique in our rabid devotion to denying children in-person school?

> The ones that went in-person suffered badly, in some cases worse than fully-online cohorts.

[Citation Needed]

> The only way to fix it would have been a policy of having teachers & students who very likely were COVID-exposed but not actively ill-feeling come in until it was proven that they were COVID-positive—but that policy would also have increased spread, so I wouldn't guarantee that'd actually improve the situation of having too many staff out for quarantine.

First of all I actually reject the premise that avoiding spread is necessarily a good thing. Indeed it only prolongs the epidemic stage and as the rise of variants like Delta have shown, even rushing out vaccines in an unprecedented amount of time hasn't actually allowed people to avoid the virus. I should also mention that for teachers who are quarantining (which remember is also a result of policy, you're not talking about teachers being unable to teach due to being sick, but rather being forbidden from in-person teaching because they or someone they know hit a positive on a PCR test), they could still teach remotely to a class of in-person kids (yes you might need some other adult to oversee things, but I'd wager even without such supervision you'd still have far better results than the unmitigated disaster that "distance" learning has been)

The kids who have survived distance learning have done well in spite of it, not because of it. They have access to tutors and learning pods and actually have a quiet space at home to do work, and actually have parents that give a shit. Not everyone has those resources.

But yeah I really want to hammer home the point that, the only possible way in which we wouldn't have "been able to keep fully in-person school running last year" is purely itself an artifact of absurd COVID quarantine policies, and has nothing to do with an actual lack of staff nor an actual crippling health problem preventing people from being able to work.

> But yeah I really want to hammer home the point that, the only possible way in which we wouldn't have "been able to keep fully in-person school running last year" is purely itself an artifact of absurd COVID quarantine policies, and has nothing to do with an actual lack of staff nor an actual crippling health problem preventing people from being able to work.

I suspect we will eventually “discover” the same with hospital capacity. When you test everybody on the way in and then have all positive results follow strict, labor intense quarantine protocols regardless of patient symptoms… yeah you will have problems with capacity. Imagine if they tested all patients for other viruses and did this sort of thing…

A lot of the problems we’ve experienced the last year and a half are self-made. Testing everything under the sun for covid and then acting on positive results regardless of symptoms is gonna throw a wrench in just about any machine.

They don't need to prove that school closures aren't deleterious.

They don't need to prove that the supposed epidemic of long COVID is actually real.

They don't need to prove that the missed medical appointments and missed routine non-COVID vaccinations aren't going to outpace the supposed benefits of doing the epidemiological equivalent of hiding in your closet from the monster (SARS-2).

They don't need to account for second-order effects, such as the fact that "avoiding" COVID for a month or two is really just postponing it and that we exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the countless pathogens we're surrounded by.

No, they just get to assume that their intervention de jur is without harm, and conversely that COVID is the worst thing ever and that SARS-2 is 10 times as deadly as all the other shit we don't spend an excessive amount of time worrying about (Influenza, OC43, noravirus, rhinovirus, you name it)

It’s truly remarkable.

Can you link to those studies? The big story last year was that cases of/deaths from influenza dropped worldwide[1].

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappear...

There's a huge difference between "influenza plummeted worldwide" and "influenza plummeted worldwide as a direct result of school closures [or lockdowns, physical distancing, and universal masking]". Influenza did plummet worldwide. Indeed, it did so even in places that didn't go to nearly the same extent as the US did as far as school closures and the like. That should already hint at you that it's not actually related to what we did intervention-wise (which also makes sense given that everything we did was ineffective at slowing the spread of COVID more than a marginal amount [granted, SARS-2 spreads more easily than Influenza so it's theoretically possible the COVID measures were completely ineffective for COVID yet were completely effective for Influenza, but seems farfetched])

To me the most plausible explanation is that of viral interference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30950360/

> Since the interferon system can control most, if not all, virus infections in the absence of adaptive immunity, it was proposed that viral induction of a nonspecific localized temporary state of immunity may provide a strategy to control viral infections.

Briefly, infection with a virus causes one's cellular hackles to get raised, so to speak. That is to say, that infection with virus A leads to a ramp-up in innate immunity, particularly cell-mediated innate immunity, which decreases the probability of being infected by virus B in the ensuing days/weeks. The paper I linked is about leveraging that intentionally, but obviously it's a mechanism that occurs naturally as well. This next point is orthogonal to our discussion but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that SARS-2 is, in a sense, actually the ideal candidate for intentional exploitation of viral interference, given how readily it infects human cells and how in large swaths of the population it is very non-threatening (and yes, in a small proportion of the population it is very threatening)

--

So to tie it back to the Influenza dropping, I suspect that viral interference was quite significant, and that altered social interactions accounted for a big chunk of it as well. Specifically, it seems like social networks got much more "local". There was still people going out and doing stuff, but overall the average person was significantly less likely to visit extended family, attend large events, etc. This is somewhat related to the lockdowns/forced shuttering of businesses, but I think a lot of it was broader than that as well.

---

> Can you link to those studies [regarding influenza and school closures]?

I'll start with one review that does seem to suggest a benefit in school closures for Influenza: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/2/e002149.short. It has the usual problems associative studies do, but in this case specifically the confound of regression to the mean is incredibly great. They mention as such in the results:

> However, as schools often closed late in the outbreak or other interventions were used concurrently, it was sometimes unclear how much school closure contributed to the reductions in incidence.

Here's one from Hong Kong. I really like their discussion because it points out just how difficult it is to actually show a link, given the way epidemic curves naturally rise and fall and the delayed natural of intervention impact: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2609897/

> Although we can only speculate, given the limitations of an uncontrolled natural experiment on the population level, routine surveillance data did not detect a large effect from the school closures. In particular, we noted a decline in laboratory isolations of influenza viruses that preceded the intervention and the lack of association between school closures and Rt. In fact, sentinel data may not accurately represent the incidence of influenza in the underlying population because, for example, other cocirculating upper respiratory viruses contribute to overall influenza-like illness consultation rates. Laboratory data, however, should be less affected, and extra testing in response to the heightened awareness of influenza activity might have artifactually lowered the positivity rate. The epidemic curves generated from the surveillance data showed a decline in cases that may have naturally concluded without any intervention. We note the difficulty of making inferences directly from changes in epidemic curves because changes in the epidemic curve may lag behind changes in the underlying transmission dynamics by at least 1 serial interval, as has previously been shown for severe acute respiratory syndrome

-

This next one is more about the ethics, but I think the abstract is pretty sensible:

"Mitigating Pandemic Influenza: The Ethics of Implementing a School Closure Policy" - https://journals.lww.com/jphmp/Abstract/2008/07000/Mitigatin...

> Pandemic influenza response plans have placed a significant emphasis on school closures as a community mitigation strategy. However, school closures raise serious ethical concerns, many of which have been largely overlooked. First, evidence of this intervention's efficacy has not yet been firmly established, calling into question whether it will be useful against the threat. Second, school closures have the potential to create serious adverse consequences, which will disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Thus, policy makers should focus on gathering more evidence about the efficacy of school closures and on strengthening communication and transparency about the strengths and weaknesses of any school-closure plan that they decide to adopt.

> But why do you think this? Are you aware that many parts of the world have returned to fully in-person school for several months or longer at this point? That here in deep blue parts of the US we are unique in our rabid devotion to denying children in-person school?

Because they're—US schools in my city—barely managing this year, due to staffing/substitute shortages? I'm not in a deep blue part of the US, incidentally.

> > The ones that went in-person suffered badly, in some cases worse than fully-online cohorts.

> [Citation Needed]

I have insight into districts that accidentally ran experiments for this, by running in-person and fully online programs concurrently. I can't share the numbers (they were in internal documents, with only some presented at school board meetings, which I certainly didn't save links to). Look at education & public policy journals in the coming years, should be some "fun" results (spoiler: everything was extremely bad, not just online learning)

> First of all I actually reject the premise that avoiding spread is necessarily a good thing.

.... ok.

> [quarantining teachers] could still teach remotely to a class of in-person kids (yes you might need some other adult to oversee things, but I'd wager even without such supervision you'd still have far better results than the unmitigated disaster that "distance" learning has been)

The amount of planning and support you need to make this work, on short-ish notice, under the constraints and in the environment schools were operating in, makes it unrealistic.

Overall, you're severely underestimating the disruption this has all had on in-person schooling, and the stress it's added for staff. You're overestimating how much extra work and (perceived, if you like) risk teachers were willing to take on, before they'd have simply quit.

> But yeah I really want to hammer home the point that, the only possible way in which we wouldn't have "been able to keep fully in-person school running last year" is purely itself an artifact of absurd COVID quarantine policies, and has nothing to do with an actual lack of staff nor an actual crippling health problem preventing people from being able to work.

I 100% guarantee you there'd have been a significant loss of staff at schools in our area if you announced a policy that all staff & students were to come in unless actually too ill to attend. You'd have had serious problems with sick-outs among the rest. Again: schools would have been crippled due to staffing reasons. You may disagree with what those people chose to do in response to that policy, but it's what they would have done. Source: I know a shitload of teachers in my area, and all of the ones who could afford to walk away from their job, spent most of last year right on the cusp of doing so, and they were absolutely serious about it. That kind of policy would have pushed every single one over the edge, instantly. Again, I'm not even in a "deep blue" area (rather more red than blue, in fact). I assume that effect would have been even worse in "blue" areas.

Your plan would not have worked, for staffing reasons. In-person school this year is barely working... for staffing reasons. That's just a fact, source: go talk to any public school teachers or administrators and ask them how the substitute supply situation is going, and how school attendance is going (80-85%ish daily attendance rates are common this year). Get ready for some stories. Attempting it last year would have gone even worse.

I'm Swedish, and none of my friends with school-age kids have mentioned any problems with this. Schools were open, and only older kids (16+) did hybrid or distance learning to keep them out of school and reduce spread, because it was deemed that they were old enough to handle it, while smaller kids weren't.

But there's no hysteria anywhere, everyone just kept chugging along. I have plenty of friends' kids who got infected, but recovered. Their teachers got sick, and recovered. I have teacher friends, I don't know if anyone of them got infected, but absolutely no-one has been afraid or hysterical about the situation or thinking about quitting their job because of the pandemic.

And everyone agrees that distance learning is absolute shit for kids, and those of my friends with high-school aged kids can clearly see that it was bad for their kids.

There's a difference in how US teachers are treated, under ordinary circumstances, versus those in Sweden, I expect, that accounts for some of this. I'd not be surprised if the average US teacher is always closer to quitting than the average Swedish teacher.

> But there's no hysteria anywhere

Whether it was hysteria or not, the fact was that an awful lot of US teachers were ready to quit last year, if they couldn't teach remotely or in an environment with masking + distancing + quarantine-after-exposure. Enough that there's no way they could have had normal in-person school last year, over the whole country, especially while also trying to do distancing and such (you can't go to 40+ kid class sizes to try to make up for lost staff, and still distance). Again, quarantine-after-exposure policies and burn-out mean they're having serious trouble staffing schools this year. It would not have gone better last year, and trying to open in person without quarantine policies or remote-teaching options would have driven out so many teachers that it would not have made matters better.

> And everyone agrees that distance learning is absolute shit for kids, and those of my friends with high-school aged kids can clearly see that it was bad for their kids.

All school have suffered for what'll be 2.5 years, when this school year is over—if we're optimistic, perhaps 2 years total, because maybe the second semester of this one will markedly improve. Most schools are almost entirely back in-person this year (some still have online options, but I don't think they've had as many takers as those options had last year) and it is not going great. Not as bad as last year, but it's still not normal. Hopefully next year is better.

Right, and this mindset simply doesn't exist in Sweden and many other parts of Europe.

This fear doesn't exist there.

The average American is horribly misinformed about the actual risks of covid, many young healthy Americans still believe the unvaccinated risk of death is about 10% for them, they're off in their estimate by four magnitudes. It's absolutely unbelievable how misinformed they are, and how they're allowed to perpetuate this unfounded hysteria unopposed.

I haven't seen similar surveys for Sweden or other European countries, but from talking to my friends and family, it's clear that their risk estimates are much more in line with actual reality. And consequently, their fear level is much more proportional and rational than that of the average American.

I'm sure that's a factor, and it may even have been the main one, but of the people I know who were talking about quitting, it was more like, "if you make me choose between ever letting my kids see my elderly parents for the entire school year, and working, I choose the former" or "my kid has cancer and is receiving chemotherapy, so, uh, yeah, I quit if you're gonna make me come in and risk COVID exposure". That kind of thing. It wasn't "this might kill me" (though, for a few older or ill ones I know of second-hand, it was) it was "this will limit my life in ways I don't accept, or it would be personally irresponsible" with some sentiment of "having schools fully open is socially irresponsible" on the side. All this on top of some serious burn-out from the COVID-stricken end of the 2019-2020 school year and the scramble and uncertainty of the Summer, which was its own special mess.

I agree with you that people in general have badly mis-calibrated their risk assessment when it comes to COVID, and concede that it's entirely possible that poor risk-assessment was actually the main driver of teacher resistance to returning, nationwide—though that's not what I personally saw.

Incidentally, there were lots of parents demanding a remote option last school year, too, not just teachers. The parents alone might have been enough to make it happen—though they may well have been acting on the same poor risk assessment you bring up, of course. That's possible.

IMO you are clearly making an unfounded assumption

That would be an unfounded assumption.

Source? I see 188 pediatric deaths from flu in the 2017-2018 season, and 464 for covid over 1.5 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatr...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...

Here in Canada we responded more aggressively than most parts of the USA. While we never had a lockdown that ordered us into our homes in most of the country, we generally shut nearly everything non-essential besides health, food, supply chain, etc. towards the start and then started re-opening various businesses and facilities. Schools and daycares (private and public) closed in March 2020 along with most workplaces.

That justification seems self-explanatory enough. We intended (and still intend) to contain the virus from doing too much damage too quickly until we're all vaccinated. (The vast majority of Canadians have still not been exposed to the virus because of our more drastic reaction. In terms of the virus alone, we did control it better because of it.)

So at that point, it became a question of when and how to re-open under conditions that would prevent the spread of COVID-19 sufficiently. That includes in the schools. I supported the lockdowns in March 2020. But we seem to be unable to navigate the discussion into the next phase of living with this. We cannot sacrifice child education, and the more of us are vaccinated and less likely to get ill, the more compelling the argument to resume truly normal education becomes. (In person education re-opened in September 2021 here in Ontario, but the doomsayers are already calling for closures, and many students are remote.)

This is not accurate? Ontario was very explicitly under a stay-at-home order for many months in the winter & spring; you could (technically) be charged for leaving your home for non-essential purposes

But boy, wouldn't that suck? I have a couple thoughts here:

1) Kids spend a lot of time with adults, so yes, they could get grandma sick. They could also get their teacher sick, or the school nurse, or other support staff. Good luck convincing the teachers to put their health on the line; they're already underpaid and overworked.

2) Several metro areas have been running short on pediatric ICU beds. COVID is way less risky for kids, but still risky enough to overwhelm our medical system, so preventing spread should probably be given some level of priority.

On the whole, I'm glad that our school systems moved fast to figure out an alternative solution during the pandemic. I'm less glad that we haven't tried other strategies as those alternative solutions have shown clear gaps in effectiveness, and I'm upset that children who depend on the school environment for socialization, focused learning, and even food have been left behind.

And it isnt even a small number of children at that.

In practice this would get you two groups of 30-40 kids in each class - but they didn't need to build a new school they were planning on.

I'm from an area that used to have one high school. It now has 8 in the area. I had a class of 1100. This year with the additional schools it is around 1000.

A district I have good insight into did a split-week schedule similar to that, with online portions for the "off" days, plus a completely separate online program for parents who wanted their kids 100% remote. Unlike some other districts around here that outsourced the online program to one or another terrible companies when offering both options, this district ran their own fully-remote program.

The results were that both groups did terribly but the in person group did worse, despite high levels of near-zero engagement at the online school (i.e. a double-digit percentage of kids basically didn't do school at all). The actual effect of that half-on-half-off schedule in practice was that ~half as much material was covered right off the bat—few of the kids took the online component for the "off" days seriously, and teachers had a hell of a time trying to arrange things so that even could work in the first place, and mostly failed at it or gave up—but then, it gets worse: in-person means people will get COVID, and will expose others, even with fewer kids around at a time reducing the rates, it still happens. So now you've got some weeks with whole classes at home, pretty much not doing school, lots of teachers out and calling for subs, and sub shortages leading to baby-sitting rooms, basically, with too many kids in them to realistically teach—incidentally, this is still happening all over in our city, as the sub shortage remains very bad.

> It's amazing that private schools were somehow able to operate.

Our kids are now in a private school for this school year (the above was not our district last year, incidentally, but another nearby one) that stayed open all of last year and had minimal issues with "quarantining" or viral spread. How? 1) Cut extracurriculars, especially sports—public school parents would never allow this, sports kept running through all of last year and were only barely interrupted the year before, shutting them down was not an option unless school board members all wanted to lose their next election and probably get some death threats and experience some vandalism, 2) powerful air purifiers in every room, 3) everyone masked & distanced and took it seriously—again, compliance issues at public schools are less of a problem at some private schools, 4) no-one constantly pushing to relax measures the second the local infection rates trended slightly down—they had much better and more consistent planning. This year? Vaccine mandates for staff, and high levels of (voluntary) vaccination among eligible kids.

As with other cases where (some) private schools do better than most public schools, dealing with COVID better mostly had to do with those schools getting to select who they have to deal with.

Is it because they don't believe in distance learning or just learning in general? Maybe they relied on school as a glorified daycare. Education was just a side effect.

I mean, I know unpaid internships are widespread in things like fashion design and poetry and journalism - but there's no need to do unpaid internships if you're trying to get into programming or accounting.

Many of them adapted quickly. Outdoor classrooms, meeting at parks. Tons of flexibility from teachers / staff. Very quick remodels of spaces - ie, take a wall out of a classroom so it open straight outside with a rolling door etc, very high levels of ventilation. Some doing weekly testing - test on Thursday, turn in Friday, results by Sunday to make decisions on stay at home / come in. Vaccine mandates for all adult staff.

In other words, for parents of private school students, the value of in-person learning is clear, and the schools are delivering it.

The risk in an outdoor classroom, students and teachers masked, teachers vaccinated, is relatively minimal. Student viral load in terms of spread is not so high either from what I've heard. Even inside, with in and out fans running, significant ventilation I'm not sure risk is as terrible as its made out to be.

We'll see how this all plays out. From what I've seen, those kids are doing great (and yes, camping trips replaced sleepovers etc in these families - but their kids remaining socially engaged with friends etc).

There's nothing surprising about that. You have a group of parents with money and a desire to educate their children in a particular way, so they went ahead and spent the necessary money and put in the necessary time to make it happen. That doesn't help much for the parents that have to send their kids to an underfunded public school in a big city.

What they do have obviously is incredibly flexibility and there really was no option in folks mind to cancel all in person learning. So they just do everything they can, small pods / cohorts, split schedules for recess, split day schedules even and all the other steps.

So I wouldn't say money, but the time and decision velocity was there. Teachers WERE going to be teaching, and the admin (with teachers and parent council) basically said, how do we make this work.

The secondary win was that this let parents work from home! So they could stay home in peace and quiet and avoid spreading stuff around.

I'm seriously curious what the larger model of learn from home was in public schools? How do these parents work and progress vis a vis their colleagues who send their kids to in-person learning?

The folks I know with kids in school actually did very well career wise, they were 100% on it for remote work, got lots done without commute or kids or if on an in-person job were 100% there (usually with an N95 mask if school demanded that).

If anything, if folks were struggling you'd think in person would be even MORE critical for both parents and kids.

Note that my local suburban public school has TONS of field space outside to set up some tents and outside classrooms.

Some links as to what this looks like sometimes:

https://www.greenschoolyards.org/covid-learn-outside

Private schools could plan better because, despite supposedly being more beholden to their paying customers then public schools are to their constituent families, in practice they seem to have an easier time saying "nope, this is how we're doing it, deal with it", for whatever reason. They didn't have to pay any mind to morons trying to strip all protective measures every time "the numbers" started to look a little better, or lose planning time & focus to misguided planning for those sorts of things.

Private schools may already have had things like longer and more recesses than nearby public schools, so already spent a larger portion of the day outside—public schools have cut recess down to almost nothing, chasing those sweet, sweet test scores.

Private schools also may have had both the money and the leadership to get things like ventilation improvements or other expensive measures done fast. Public schools were crippled by indecision, and various factions pushing for things to go "back to normal" ASAP, fighting any spending or policies that acknowledged this would be a problem for more than a very small number of months and trying to deal with it in those terms.

I don't even think it's a matter of money, but you nailed it on the head with the desire part. Some public schools actually get more funding than private ones...

Private schools get to filter out applicants. They only get applicants from families that are interested in education (and willing to spend a little bit more on it than average) and they are allowed to expel students that are not compliant.

That significantly lightens the teacher's workload and makes it easier for them to adapt.

Keep in mind in a public school classroom there will be a percentage of kids that don't want to be there and that will disrupt at much as they can no matter what. And, thanks to the Pareto rule, probably get 80% of the teacher's attention and energy. Some magnets schools manages to bypass that, but they are slowly being shamed and bullied into not doing [0].

[0] https://thelowell.org/8815/news/board-of-education-announces...

https://www.amazon.com/Charter-Schools-Enemies-Thomas-Sowell...

As a personal anecdote I used to manage an academic department that was highly ranked. I'm proud of the faculty and curriculum but to be perfectly frank the biggest factor in our success was that our ranking attracted top-tier applicants. At the level we were at, the differences between us and similar institutions mostly boiled down to that initial self-selection.

First, to address self-selection as a primary cause, Sowell specifically compares the outcomes of students who won the charter school lottery versus those who didn't, and shows the performance gap between public and charter schools remains even when only considering students who entered the lottery.

Second, Sowell purposely compares schools that have as similar demographics as possible, including racial makeup and economic status. He also attempts to control for location differences by comparing schools that are co-located in the same building or are located within a small distance of each other.

Finally, he specifically calls out charter schools' ability to enforce stronger discipline and even expel students as a distinct competitive advantage, one that the teachers unions recognize and are trying to undermine. He also believes that relaxing discipline in the name of reducing disparate outcome among identity groups has a direct causal effect on worsened education in public schools.

To me, with regards to discipline, the lesson to be learned is that public schools need to be empowered to enforce stricter discipline as well. There is no justice or fairness in allowing a small minority to disrupt the education of a willing majority. A few of the discipline-related anecdotes Sowell shares in his book are heart-wrenching, including one story of a student punching a pregnant teacher in the stomach, telling her he was going to punch the baby right out of her, and finally returning to school the next day with no imposed consequences for his violent behavior. I don't know how any student could learn in an environment like that.

With respect to educational opportunities that seems more compelling. But as Sowell alludes, I suspect you could get a similar effect by allowing public schools to enforce stronger discipline and make it easier to suspend or expel difficult students. On that note I'm surprised to hear that teachers unions are opposed to that now. I've certainly heard that unions are an obstacle to getting rid of poor-performing teachers, but I rarely hear of them being an obstacle to dealing with difficult students. At least a couple decades ago the AFT was actively pushing to make it easier to expel students for things like drugs or weapons in school.

I think the far more important point, however is that some charter schools are working phenomenally well for the underprivileged and doing so with less funding, and that there are valuable lessons to be learned from that fact, which lessons are at risk of being ignored or lost. However, instead of either trying to learn from these charter schools or allow more of them to be created, teacher's unions and the government officials they support via campaign funds are openly hostile to them, as the book details. These adults are clearly acting in their best interests, not in the interests of the children they are claiming to serve.

With regard to government policy in general, there seems to be a complete disincentive to analyze policy in retrospect honestly, determine successes and failures, and learn from the past in order to influence future decisions. With government policy, intent often matters more than results, as intent earns votes. This can easily lead to perverse incentives.

As an example, it's easy to claim good intent when proposing to spend more money on schools. But, if we want to actually help children out, results matter more than intent, and it seems very clear that, past a certain point, pouring more money into the public school system has little to no impact on educational outcomes. Instead, we should both be looking at other factors, and we should be allowing for more competition so that we can iterate on more ideas more rapidly. The relative monoculture of the public school system, combined with perverse incentives among both the government and teacher's unions, seem unhealthy for society and for our children.

But it does seem logical to me that given a set of students, some of them will end up costing more than others. To give a trivial example, a student who repeats a grade costs more to educate than a student who skips a grade, just by virtue of spending an extra two years in the system. Similarly, it seems logical to me that students who can't afford lunch, need additional ESL or special-needs teachers, are physically handicapped, are violent, etc will cost more than the average student. (And sure, kicking that violent kid out lowers your costs, but it simply shifts that cost to the juvenile detention system.) Assuming the above is true, any school that is able to attract slightly more low-cost students or discourage slightly more high-cost students (however they are able to do so) should enjoy substantial cost savings.

> some charter schools are working phenomenally well for the underprivileged and doing so with less funding

I do not dispute that there are positive examples. From the statistical analysis I can find the overall effects seem mixed: in some states charter-school students do better (on average) than public school students, in some states worse, and in some states like Ohio there's simply more variance between charter school students. And since I do not know is what this effect is due to I'm not sure to what degree this approach scales. For example, do charter schools work equally well in a region where there are no more public schools left for them to dump difficult students onto?

One way to test this would be to randomly assign a population of students into a public school system and a charter school system, give them the same funding, and require that each system accommodate even the most difficult students who have special needs or disciplinary issues. (Not necessarily in the same classes, just that they are responsible for their education.) If charter schools have better educational outcomes in such an experiment then I would find that truly compelling.

I think it's absolutely useful that states are taking such different approaches to charter schools though, and I think eventually that will give us the data we're looking for.

The real advantage of charter schools is parent engagement. Parents usually have to specifically ask for their children to be placed into charter schools. That's a signal that the parents take education seriously and will impose some discipline on the children.

[0]https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd

A better and more instructive comparison would be money spent only on instruction, adjusted for PPP and maybe student poverty.

As for sports, if sports aren't moving the needle academically then we shouldn't be funding them. If other nations priotized education over sport, and got better results we should learn from them.

Just throwing more money at probably won't do anything, what is likely is that they will double down on the strategies that aren't working.

We certainly could learn from what works around the world, but comparing raw numbers is simply not helpful.

We can also learn from what works in different states. For instance, Massachusetts, as a state, has PISA scores that are on par with the best in the world.

For example, New York State has the highest spending per student $24,040 and is ranked 14th in this survey[0] while Virginia is ranked fourth and only spends $12,216. Massachusetts spends $17,058 and tops the list.

A honest look at the school system may reveal that some parts of it are underfunded, but it will likely also reveal parts that are overfunded. I suspect a lot of progress can be made by being better stewards of the money they currently have, and therefore suggest starting there. Ultimately any taxes come from the wallets of families supporting the children we are trying to help here, making them poorer needs to show benefit to be justified.

[0]https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...

maybe because for the working class the classroom is seen as one of the last places where working class children can receive a tiny bit of the patience and encouragement that is needed to help develop a child's own learning process. i am talking about 'holding hands during the first attempt' encouragement. encouragement together with a viable learning path/trajectory that is focused on creating resilient learners.

the parents say that they don't believe in 'distance learning', not school it's entirety. it's disingenuous for you to insinuate that the two are the same. they're not.

That's just laziness.