I’m so glad I’m not the only one seeing this. “Technology” wasn’t the problem, the problem was “learning platforms” that don’t actually teach anything useful, and the fact that teachers weren’t the time or resources to actually integrate it meaningfully. Just throwing kids at Blooket or whatever nonsense software the district paid for is not “integrating computers into the classroom.”
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
This is incredibly misleading in so many ways.
First off, having lower scores on standardized tests does not somehow mean that there is cognitive decline. You can not measure intelligence as it is an abstract concept that doesn’t have a clear definition to begin with. Even if you could, there is zero possibility of it changing in a meaningful way as humans are still humans. Technology is being scape coated here as it is a much easier answer than addressing the systemic issues with the education system. The average age of a person in the US is almost 40 which means on average a person hasn’t been in high school in 20 years. Public school systems have gone down hill significantly as the government is run by a voter base that cares way more about retirement and loweing taxes than it does on securing the future for young Americans. The “technology” problem is really just private equity and other large companies preying on the school system to sell destructive digital products to schools that can’t afford to hire more staff. Teachers don’t get paid much to begin with but it is way cheaper to pay a few thousand to a large company for a education platform than it is to hire a few extra people. Furthermore, students are now being subject to massive draconian style surveillance and other phycologically damaging techniques which lead to the destruction of identity and the death of creativity. No long are students allowed to explore the world as that would be far to dangerous. We put students in a phycological prison and then wonder why they aren’t doing well on tests.
psivchaz@reddthat.com 2 days ago
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Public school systems have gone down hill significantly as the government is run by a voter base that cares way more about retirement and loweing taxes than it does on securing the future for young Americans.
There’s plenty of funding available. Funding per pupil, adjusted for inflation, has never been higher. The problem is more about where the money is going rather than there not being enough of it.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Averages don’t take into account differences in income
Senal@programming.dev 2 days ago
You are arguing against yourself here, if it’s fundamentally not possible to measure it then speculation around what a measured value could and could not be used for is useless, especially in such absolutist terms.
If it is measurable then variation could and would exist, based on the external interactions with whatever phenomenon would affect this variable.
With the exception, of course, of it being some fundamental constant, which would be unusual in a scientific sense.
The rest i mostly agree with, though i might move around the cause and effect a bit on some of those, but it doesn’t really change the outcome.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I take issue with the idea that a test can somehow measure intelligence. Standardized tests measure information and skills learned in class. When scores are lower is doesn’t mean the students are dumber. It means the school system is failing to teach.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It doesn’t measure intelligence, and this is a fortune article not a peer reviewed paper.
What it is, is that test scores are historically correlated with cognitive function. The depression of the measurable metric is assumed to be following the depression of an unmeasurable metric.
The alternate is, there’s a divorce between these metrics and that disruption is caused by the things you said.
Senal@programming.dev 2 days ago
I agree that there is no universally accepted general definition of intelligence , there are some very specific subset that can be somewhat reliably measured but that’s not even close to a general score.
Standardised tests measure the ability to pass the tests, last i checked it was mostly rote memorization more than applications of skills learned. ( my info could be out of date or incorrect on this )
That’s not strictly true and it’s also not a mutually exclusive scenario.
For a given metric of “dumbness” it is possible for it to go up and down independent of school teaching standards and approaches. or even a combination of the teachings standards + some other things
Also if you are going to argue that perceived “dumbness” can only be attributed to failing to teach , that assumes a usable metric for “dumbness” that can be measured.
I’m mostly agreeing with your points, i’m just not seeing how “can’t measure smartness” and “smartness can only be falling due to teaching failures” can be posited simultaneously.