Maybe, but the nurse taking care of you at old people home won’t be able to read your prescrition or count you the correct amount of medicine. You might as well throw those meds in the sink, since the prescription will be written by some transformer model anyway.
Makes sense. The kids can see that education isn't really going to be a sellable skill when AI ends up coming into full force.
AI already writes most of the articles I see posted here, is doing math at the level of the best mathematics, and is writing a ton of the code out there. Given another decade to develop, the kids will be hitting the workforce with very stiff competition. It's not a shock they're putting their energy elsewhere, and I can't say they're wrong.
They may be the first generation who grow up fully catered to by AI.
> is doing math at the level of the best mathematics
Terence Tao a few days ago [1]:
> When we point the AIs at really difficult problems where none of the standard techniques apply, they are still very, very bad, I mean they're just randomly guessing.
Please don't reply saying they'll be proving the Collatz conjecture next week. It adds nothing.
I hope people recognize this account doom posts what amounts to misanthropic propaganda at a very high rate. There’s never any question how the comment is going to be framed.
It’s always, “give up little humans, your robot overlords are here.”
> Makes sense. The kids can see that education isn't really going to be a sellable skill when AI ends up coming into full force.
If true, this is a disastrously foolish thing to believe. Education is only going to become more important as supervising increasingly advanced AI agents becomes more difficult. We need people who understand all different domains of human endeavor at the deepest level possible.
I mean, what's the alternative? AI does everything for me and I play Fortnite all day? Might as well plug yourself into the Matrix.
The situation will probably be like with airline pilots. The plane is mostly an automated system, but we simply don't let automation to work through exceptional situations, without human review. Therefore, lots of pilot training (and their presence) is still required.
But it's also hard to guess what exactly skill should the pilots have. It's clear that lots of things from manual aircraft do not translate well to automated.
Children of the Magenta Line seems very topical, especially wrt AI
>In 1997, American Airlines captain Warren VanderBurgh gave a lecture warning about the dangers of autopilot. He titled it "children of the magenta line," after the magenta coloured course line the flight computer draws across a cockpit display. He noticed that pilots were so used to following that line, to managing the automation rather than actually flying the plane, that they lost their own skills to manually fly the plane. This wasn’t a problem until it was a problem.
>VanderBurgh’s concern was not about autopilot itself but rather the complete dependency on autopilot at the expense of the internal knowledge of how it works and the loss of the judgment to know when to use it. In 2009, his warning came true in the very worst way possible over the Atlantic. When Air France 447’s sensors iced over, the autopilot handed a perfectly good airliner back to its crew, the pilots, confused and out of practice, stalled it into the sea.
Just like kids eventually take over most of the daily tasks for their parents (for people in countries where you don't have any kind of retirement fund and assisted living, etc.). Same will happen here - on one hand because the human population keeps growing older without any replacement and on the other because all the new tech will be too complicated for humans to understand.
Also, is a 1960’s test that hasn’t substantively changed a good metric? Maybe it is, I honestly don’t know, but I’d be curious to see the content before assuming it’s a useful benchmark.
Has what students are expected to know changed since the 60s? For instance, have there been any, I dunno, new developments in technology over the past 60-odd years?
If you're referring to the few-point difference between 2012 and 2018 in the first chart here: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volum... I think that's more likely to be statistical noise. Keep in mind that PISA was originally normed to a mean 500 and standard deviation 100. Even the more obvious drop after 2018 (I blame the pandemic) down to a mean of 466 on the reading test in 2025 isn't all that huge in absolute terms, though definitely statistically significant with the large sample they have.
A factor, certainly, but culture, including the culture around education, are arguably bigger factors (which social media is also a vector for modifying; medium is the message and all that).
Social and cultural expectations and conventions are extremely important. Even in supposedly laissez-faire Western countries where traditional cultural expectations have withered to the point of laxity, people still live their lives according to convention and expectation, even if those conventions and expectations are increasingly vulgar and dictated by powerful interest. (Indeed, the fertility crisis is determined largely by patterns of convention. It used to be that, for most people, it was expected that you would marry and have children earlier rather than later. Now, our cultural expectations actually penalize that kind of behavior. You're supposed to "find yourself", "play the field", or "build up your career" first.)
Human beings operate more by convention than by moral reasoning. Society needs an environment demands good things from them. Even when we know what the right or good course of action is through moral reasoning and discernment, it is very helpful for social convention and culture to support those choices.
The law is also traditionally a source of guardrails that help people attain better lives.
PISA data show that students who use AI for specific schoolwork tasks, such as summarising texts, drafting or conducting research, attain lower scores in science than students who do not use AI.
So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers.
Seriously, this should be a major signal to keep screens and AI solutions out of classrooms. That's not solving everything but at least students would be given a few hours window of de-brainroting everyday.
I'm open to accept that AI can have a positive impact on education but people and tools are apparently not ready and for the moment using it is a net negative.
The breakdown for AI usage is four categories though, not three. While the first three are negatively correlated with increased usage, the one for using AI "to help me learn" is much more flat when it comes to usage frequency.
> So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers.
The AI they’re talking about is not EdTech AI-based teaching tools. It’s students who use ChatGPT to handle work for them so they can ignore any teaching parts.
Apples and oranges. Using this study to draw conclusions about AI EdTech would be a mistake
The "AI use ... To help me learn" graph is really interesting! It may be interpreted as showing moderate selective AI use being beneficial and, perhaps, even mitigating the effect of socioeconomic status, that is democratising the learning of science. However, it may also show that groups without AI use/access are left behind, and that over-reliance on AI in learning is detrimental.
> In my mind an AI teacher can be like a traditional education package (syllabus, material, questions, keeping track of progression) but way more flexible. I don't see no reason why AI teachers shouldn't give Bloom's 2 sigma effect to kids (and adults) very soon.
I think it's a double-edged sword.
I think some kids will absolutely use it that way, and it turns out to be revolutionary for them. Kids who couldn't afford a tutor now can have one.
But also, there will be kids that think they will do this, and they don't. Instead, they end up talking the AI into letting them off the hook of learning things for themselves, and society pays for the AI tutor while get nothing in return.
When I look at young people today, that's what I see. Some teenagers seem to have a college degree via self-study, while many others have completely fried their brains, while looking into the same devices for the same amount of time.
Framing this as a pattern across the entire industrial world is a bit misleading. Looking through the data at Math Scores since 2015 shows big country level split:
Japan: -3
S Korea: -1
Singapore: +1
Taiwan: +9
---
Germany: -45
France: -38
Sweden: -33
US: -10
This is an issue with the western industrialized world. Which ought to make the analysis simple since we can look at what those countries have done differently than their East Asian counterparts and stop pursing those actions as national policy
Living in one Asian country, phone scrolling still happens with adults but kids get a lot of homework and definitely do it. Honestly excessive amounts, quantity over quality but at least studying is happening.
If some third type of country didn't do doomscrolling but ignored their homework to play outside, that's better than scrolling but it's still not homework.
Speaking for China specifically, and this is all word of mouth since my kids are at a posh international school (apply hate appriopriately):
Elementary school is 8-5, longish day but not too bad on homework.
Middle school (grades 6-9) there's been a recent drive to have less homework so they stay till only 7:00 (!) doing it at school and only a little take home done between dinner and bed.
High school is your life revolves around homework, everyone realizes it's counterproductive to learning but they're all stuck in this trap grinding for the big exams that will shape the rest of your life.
Actual Chinese (and other asian countries) can chime in where I'm mistaken.
> news and forums claiming the problem is screens/smartphones and social media
FTFA: “Digital distraction also affects the wider classroom. More than one in four students said that classmates were distracted by digital devices in most or every science lesson. Students surrounded by distracted classmates performed less well, were less engaged in learning and felt less connected to their school.
Students who say they did not use AI to draft text for writing assignments outperformed those who say they did. Among frequent users, however, students who used AI to help them learn and were taught how to assess the quality of AI-generated information tended to perform better than those who received no such guidance.”
I thought the reason that China and Singapore were so far ahead of everyone else was that they were urban populations vs everyone else include rural areas.
I assumed that Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang were purely urban, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm very curious about this as well, because BSJZ is almost an entire proficiency level above (almost) everyone else. That's an insane gap.
> you can torture your children with ever harsher "education"
Harsh educations don’t work. Neither does modern coddling, prevalent in the West. If any adversity prompts a mental health crisis, you’re at a global disadvantage. Economically and, I’d argue, in terms of quality of life.
The issue is that Mental Health is genuinely a fleeting, seemingly slowly renewable resource brought down by either screens, stress, or something else. I believe that openly talking about it, while a great way to de-stigmatize it, may have inadvertently caused self-diagnoses and worsening symptoms to increase.
There is also something else to be said about Mental Health, coming from one of the countries with the lowest rates of someone taking their own lives, and its not just due to underreporting.
Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
> Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
Handling a mental health crisis or living through hardship in a stoic manner means nothing about your overall performance. People in the past used to take year-long sabbaticals due to sicknesses of all sorts which can definitely be classified as PTSD today. People handled hardship through alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and a level of physical violence that nobody who's experienced it would like it to return.
I see it as the kid that falls and gets up because kids are made of rubber, but if the parents are watching and become alarmed, it gets scared, cries, gets cuddled, and adopts the pattern. Resiliency is not about being stoic and bottling emotions, it's about not framing small setbacks as tragedies.
In these times, the parents might even be aware of the consequences of what they're doing, but can't give the impression to neighbors and authorities that they neglect their kids.
That is a prevalent part of Peruvian culture, which is also collectivist due to Andean culture.
"Resiliencia" is pretty tied to accepting your faults as they are, saying "pucha que (Peruvian slur) ya fue pues". This is often followed up with something akin to "do you want to eat"?
I think everything you said is true, although as an addendum I (anecdotally) often find that some poorer nations are often closer and tight knit, which does cause stigma, but also reduces loneliness and stress associated with some mental issues.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I remember reading about a son of a Japanese-Colombian couple that felt anxious and lonely in Japan, but much more fulfilled and happy in Colombia. He said something about the Chaos bringing life into him, which makes him less introspective, less pensive of the future, yet also more optimistic and welcomed. I feel something similar in the States compared to Peru.
I think it could be because wealthier nations are more socially atomized, and much later in their stages of "Industrialization related anomie", and thus dissolves the "Asabiyya" or social cohesion of that culture.
Or I could just be biased, but I do think social atomization is much greater in wealthier nations.
> I think everything you said is true, although as an addendum I (anecdotally) often find that some poorer nations are often closer and tight knit, which does cause stigma, but also reduces loneliness and stress associated with some mental issues.
I don't disagree as I am from Latam too and feel the same about socialization in first world countries, and social isolation is very likely a culprit of many of the modern world's ills. But let's not sugarcoat the fact that resiliency in Andean culture is a survival mechanism for the brutal working and living conditions that a lot of the population is exposed to, and that resiliency is just the visible, healthier coping mechanism but most of it is invisible and silent suffering too.
Those top scorer countries just soooooo happen to have world lowest birthrate. Maybe it has to do with extraordinary pressure to succeed at all cost since one is baby?
I don't think so. While I believe more in the student than the school for success, in the formative years, a good foundation is necessary, as somebody can't know better if they don't know anything.
So, a good education system's effects are compounded for younger children w.r.t. higher education.
So, these education systems need a check and tune-up to adapt them to current age and perform at their peak again.
You know I pulled these figures out of their table on the bus in to work. I selected the largest economies in the OECD (Germany, France, America, South Korean and Japan are the largest economies in the OECD). I added Taiwan and Singapore for context since my contention related to east Asia and only two countries is unbalanced. I should have added UK (-9) instead of Sweden (all the Brexit dooming made me forget that the UK is still a bigger economy and I actually buy some Swedish stuff). As for your list - it seems very arbitrary. Sweden is a good proxy for Finland and they share the same exact trend. Israel is the only other OECD country on your list. The rest are simply random non-OECD countries.
Since you and others have brought up immigration I felt the need to review this thesis. For the OECD plotting foreign born population against Pisa math changes gets a decent correlation (Spearman r = −0.384; p = 0.017). Obviously foreign born is an imperfect proxy for classroom demographics, but it's a start. Definitely a trend, not a huge one, but hard to ignore. I'm honestly surprised that it is not discussed much in a 400 page report with correlation plots between composite indices (a sign of a very extensive data analytics project). Total failure on the part of the researchers). Putting aside any racial claims, I would leave open the possibility that training a large percentage of kids in a language they don't really understand is not likely be be as effective as speaking a language that they do understand. Seems pretty obvious actually. In fact if you drop the English speaking countries from the OECD list (English is very commonly spoken across the globe), then the correlation coefficient goes up to −0.55; p = 0.001).
The U.S. is at 17.8% top performers, well behind Japan and Korea but around the same as Canada and Switzerland. But the U.S. is significantly ahead of the big EU countries: Germany is at 14%, France is at 9.8%, Italy is at 10.1% and Spain is at 7%.
Unfortunately, those scores are not reliable. It is a recurring problem with the USA for the PISA studies.
The preliminary chapter explains why data has lower confidence is some places. For the USA, there were many problems, including political reluctance in some states or schools, that lead to uncontrolled biases. Notably, the ratio of unreachable children is 40 %, twice more than their upper limit for valid results.
I found this nugget on page 315. It seems to say the OECD acknowledges students are just blowing off this test.
For most students, PISA is a low-stakes assessment: they can refuse to participate in the test with no negative consequences and do not receive any feedback on their performance. There is a risk, therefore, that students do not do their best on the test; and that they behave differently from what they would do in other circumstances.
...In most countries/economies, students reported making less effort on the test in 2025 than in 2022 and in 2018: on average across 35 OECD countries, the difference corresponds to -0.5 points on the 10-point scale (compared to 2018; and -0.3 points compared to 2022) (Table I.A1.1). Meanwhile, the proportion of students who indicated that they invested very little effort in the PISA test increased from 3.5% to 5.4%.
Parents used to offload parenting to streets, fields and forests for decades. I don't think the offloading is the cause. But switching the offloading provider to SOCIAL MEDIA (of which Youtube is one) might've been.
The modern trend is parents spending a lot more time and involvement with their kids then used to be the norm. The norm was that kid were outside unsupervised doing whatever. The expectation on parents went up rather then down.
Anecdotal, but in Spain kids don't take these tests seriously.
I remember when we were in school we would ask if the tests counted towards the final note for the subject and they didn't so we would just basically finish asap so we could do other things.
And I think this wasn't a "just my class" kind of thing.
"English pupils have pulled ahead of the rest of the UK in international reading, maths and science tests, new data suggests, with Scotland and Wales falling further behind."
Appreciate this stuff gets political very quickly, but I'm curious what did England do that Scotland and Wales did not do (or vice versa)?
It seems to me, without digging further into the data, that England sucked, but Wales and Scotland (along with rest of the OEDC) sucked harder. Meaning, they fell in grades, but rose in the ranking, since the decline was less steep.
However, perhaps Gove’s reforms in placing emphasis on STEM-subjects and reading finally start to have an effect.
IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed in most of every Western/OECD nation. By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'. You'd expect this to manifest in reduced test scores and reduced quality of outcomes across a breadth of fields over time paired with the inverse happening in countries seeing gains. And that does not seem inaccurate.
Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not. After all this is precisely what brought Greater Arabia from the center of education and learning in the world to rather the opposite. It wasn't religion, but letting ideology dominate reality instead of the other way around.
I get the feeling you want to blame "woke" ideologies for this decline. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In my opinion we just have it too easy nowadays. Too much entertainment, screens and not enough challenges to keep kids thinking they need to be as sharp as they can be.
The "Fox News" right is just as guilty of letting ideology override reason as the "woke" left. As are many other groups (most of Western politics is a bit more complicated than the US's left/right split)
As far as I can see most left wing political platforms at least have a plan to fund education unlike right wing parties which constantly seek austerity measures and general defunding of humanities and education.
Well the OP was being vague and I wanted to clarify what they meant. Blaming woke is one of my pet peeves, since it's one of the most intellectually lazy things you can do.
> IQ scores in most of the Western world began reversing sometime from the 90s to early 00s. [1] That link is for the US but similar stuff has also been observed in most of every Western/OECD nation.
I wonder to what extent demographic shifts account for the observed reversal? It would be interesting to tease out what happens where composition remains constant, i.e. Poland. Though I doubt this explains the entire effect.
> By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'.
seems like the Flynn effect doing its thing just as it did in western countries in the 20th century.
Just because smart people tend to have fewer children (because, for instance, they delay it due to schooling and career demands) doesn't mean genes for intelligence are necessarily being selected against.
There's several reasons why this might not be the case, including that our premise is simple heritability and not genetic determinism, which is a different concept. I get where you're coming from now though.
People beat around the bush but the heritability of IQ is extremely high, with most contemporary studies putting the percent of difference in adult IQs as being explained about 80% due to genetic differences. So for some contrast that tends to be around, or a bit above, the estimated heritability for height.
And so you'd see that easily in a single generation. It'd be akin to if tall people (or short people) began removing themselves from the gene pool in significant quantities. You'd immediately (well at least once people reached their adult height) see a significant increase or decrease in average heights.
The West is still mostly in the denial phase, so nothing is really being done, yet. As such, the effect is ongoing. The Flynn Effect (and its reversal) are measured in impact per decade. And numbers that seem small at first aren't necessarily so. For instance a 3 point decline per decade doesn't initially seem like much until you consider that IQ generally has an artificial mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. So 3 points per decade is 20% of a standard deviation per decade! That's enormous.
In the past an IQ of 85 was considered mentally retarded. This was changed in 70s to make normal intelligence 'more inclusive.' That's another way of stating that 85 is still the best threshold for mental retardation. So a reverse Flynn Effect of 3 points/decade means you're talking about going from perfectly average to mentally retarded in 5 decades.
And for many things, the effect will not be linear. If we take a test there's likely to be an exponential pattern where somebody of a certain IQ will get an answer correct e.g. 99% of the time, somebody a bit below 80%, somebody a bit below that 40%, and then somebody a bit below that will basically never get it correct beyond the point of statistical noise. Pair that with likely increased variance when looking at individual and relatively small societies, and it's fairly easy to imagine sharp swings being completely viable.
Not almost everybody alive, but certainly a very large percent. And you also have to keep in mind what this means in different eras. In the not so distant past the overwhelming majority of work was agrarian, any formal education was relatively rare, and issues like malnutrition were quite common. That latter aspect alone has been assessed at affecting IQ by ~15 points, enough to already send an average person into the domain of mental retardation. Go back somewhat further and drinking 'small beer', as it was called, was a frequent recommendation for young children since it was guaranteed to be relatively sterile, and had more nutrients than water. Cheers to developing brains!
But if you go into the past and just look at well educated, well nourished individuals, regularly exercising their brain - then their cognitive ability was likely comparable, if not higher, than that of a typical modern era individual. But that sample made up a very small chunk of all people whereas today I'm comparing them to the norm.
This isn't true; 80s and 90s-vintage twin studies put it around 80%, but those numbers have been slashed; even hereditarians don't stand by them anymore. Molecular genetics results (contested by hereditarians, in fairness) situate it closer to 15-30%. David Bessis has a good piece about this.
And that's before you get to the slippery definition of what "heritability" means. It does allow you to use the words "explained by genetic factors", but in a very specific way, one in which the number of hands you have isn't similarly explainable, but how much TV you watch is.
That's quite a meaningless statement. Molecular genetics is in its infancy and so you're appealing to absence lack of evidence, which exists for most of everything, as evidence of absence - quite nihilistic! A quick search similarly suggests rates as low as 10% for the heritability of (non-European) height based on molecular genetics, undoubtedly for the same reasons.
And we've already had this conversation and in spite of your obsession with bias confirming 'blogs written by very smart people' - the heritability of TV watching is zero. Actually lol looking this up, it turns out there has indeed been a study done on this [1], as part of a study on the heritability of sedentary behaviors in general. And yeah, it's zero.
You are right that the number of hands you have is not heritable, but is only because heritability is defined as the percent of variation in a trait, between populations, that can be explained by genetic factors. When basically everybody has two hands, there is no variation, so there is no heritability to measure. It'd be like discussing the heritability of hair color if everybody had black hair. It's not some sort of clever insight or retort, though I'm certain your blogs framed it as the wittiest thing ever.
This comment doesn't actually say anything. I get that you're unhappy with the comment that I wrote? But that's all I get from it.
The one specific claim you make here, that height has heritabilities measured at around 10%, is false. In fact, the comparisons between the steadfastly high heritabilities of simple physical phenotypical traits like height and complex behavioral characteristics is a big part of the current scientific conversation about behavioral genetics.
> Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason.
I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction in claiming that "rational discussion" is a taboo while clearly not stating your hypothesis.
In the same vein, your hypothesis obviates the fact that "rational discussion" in topics of interpreting social studies requires building out on a ton of assumptions that are weakly held and the reason why the social scientists abstain from giving clear-cut answers is because the topic has too much depth and nuance to make strong statements with confidence.
Western social sciences are completely dysfunctional. Various fields within it, like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1] And mind you that that's for leading and formerly reputable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. That leads to the rather odd scenario that if you take anything that social science says is significant, and assume it is not, then you'd be you'd be vastly more likely to be correct than not. The whole field is rife with ideology, poor logic, and bias confirming experiments.
One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle.
So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly.
But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS.
> like social psychology, have a replication rate in the 20% range. [1]
Elaborate. Your "in the 20% range" claim seems to be incorrect, according to your own source, and missing context: research in other fields like medicine faces similar issues.
In psychology:
> In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published [...] Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05)
In medicine, for comparison:
> Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged. A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results. But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.
See how in your own link one of the authors says indeed how the decline in results is because we have gone too woke:
Dworak, a research assistant professor at Northwestern University and one of the authors on the study, is very clear that these results don’t necessarily mean Americans are getting less intelligent. “It doesn’t mean their mental ability is lower or higher; it’s just a difference in scores that are favoring older or newer samples,” she said in a press release. “It could just be that they’re getting worse at taking tests or specifically worse at taking these kinds of tests.”
And, it should be said, there has long been debate over how accurately IQ tests are able to gauge overall intelligence and potential for success in society in the first place.
No wait, they say nothing of the kind. And it seems people are getting better at 3D-thinking and decline is not the same in every topic measured so…
Man, your referencecreally does not support the narrative to which you are trying to bend the reality.
You're reading into things as you want to read into them. I am saying that the rejection of reality, which includes but is certainly not limited to 'woke', is the problem. IQ is full of examples in this domain because it tends to provide measurable data that regularly contradicts ideological views. I think the author's own response is a perfect example.
She finds that people are scoring significantly worse on most measurable aspects of IQ and so she concludes that they may simply be getting worse at taking tests? Let's imagine in a parallel world (or China...) she did the same study and found that scores were increasing. Would she have suggested it may simply be because people are getting better at taking tests? Almost certainly not, because it's a highly improbable explanation with no foundational basis whatsoever.
So why would she make the claim in one scenario, but not the other? Because of ideology. We obviously want IQs to be going up, and so the ideological value is given at least equal weighting, if not more, against the significantly more probable 'natural' explanation when the 'natural' explanation goes against ideological desires.
No, I think it is you who are really jumping into conclusions while being extremely obtuse what those are.
Essentially you are basing your claims on research the conductor of you don’t trust. So you trust the data to be certain, but not the conclusions the researchers make of that data, why? Because they warn of jumping to exactly the kind of conclusions you are making. What is the ideological view this data contradicts and presumably the researcher has? But you are certain that the researcher has some ideology and you know what it is?
Besides, that survey was a personality test and labelled as one, so the partakets might simply not have been interested in concentrating on the IQ part:
Another factor could be due to a decline in motivation, Dworak said. Because the SAPA Project is advertised as a personality survey, individuals seeking out the test may be more engaged with sections related to measuring temperament and less engaged with sections that are seemingly unrelated to personality.
Data are meaningful, but interpretations without a mathematical or scientific foundation are worthless. And her own explanations are particularly useless as they demonstrate clear ex post facto reasoning. The study was preregistered and chose a specific measurement as a source of IQ. After finding an undesired result, her rhetoric is now that her chosen measurement does, or may not, measure IQ. In one way she should be applauded for obviously not HARKing, but on the other hand that's essentially exactly what she's now trying to do.
Furthermore, reverse Flynn Effects have been demonstrated unambiguously in most of every Western/OECD nation where measuring such has been attempted. So the US also suffering such is 100% expected. There is simply no logical, scientific, mathematical, or even rational support for her argument. What's left after you remove everything reasonable? Ideology.
When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not.
Uh, this is Hacker News, we literally reject others's realities and substitute our own.
When it comes to gains, you're probably thinking of average outcomes (which don't reflect wealth inequality) instead of median outcomes. In no universe does ignorance benefit one's financial situation, unless we're talking about looking the other way when it comes to exploitation. In which case, yes, ignorance helps the wealthy tremendously.
Yup, this is "inclusive education" effects, predicted long time ago by education experts. Kids with special needs (from handicapped to criminals) are thrown into regular schools and classes, making education totally inefficient. In Poland one of the best on the World system of special education is being demolished in the name of this absurdity. But this is what people voted for.
I believe it is probably a combination of several factors:
- Social media and doomscrolling without sufficient parental controls: Several OECD countries are already addressing this by introducing or considering restrictions on teenagers’ access to social media.
- App UX/UI: Many apps are designed to compete for our attention, which can gradually reduce our ability to sustain focus.
- LLMs: The impact of AI is more recent and still needs to be properly assessed. However, LLMs could significantly affect attention and critical thinking for both adults and children, especially as we increasingly delegate parts of our thinking to AI models.
- Changes in the education system: In France, for example, mathematics was removed as a mandatory subject for some high-school tracks for a period of time. In my view, that was a major mistake.
- COVID-19: Many students experienced significant gaps in their education during the pandemic, with the effects often being more pronounced among students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
>- Social media and doomscrolling without sufficient parental controls: Several OECD countries are already addressing this by introducing or considering restrictions on teenagers’ access to social media.
Surely this time banning things will improve test scores!
Even before you get to the scores in the report, it shows what percentage of students come from schools that have banned phones. There doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation where banning phones from school gives better results. Eg Estonia averaged 520 points with 26% of students from schools that ban phones. 88.9% of students were in NZ schools where cellphones are banned, but NZ averaged 511 points.
I think before we start banning more "random" things we should consider whether these bans actually produce results. Let the countries that are making these changes run their banning experiment and the rest of us should wait and see whether their scores meaningfully improve afterwards.
>Score results aren’t alone sufficient proof about whether a ban on phones in school is successful or not.
If the scores aren't increasing as a result of it, then why are we doing it? We're clearly not asking for legitimate input from the people who are actually impacted by these policies (students).
Also, everything "enables" bullying. Bullying is not a problem that's caused by things. It won't go away when you take the things away.
Dropping, around or below OECD average:
Iceland, Israel, Malta, Serbia, Chile, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Malaysia, Romania, Peru, Ukraine, North Macedonia
I do think that in the future we have classified today’s platform company app’s as digital drugs (similar to in addictiveness to gambling) and wonder why in the hell people let their kids get hooked on digital heroin from early age. Kids talking about brain rot are describing a real phenomenon.
In Finland in 2016 (Nr. 1 in the early 2000’s) there was a reform towards what I believe is called constructivism in pedagogy, ie. kids learn by themselves and the teacher simply facilitates learning, there should be play and games as way to learn etc. There’s no evidence any of this works, but you don’t need as many teachers nor as qualified, so that’s good right? Besides, their new iPads will this them. This is an Apple/Google/whatever school now. Who needs text books?
I think we simply threw a generation of kids under the buss to sell each other toys and dumb software and to keep bunch of VC’s in San Fran happy. Education started to decline, because as a society we stopped caring about education.
129 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 24.3 ms ] threadAI already writes most of the articles I see posted here, is doing math at the level of the best mathematics, and is writing a ton of the code out there. Given another decade to develop, the kids will be hitting the workforce with very stiff competition. It's not a shock they're putting their energy elsewhere, and I can't say they're wrong.
They may be the first generation who grow up fully catered to by AI.
Terence Tao a few days ago [1]:
> When we point the AIs at really difficult problems where none of the standard techniques apply, they are still very, very bad, I mean they're just randomly guessing.
Please don't reply saying they'll be proving the Collatz conjecture next week. It adds nothing.
[1] https://youtu.be/svl_1upFpQo (worth watching on the role of LLMs in maths)
If true, this is a disastrously foolish thing to believe. Education is only going to become more important as supervising increasingly advanced AI agents becomes more difficult. We need people who understand all different domains of human endeavor at the deepest level possible.
I mean, what's the alternative? AI does everything for me and I play Fortnite all day? Might as well plug yourself into the Matrix.
The situation will probably be like with airline pilots. The plane is mostly an automated system, but we simply don't let automation to work through exceptional situations, without human review. Therefore, lots of pilot training (and their presence) is still required.
But it's also hard to guess what exactly skill should the pilots have. It's clear that lots of things from manual aircraft do not translate well to automated.
>In 1997, American Airlines captain Warren VanderBurgh gave a lecture warning about the dangers of autopilot. He titled it "children of the magenta line," after the magenta coloured course line the flight computer draws across a cockpit display. He noticed that pilots were so used to following that line, to managing the automation rather than actually flying the plane, that they lost their own skills to manually fly the plane. This wasn’t a problem until it was a problem.
>VanderBurgh’s concern was not about autopilot itself but rather the complete dependency on autopilot at the expense of the internal knowledge of how it works and the loss of the judgment to know when to use it. In 2009, his warning came true in the very worst way possible over the Atlantic. When Air France 447’s sensors iced over, the autopilot handed a perfectly good airliner back to its crew, the pilots, confused and out of practice, stalled it into the sea.
-https://carlhendrick.substack.com/p/children-of-the-magenta-...
Children Of The Magenta Line -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs
Has what students are expected to know changed since the 60s? For instance, have there been any, I dunno, new developments in technology over the past 60-odd years?
No, basic algebra and calculus has not changed.
That's all that's on the entrance exam? Basic algebra and calculus?
Social and cultural expectations and conventions are extremely important. Even in supposedly laissez-faire Western countries where traditional cultural expectations have withered to the point of laxity, people still live their lives according to convention and expectation, even if those conventions and expectations are increasingly vulgar and dictated by powerful interest. (Indeed, the fertility crisis is determined largely by patterns of convention. It used to be that, for most people, it was expected that you would marry and have children earlier rather than later. Now, our cultural expectations actually penalize that kind of behavior. You're supposed to "find yourself", "play the field", or "build up your career" first.)
Human beings operate more by convention than by moral reasoning. Society needs an environment demands good things from them. Even when we know what the right or good course of action is through moral reasoning and discernment, it is very helpful for social convention and culture to support those choices.
The law is also traditionally a source of guardrails that help people attain better lives.
See graphs on PISA 2025 homepage : https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volum...
So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers. Seriously, this should be a major signal to keep screens and AI solutions out of classrooms. That's not solving everything but at least students would be given a few hours window of de-brainroting everyday. I'm open to accept that AI can have a positive impact on education but people and tools are apparently not ready and for the moment using it is a net negative.
If everyone is hiring a "tutor" to just do their homework for them, that doesn't mean that all tutors are bad.
The AI they’re talking about is not EdTech AI-based teaching tools. It’s students who use ChatGPT to handle work for them so they can ignore any teaching parts.
Apples and oranges. Using this study to draw conclusions about AI EdTech would be a mistake
I think it's a double-edged sword.
I think some kids will absolutely use it that way, and it turns out to be revolutionary for them. Kids who couldn't afford a tutor now can have one.
But also, there will be kids that think they will do this, and they don't. Instead, they end up talking the AI into letting them off the hook of learning things for themselves, and society pays for the AI tutor while get nothing in return.
When I look at young people today, that's what I see. Some teenagers seem to have a college degree via self-study, while many others have completely fried their brains, while looking into the same devices for the same amount of time.
Japan: -3
S Korea: -1
Singapore: +1
Taiwan: +9
---
Germany: -45
France: -38
Sweden: -33
US: -10
This is an issue with the western industrialized world. Which ought to make the analysis simple since we can look at what those countries have done differently than their East Asian counterparts and stop pursing those actions as national policy
*edit for formatting
Given the big gap between the east and the west... does anybody know if these are somehow less used/abused in asian countries?
Any other reason why this gap might happen?
Thanks
If some third type of country didn't do doomscrolling but ignored their homework to play outside, that's better than scrolling but it's still not homework.
Elementary school is 8-5, longish day but not too bad on homework.
Middle school (grades 6-9) there's been a recent drive to have less homework so they stay till only 7:00 (!) doing it at school and only a little take home done between dinner and bed.
High school is your life revolves around homework, everyone realizes it's counterproductive to learning but they're all stuck in this trap grinding for the big exams that will shape the rest of your life.
Actual Chinese (and other asian countries) can chime in where I'm mistaken.
Poland's math score dropped by just 5 points. As for other tests:
Science: -4
Reading: -7.
Much like with GDP per capita, my country is climbing the rankings, but only via walkover.
what that means?
In sports it's victory because the opponents didn't show up or were disqualified.
Most certainly the latter is not implemented due to a lack of budget. Desks are still two-person as well.
Schools have always worked on a shoestring budget around here.
FTFA: “Digital distraction also affects the wider classroom. More than one in four students said that classmates were distracted by digital devices in most or every science lesson. Students surrounded by distracted classmates performed less well, were less engaged in learning and felt less connected to their school. Students who say they did not use AI to draft text for writing assignments outperformed those who say they did. Among frequent users, however, students who used AI to help them learn and were taught how to assess the quality of AI-generated information tended to perform better than those who received no such guidance.”
I thought the reason that China and Singapore were so far ahead of everyone else was that they were urban populations vs everyone else include rural areas.
I assumed that Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang were purely urban, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm very curious about this as well, because BSJZ is almost an entire proficiency level above (almost) everyone else. That's an insane gap.
Now go ahead and flag every single reply mentioning this basic fact, it won’t change reality.
No. Here's your breakdown.
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2093832541161550111
Harsh educations don’t work. Neither does modern coddling, prevalent in the West. If any adversity prompts a mental health crisis, you’re at a global disadvantage. Economically and, I’d argue, in terms of quality of life.
There is also something else to be said about Mental Health, coming from one of the countries with the lowest rates of someone taking their own lives, and its not just due to underreporting.
Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
Is there a credible source for “mental health” being an extinguishable quantity? This sounds an awful lot like the battery hypothesis of longevity.
Handling a mental health crisis or living through hardship in a stoic manner means nothing about your overall performance. People in the past used to take year-long sabbaticals due to sicknesses of all sorts which can definitely be classified as PTSD today. People handled hardship through alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and a level of physical violence that nobody who's experienced it would like it to return.
In these times, the parents might even be aware of the consequences of what they're doing, but can't give the impression to neighbors and authorities that they neglect their kids.
"Resiliencia" is pretty tied to accepting your faults as they are, saying "pucha que (Peruvian slur) ya fue pues". This is often followed up with something akin to "do you want to eat"?
I can't speak for everyone here, but I remember reading about a son of a Japanese-Colombian couple that felt anxious and lonely in Japan, but much more fulfilled and happy in Colombia. He said something about the Chaos bringing life into him, which makes him less introspective, less pensive of the future, yet also more optimistic and welcomed. I feel something similar in the States compared to Peru.
I think it could be because wealthier nations are more socially atomized, and much later in their stages of "Industrialization related anomie", and thus dissolves the "Asabiyya" or social cohesion of that culture.
Or I could just be biased, but I do think social atomization is much greater in wealthier nations.
I don't disagree as I am from Latam too and feel the same about socialization in first world countries, and social isolation is very likely a culprit of many of the modern world's ills. But let's not sugarcoat the fact that resiliency in Andean culture is a survival mechanism for the brutal working and living conditions that a lot of the population is exposed to, and that resiliency is just the visible, healthier coping mechanism but most of it is invisible and silent suffering too.
So, a good education system's effects are compounded for younger children w.r.t. higher education.
So, these education systems need a check and tune-up to adapt them to current age and perform at their peak again.
Finland -45
Bulgaria -38
Malaysia -62
Israel -33
Serbia -44
Indonesia: -24
Full data is on Table 2.9, page 101 in the report: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volum...
Since you and others have brought up immigration I felt the need to review this thesis. For the OECD plotting foreign born population against Pisa math changes gets a decent correlation (Spearman r = −0.384; p = 0.017). Obviously foreign born is an imperfect proxy for classroom demographics, but it's a start. Definitely a trend, not a huge one, but hard to ignore. I'm honestly surprised that it is not discussed much in a 400 page report with correlation plots between composite indices (a sign of a very extensive data analytics project). Total failure on the part of the researchers). Putting aside any racial claims, I would leave open the possibility that training a large percentage of kids in a language they don't really understand is not likely be be as effective as speaking a language that they do understand. Seems pretty obvious actually. In fact if you drop the English speaking countries from the OECD list (English is very commonly spoken across the globe), then the correlation coefficient goes up to −0.55; p = 0.001).
The U.S. is at 17.8% top performers, well behind Japan and Korea but around the same as Canada and Switzerland. But the U.S. is significantly ahead of the big EU countries: Germany is at 14%, France is at 9.8%, Italy is at 10.1% and Spain is at 7%.
Unfortunately, those scores are not reliable. It is a recurring problem with the USA for the PISA studies.
The preliminary chapter explains why data has lower confidence is some places. For the USA, there were many problems, including political reluctance in some states or schools, that lead to uncontrolled biases. Notably, the ratio of unreachable children is 40 %, twice more than their upper limit for valid results.
And I think this wasn't a "just my class" kind of thing.
> Hasty responses (percentage of responses that are both incorrect and fast – average across reading items)
Spain is at 9.7%, which is a bit over 8.9% oecd average.
Appreciate this stuff gets political very quickly, but I'm curious what did England do that Scotland and Wales did not do (or vice versa)?
However, perhaps Gove’s reforms in placing emphasis on STEM-subjects and reading finally start to have an effect.
Why this is, is an interesting question but it hits on too many taboo topics. Though perhaps rational discussion becoming taboo is itself a part of the reason. When you accept reality, whatever it gives you, you're obviously going to have a far more rational population and better outcomes than one that insists on bending reality to fit a desired narrative, even when it obviously does not. After all this is precisely what brought Greater Arabia from the center of education and learning in the world to rather the opposite. It wasn't religion, but letting ideology dominate reality instead of the other way around.
[1] - https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-...
In my opinion we just have it too easy nowadays. Too much entertainment, screens and not enough challenges to keep kids thinking they need to be as sharp as they can be.
I wonder to what extent demographic shifts account for the observed reversal? It would be interesting to tease out what happens where composition remains constant, i.e. Poland. Though I doubt this explains the entire effect.
> By contrast they're still rapidly increasing in the 'Global South'.
seems like the Flynn effect doing its thing just as it did in western countries in the 20th century.
In the context of evolution, if something causes fewer copies of a gene, that's what selected against means.
And so you'd see that easily in a single generation. It'd be akin to if tall people (or short people) began removing themselves from the gene pool in significant quantities. You'd immediately (well at least once people reached their adult height) see a significant increase or decrease in average heights.
In the past an IQ of 85 was considered mentally retarded. This was changed in 70s to make normal intelligence 'more inclusive.' That's another way of stating that 85 is still the best threshold for mental retardation. So a reverse Flynn Effect of 3 points/decade means you're talking about going from perfectly average to mentally retarded in 5 decades.
And for many things, the effect will not be linear. If we take a test there's likely to be an exponential pattern where somebody of a certain IQ will get an answer correct e.g. 99% of the time, somebody a bit below 80%, somebody a bit below that 40%, and then somebody a bit below that will basically never get it correct beyond the point of statistical noise. Pair that with likely increased variance when looking at individual and relatively small societies, and it's fairly easy to imagine sharp swings being completely viable.
But if you go into the past and just look at well educated, well nourished individuals, regularly exercising their brain - then their cognitive ability was likely comparable, if not higher, than that of a typical modern era individual. But that sample made up a very small chunk of all people whereas today I'm comparing them to the norm.
And that's before you get to the slippery definition of what "heritability" means. It does allow you to use the words "explained by genetic factors", but in a very specific way, one in which the number of hands you have isn't similarly explainable, but how much TV you watch is.
And we've already had this conversation and in spite of your obsession with bias confirming 'blogs written by very smart people' - the heritability of TV watching is zero. Actually lol looking this up, it turns out there has indeed been a study done on this [1], as part of a study on the heritability of sedentary behaviors in general. And yeah, it's zero.
You are right that the number of hands you have is not heritable, but is only because heritability is defined as the percent of variation in a trait, between populations, that can be explained by genetic factors. When basically everybody has two hands, there is no variation, so there is no heritability to measure. It'd be like discussing the heritability of hair color if everybody had black hair. It's not some sort of clever insight or retort, though I'm certain your blogs framed it as the wittiest thing ever.
[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4193845
The one specific claim you make here, that height has heritabilities measured at around 10%, is false. In fact, the comparisons between the steadfastly high heritabilities of simple physical phenotypical traits like height and complex behavioral characteristics is a big part of the current scientific conversation about behavioral genetics.
I'm sure you fail to see the contradiction in claiming that "rational discussion" is a taboo while clearly not stating your hypothesis.
In the same vein, your hypothesis obviates the fact that "rational discussion" in topics of interpreting social studies requires building out on a ton of assumptions that are weakly held and the reason why the social scientists abstain from giving clear-cut answers is because the topic has too much depth and nuance to make strong statements with confidence.
One of the very few highly replicable, predictive, and valuable aspects of the social sciences is IQ, which the modern more pseudo-science oriented work actively seeks to undermine. It's a remarkable display of academic and intellectual decline, while people simply look on impassively. At this point all we need is some fires and a fiddle.
So for instance with all Western work on the reversal of Flynn Effect they will go out of their way to insist that it doesn't mean people are becoming less intelligent, even though every single measurement we have that correlates to such (such as test scores) suggests that is exactly what is happening. And they will go one step further and work to actively undermine issues that are obviously in play like dysgenic fertility. Two well accepted facts are that (1) intelligence is highly heritable and (2) intelligence is inversely correlated with fertility. Put the two together and what do you get? Dysgenics, on a scale that can play out very rapidly.
But no.. people aren't becoming less intelligent, they're merely becoming less capable at everything intelligence is associated with. And dysgenic fertility? Nah impossible. FFS.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psycholo...
Elaborate. Your "in the 20% range" claim seems to be incorrect, according to your own source, and missing context: research in other fields like medicine faces similar issues.
In psychology:
> In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published [...] Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05)
In medicine, for comparison:
> Of 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 with more than 1000 citations, 92% found that the studied therapies were effective. Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged. A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results. But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.
So, not so much taboo as "a bullshit".
What are those "taboo topics?" Can you state this plainly rather than obliquely?
No wait, they say nothing of the kind. And it seems people are getting better at 3D-thinking and decline is not the same in every topic measured so…
Man, your referencecreally does not support the narrative to which you are trying to bend the reality.
She finds that people are scoring significantly worse on most measurable aspects of IQ and so she concludes that they may simply be getting worse at taking tests? Let's imagine in a parallel world (or China...) she did the same study and found that scores were increasing. Would she have suggested it may simply be because people are getting better at taking tests? Almost certainly not, because it's a highly improbable explanation with no foundational basis whatsoever.
So why would she make the claim in one scenario, but not the other? Because of ideology. We obviously want IQs to be going up, and so the ideological value is given at least equal weighting, if not more, against the significantly more probable 'natural' explanation when the 'natural' explanation goes against ideological desires.
Essentially you are basing your claims on research the conductor of you don’t trust. So you trust the data to be certain, but not the conclusions the researchers make of that data, why? Because they warn of jumping to exactly the kind of conclusions you are making. What is the ideological view this data contradicts and presumably the researcher has? But you are certain that the researcher has some ideology and you know what it is?
Besides, that survey was a personality test and labelled as one, so the partakets might simply not have been interested in concentrating on the IQ part:
Furthermore, reverse Flynn Effects have been demonstrated unambiguously in most of every Western/OECD nation where measuring such has been attempted. So the US also suffering such is 100% expected. There is simply no logical, scientific, mathematical, or even rational support for her argument. What's left after you remove everything reasonable? Ideology.
Uh, this is Hacker News, we literally reject others's realities and substitute our own.
When it comes to gains, you're probably thinking of average outcomes (which don't reflect wealth inequality) instead of median outcomes. In no universe does ignorance benefit one's financial situation, unless we're talking about looking the other way when it comes to exploitation. In which case, yes, ignorance helps the wealthy tremendously.
I believe it is probably a combination of several factors:
- Social media and doomscrolling without sufficient parental controls: Several OECD countries are already addressing this by introducing or considering restrictions on teenagers’ access to social media.
- App UX/UI: Many apps are designed to compete for our attention, which can gradually reduce our ability to sustain focus.
- LLMs: The impact of AI is more recent and still needs to be properly assessed. However, LLMs could significantly affect attention and critical thinking for both adults and children, especially as we increasingly delegate parts of our thinking to AI models.
- Changes in the education system: In France, for example, mathematics was removed as a mandatory subject for some high-school tracks for a period of time. In my view, that was a major mistake.
- COVID-19: Many students experienced significant gaps in their education during the pandemic, with the effects often being more pronounced among students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Surely this time banning things will improve test scores!
Even before you get to the scores in the report, it shows what percentage of students come from schools that have banned phones. There doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation where banning phones from school gives better results. Eg Estonia averaged 520 points with 26% of students from schools that ban phones. 88.9% of students were in NZ schools where cellphones are banned, but NZ averaged 511 points.
I think before we start banning more "random" things we should consider whether these bans actually produce results. Let the countries that are making these changes run their banning experiment and the rest of us should wait and see whether their scores meaningfully improve afterwards.
Phones also enable classroom distractions, waste teachers time, and enable antisocial behaviours kids like the engage such as bullying.
If the scores aren't increasing as a result of it, then why are we doing it? We're clearly not asking for legitimate input from the people who are actually impacted by these policies (students).
Also, everything "enables" bullying. Bullying is not a problem that's caused by things. It won't go away when you take the things away.
Re-read my initial comment.
> It won't go away when you take the things away.
You don't know what safeguarding and harm minimisation means, do you?
They're weasel words people use when their proposal doesn't actually work.
"It's totally making things better, you just can't see it in any objective stats."
Neither of those can be measured nor are they the reason we have schools in the first place. But they sound nice.
Stable, above OECD average: Taiwan, Macao, Korea, Estonia, United Kingdom, Poland, Lithuania, Italy, New Zealand
Stable, around or below OECD average: United States, Slovakia, Greece, Croatia, Qatar, Montenegro, Mongolia, Mexico, Brunei
Dropping, previously above OECD average: Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Slovenia, Latvia, Portugal, Norway, Spain, France, Hungary
Dropping, around or below OECD average: Iceland, Israel, Malta, Serbia, Chile, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Malaysia, Romania, Peru, Ukraine, North Macedonia
Improving, all below OECD average: Türkiye, Thailand, UAE, Philippines, Jordan, Georgia, Cambodia
In Finland in 2016 (Nr. 1 in the early 2000’s) there was a reform towards what I believe is called constructivism in pedagogy, ie. kids learn by themselves and the teacher simply facilitates learning, there should be play and games as way to learn etc. There’s no evidence any of this works, but you don’t need as many teachers nor as qualified, so that’s good right? Besides, their new iPads will this them. This is an Apple/Google/whatever school now. Who needs text books?
I think we simply threw a generation of kids under the buss to sell each other toys and dumb software and to keep bunch of VC’s in San Fran happy. Education started to decline, because as a society we stopped caring about education.