All schools in Virginia were forced to close in March 2020. But, those that opened to in-person instruction in the next school year made up the most lost ground. Other schools fell off the charts.
Thanks for quite an analysis. Richmond demographics are unlike the surrounds as I recall. And Hanover has since the beginning of the nation been quite a bulwark of independent thought! I do hope this gets shared with Ms Guidera and her crew. And it really needs national attention.
(My family background is among the First Families in VA).
Here in NM, I lamented the closures enough to get me booted from some platforms. NM is a poor state with severe educational needs both for children and many parents. Schools are the best way out of poverty. The State made not even minimal effort to keep Title 1 schools open even for Special Ed students. This will hold back progress for another generation, my guess. All because of fear that never was rational. Sadly, I believe it also revolved around the politics given the total blue adherence. The Governor was highly praised by adopting and exceeding the CA approach. The praise died away as many perished in our NW corner because of cultural factors related to our native population. We could have avoided that with more community support that came way too late. NM managed to be tops in mortality/population. The restrictions of course did little and management keep them long after knowing how ineffective they were. I doubt the politicians will ever be held to account, but am hopeful.
First families! It looks like we traded sides of the Mason-Dixon line in that I have some serious Puritan roots going back to to the 1640's in Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Anyway, I am right now tuning up a graphical analysis to complement the last piece. The last essay might have been a little hard to read. A few graphs in the next piece will help illuminate some of issues.
On top of that, I have more data (that span all school districts) from the Virginia Department of Education. I was exploring it today, and I am now thinking that that red/blue proxy variable really does illuminate preferences, county by county, relating to COVID restrictions. I will assemble yet another piece about the Virginia data. The formative result: School systems that declined to offer the option of in-person instruction performed as much as 30 points worse on the annual assessment exams. Now, had such school systems offered the option of in-person instruction, would parents and students have taken up that option, and would they have gone on to perform better? I have to think a little more about how to approach this question and about whether available data are adequate for saying anything about that question...
Really hard to know if a choice might have made a difference. In my thinking, the prosperous did
OK with their kids in terms of home schooling where they could easily access needed resources or they often decided on private schools. The less prosperous really need the school so that Title 1 designation suggests those schools should never have been closed. But you can't prove a negative.
Don't know if other states have the data that might shed light on the issue. I certainly admire your efforts at digging into the topic - despite you coming from those damn Yankee stock!
I have to credit those First Virginia families for being /less/ enthusiastic than those First Puritan families about getting into everyone else's business. And, with that in mind, you might get something out of this piece that I had posted last January:
Religious Freedom: Who Cares?
The neo-Puritanical will to build a “City on a Hill” motivates a militant cultural imperialism.
That is also another great essay. Of course, the FFV were all Church of England types who had no way to avoid that. On another side I find a bunch of red-neck Scotch-Irish in the valleys who were Presbyterians, but were refugees out of PA where their lifestyles were not appreciated much. A late aunt enjoyed her tartan associated with her family name. I never had the heart to let her in that nearly all those coming from Ireland were former Scots who had been rock farmers in service to their masters who actually owned the land - IOW, the dirt poor who hardly had tartans.
On the concept of religious freedom, clearly the founders had to rationalize all those belief systems. The Virginians were already having issues with their Church and conflicts with those heathen Presbyterians in the western regions. But they were much for not allowing a state religion; few were opposed to religion itself and certainly promoted teaching of general rules in schools without reference to a particular sect. The various sects had their own Sunday schools for sect related instruction.
The modern age has managed to dismiss religion as superstition. Sadly they have replaced it with less satisfying alternatives. Worth asking "How's that working for you". Perhaps another topic for your attention. (Forgive me if already addressed).
Thanks for quite an analysis. Richmond demographics are unlike the surrounds as I recall. And Hanover has since the beginning of the nation been quite a bulwark of independent thought! I do hope this gets shared with Ms Guidera and her crew. And it really needs national attention.
(My family background is among the First Families in VA).
Here in NM, I lamented the closures enough to get me booted from some platforms. NM is a poor state with severe educational needs both for children and many parents. Schools are the best way out of poverty. The State made not even minimal effort to keep Title 1 schools open even for Special Ed students. This will hold back progress for another generation, my guess. All because of fear that never was rational. Sadly, I believe it also revolved around the politics given the total blue adherence. The Governor was highly praised by adopting and exceeding the CA approach. The praise died away as many perished in our NW corner because of cultural factors related to our native population. We could have avoided that with more community support that came way too late. NM managed to be tops in mortality/population. The restrictions of course did little and management keep them long after knowing how ineffective they were. I doubt the politicians will ever be held to account, but am hopeful.
First families! It looks like we traded sides of the Mason-Dixon line in that I have some serious Puritan roots going back to to the 1640's in Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Anyway, I am right now tuning up a graphical analysis to complement the last piece. The last essay might have been a little hard to read. A few graphs in the next piece will help illuminate some of issues.
On top of that, I have more data (that span all school districts) from the Virginia Department of Education. I was exploring it today, and I am now thinking that that red/blue proxy variable really does illuminate preferences, county by county, relating to COVID restrictions. I will assemble yet another piece about the Virginia data. The formative result: School systems that declined to offer the option of in-person instruction performed as much as 30 points worse on the annual assessment exams. Now, had such school systems offered the option of in-person instruction, would parents and students have taken up that option, and would they have gone on to perform better? I have to think a little more about how to approach this question and about whether available data are adequate for saying anything about that question...
Really hard to know if a choice might have made a difference. In my thinking, the prosperous did
OK with their kids in terms of home schooling where they could easily access needed resources or they often decided on private schools. The less prosperous really need the school so that Title 1 designation suggests those schools should never have been closed. But you can't prove a negative.
Don't know if other states have the data that might shed light on the issue. I certainly admire your efforts at digging into the topic - despite you coming from those damn Yankee stock!
I have to credit those First Virginia families for being /less/ enthusiastic than those First Puritan families about getting into everyone else's business. And, with that in mind, you might get something out of this piece that I had posted last January:
Religious Freedom: Who Cares?
The neo-Puritanical will to build a “City on a Hill” motivates a militant cultural imperialism.
https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/religious-freedom-why-we-should-care
That is also another great essay. Of course, the FFV were all Church of England types who had no way to avoid that. On another side I find a bunch of red-neck Scotch-Irish in the valleys who were Presbyterians, but were refugees out of PA where their lifestyles were not appreciated much. A late aunt enjoyed her tartan associated with her family name. I never had the heart to let her in that nearly all those coming from Ireland were former Scots who had been rock farmers in service to their masters who actually owned the land - IOW, the dirt poor who hardly had tartans.
On the concept of religious freedom, clearly the founders had to rationalize all those belief systems. The Virginians were already having issues with their Church and conflicts with those heathen Presbyterians in the western regions. But they were much for not allowing a state religion; few were opposed to religion itself and certainly promoted teaching of general rules in schools without reference to a particular sect. The various sects had their own Sunday schools for sect related instruction.
The modern age has managed to dismiss religion as superstition. Sadly they have replaced it with less satisfying alternatives. Worth asking "How's that working for you". Perhaps another topic for your attention. (Forgive me if already addressed).