| ▲ | mrandish 5 days ago |
| There's a longer trend but also a clear inflection point around the rise of mobile phones and social media. N=1 but we delayed getting a phone for our kid until a few months after she turned 13, which was a good choice because now we wish we'd gone longer. We can see how social media and app snacking clearly have negative effects on attention span, attitude, etc. Also choosing to close schools during COVID was as catastrophic as many predicted. Our kid was in 7th grade during COVID and teachers each year report the effects are still being felt across many students. Of course, naturally great students recovered quickly and innately poor students remained poor but the biggest loss was in the large middle of B/C students. |
|
| ▲ | linuxhansl 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I followed a different approach with my son. We gave him a phone pretty early, and didn't even have a lot of rules around it (no family controls, etc). The agreement I had with him: "Scroll all day, play video games, etc. That is my side of the agreement. And you also do your school work, learn, practice for exams, homework, etc. That is your side of the agreement. I'll trust you. If your grades get worse, i.e. you need help managing device time, we'll review/change this agreement." We also sat down many times looking at content together, in attempt to teach him what's trust-worthy and what isn't, what's "healthy" and what isn't, etc. And of course we do other things together as well. So far (knock on wood) my son has managed well - he is 16 now. He organizes his own time, and has learned when to play and when to work. And crucially he has learned when to disconnect from his devices to do what's necessary. No kid is the same. I am not saying my approach is best or even right, I just offer it as another data point. |
| |
| ▲ | foobarian 5 days ago | parent [-] | | We did something similar with our now 12yo. She self-regulates and tries to stay off the worst doom scrolling garbage sites, and tries to explore different sites and such like Pinterest cards and so on. She knows intellectually that the apps and services are designed to suck away attention. This kinda broke my heart but the other day she made a "bored jar" probably based on a Pinterest card which is a jar filled with little scraps of paper with ideas for what to do when you're bored. It felt like I was watching a drowning person trying their best to stay afloat if that makes sense. | | |
| ▲ | 0xdada 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Why is that a bad thing? Choosing to be bored instead of mindlessly scrolling is great. Boredom was an important part of growing up for me. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stephendause 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Jonathan Haidt has a lot of good material on this. He is leading the charge in encouraging parents to delay giving their child a phone until high school and not allowing them to have social media accounts until age 16. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/family/story/author-sugge... |
| |
| ▲ | echelon 5 days ago | parent [-] | | How do Asian countries and top-performing countries deal with this? We should do whatever they do. On that note, we should also segregate kids by academic desire and achievement like Japan and China. The bullies and underachievers hold back those who are academically excellent. We do this in limited instances, but not enough to really count. | | |
| ▲ | rawgabbit 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In Japan and China, high-stakes entrance exams come earlier and play a stronger role than in the U.S. In China, the zhongkao (high school entrance exam, around age 15) and gaokao (college entrance exam, age 18) largely determine access to selective schools and universities. In Japan, competitive entrance exams for high schools (age 15) and universities (age 18). | | |
| ▲ | waterTanuki 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That's really underselling it. Gaokao determines where you can live, where you can work, who your friends are, occasionally how much your family values you. They shut down airspace and conduct military/police patrols during examinations to sniff out cheaters. It's only the very wealthy who can just uproot their lives and send their kids to an Ivy/Stanford/Oxbridge/MIT and just skip the whole thing. Responding to the OC, this is a downright awful solution to the current education problem in the U.S. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/file/feeds/PDF/9780674295391_sam... |
| |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I grew up a white kid in a very (90+%) Asian community. IMO, the biggest difference I observed comparing my white friends from other communities to my Asian friends in my community was the expectation of excellence. For the Asian kids, either they were succeeding, above and beyond, or they were a failure. "B is for 'Better not come home tonight', A is for 'Adequate'", as the jokes went. And some of those kids still struggled. But the response was to push harder. Didn't get adequate grades that school year? You're not doing anything fun this summer, you're studying. Needless to say it was a culture shock going to college and meeting people who were shockingly cavalier about potentially failing classes. | | | |
| ▲ | ianbicking 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There were some responses about educational expectations, but I would love to hear how folks in these Asian countries specifically deal with cell phones, social media, and these general media/online distractions. | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cultural pressure towards education, and phone bans left and right. Also, people are still addicted to their phones, including kids. But more controlled, I guess. | |
| ▲ | kridsdale1 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I only know through cultural osmosis and not real data but it sure seems like the expectation is for the kids to be up till midnight grinding away on homework. | |
| ▲ | barbazoo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone with difficulties early on in life and thus showing behavioral issues (what you describe as bullies and underachievers), I went through a system like this and I despised it. N=1 but segregating children at early age based on the behavior they're showing, i.e. the difficulties they're having, felt kinda cruel. It worked academically I guess, I ended up ok, but for many it just meant they just simmered in an environment of mediocrity and rarely made it out. | | |
| ▲ | miningape 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I get it especially with younger ages, but on the other hand if the student is persistently disruptive they should be removed for the sake of the other students. It's also unfair that 1 student hinders the education of 20+ others. |
| |
| ▲ | bjourne 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | miningape 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I do agree there's a disparity between educational outcomes in men and women - but I don't think you can immediately draw your conclusion: Baked into it is the assumption that current education models fit both genders equally. Boys respond better to active learning and competitive techniques than the more passive techniques used currently. (Could we just as easily draw the opposite conclusion if our current educational culture was geared towards boys?) Another thing to consider is the various programs that incentivise/enable girls to get into various subjects (in my n=1 experience I had much fewer programs (programming, robotics, maths, etc.) to join despite being already very interested and strong in those subjects). By comparing age groups directly we are also not controlling for the fact girls mature faster making them better students earlier in life. We are also not considering tail effects of a normal distribution: e.g. top 5% of all students are male, but majority of students in the top 50% are female. Maybe the solution is to segregate schools on gender, but that doesn't immediately equate to boys crashing and girls excelling. | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree and I don't think gender-segregated schooling is a wise idea. But the argument is Kryptonite to those who favor school segregation because they realize that they more likely than not would end up in the loser group. Works wonders on race baiters too, who has to come up with "reasons" why girls beating boys is the result of "unfairness" while whites beating blacks is "natural". |
| |
| ▲ | jadamson 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's trivially not true. Girls do better overall, but it's a long, long way from being bimodal. Do you have another reason for being against streaming? | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If it's trivially untrue find me a Western country where boys generally do better than girls. I'll wait! | | |
| ▲ | jadamson 4 days ago | parent [-] | | As I said, there is a vast overlap between boys and girls. Boys even do better in some subjects, notably mathematics and (some) sciences[1]. In the same way that if we streamed per-subject, there'd still be a significant number of girls in the top set for maths, if we streamed by performance overall, there'd be a lot of boys in the top schools. Nothing about streaming implies gender segregation, so I'll ask again: do you have another reason for being against it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/boys-widen... | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's why I wrote "generally". There are many countries, subjects, and years of education to compare so you can always find some statistic that bucks the trend. | | |
| ▲ | jadamson 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Right, and no statistic, whether it's one that bucks the trend or not, would suggest one gender crashing while the other excels if streaming was applied. No statistic implies segregation. I've asked twice now and you don't seem to be able to justify your position at all. That being the case, all I'm getting from your original comment is boomer incel vibes - a strange need to self-flagellate on behalf of your gender. Feel free to post whatever bimodal metric you were referring to if I'm wrong :P | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Boomer incel vibes? Lol! Maybe i have experience teaching and u don't? Segregate by reading skill. Good group gets 80% girls, bad group gets 80% boys. What happens to the 20% in the "wrong" group? Think. The kids are pressured to conform. Boys will slack off to be with the other boys while the girls will work hard to be with the other girls. | | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jadamson 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the UK, going by results for GCSE English [1], 23.5% of girls and 15.6% of boys received top marks. This would put the split almost exactly 60/40 going on to A-level English. Maths would be 54/46 in favour of boys. > Maybe i have experience teaching and u don't? I don't see any teaching jobs on your CV. Do bear in mind that while I also don't have teaching experience, I have been in school where some subjects were streamed (Maths, Sciences, Foreign Languages). It worked absolutely fine. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/aug/21/pupils-eng... | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Wow, you really are a crazy person, aren't you? Attacking my character to win an internet argument. There is a metric shitton of evidence proving that: 1. Girls do better than boys in school. 2. The more girls the better the results. 3. The more boys the worse the results. Denying 1, 2, or 3 is the equivalent of climate change denial. "All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys – both in terms of academic performance and socialisation." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that grouping students by educational achievement exacerbates the problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07380...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022976
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/... | | |
| ▲ | jadamson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys We're not talking about single-sex schools. Even if we were, that line is simply not true. > Bottom line: based on this analysis, single sex schooling may provide a modest boost to grades for female pupils, but doesn’t seem to make any difference for male pupils. https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-sing... As for your links, the first is very tenuous data, finding effects in "Mathematics and English but not Chinese". The second (about mental health rather than academic performance) doesn't support your claim: "without negative effects for boys". Not exactly crashing out, is it? The third is simply old and doesn't control for the differing properties that boys' and girls' schools tend to have in the UK for historical reasons. My link corrects for that. There may be some negative effects on socialization in a single-sex environments, but we're not talking about single-sex environments, nor about socialization. > Attacking my character to win an internet argument. You implied you had teaching experience. You do not. You've invented insane splits like 80/20 when the data don't suggest that at all. You're now having to scraping the bottom of the barrel for a link to prove your claim while simultaneously suggesting the effect is as well-established as climate change. Instead of wasting my time with this nonsense, maybe spend some time proof-reading your CV. | | |
| ▲ | bjourne 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I feel no need to spoon-feed crazy internet trolls. I've cited a sample of researchers and research papers that support my conclusion. A few among thousands which show the same thing: girls do better than boys in school. Your response is "It worked fine for ME, the researchers are wrong, and you haven't updated your cv in years so I think you are lying." I have no reason to waste more time with you. HTH HAND BYE | | |
| ▲ | jadamson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > girls do better than boys in school My very first reply said that "girls do better overall". The claims I took issue with were that (a) streaming would result in total segregation (b) which would, in turn, cause boys to crash out. I have demonstrated that neither claim is true, while you've posted random links from Google Scholar apparently without reading them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rootusrootus 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We did something similar. My daughter got her first phone last month, just in time to start high school. And I'm happy to say that the school district adjusted their mobile phone policy this year from being pretty restrictive, to an outright ban. I completely support that. |
|
| ▲ | lenerdenator 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We're seeing more districts ban cell phones in the classroom. It makes sense; in my day, the most you could do is text and play Tetris. We didn't have apps that were weaponized to capture our attention and memory like the kids do now. People keep talking about how catastrophic it was to close schools during COVID. We keep having catastrophes and no one does anything about it. If the kids missed school, make them go back longer. Large chunks of the country still have 2-3 months where the kids don't do anything; send them back then. If they are already doing year-round schooling, cancel after-school athletics and make them learn with that time instead. |
| |
| ▲ | bityard 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's weird to me that cell phones in the classroom is even controversial. When I was in school, some kids had Walkmans, CD players, and game boys. You could bring them to school but they weren't allowed in the classroom without prior approval. In class, you were expected to pay attention to the teacher, even if you didn't want to. If you got caught with a device instead of listening, the teacher simply took it away until after class. If you kept bringing it in, you'd lose it until the end of the week, semester, or school year. This doesn't seem to be a thing anymore, and there probably multiple sad reasons why. | | |
| ▲ | yepitwas 5 days ago | parent [-] | | To be very blunt: trashy parents with too much time on their hands will become enraged and raise a huge stink if their kid can't text them or answer their calls(!) while in class. So many will do this that schools just gave up. That's why it's nice when states just make it a law. That shuts those people up (or at least forces them to go complain somewhere else, where they're more easily ignored and it takes more effort so they'll probably just give up). (That's the middle-class schools—in really rough schools, teachers have to pick their battles because actual violence is on the table as a response, even among lower elementary kids, and admin's too busy dealing with things way more serious than some kid texting in class to back teachers up on small stuff like that) | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I think as a general societal change, we need to stop catering to people simply because they "become enraged." | | |
| ▲ | yepitwas 5 days ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, there’s also a set who think their kid needs a phone on them at all times so they can make a call if there’s a school shooting. This doesn’t make any statistical sense as a justification (it might if more “school shootings” were indiscriminate mass shootings, but only a very tiny fraction are—not to downplay them, at all, but there are a couple statistical sieves here filtering for “a personal cell phone a student had saved a life” and the very first one is already filtering it down to almost nothing) but it’s a little easier to sympathize with the basic impulse, at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yepitwas 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We've got one locked-down shared phone for our kids, for scheduling stuff with friends and calling & texting relatives or whatever. We almost have a teen so we'll see how long we can keep that up, but we only relented that much within the last year and a half, zero phones before that (which seems like it should be normal, but there are a lot of e.g. 4th grade classrooms out there where most of the kids have phones, seems super popular especially among the Fussellian middle class, I think in part for status reasons, like, "well if my kid doesn't have a phone people will think it's because we can't afford it!" which of course Fussell's upper-middle and higher don't give a shit about, so there's less child phone-ownership among them) |
| |
| ▲ | csa 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > e.g. 4th grade classrooms out there where most of the kids have phones, seems super popular especially among the Fussellian middle class, I think in part for status reasons, like, "well if my kid doesn't have a phone people will think it's because we can't afford it!" which of course Fussell's upper-middle and higher don't give a shit about, so there's less child phone-ownership among them) Great onservation and great Fussell reference. Some/much of the content in Class is a bit dated now, but imho it is still very directionally correct. Having learned a bit about adult developmental psychology, many of his observations are found in and predictable by modern cognitive psychology. | | |
| ▲ | yepitwas 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Fussell was such a fun read, and so useful in little (also fun) ways. I distinctly remember seeing, several years ago, a photo of one of (I swear this is going to be basically apolitical) Trump's kids with their family, including one or more kids with toys, sitting in some kind of living-space with this perfectly spotless mirrored-on-all-sides table, and I was like "FUSSELL!!!!". Or all the gold in photos of that family in their home environments (a signal aimed squarely at Fussell's "Middle", which thinks "gold shit everywhere" is an "upper" signal, which it is not—unlike the mirrored table, which is Upper, because nobody who ever does their own cleaning would willingly deal with a fingerprint-magnet like that) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bee_rider 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I guess one could quibble about the effectiveness of testing, but the longer trend was… upwards. Eyeballing the math graph, we’re at 55% basic competence. The peak was 65%. But doing a totally informal eyeball projection, we ought to be above 70% by now. |