Read on Twitter
The constant implication in the term "learning loss" that a 1 year disruption/slowdown in learning can never be made up is really really odd to me.
This paper explicitly says it.
This paper explicitly says it.
I'm in NYC, which likely makes me sensitive to the profile of the "open schools now" upper east side crowd but this paper feels like it was written as support for that position.
(warning i'm scanning not reading)
(warning i'm scanning not reading)
This feels quite trumpy in its "everyone knows" and "the fact"
so we are talking about measuring both COGNITIVE and NON-COGNITIVE "skills" but the paper doesn't actually define those skills (as far as i can see)
If it doesn't depend on school alone then what's the point here? We didn't measure learning B.C. (before corona according to my kids) by what didn't go on in schools, did we?
so skills are skills measured by [predicted since tests weren't give] lower test score growth ...
![so skills are skills measured by [predicted since tests weren't give] lower test score growth ...](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EreNlj7XIAE2lG4.png "so skills are skills measured by [predicted since tests weren't give] lower test score growth ...")
test scores measure learning ... yay
International (German) evidence and student diaries? what students are keeping track of time spent in a pandemic?
But now skills doesn't mean test scores it means grades
seems like we might have another use of skills here but it would take far more time than I'm willing to give it to figure that out..
apparently the quality of your peers is based on their GPA
Ok i'm done.. maybe I'll read this one day..
Oh and here is the paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28264/w28264.pdf
