Fears children born during lockdown are years behind as they start at school(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Fears children born during lockdown are years behind as they start at school
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/01/fears-children-born-lockdown-start-school-covid
52 comments
Socializing among children is crucial for development and cannot be substituted (at least entirely) with adult interaction. It's one of the main problems for homeschooled children.
Not to mention their parents were most likely working from home and not free to play with their kids most of the time.
Not to mention their parents were most likely working from home and not free to play with their kids most of the time.
We moved states and transitioned our old from a nanny to day care. Literally, all of her developmental milestones exploded once she was around other kids.
There’s absolutely no substitute for kids seeing kids their age do things.
There’s absolutely no substitute for kids seeing kids their age do things.
At what age does it need to start?
It's not uncommon for a first child in rural families to not socialize with other children until they start kindergarten and they generally don't end up years.
It's not uncommon for a first child in rural families to not socialize with other children until they start kindergarten and they generally don't end up years.
I've wondered the same myself. I'd assume that in "the old days" a rural first child was pretty much socialized by the family only, at least until subsequent siblings dropped.
Also, average lockdown in the UK looks to be about 3 months. Far less in the US. A lot happened in the last 4 years, but there seems to be a disproportionate focus on one brief, but controversial, period of the response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns
Lockdowns are not the same as school policy. Many schools were entirely remote or hybrid entering the 20-21 school year. Fully remote school was tapered over time, but a huge number of them remained hybrid through the end of school year.
Which is why it seems so weird to focus on lockdowns as the culprit, when there were so many other things that were a much larger impact. Beyond remote schooling, people also drastically reduced play time at parks, or playgrounds, or playdates. We attended a few drive by birthday parties as well. Many also lost childcare or employment. It’s a lot to try to account for. It makes the use of lockdowns as an excuse feel pretty forced.
It's not that strange, is it?
In discussion, most people associate lockdowns directly with the wider Covid response.
The subhead expands and explains, drawing in the "world of masks and remote health visits has created a generation at risk of social and emotional difficulties".
In discussion, most people associate lockdowns directly with the wider Covid response.
The subhead expands and explains, drawing in the "world of masks and remote health visits has created a generation at risk of social and emotional difficulties".
Perhaps? Your link is what brought attention to "official lockdowns". We all kinds of know that policy reached far, far beyond what that Wikipedia page is calling a lockdown. Nobody made the claim that lockdowns in the context of schools directly align with the shorter full society lockdowns. Reduced time at parks was also due to "lockdown" policy, but it wasn't written directly by the president. A lot of company and school policy was reflective of government recommendation even if it wasn't law.
It's almost certainly divided by socioeconomic status.
I know a few folks whose children went through this. They figured out that they should get their children together in super tiny groups (less than 6 but generally no more than 4) with a single teacher. They tried schooling at home but the "mode switch" was too difficult for their young children to understand.
Guess what? Those children are now so far ahead of their peers it is ridiculous.
Education is almost always dependent upon resource.
I know a few folks whose children went through this. They figured out that they should get their children together in super tiny groups (less than 6 but generally no more than 4) with a single teacher. They tried schooling at home but the "mode switch" was too difficult for their young children to understand.
Guess what? Those children are now so far ahead of their peers it is ridiculous.
Education is almost always dependent upon resource.
Yep!
The disparity in outcomes from the COVID generation is going to be drastic in 15-20 years.
Early childhood development is critical for both social stability and basic morality [0][1]
Also, as an anecdote, my mom works as a Low/Med Track Special Ed Teacher, and most students in the Low/Med track tend to be from broken homes not conducive to learning, leading to a cycle of poverty.
Poverty is directly correlated to lack of parental intervention, due to time and monetary constraints, which leads to a vicious cycle.
[0] - https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29362/w293...
[1] - https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/Comprehensive-early...
The disparity in outcomes from the COVID generation is going to be drastic in 15-20 years.
Early childhood development is critical for both social stability and basic morality [0][1]
Also, as an anecdote, my mom works as a Low/Med Track Special Ed Teacher, and most students in the Low/Med track tend to be from broken homes not conducive to learning, leading to a cycle of poverty.
Poverty is directly correlated to lack of parental intervention, due to time and monetary constraints, which leads to a vicious cycle.
[0] - https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29362/w293...
[1] - https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/Comprehensive-early...
why haven’t these studies led to increased social services and poverty interventions?
> increased social services and poverty interventions
In the US this is the job of local government, though the federal DoE does it's part (eg. Special Ed faculty salaries are underwritten by the Federal DoE).
There is increased support for these kinds of policies across the aisles through a mix of "early childhood equity" (D leaning) and "increased fertility" (R leaning) policies and talking points.
In the US this is the job of local government, though the federal DoE does it's part (eg. Special Ed faculty salaries are underwritten by the Federal DoE).
There is increased support for these kinds of policies across the aisles through a mix of "early childhood equity" (D leaning) and "increased fertility" (R leaning) policies and talking points.
> In the US this is the job of local government
Because local governments in the US have vastly different resources (and potential talent pools), I think those words may be a nice way to admit "it's a structural issue that shan't be addressed anytime soon".
Because local governments in the US have vastly different resources (and potential talent pools), I think those words may be a nice way to admit "it's a structural issue that shan't be addressed anytime soon".
Because fixing them requires that we spend money. And, in the US at least, there is a significant strain of politics that blames poor people for being poor.
So this is an interesting correlation, but are we sure it doesn’t go the other way?
Intelligence is genetically determined to a significant extent.
Smart people figure out workarounds. Smart people have smart kids. Smart kids are ahead of other kids.
Did the workaround cause them to be ahead? Or did having a genetic lineage that produced the workaround cause it?
Intelligence is genetically determined to a significant extent.
Smart people figure out workarounds. Smart people have smart kids. Smart kids are ahead of other kids.
Did the workaround cause them to be ahead? Or did having a genetic lineage that produced the workaround cause it?
True.
However, lots of socioeconomic cohort studies show that the smartest of the lowest quintile rarely do as well as the weakest of the upper quintile.
Intelligence may be genetically inherited, but how far you go with it is almost completely dependent upon the resources around you.
However, lots of socioeconomic cohort studies show that the smartest of the lowest quintile rarely do as well as the weakest of the upper quintile.
Intelligence may be genetically inherited, but how far you go with it is almost completely dependent upon the resources around you.
Is there a typo in here around quintiles? The statement about quintiles as written seems to go in the direction of genetic determinism, which conflicts with “however”.
For sure across an entire lifespan and within our society, what you do with it has a huge influence. And, intelligence often works against you since the more intelligent you are the more alienated you are from a larger percent of the population and this can cause a lot of psychological issues that work against “productivity” and “success”.
But for young kids I’m pretty sure intelligence and school performance are very correlated, much more so than peak income and intelligence for example. Schmoozing ability doesn’t get you far on a long division test.
For sure across an entire lifespan and within our society, what you do with it has a huge influence. And, intelligence often works against you since the more intelligent you are the more alienated you are from a larger percent of the population and this can cause a lot of psychological issues that work against “productivity” and “success”.
But for young kids I’m pretty sure intelligence and school performance are very correlated, much more so than peak income and intelligence for example. Schmoozing ability doesn’t get you far on a long division test.
The "smartest" (measured by IQ/SAT/whatever your favorite broken measure) of the lowest socioeconomic quintile (lowest 20%) almost never do as well (measured by highest academic attainment, monetary holding, etc.) as the "dumbest" of the highest socioeconomic quintile (highest 20%).
A child can have a really high intelligence, but its usage will be compromised if they're always hungry, always sleepy from being saddled with taking care of siblings or afraid of being abused. A child can have lower intelligence but this can be buttressed by spending lots of extra time and tutors which the upper classes have in abundance.
One of the teachers I knew used to have a wag saying: "When you do wrong when you're poor, you get called thick and can look forward to jail. When you do wrong when you're rich, you get forcibly tutored until you're not an embarassment. When you do wrong when you're middle class, you get called ADHD so everybody can ignore you."
A child can have a really high intelligence, but its usage will be compromised if they're always hungry, always sleepy from being saddled with taking care of siblings or afraid of being abused. A child can have lower intelligence but this can be buttressed by spending lots of extra time and tutors which the upper classes have in abundance.
One of the teachers I knew used to have a wag saying: "When you do wrong when you're poor, you get called thick and can look forward to jail. When you do wrong when you're rich, you get forcibly tutored until you're not an embarassment. When you do wrong when you're middle class, you get called ADHD so everybody can ignore you."
Ah I missed “socioeconomic” quintiles, thanks for politely clarifying.
The way I see this is - intelligence is genetically determined, but success is determined by behavior, not intelligence. Intelligence just enables more adaptive behavior selection, all else being equal. Environmental factors can inject behavior patterns that override whatever analytic potential a person has. Which I think basically lines up with what you are saying.
The way I see this is - intelligence is genetically determined, but success is determined by behavior, not intelligence. Intelligence just enables more adaptive behavior selection, all else being equal. Environmental factors can inject behavior patterns that override whatever analytic potential a person has. Which I think basically lines up with what you are saying.
Intelligence is hereditary to a significant extent
I’m not sure what you are trying to say? Have you looked into the relevant twin studies? This is kind of a taboo topic in mainstream circles so I think a lot of people have inaccurate information in their heads.
This paragraph suggests that some children are affected more than others:
> Her charity has found 1.9 million children in the UK – one in five – are struggling with speech and language. The problem had already been building before the pandemic, especially in disadvantaged areas.
> Her charity has found 1.9 million children in the UK – one in five – are struggling with speech and language. The problem had already been building before the pandemic, especially in disadvantaged areas.
And also says struggled with speech and language began BEFORE the pandemic.
I am sure many of these children got expose to language outside of the home; Youtube.
I don’t have a source now, but a while ago (pre-pandemic) I saw a study that showed babies don’t pick up basic language structures very well at all from videos for whatever reason.
Presumably from lack of relevant context (i.e. relevance to the child's own needs/sensory experience) and lack of trial and error.
Similarly you can't learn to write code very well from watching videos of someone watching code, especially when they're not trying to teach code through the video.
Similarly you can't learn to write code very well from watching videos of someone watching code, especially when they're not trying to teach code through the video.
My daughter used to speak a mix of es-as, es-es and es-mx (and perhaps a some more) from YouTube. Now she is going back to normal and speaking mostly in es-ar.
Talking with (or listening to) adults is the primary way that children learn to speak - but that's far from the only thing that these children have been deprived of.
The social understanding that children develop by playing with other children is vital as well, and hanging out with other dirty little snot-faced kids is a hugely important part of developing a robust immune system.
The social understanding that children develop by playing with other children is vital as well, and hanging out with other dirty little snot-faced kids is a hugely important part of developing a robust immune system.
Immunity debt is simply not a thing. Just like the notion that a few weeks of masking (at most) somehow gave rise to long term speech issues. [1][2]
[1] https://www.salon.com/2022/12/04/does-your-immune-system-nee...
[2] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2557:_Immunity
[1] https://www.salon.com/2022/12/04/does-your-immune-system-nee...
[2] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2557:_Immunity
We have adaptive immune systems.
Exposure to disease allows us to respond to more dangerous related diseases - if this weren't true vaccination never would have worked.
Exposure to disease allows us to respond to more dangerous related diseases - if this weren't true vaccination never would have worked.
The word vaccine actually results from this fact - it derives from the latin word for cow.
We (I say we) used cowpox to immunise against smallpox.
We (I say we) used cowpox to immunise against smallpox.
I would think the kids who should have started kindergarten in 2020 would be the most affected.
Anecdotally, this affected everyone, all the way up through college (though the "damage" of the college students is less permanent since it didn't affect brain development as much).
Everyone in US public schooling from 2020 through 2023, really.
Unedited title: ‘They’re about two years behind’: fears for children born during lockdown as they start at school
I mean they can at worst be only 4 years behind
I think you perhaps meant to be pedantic and ironically trite.
But imagine being 4 years behind when you hit secondary/senior school. Either the child has to adjust and catch up (but it's a /lot/ to catch up), or the school system has to adjust to accommodate (which is far from easy).
But imagine being 4 years behind when you hit secondary/senior school. Either the child has to adjust and catch up (but it's a /lot/ to catch up), or the school system has to adjust to accommodate (which is far from easy).
Is the population diagnosed with autism about to explode in a decade?
Yes, but people here get very angry when you point this out.
That’s going to happen no matter what. It’s a hot diagnosis that yields alot of services. It is to 2024 what ADD was to 1994.
itronitron(2)
Our friends child was born on a farm, isolated during covid, he is 4 and his parents often say that it's affected his development quite a bit compared to their other kids.
But surely talking to any adult would do most of the job. All these children brought up by one foreign-speaking parent who end up speaking that language fluently show that. Were these "lockdown children" just left on their own? Or is it indicative that their parents don't talk to them, and their only language learning happened outside of home?