My son is starting at a Hybrid School next year. It will run 4-8th grade (he’s in 4th). I am really excited about it: the kids will all go Tuesday/Thursday and have mostly asynchronous stuff M/W/F. It should let us do a lot more differentiation (like swap out the math curriculum with the one we like) while still giving him lots of social time and the chance to work with teachers.
However, it only works if you have a parent at home who wants to be an active partner. I don’t see it ever becoming the more common model.
I think it’s a much smaller proportion of the population that can afford to do that today, as opposed to 30 years ago. Cars are much, much better, but also more expensive and hold their value for longer. My first car, in 1993, was a 1976 Volvo my dad paid someone $600 for. There’s not a ton of that sort of deal out there anymore.
I think school will remain primarily a way to babysit children home school even remote learning will require a parent to be home all day or at least working from home.
That is really interesting. Is it in response to the pandemic and the discovered variability or remote learning or are they doing this as a way to merge home schooling with public school? When my sister lived in Houston she home schooled and said they had a large population of home schooled kids in the city with like 4 choices of homes school groups locally she could join into.
Should be county. I’ll just blame the extra r on auto correct but it is a good high school mid 60s national last year for whatever high school rankings are worth.
School can largely be daycare now, and many kids will need some adult supervision, but conventional school attendance doesn’t have to be the only avenue for that. Also, schools can be places for kids without it being all about education the whole time they are there.
Of course. That doesn’t seem at all unusual to me.
I was ahead of the curve personally, because my dad was a “car guy” (so there was always a spare car available), and they encouraged me to get a license immediately. I had one friend that was at basically the same level. But my other friends were all somewhere on the car-less spectrum, either because they didn’t get a license right away, they didn’t have a car of their own, their parents weren’t willing to pay for insurance, or the like. Which meant their parents drove them all over, not to mention depending on me and other friends.
My impression is that this is even more true now than 25+ years ago. Other related trends may be parent’s safety tolerance (i.e., they’d rather drive their kids to school than let them bike) and childhood obesity.
Sure. I agree with all of that but at the end of the day for the child to be supervised them and the adult need to be collated unless we’re talking in house robot nannies. Since the child (16-18) needs to be collocated with the adult it makes sense to gather them into a single central location where one adult can supervise multiple children. So even if there is no learning I don’t see in-person “school” going away.
I never said it was going away. I do think it’s not an either/or choice location-wise, school or at home with a students parent. And the amount of time at a school location could vary widely depending on circumstances. The practical need for a central location is not as encompassing as it once was and there’s no need to look for one single path forward, I believe it’s important now to seek as many paths forward as possible.
Maybe I’m influenced by growing up in L.A., but getting a driver’s license and access to a car was the primary objective of teenagers when I was that age. Most kids wanted to get out and do things with their peers. Is it really that different now? I understand cars can be more expensive, which is definitely a drawback. But do kids want to stay in their rooms with pandemic “rules” loosening and do nothing but zoom?
The decline is significant at 16-17, less so as you get a bit older. I don’t see any reason why these trends would reverse in the next couple of decades, either.
I would like to see the trend when sorted for where kids live. We’ve seen large growth in the urban populations it wouldn’t surprise me at all for kids in New York City to not learn how to drive but I would be shocked if a kid in Casper, Wyoming didn’t have their own car.
So circling back to sex: 56% of 12th graders have had sex as of just before the pandemic. I’d bet a large percentage of the remaining were interested in doing so or had had intimacy short of sex = makeouts/petting/whatever. I can’t see dismissing intimacy as a factor in the need for social interaction among high school students. I mean, it’s down from 67% but so what?
Seems like a stretch to believe that teenage sex is down but other intimate contact is completely unchanged. I’d suggest it’s more likely that it’s down across the board. If “had a makeout session” is down from 95% to 80%, that’s still significant.
Is it possible that it’s just sex that’s down and that they’re just substituting something a bit short of that? Sure, I guess. But it doesn’t seem to fit with the pattern of social interaction moving online.
I mean, the instance of teenagers having sex by 12th grade is down 10% in 18 years. Big whoop: things haven’t changed all that much. I think online interaction is in addition to what was going on before, not instead of for the most part. And 56% is a huge number, not something to be dismissed as if it only matters in a minority of cases. The majority of teenagers have or pursue sex, an in-person only activity.
66.7% down to 56.7% is a 15% reduction, not 10%. But either way, that sounds huge to me. That’s extremely rapid for a demographic trend. We should be careful about extrapolation of course, but in a few more decades it could mean teenage sex is viewed like teenage pregnancy is today–something only for idiots and losers.
The sharp reduction in teenage pregnancy itself is a significant component of the fertility rate dropping below the replacement rate. That’s an area where a few ticks of difference can have dramatic consequences. The loss in teenage sex may push even farther in that direction.
I voted zero chance but what do you think would be the impacts if it did happen?
Kids of all ages have overall (not every child) socioemotionally and psychiatrically done very poorly during the imposed social distancing. Yes connections through on line gaming helped some. But from eating disorders to obesity to anxiety to depression to OCD flares to sleep disorders, incidence in kids has exploded this year.
Actual in person connections, even just touch, non-sexual touch, casual physical human actual contact, is a fairly important need.
The hypothetical would be embraced by a few and harmful to many.
I suspect the next generation will mock the excess virtual lives of their parents.
