As with America itself, the basic compact—in the case of America, agreement to cooperate and accept government by well reasoned, reality based consensus; in the case of public education, a commitment to a good, comprehensive education for everyone—has broken down as intolerant, anti-democratic constituencies have broken with it and sought to undermine democracy in America generally and public education in particular everyday in every way since, oh, 1954.
Great issue today! Parent of a sixth grader here. Screen usage in school was a hot topic on our class WhatsApp last week, with the majority of parents expressing concern about the same points mentioned here. Our school issues iPads to all students, but is now pulling back and trialing less screen usage in five classrooms; positive developments with student engagement and information retention are already apparent.
The teachers around me would agree wholeheartedly with this. We are finding that it's often the parent push back that is a challenge (often fueled by the distrust this country has for the education system). We tried to have an "off and away" policy for cell phones. Who pushed back? Parents. Our high schools allow kids to make up work up until the last day of the semester, causing a huge onslaught of grading for teachers and giving no accountability to kids. Why? Because some parents get real loud and blame-y when their kid gets a bad grade.
I am lucky to work with amazing educators who see all of this and are trying to do something about it. But we are one school in an entire system. It's simultaneously inspiring and disheartening.
Jill, you have this tendency to make broad generalizations that have extraordinary policy implications without citation or support. You state that the educational "backsliding" is something that has happened over the last decade, but in reality it accelerated several years ago. From your link to The Atlantic:
"Five years ago, about 30 incoming freshmen at UC San Diego arrived with math skills below high-school level. Now, according to a recent report from UC San Diego faculty and administrators, that number is more than 900—and most of those students don’t fully meet middle-school math standards"
You mention COVID, but only to spread unsubstantiated Liberal talking points about "school closures", talking points that had their origin in the deepest maw of MAGA America and were spread by Great Barrington Declaration extremists like Vinay Prasad and Jay Battarchaya. (You may recognize those names as some of the craziest people RFK has put in positions of power in HHS: Prasad at the CDC and Battarchaya at the NIH)
This gem needs to be addressed specifically, though:
"...it was not clear, in the moment, that the potential learning losses for students were more of a risk than the potential loss of life and health for the masses, including sick and elderly family members living with young children."
It was *absolutely*, 100% clear that kids learning remotely was less risky than allowing them to go to school - literally one of the top three vectors for infectious disease and SARS-CoV-2 spread - and spread COVID far and wide. While the CFR (case fatality rate) has lowered in large part thanks to vaccines and moderate, somewhat durable severe illness protection from previous infection, let's not forget that it was close to 4% in the 65+ category.
Incidentally, vaccination and previous infection *do not* seem to offer protection from PASC (post-acute sequelae of COVID), except in that they have limited, temporary infection protection.
The impact of remote learning on educational outcomes is far from the established fact that your article implies it is. In fact, the results were mixed, and often correlated with things like socio-economic status, available technology, school readiness, and parent involvement. Almost like when you're super poor and working 3 jobs and still on SNAP, underfunded schools switching suddenly to remote learning, meaning your kids are at home and need supervision but *you work three jobs*, is *not great for outcomes*.
Virtual learning for middle school and high school, in general, has lower graduation rates but equivalent learning outcomes for those that do graduate, as measured before the pandemic.
In fact, millions of kids learned virtually or at home, either part-time or full-time, long before the pandemic hit, for a variety of reasons, without long-lasting deficits in their learning.
Which gets me to the elephant in the room:
When you infect every kid in the US with a systemic, neurotropic airborne virus 1-2x a year for 4 years, you see increased mood disorders, anxiety disorders, persistent headaches, insomnia and poor sleep, attention deficit symptoms, and low energy/chronic fatigue. All of which leads to steeply declining test scores.
Second infections double risk of Long COVID, which is anywhere from 7% to 20% in kids (depending on which symptoms you include; the etiology of Long COVID is different in u18s, and *much* different in u5s, than in adults, which muddies the water).
What you're observing, but refusing to see for ideological and political reasons, is what happens when society throws kids to the wolves so they can "get back to normal". The science and data are clear: SARS-CoV-2 is still infecting hundreds of millions of people each year in the US, a significant number of those people, both children and adults, are developing long-term illness because of it; and that long-term illness (as well as the frequent acute illness) is causing widespread negative population health, economic, social, and educational effects.
But you know what? I'll bet it's the cell phones. Or maybe kids just aren't resilient enough to survive 6 months away from their school building. Anything but the disease that causes brain damage with every infection.
While I agree with and appreciate your citations to reputable studies & articles on COVID & its health & learning implications, I disagree that Jill has a "tendency to make broad generalizations with extraordinary policy implications." I think you can share the former while not lambasting the author with the latter. It's a conversation worth having many times over and, I, for one, am grateful Jill's using her platform to discuss it.
Let's get the context right for your comment:
(1) This is a substack and Jill is a writer, not a policymaker or leader in the sector or government.
(2) She literally asks for your thoughts and opinions at the end of the piece on what she's missing, etc.
I know she's used to critical feedback and will take it in stride, but I'm really exhausted by the eat-your-own and overall lack of decorum in conversations that have a lot of nuance, particularly when the person is literally asking you to engage and to learn from others.
Don't let your very valid points get buried under your own overly broad generalizations.
I like Jill's writing and her analysis is as sharp as analysis gets on the Liberal side of politics and culture. That's why I subscribe to her blog here.
That said, Liberal analysis is...shoddy in this era. I don't know that it always was, but especially since Biden it has gotten ideological and reactionary, ignoring science, displaying bias, and drawing conclusions that aren't supported by anecdotal, qualitative, or quantitative data.
Over the last 6 months I've subscribed, I've seen Jill make strong determinations in her writing while ignoring transparently relevant information, often in a way that aligns her with Liberal talking points. Whether it's stating that the Left is as violent as the Right (something a simple internet search will disabuse anyone of) or the above, she does fill in large gaps in her knowledge and understanding of the issues with boilerplate propaganda that serves a very specific political ideology.
My tone notwithstanding (and it can often use massaging), I think she can do better, so I challenge her when I see it.
As for the context you mention, I think it's worth noting that in this article specifically she literally offers policy areas in which to look for solutions. I also think (and we may disagree) that pundits and journalists play an outsize role in influencing culture at large and politicians specifically by defining problems and narratives, which directly leads to policymaking. It's with *this* context in mind that I take what Jill writes seriously, and respond in kind with earnestness.
If Jill were on a Sunday morning show talking about this, then sure, I think being more critical is valid. But, again, this is her substack and she is asking for conversation. I think you're just going a bit too hard.
I think it's clear I'm open to discussion just from this exchange. But my argument is strong, so I presented it strongly. There isn't a lot of question of what's happening; just a question of what narratives people are running with. Where the evidence less dispositive, I wouldn't have engaged as a aggressively.
I'd say that people on Sunday morning shows *are* spreading these minimizing talking points, and Jill Filipovic is more influential than you're implying. There are actually tens of millions of people who live dramatically reduced lives either because they're suffering from Long COVID or are determined to protect themselves from it. Our illusions around COVID are a legitimately pressing issue, especially considering kids are being infected 1.5x on avg per year, with no real understanding of the long-term implications of that.
If I make it to Kenya, we can have a few sundowners about this. After 25 years in education, I'm burned out and leaving in every way possible. Education was the canary for all of the government inefficiency/mistrust/dismantling that is happening wholesale now at the Federal level and a lot of Dems participated fully in that effort.
I love this column--or rather this essay. Not only do you correctly diagnose many of the problems in American education, but you provide realistic solutions. If your ideas were adopted and implemented, schools would improve markedly.
2 (relatively) minor disagreements.
First: Sadly, it seems to me grade inflation at colleges in general and (ironically enough) especially at elite colleges is an unsolvable problem. There is simply no constituency out there among the stakeholders (professors, administrators, parents, students) who would favor a return to more stringent grading.
Second: I am open to rebuttal and counterevidence, but in my considerable experience (homeschooled my 3 kids, 2 K-12 and one K-8; attended many homeschool conventions and worked with lots of homeschoolers) homeschooling parents are in general extremely conscientious and capable, and most of their children are academic overachievers. Indeed, homeschooling seems to me a rare bright spot in American education.
I completely agree with you Jill. Schools can be rigorous and supportive at the same time while preparing students for real world challenges. To balance the advantages wealthier students have, we should provide disadvantaged students with support for test prep and college applications.
As with America itself, the basic compact—in the case of America, agreement to cooperate and accept government by well reasoned, reality based consensus; in the case of public education, a commitment to a good, comprehensive education for everyone—has broken down as intolerant, anti-democratic constituencies have broken with it and sought to undermine democracy in America generally and public education in particular everyday in every way since, oh, 1954.
Great issue today! Parent of a sixth grader here. Screen usage in school was a hot topic on our class WhatsApp last week, with the majority of parents expressing concern about the same points mentioned here. Our school issues iPads to all students, but is now pulling back and trialing less screen usage in five classrooms; positive developments with student engagement and information retention are already apparent.
The teachers around me would agree wholeheartedly with this. We are finding that it's often the parent push back that is a challenge (often fueled by the distrust this country has for the education system). We tried to have an "off and away" policy for cell phones. Who pushed back? Parents. Our high schools allow kids to make up work up until the last day of the semester, causing a huge onslaught of grading for teachers and giving no accountability to kids. Why? Because some parents get real loud and blame-y when their kid gets a bad grade.
I am lucky to work with amazing educators who see all of this and are trying to do something about it. But we are one school in an entire system. It's simultaneously inspiring and disheartening.
Jill, you have this tendency to make broad generalizations that have extraordinary policy implications without citation or support. You state that the educational "backsliding" is something that has happened over the last decade, but in reality it accelerated several years ago. From your link to The Atlantic:
"Five years ago, about 30 incoming freshmen at UC San Diego arrived with math skills below high-school level. Now, according to a recent report from UC San Diego faculty and administrators, that number is more than 900—and most of those students don’t fully meet middle-school math standards"
You mention COVID, but only to spread unsubstantiated Liberal talking points about "school closures", talking points that had their origin in the deepest maw of MAGA America and were spread by Great Barrington Declaration extremists like Vinay Prasad and Jay Battarchaya. (You may recognize those names as some of the craziest people RFK has put in positions of power in HHS: Prasad at the CDC and Battarchaya at the NIH)
This gem needs to be addressed specifically, though:
"...it was not clear, in the moment, that the potential learning losses for students were more of a risk than the potential loss of life and health for the masses, including sick and elderly family members living with young children."
It was *absolutely*, 100% clear that kids learning remotely was less risky than allowing them to go to school - literally one of the top three vectors for infectious disease and SARS-CoV-2 spread - and spread COVID far and wide. While the CFR (case fatality rate) has lowered in large part thanks to vaccines and moderate, somewhat durable severe illness protection from previous infection, let's not forget that it was close to 4% in the 65+ category.
Incidentally, vaccination and previous infection *do not* seem to offer protection from PASC (post-acute sequelae of COVID), except in that they have limited, temporary infection protection.
The impact of remote learning on educational outcomes is far from the established fact that your article implies it is. In fact, the results were mixed, and often correlated with things like socio-economic status, available technology, school readiness, and parent involvement. Almost like when you're super poor and working 3 jobs and still on SNAP, underfunded schools switching suddenly to remote learning, meaning your kids are at home and need supervision but *you work three jobs*, is *not great for outcomes*.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10266495/
Virtual learning for middle school and high school, in general, has lower graduation rates but equivalent learning outcomes for those that do graduate, as measured before the pandemic.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2025-08-12-virtual-school-hit-the-mainstream-5-years-ago-how-popular-has-it-gotten
In fact, millions of kids learned virtually or at home, either part-time or full-time, long before the pandemic hit, for a variety of reasons, without long-lasting deficits in their learning.
Which gets me to the elephant in the room:
When you infect every kid in the US with a systemic, neurotropic airborne virus 1-2x a year for 4 years, you see increased mood disorders, anxiety disorders, persistent headaches, insomnia and poor sleep, attention deficit symptoms, and low energy/chronic fatigue. All of which leads to steeply declining test scores.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-finds-long-covid-affects-adolescents-differently-younger-children
Second infections double risk of Long COVID, which is anywhere from 7% to 20% in kids (depending on which symptoms you include; the etiology of Long COVID is different in u18s, and *much* different in u5s, than in adults, which muddies the water).
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/second-infection-in-kids-doubles-long-covid-risk
BTW, even "mild" or asymptomatic infections cause a 3-point drop in IQ, on average.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-leaves-its-mark-on-the-brain-significant-drops-in-iq-scores-are/
What you're observing, but refusing to see for ideological and political reasons, is what happens when society throws kids to the wolves so they can "get back to normal". The science and data are clear: SARS-CoV-2 is still infecting hundreds of millions of people each year in the US, a significant number of those people, both children and adults, are developing long-term illness because of it; and that long-term illness (as well as the frequent acute illness) is causing widespread negative population health, economic, social, and educational effects.
But you know what? I'll bet it's the cell phones. Or maybe kids just aren't resilient enough to survive 6 months away from their school building. Anything but the disease that causes brain damage with every infection.
While I agree with and appreciate your citations to reputable studies & articles on COVID & its health & learning implications, I disagree that Jill has a "tendency to make broad generalizations with extraordinary policy implications." I think you can share the former while not lambasting the author with the latter. It's a conversation worth having many times over and, I, for one, am grateful Jill's using her platform to discuss it.
Let's get the context right for your comment:
(1) This is a substack and Jill is a writer, not a policymaker or leader in the sector or government.
(2) She literally asks for your thoughts and opinions at the end of the piece on what she's missing, etc.
I know she's used to critical feedback and will take it in stride, but I'm really exhausted by the eat-your-own and overall lack of decorum in conversations that have a lot of nuance, particularly when the person is literally asking you to engage and to learn from others.
Don't let your very valid points get buried under your own overly broad generalizations.
I like Jill's writing and her analysis is as sharp as analysis gets on the Liberal side of politics and culture. That's why I subscribe to her blog here.
That said, Liberal analysis is...shoddy in this era. I don't know that it always was, but especially since Biden it has gotten ideological and reactionary, ignoring science, displaying bias, and drawing conclusions that aren't supported by anecdotal, qualitative, or quantitative data.
Over the last 6 months I've subscribed, I've seen Jill make strong determinations in her writing while ignoring transparently relevant information, often in a way that aligns her with Liberal talking points. Whether it's stating that the Left is as violent as the Right (something a simple internet search will disabuse anyone of) or the above, she does fill in large gaps in her knowledge and understanding of the issues with boilerplate propaganda that serves a very specific political ideology.
My tone notwithstanding (and it can often use massaging), I think she can do better, so I challenge her when I see it.
As for the context you mention, I think it's worth noting that in this article specifically she literally offers policy areas in which to look for solutions. I also think (and we may disagree) that pundits and journalists play an outsize role in influencing culture at large and politicians specifically by defining problems and narratives, which directly leads to policymaking. It's with *this* context in mind that I take what Jill writes seriously, and respond in kind with earnestness.
If Jill were on a Sunday morning show talking about this, then sure, I think being more critical is valid. But, again, this is her substack and she is asking for conversation. I think you're just going a bit too hard.
I think it's clear I'm open to discussion just from this exchange. But my argument is strong, so I presented it strongly. There isn't a lot of question of what's happening; just a question of what narratives people are running with. Where the evidence less dispositive, I wouldn't have engaged as a aggressively.
I'd say that people on Sunday morning shows *are* spreading these minimizing talking points, and Jill Filipovic is more influential than you're implying. There are actually tens of millions of people who live dramatically reduced lives either because they're suffering from Long COVID or are determined to protect themselves from it. Our illusions around COVID are a legitimately pressing issue, especially considering kids are being infected 1.5x on avg per year, with no real understanding of the long-term implications of that.
If I make it to Kenya, we can have a few sundowners about this. After 25 years in education, I'm burned out and leaving in every way possible. Education was the canary for all of the government inefficiency/mistrust/dismantling that is happening wholesale now at the Federal level and a lot of Dems participated fully in that effort.
I love this column--or rather this essay. Not only do you correctly diagnose many of the problems in American education, but you provide realistic solutions. If your ideas were adopted and implemented, schools would improve markedly.
2 (relatively) minor disagreements.
First: Sadly, it seems to me grade inflation at colleges in general and (ironically enough) especially at elite colleges is an unsolvable problem. There is simply no constituency out there among the stakeholders (professors, administrators, parents, students) who would favor a return to more stringent grading.
Second: I am open to rebuttal and counterevidence, but in my considerable experience (homeschooled my 3 kids, 2 K-12 and one K-8; attended many homeschool conventions and worked with lots of homeschoolers) homeschooling parents are in general extremely conscientious and capable, and most of their children are academic overachievers. Indeed, homeschooling seems to me a rare bright spot in American education.
Teach history, science, math and civics. And make it interesting and meaningful. Give kids goals to aspire to.
I completely agree with you Jill. Schools can be rigorous and supportive at the same time while preparing students for real world challenges. To balance the advantages wealthier students have, we should provide disadvantaged students with support for test prep and college applications.
TYPO: change "back" to "bad" in you subtitle.