113
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
113 points (95.9% liked)
World News
32303 readers
422 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not insisting, the experts are. There's plenty of data that shows that this is necessary if you want a child to have normal development. Unless, of course, parents are paying for high-quality care elsewhere, which has been shown to give similar advantages.
And what's unreasonable with expecting parents... to be parents? I don't understand why any child should be disadvantaged because their parent(s) decided it was too much work to actively care and participate in their development.
When my kids were young, I was working full time, while my wife's career was put on the back-burner so she could take care of them. I still had to come home from work, help her with the kids, often staying up until 3am with a baby who had colic, then get 4 hours of sleep before heading out to work to do it again. My weekends were devoted entirely to the kids, and my wife would have a bit of a break.
It was exhausting. I get it. But it had to be done. My eldest didn't even have access to TV until she was four, so it was all about books, interaction with other kids, outings with us, and library visits for their programs. Then it turned into kindergarten, and we were still putting our energy into her development. And as she got older, it was sports and other activities that required a big commitment on our end... it really doesn't end!
Child-rearing is by far one of the most committed things a person will do in their lifetime. More than work. I don't envy anyone who has to split their time between a demanding job and their child or children.
I'm sure the overall reason is stochastic, with other concurrent contributing factors, but writing off what is generally considered to be the main reason for an acute change in educational metrics (which coincides pretty spot on with am abrupt interruption in home life and school life) doesnt seem reasonable. I haven't heard anything besides the pandemic, being the main driving force for the acute change in educational metrics. Raising a child and reading to them is different than directed education. I value the time I have with my children and read to them daily. This is very different (but complimentary to) than what they would get at some sort of structured pre-k.
This is one of those situations if your looking at the "why," you have to use judgment. All of the data is of course, retrospective, which is not as good as a prospective stuff such as a randomized controlled trial (which it would, of course be unethical to perform). When thinking about stuff like this, I like to point people out to a peer-reviewed systematic review that shows parachute is not associated with survival when jumping out of airplanes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/). The point is, we can't always clinically study some thing in the best possible way because it's either impractical or unethical, and sometimes you just have to use your best judgement unless/until something more concrete comes to light. We cannot, ethically, do an experiment where we recreate many of the conditions at the start of the pandemic and to conduct an RCT that this drastically affect education (including early education and development).
That being said, I do agree that we should do what we can as parents to raise them, read, help educate, teach good life skills and help instill positive personality traits. I do agree that screen time, distractions, and overall pace of life have been a contributing factor to this for many years, and no-doubt, have played a role at least in the background during this acute decline.