batrachos
On point 1, it would be helpful to look at the public health outcomes of districts that closed for two years vs. those that didn't. I don't know the answer on that one, although I do know my kid's private school was open for much of that time without anyone being hospitalized.
On point 2, we "only" went back to 2003 levels. "Only" 20 years worth of losses doesn't convince me.
On point 3: Yes? Tests are to a certain extent arbitrary. But these ones show a clear bad trend. You could ask the children to paint pictures of clowns as a test and if the number went down it would probably be a bad sign. These tests are less arbitrary than that, and lower reading scores in particular are correlated with a higher high school drop out rate.
You could argue that "bad things happened but it was worth it." But you can't reasonably argue that "nothing bad happened and the tests are all bunk and also it was totally worth it."
I'm another poster who did the same thing and I'm also very glad.
> Ultimately I don't understand why so many parents keep taking potshots at remote learning a couple of years afterwards.
Because, as documented in tfa, it was a disaster in terms of learning outcomes.
> If you were able to throw pots of money at the problem, good for you.
Meanwhile, poor parents who weren't, their kids suffered learning losses.
> Can someone explain to me the logic that thinks test scores for young children at specific should keep going up?
I was sympathetic to this line of argument until I looked up what good scores are generally held to be. This is a situation where the national averages are around a third proficient. Clearly a lot of room for growth. If we were in the 80s or 60s, sure, why not. We'd probably maxed things out and demaning additional gains might be squeezing blood from a stone. But ~30% proficient? We can probably do better.
Setting the present question aside, I think this is a very time-bound point of view. There used to be riots in Harvard Yard over theological questions. Now we're so cowed that a little booing and a walkout is national news. I think we could use to be a little ruder to each other.
Why are you sure about this? Honor codes tend to be a thing at Southern schools.
Disagree all you want. This is why certain ideologies that tend to be rule-following and cast aspersion on the spoils system often have trouble holding power. Such as centrists, libertarians and greens.
First, you have to establish that degradation has taken place. Considering that for most of civilizational history, the vast majority of people were wearing rags and eating grain porridge without spice or much salt and living in hovels, that doesn't seem obvious to me. Second, even if you do establish that, you have to specifically tie it to "fiat" currency and not some other factor. Those both seem like a tall order.
Isn't that basically what's happening already?
ChromeOS and Android Linuces on the one side, GNU/Linux (sorry Stallman haters) on the other...
That's not true. From what I understand, sessions are coded e.g. "Intake" or "Meds check" when billed to insurance. They know roughly what you're talking about.
> and isn't going to let you see or not see a specialist just based on whether they prescribe you meds.
You can't bill a meds check with no meds.
> That's not how it works - or not how it should be working if your insurer is acting appropriately. I also saw this psychiatrist a couple of times before taking anything. I didn't walk out of my first session with a prescription for buspirone.
And those sessions were probably billed as "intake", "evaluation" or the like. A psychiatrist cannot keep billing intakes and evaluations forever. Talk therapy is coded in its own way, and generally paid at a lower rate.
Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?