I started teaching in the UK in 1989. Or watched exactly this happen over the course of my career. To add some personal observations… High stakes testing and school/teacher judgments lead to increasing control mentality. All the responsibility is put on the teacher to deliver exam results - it’s like the motivation to do well ‘belongs’ to them not the kids. Schools start putting on extra classes, even more for students who are ‘behind’ so they get even less freedom. My kids whole lives were dominated by school even at weekends and in the holidays in a way mine really wasn’t. Fewer trips/extracurricular activities which are seen as ‘wasting’ learning time (Whereas I’ve seen from experience what kids learn from eg a well-run residential). Lots of use of negative motivation (‘if you don’t… you will fail) which is strongly correlated with anxiety and depression. Pressure put on kids to attend even if sick. I could go on. It really contributes to teacher stress/burnout too and that impacts directly on kids. I now have two kids who have been through the system. They are both academically bright but really hated school and found it super-stressful. One (ASD) developed severe school anxiety and stopped going to school. Still dealing with the MH fallout. The other burnt out close to the 16+ exams and only just got through the exams. Many of their friends have MH difficulties/burnout. Bright kids from supportive middle class homes who statistically should be low risk for this kind of thing. She’s now at a college which has a much more relaxed, ‘learning is interesting’ focus and to my relief she’s thriving again, enjoying learning and has regained her intrinsic motivation. MH difficulties have disappeared. Her screen use has not changed. The terrible state of the world has not changed.
Thank you for this timely newsletter. I have been made so angry by the UK government's latest poster campaign aimed at shaming parents whose children are persistently absent from school. The posters say that persistently absent children are 75% less likely to be earning a good salary at age 28 than "near perfect attenders". In order to extract this data, the most recent cohort would have to have been those who attended the top end of secondary school in 2012. Before Michael Gove's one size fits all educational reforms, after the Labour government's immense investment in schools and Sure Start centres, way before Covid, before the time when Educational Welfare Officers were made redundant. The proportion of persistently absent children in 2012 was miniscule compared to today, and was far more likely to be caused by serious illness or serious breakdowns in family support - so of course those children are likely to be earning less than their peers now. But in looking at the cause and effect of persistent absence at and before 2012 and now is not comparing like with like. It's using data to shame parents and, as a senior leader and attendance lead in a primary school, it makes me furious.
As a former Montessori early childhood guide and a parent to children who are half English/half Swedish…..I’m very glad we home educate and have no plans to ever use schools for education. One reason we don’t live in Sweden is the inability to home educate. We had considered a few years there, accepting that our eldest would have to be in school, but personal circumstances changed our plans. Reading this, I’m pleased we didn’t.
I will say that testing alone and discounting tech is a bold statement.
Also having had International Women’s Day recently it is no surprise that girls are still in the ‘good girl’ academic mould and desperately trying to please academically. And are boys more willing to blow off work? Or are they part of a society that assumes their behaviour is normal and acceptable and that they won’t have to work as hard for the same slice of the pie as females?
I'm really interested in this: "Sweden has a long tradition of favoring teachers’ grading of students throughout the year rather than relying heavily on end-of-year exams,"
Having taught in the UK, and having such a focus from Year 2, on the dreaded end of year tests (SATs GCSEs A-Levels). The Swedish way of grading is something I've been longing for forever. It's a shame to hear that they're no somewhat moving away from this.
We have continuous teacher assessment in the US and it is not a desirable alternative. If Sweden is moves away from this it is because it is a miserable experience. Just some of the problems:
- Students are always tested on work they have recently learned. Lagging even slightly behind in understanding a subject ends up being a much larger penalty. Students who come from a disadvantaged background and have some catching up to do are in trouble.
- The relationship between the student and the teacher is much more adversarial.
- For a given level of academic achievement, the stress and workload is higher, students have to be "always on". There is never a time when students are not focusing on an upcoming assessment.
The 6 month modules that England used to have may be a reasonable compromise. Also, not making kids take courses they cannot really handle.
Ah, maybe I've misunderstood then! When I read continuous grading, I pictured no actual tests or formal assessments, just students continously completing work and teachers using their professional judgement to grade the pupils.
One problem with the way things are graded now is that the best students are not getting into the fields -- such as medicine -- where the competition for limited slots is the most fierce. I was listening to a young man talk about this last summer. He and his best friend both wanted to become doctors. They went to the most academically challenging gymnasium (high school) in their region. His best friend was the best student in the class. He was the fifth best student in the class. The teacher, graded the class on a continuum, so his marks were such that he did not get into med school (missed out by 5 slots.) Meanwhile, at a different school in another part of the country, other students were getting high marks, and got into med school. They were the best students in their class .... but, according to the friend who was accepted into medical school, not as good as people who received worse marks from their old school. So the students at this big political debate, between the youth wings of the leading political parties wanted common exams to be marked by a central body which was not anybody's teacher. Their other point was that it is very hard for teachers who are significantly less intelligent than the students they are evaluating to produce a fair mark, when a student produces an essay that is outside of what the teacher was expecting. Since it is unlikely that we will can arrange to get significantly smarter and more creative teachers, it is essential that the marking that counts for university placement get done by the very best in their fields.
That is actually what happens here, very few formal assessments, a test usually does not count more than 10% of the grade. The problem is that everything a high school teacher assigns forms part of a student's transcript grade they use to apply to university. Routine work becomes high stress.
This article describes some of the dynamic, but instead of acknowledging continuous assessment is not working as promised they blame the parents, students and the online reporting of grades. They want students and parents to be less stressed about these grades, but all these grades actually count.
As teachers grade differently, which university you get into depends partly on how generous your teachers were. Universities supposedly adjust for this, but there is no way to do this fairly.
American schools are better at meeting kids where they are in other ways, continuous assessment is not the right approach.
I’d be keen to understand more about the PISA rankings and why we couldn’t just abolish them. Surely if they were to be scrapped with a message that they are encouraging an increase in student suffering, we might be able to start a conversation about the damage created by this focus on tests rather than children.
Hi Peter, as an educator with over 25 years experience, I agree with your assessment of the Common Core Standards. What I feel you are missing is how the standards (funded by tech giant Bill Gates) funneled edtech into schools without any research to demonstrate it would enhance learning. I have documented the rise of tech in my edtech timeline, https://environmentalprogress.org/education-timeline. I will also argue that the research is not able to capture the nuance of what happens daily to children when they are handed a device to learn from that was not design with them in mind. The onslaught of tech in schools, common core standards and social media go hand in hand. The tech industry has also capture much of the research, for example, many research organizations that Odgers is associated with, receive significant funding from tech. The tech industry has also banded together to push more high stakes testing into the classroom in the name of progress monitoring. See this press release from NWEA https://www.nwea.org/news-center/press-releases/nwea-awarded-4-5-million-to-support-expansion-of-college-and-career-ready-standards-aligned-content-for-map-growth/ Technology in schools has played a huge role in the decline in student performance and rise in mental health issues.
Denise, 💯% on target. The belief that a child on a smartphone or laptop is learning is insidious. The video game makers' arguments that there is not deep neurological interference in childhood brain developmental patterns is akin to the "sugar is for energy" propaganda (we know sugar rewires the brain!) All a casual observer need do is watch a child "enthralled" with a smartphone & then have the audacity to break that spell to realize the profound impact these machines have on a child's attention.
■ Loukia Papadopoulos (18 Nov 2023) Prolonged time on tech devices does harm children’s brains: 33 studies, —“It should be recognized by both educators and caregivers that children’s cognitive development may be influenced by their digital experiences,” Interesting Engineering, is.gd/zs69hA
Specifically, the study (Wu, Dong, et al 2023) revealed that prolonged use of screens causes alterations in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, the part associated with various complex cognitive functions such as personality expression, decision-making, and social behavior.
Additionally, it detected effects on the temporal lobe, involved in several key functions, including auditory processing, memory, language, and aspects of visual perception; the occipital lobe, primarily responsible for processing visual information; and the parietal lobe, which plays a crucial role in processing sensory information from the body.
The study (Wu, Dong, et al 2023) found detrimental effects of screen usage on attention, executive control, inhibitory control, cognitive functions, and functional connectivity in the brain. Furthermore, it was deduced that longer screen times are linked to reduced functional connectivity in language and cognitive control-related brain regions, which may have a negative impact on cognitive development.
■ Wu, D., Dong, X., Liu, D., & Li, H. (2023). How Early Digital Experience Shapes Young Brains During 0-12 Years: A Scoping Review. Early Education and Development, 35(7), 1395–1431, is.gd/1FadmM
The synthesis of the evidence revealed that
(1) digital experience does have positive and negative impacts on children’s brains, structurally and functionally;
(2) it could cause structural and functional changes in children’s frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, brain connectivity, and brain networks; and the most vulnerable area is the prefrontal cortex and its associated executive function, and
(3) early digital experience has both positive and negative impacts on children’s brain structure longitudinally.
Thanks for sharing that research, I definitely plan to check it out. It seems the negatives far outweigh any positives that may come from it. Children are handed devices at such young age and curriculum developer actually talk about gamifying learning as if it is a good thing. I truly hope we can change this trend before it is too late!
Great job on your timeline, spent several hours going through it, especially the references to the effects on young minds of peering into the blue screen miasma.
I have been convinced of the powerful shaping force video games (especially 1st person shooter ones) can have on young minds (especially brains on off-label prescribed psychotropics such as SSRIs); or the imprinting of cartoons & commercials on kids.
The Norwegians seem to be especially sensitive to the damage & have done several studies & even resteucted smartphine use (Abrahamsson, Sara (22 Feb 2024) Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health, NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4735240 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4735240 is)
IMHO, computers & mobile phones are a form of injection into children's internal terrain, & just like vaccines provoke an adaptive response.
Thanks for taking the time to go through it! It was a labor of love and honestly I have found more to add to it since it was created.
I completely agree, all this tech is impacting their internal wiring, and not for the good. There are so many negative impacts to learning, especially when it is done on a screen. Here is Sophie Winkleman's speech from ARC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6nucKFK88&t=7s She makes an eloquent and compelling argument against edtech.
Forgive this disordered reply. Firstly, thx for the Winkleman speech!
■ Sophie Winkleman (17 Feb 2025) WATCH: The Most Compelling Argument Against Tech In Schools, Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), is.gd/Ao4SAN #edtech
Secondly, there's clearly a huge disconnect between how the people that are pushing edtech were educated & what they envision for the unannointed masses. For example, this list of top tech homeschoolers ( the cabal) listed in Homeschooler Pro (21 Feb 2023) What Famous Business People Were Homeschooled, tinyurl.com/2b2hlogy
IMHO, if you want an innovative child, let them experience childhood. It's ironic that many of the top techologists were homeschooled & allowed to develop their peculiar particularity.
For example take FAANGS: Facebook (Meta), Amazon, Apple, (Microsoft) Netflix*, Google (Alphabet), Space X.
* Netflix, Hastings & Randolph, is the[ oddball, its founders come from privilege, but Netflix starts with an "N," whereas Microsoft .... ]
Lastly, there's the boomerang effect noted by Winkleman at the start of her speech, the trchonolgy is not waorking as intended. This article summarizes the obcious: Ted Gioia (19 Feb 2025) The World's Largest Search Engine Doesn't Want You to Search, —Why is Google abandoning its core mission?, THE HONEST BROKER, https://open.substack.com/pub/tedgioia/p/the-worlds-largest-search-doesnt
«Almost everything in the digital world is turning into its Opposite.
• Social media platforms now prevent people from having a social life.
• ChatGPT makes you less likely to chat with anybody.
• Relationship apps make it harder for couples to form lasting relationships.
• Health and wellness websites make it almost impossible to find reliable health advice-instead peddling products of dubious efficacy.
• Product review sites now prevent people from reading impartial reviews by actual users of the product, instead operating as pay-for-play vehicles.
And adding to your list, educational technology is deteriorating education. I will check out those articles! What also is interesting is that many big tech executives send their own children to schools that don't use tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZ-fuWdz8M. I have a new post coming out soon highlighting some of the less talked about harms of edtech as well as the rise of education spending on students with the decline in student test scores.
I largely agree with the school stress theory. The UK and Europe have their own quirks though.
No matter the system, students are going to experience greater stress if they feel they have to compete for a few small number of good career opportunities and are expected to pursue a very academic path. Up to the 1980s, less than 10% of UK students went on to take A levels, now something like 40% take at least one. Nothing else has to change about the education system itself to subject students to more stress.
UK and European education has always been highly standardized with a few high stakes exams which would typically comprise most, if not all a student's transcript. One cannot therefore attribute changes in student stress merely to the existence of a standardized curriculum and assessments. One reason for standardization is the expectation of fairness, we may accept the idea that all students are going to be graded differently, they do not.
Swedish students are victims of a "progressive" trend of teacher based continuous assessment. While there are problems with the England's conservative education reforms, not many are dreaming of going back to the days of graded homework and frequent teacher graded assessments. When Labour took over, there were suggestions that England should go back to something like that, this was quickly shut down.
I appreciate this argument, however, but it does not account for the fact that indices of student suffering rose when school "reforms" occurred after 2015 in UK and not before, and rose after school reforms in Sweden in 2011 and not before. The timing of increased student suffering depends on when the "reforms" occur. I think it is the standardization of the curriculum and the tighter evaluation, regardless of method of evaluation, that is the problem.
I am less familiar with the Swedish reforms but the reforms in England definitely affected many students negatively. But I am not convinced the amount of standardization changed. Europeans have long expected grades between teachers and schools within a country to be comparable, this has always required a degree of standardization way beyond anything we have ever experienced in America.
In England the the amount of content in the curriculum was increased and non-academic subjects de-emphasized. Exams were made more challenging. But they abolished the frequent exam board graded assessments, giving teachers greater versatility in how they taught the courses. Those assessments were standardized, intrusive, widely hated but also easier and less stressful.
I think people just notice the standardization more when they feel that is a poor fit for particular students or overly intrusive.
Peter, I agree with you that school is not education and that cookie cutter methodologies of measuring "𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵" are counterproductive. Although I do know that objective self-evaluation is critical to learning. The question, "𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙙?" to me is essential to any discussion on "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯," but there's the more fundamental question that Socrates was poisoned over, "𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 (𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛)."
IMHO, "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯" is directly associated wit our "𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥" —how are minds shaped & developed from birth until maturation ≈25-30 years of age. If minds are a bricolage of sensory centers wired together through the body's interaction with the world during a lengthy period of neoteny, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯.
Opposed to this concept would be top-down injection (the vaccine mandate) version of "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯." So, IMHO there's top-down & external vs bottom-up & internal (of course this stark contrast is simplistic, but hopefully illustrative.) Adaptive self-knowledge, feedback though eyes-ears-voice-touch-muscles-taste in a loving environment, is what turns babies into humans.
It is easy to put numbers into spreadsheets & use statistics to justify dollars/student, but this is a fundamental philosophical error that goes to the core issue of ""𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙇𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣." When "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯" becomes "𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨" & the center of focus is outside the family, then "𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴" & "𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦" are not weaned from the wisdom of grandparents & relatives (fully developed humans with the patience & love to nurture curiosity & self-knowledge) but from bean counters.
Bureaucrats do ""𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 & 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻"—grandparents do "𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 & 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗼𝗺."
p.s. Clearly I'm briefly opining about childhood development. My adult life in nuclear submarines dealt with the critical issues of effective indoctrination & training to strictly evaluated performance, —𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺!
p.p.s. BTW, there's a lot going wrong in Sweden: "no-go" zones, frequent extreme violence, ...
I worked as a teacher / learning facilitator for more than 7 years and I was constantly surprised by the government's decisions that went against what the research showed would improve well being.
Research showed students perform better academically when school starts later in the day -> school start gets pushed earlier in the day.
Research shows students perform better with less homework -> more homework.
Research shows students' mental health is worse with more standardized testing -> more standardized testing.
At this point I am starting to believe the people in power want for children to suffer.
Hello Peter. I am a support worker in British Columbia, Canada. I am wondering if you have any data that includes Canada. Is this affecting my children as well?
I'm really interested in seeing/hearing more about this: "every study I have found of effects of school pressures that separates the effects for girls and boys reveals that the effects are greater for girls than for boys." How are these studies measuring & assessing school pressure & what do they count as its effects? The reason I'm asking & curious: I've been researching, writing, & reporting on boys for 20+ years, and statistically, boys are more likely to drop out of schools, be suspended from or expelled from school (often due to acting out behavior, which research and experience have shown may be a way boys' express anxiety and depression, which may result from school pressure). Boys are also more likely to die of suicide, to commit horrific school-related violence (here, I'm thinking of school shooting in the U.S.) Boys are now significantly less likely to attend or graduate college, a trend that, to me, seems related to their experiences of school related pressure.
Thank you for the work you’re doing. I am in my 27th year as a high school science teacher. I do want to add - in response to this section (pasted below) - that common core has not directly impacted my teaching in any way. Or the learning in my classroom. Zero. And this is not because I ignore it or I’m better or any of that. It’s because it has no impact. None. It makes absolutely no difference. Now, I’m not saying it might not impact others - I imagine it likely has. But in my 27 years, including since 2012, it hasn’t impacted me or any teachers I know. And probably not the students either.
I can tell you that screens and phones and social media have surely impacted students, teachers, and learning.
I’m not interested in arguing one way or another. I’m not qualified. I’m only adding in my experience. *though clearly I am saying it would be really bizarre if what you are arguing for and against were true.
“In the United States, 2012 was the year when most states adopted the Common Core Curriculum, which dramatically changed the nature of schooling across the country by adding high stakes testing in selected subjects, narrowing the curriculum to focus on test drill, and using those test scores to evaluate teachers, schools, and school districts. Teachers became far less free to engage students in creative and intellectually enjoyable activities, as administrators began cracking down on anything that didn’t seem to them to be oriented toward improving test scores.”
Et tu, Sweden? It just goes to show how ideas spread. Who will be brave enough to let go of high stakes testing and the absurd notion that all children must learn the same thing at the same time? Thanks for calling attention to the problem.
I live in Sweden. You will be pleased to know that the government we elected in 2022 has been a harsh critic of the so called reforms of 2012. They have spent a lot of time studying the problem and have already made some changes .... more reading, more books, less screen time and starting later in life, more free time, no phones in school, lmmersion classes for pre-schoolers who do not speak Swedish at home. see: https://www.government.se/articles/2024/02/government-investing-in-more-reading-time-and-less-screen-time/
We keep getting pelted with report after report... new one out end of April, another one in June so it is hard to keep up with these things. But a good deal of our current problem has, at its root, the unwillingness of certain immigrant groups to assimulate. Now that it is allowable to measure and report on such things, it is clear that it isn't the ethnic Swedes who are doing badly at school, except in some areas we think are related to too enthuthiastically embracing a digital revolution, but rather that we have a large number of extremely low performing immigrant students. We've tried a lot of things, but still are very bad at teaching them. Many children still come from families who see education as indoctrination, and who are hostile to the whole concept of secular learning, working for wages, and self-directed learning. They concentrate into whole schools, where they cannot learn how to be Swedish because ethnic Swedes are only a tiny minority there .... and perhaps not the best role models for all that. There is talk of razing certain neighbourhoods and demanding that the rebuilt ones only have a certain per centage of immigrants families, and parcel the immigrants around the country. Since they are living in government provided housing, it could be done in theory, as it is done in Denmark, but it would be a lot harder to do here, if only because of the scale of things.
I don't know of a single case where forced assimulation has worked. So we have little reason to hope we can learn how to do this thing. But asking the schools to assimulate the children has only worked where the children have wanted to assimulate, and where the parents are supportive. So it continues to be a mess.
I live in Sweden too. And sadly the ongoing government investigations are focused on making the Swedish school system even stricter, increasing the pressure on students. National tests are set to carry even more weight, and students' influence over their education will be further reduced. Instead of moving towards a more balanced approach, the system is heading in the opposite direction — towards more control and even greater emphasis on assessment and performance. They also plan to turn the current preschool class into the equivalent of grade 1, effectively increasing the amount of formal schooling for six-year-olds. Instead of having a playful and exploratory first year in school, the preschool class will become more like "real school," with a stronger focus on structured learning and academic goals at an even earlier age.
The government tends to place much of the blame on screen time, rather than acknowledging that many of the issues began after the curriculum reform in 2011. At least, that is what I have gathered from what I’ve read. The government is now doubling down with even stricter rules and more centralized control. This shift risks ignoring the real causes behind declining student well-being and performance, while placing even more pressure on young people.
I started teaching in the UK in 1989. Or watched exactly this happen over the course of my career. To add some personal observations… High stakes testing and school/teacher judgments lead to increasing control mentality. All the responsibility is put on the teacher to deliver exam results - it’s like the motivation to do well ‘belongs’ to them not the kids. Schools start putting on extra classes, even more for students who are ‘behind’ so they get even less freedom. My kids whole lives were dominated by school even at weekends and in the holidays in a way mine really wasn’t. Fewer trips/extracurricular activities which are seen as ‘wasting’ learning time (Whereas I’ve seen from experience what kids learn from eg a well-run residential). Lots of use of negative motivation (‘if you don’t… you will fail) which is strongly correlated with anxiety and depression. Pressure put on kids to attend even if sick. I could go on. It really contributes to teacher stress/burnout too and that impacts directly on kids. I now have two kids who have been through the system. They are both academically bright but really hated school and found it super-stressful. One (ASD) developed severe school anxiety and stopped going to school. Still dealing with the MH fallout. The other burnt out close to the 16+ exams and only just got through the exams. Many of their friends have MH difficulties/burnout. Bright kids from supportive middle class homes who statistically should be low risk for this kind of thing. She’s now at a college which has a much more relaxed, ‘learning is interesting’ focus and to my relief she’s thriving again, enjoying learning and has regained her intrinsic motivation. MH difficulties have disappeared. Her screen use has not changed. The terrible state of the world has not changed.
Thank you for this timely newsletter. I have been made so angry by the UK government's latest poster campaign aimed at shaming parents whose children are persistently absent from school. The posters say that persistently absent children are 75% less likely to be earning a good salary at age 28 than "near perfect attenders". In order to extract this data, the most recent cohort would have to have been those who attended the top end of secondary school in 2012. Before Michael Gove's one size fits all educational reforms, after the Labour government's immense investment in schools and Sure Start centres, way before Covid, before the time when Educational Welfare Officers were made redundant. The proportion of persistently absent children in 2012 was miniscule compared to today, and was far more likely to be caused by serious illness or serious breakdowns in family support - so of course those children are likely to be earning less than their peers now. But in looking at the cause and effect of persistent absence at and before 2012 and now is not comparing like with like. It's using data to shame parents and, as a senior leader and attendance lead in a primary school, it makes me furious.
As a former Montessori early childhood guide and a parent to children who are half English/half Swedish…..I’m very glad we home educate and have no plans to ever use schools for education. One reason we don’t live in Sweden is the inability to home educate. We had considered a few years there, accepting that our eldest would have to be in school, but personal circumstances changed our plans. Reading this, I’m pleased we didn’t.
I will say that testing alone and discounting tech is a bold statement.
Also having had International Women’s Day recently it is no surprise that girls are still in the ‘good girl’ academic mould and desperately trying to please academically. And are boys more willing to blow off work? Or are they part of a society that assumes their behaviour is normal and acceptable and that they won’t have to work as hard for the same slice of the pie as females?
I'm really interested in this: "Sweden has a long tradition of favoring teachers’ grading of students throughout the year rather than relying heavily on end-of-year exams,"
Having taught in the UK, and having such a focus from Year 2, on the dreaded end of year tests (SATs GCSEs A-Levels). The Swedish way of grading is something I've been longing for forever. It's a shame to hear that they're no somewhat moving away from this.
We have continuous teacher assessment in the US and it is not a desirable alternative. If Sweden is moves away from this it is because it is a miserable experience. Just some of the problems:
- Students are always tested on work they have recently learned. Lagging even slightly behind in understanding a subject ends up being a much larger penalty. Students who come from a disadvantaged background and have some catching up to do are in trouble.
- The relationship between the student and the teacher is much more adversarial.
- For a given level of academic achievement, the stress and workload is higher, students have to be "always on". There is never a time when students are not focusing on an upcoming assessment.
The 6 month modules that England used to have may be a reasonable compromise. Also, not making kids take courses they cannot really handle.
Ah, maybe I've misunderstood then! When I read continuous grading, I pictured no actual tests or formal assessments, just students continously completing work and teachers using their professional judgement to grade the pupils.
What you described does sound pretty miserable!
One problem with the way things are graded now is that the best students are not getting into the fields -- such as medicine -- where the competition for limited slots is the most fierce. I was listening to a young man talk about this last summer. He and his best friend both wanted to become doctors. They went to the most academically challenging gymnasium (high school) in their region. His best friend was the best student in the class. He was the fifth best student in the class. The teacher, graded the class on a continuum, so his marks were such that he did not get into med school (missed out by 5 slots.) Meanwhile, at a different school in another part of the country, other students were getting high marks, and got into med school. They were the best students in their class .... but, according to the friend who was accepted into medical school, not as good as people who received worse marks from their old school. So the students at this big political debate, between the youth wings of the leading political parties wanted common exams to be marked by a central body which was not anybody's teacher. Their other point was that it is very hard for teachers who are significantly less intelligent than the students they are evaluating to produce a fair mark, when a student produces an essay that is outside of what the teacher was expecting. Since it is unlikely that we will can arrange to get significantly smarter and more creative teachers, it is essential that the marking that counts for university placement get done by the very best in their fields.
That is actually what happens here, very few formal assessments, a test usually does not count more than 10% of the grade. The problem is that everything a high school teacher assigns forms part of a student's transcript grade they use to apply to university. Routine work becomes high stress.
This article describes some of the dynamic, but instead of acknowledging continuous assessment is not working as promised they blame the parents, students and the online reporting of grades. They want students and parents to be less stressed about these grades, but all these grades actually count.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/grades-parents-students-teachers.html
As teachers grade differently, which university you get into depends partly on how generous your teachers were. Universities supposedly adjust for this, but there is no way to do this fairly.
American schools are better at meeting kids where they are in other ways, continuous assessment is not the right approach.
I’d be keen to understand more about the PISA rankings and why we couldn’t just abolish them. Surely if they were to be scrapped with a message that they are encouraging an increase in student suffering, we might be able to start a conversation about the damage created by this focus on tests rather than children.
Yes I would like to know that too, why can t pisa be abolished?
Hi Peter, as an educator with over 25 years experience, I agree with your assessment of the Common Core Standards. What I feel you are missing is how the standards (funded by tech giant Bill Gates) funneled edtech into schools without any research to demonstrate it would enhance learning. I have documented the rise of tech in my edtech timeline, https://environmentalprogress.org/education-timeline. I will also argue that the research is not able to capture the nuance of what happens daily to children when they are handed a device to learn from that was not design with them in mind. The onslaught of tech in schools, common core standards and social media go hand in hand. The tech industry has also capture much of the research, for example, many research organizations that Odgers is associated with, receive significant funding from tech. The tech industry has also banded together to push more high stakes testing into the classroom in the name of progress monitoring. See this press release from NWEA https://www.nwea.org/news-center/press-releases/nwea-awarded-4-5-million-to-support-expansion-of-college-and-career-ready-standards-aligned-content-for-map-growth/ Technology in schools has played a huge role in the decline in student performance and rise in mental health issues.
Denise, 💯% on target. The belief that a child on a smartphone or laptop is learning is insidious. The video game makers' arguments that there is not deep neurological interference in childhood brain developmental patterns is akin to the "sugar is for energy" propaganda (we know sugar rewires the brain!) All a casual observer need do is watch a child "enthralled" with a smartphone & then have the audacity to break that spell to realize the profound impact these machines have on a child's attention.
■ Loukia Papadopoulos (18 Nov 2023) Prolonged time on tech devices does harm children’s brains: 33 studies, —“It should be recognized by both educators and caregivers that children’s cognitive development may be influenced by their digital experiences,” Interesting Engineering, is.gd/zs69hA
Specifically, the study (Wu, Dong, et al 2023) revealed that prolonged use of screens causes alterations in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, the part associated with various complex cognitive functions such as personality expression, decision-making, and social behavior.
Additionally, it detected effects on the temporal lobe, involved in several key functions, including auditory processing, memory, language, and aspects of visual perception; the occipital lobe, primarily responsible for processing visual information; and the parietal lobe, which plays a crucial role in processing sensory information from the body.
The study (Wu, Dong, et al 2023) found detrimental effects of screen usage on attention, executive control, inhibitory control, cognitive functions, and functional connectivity in the brain. Furthermore, it was deduced that longer screen times are linked to reduced functional connectivity in language and cognitive control-related brain regions, which may have a negative impact on cognitive development.
■ Wu, D., Dong, X., Liu, D., & Li, H. (2023). How Early Digital Experience Shapes Young Brains During 0-12 Years: A Scoping Review. Early Education and Development, 35(7), 1395–1431, is.gd/1FadmM
The synthesis of the evidence revealed that
(1) digital experience does have positive and negative impacts on children’s brains, structurally and functionally;
(2) it could cause structural and functional changes in children’s frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, brain connectivity, and brain networks; and the most vulnerable area is the prefrontal cortex and its associated executive function, and
(3) early digital experience has both positive and negative impacts on children’s brain structure longitudinally.
Thanks for sharing that research, I definitely plan to check it out. It seems the negatives far outweigh any positives that may come from it. Children are handed devices at such young age and curriculum developer actually talk about gamifying learning as if it is a good thing. I truly hope we can change this trend before it is too late!
Great job on your timeline, spent several hours going through it, especially the references to the effects on young minds of peering into the blue screen miasma.
I have been convinced of the powerful shaping force video games (especially 1st person shooter ones) can have on young minds (especially brains on off-label prescribed psychotropics such as SSRIs); or the imprinting of cartoons & commercials on kids.
The Norwegians seem to be especially sensitive to the damage & have done several studies & even resteucted smartphine use (Abrahamsson, Sara (22 Feb 2024) Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health, NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4735240 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4735240 is)
IMHO, computers & mobile phones are a form of injection into children's internal terrain, & just like vaccines provoke an adaptive response.
Again, thx & keep charging
Thanks for taking the time to go through it! It was a labor of love and honestly I have found more to add to it since it was created.
I completely agree, all this tech is impacting their internal wiring, and not for the good. There are so many negative impacts to learning, especially when it is done on a screen. Here is Sophie Winkleman's speech from ARC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6nucKFK88&t=7s She makes an eloquent and compelling argument against edtech.
Denise,
Forgive this disordered reply. Firstly, thx for the Winkleman speech!
■ Sophie Winkleman (17 Feb 2025) WATCH: The Most Compelling Argument Against Tech In Schools, Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), is.gd/Ao4SAN #edtech
Secondly, there's clearly a huge disconnect between how the people that are pushing edtech were educated & what they envision for the unannointed masses. For example, this list of top tech homeschoolers ( the cabal) listed in Homeschooler Pro (21 Feb 2023) What Famous Business People Were Homeschooled, tinyurl.com/2b2hlogy
IMHO, if you want an innovative child, let them experience childhood. It's ironic that many of the top techologists were homeschooled & allowed to develop their peculiar particularity.
For example take FAANGS: Facebook (Meta), Amazon, Apple, (Microsoft) Netflix*, Google (Alphabet), Space X.
* Netflix, Hastings & Randolph, is the[ oddball, its founders come from privilege, but Netflix starts with an "N," whereas Microsoft .... ]
1. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)
2. Elon Musk (Space X)
3. Steve Jobs (Apple)
4. Sergey Brin (Google)
5. Bill Gates (Microsoft)
6. Peter Thiel (Financial - PayPal)
7. Abigail Johnson (Fidelity Investments)
8. Carly Fiorina
9. Jeff Bezos (Amazon)
10. Michael Dell
11. Meg Whitman
12. Tony Hsieh
13. Kevin Plank
Add to that the thoughts in Leni Novita (14 Mar 2024) Elon Musk’s Homeschooling Insights and the Power of Learning Motivation, https://insights.lifemanagementsciencelabs.com/author/leni-novita/
Lastly, there's the boomerang effect noted by Winkleman at the start of her speech, the trchonolgy is not waorking as intended. This article summarizes the obcious: Ted Gioia (19 Feb 2025) The World's Largest Search Engine Doesn't Want You to Search, —Why is Google abandoning its core mission?, THE HONEST BROKER, https://open.substack.com/pub/tedgioia/p/the-worlds-largest-search-doesnt
«Almost everything in the digital world is turning into its Opposite.
• Social media platforms now prevent people from having a social life.
• ChatGPT makes you less likely to chat with anybody.
• Relationship apps make it harder for couples to form lasting relationships.
• Health and wellness websites make it almost impossible to find reliable health advice-instead peddling products of dubious efficacy.
• Product review sites now prevent people from reading impartial reviews by actual users of the product, instead operating as pay-for-play vehicles.
Etc. etc. etc.»
& 𝙊𝙣𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙠𝙞𝙙𝙨 (𝙀𝙙𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙝)? —𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧!
And adding to your list, educational technology is deteriorating education. I will check out those articles! What also is interesting is that many big tech executives send their own children to schools that don't use tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZ-fuWdz8M. I have a new post coming out soon highlighting some of the less talked about harms of edtech as well as the rise of education spending on students with the decline in student test scores.
I largely agree with the school stress theory. The UK and Europe have their own quirks though.
No matter the system, students are going to experience greater stress if they feel they have to compete for a few small number of good career opportunities and are expected to pursue a very academic path. Up to the 1980s, less than 10% of UK students went on to take A levels, now something like 40% take at least one. Nothing else has to change about the education system itself to subject students to more stress.
UK and European education has always been highly standardized with a few high stakes exams which would typically comprise most, if not all a student's transcript. One cannot therefore attribute changes in student stress merely to the existence of a standardized curriculum and assessments. One reason for standardization is the expectation of fairness, we may accept the idea that all students are going to be graded differently, they do not.
Swedish students are victims of a "progressive" trend of teacher based continuous assessment. While there are problems with the England's conservative education reforms, not many are dreaming of going back to the days of graded homework and frequent teacher graded assessments. When Labour took over, there were suggestions that England should go back to something like that, this was quickly shut down.
I appreciate this argument, however, but it does not account for the fact that indices of student suffering rose when school "reforms" occurred after 2015 in UK and not before, and rose after school reforms in Sweden in 2011 and not before. The timing of increased student suffering depends on when the "reforms" occur. I think it is the standardization of the curriculum and the tighter evaluation, regardless of method of evaluation, that is the problem.
I am less familiar with the Swedish reforms but the reforms in England definitely affected many students negatively. But I am not convinced the amount of standardization changed. Europeans have long expected grades between teachers and schools within a country to be comparable, this has always required a degree of standardization way beyond anything we have ever experienced in America.
In England the the amount of content in the curriculum was increased and non-academic subjects de-emphasized. Exams were made more challenging. But they abolished the frequent exam board graded assessments, giving teachers greater versatility in how they taught the courses. Those assessments were standardized, intrusive, widely hated but also easier and less stressful.
I think people just notice the standardization more when they feel that is a poor fit for particular students or overly intrusive.
Peter, I agree with you that school is not education and that cookie cutter methodologies of measuring "𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵" are counterproductive. Although I do know that objective self-evaluation is critical to learning. The question, "𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙙?" to me is essential to any discussion on "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯," but there's the more fundamental question that Socrates was poisoned over, "𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 (𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛)."
IMHO, "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯" is directly associated wit our "𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥" —how are minds shaped & developed from birth until maturation ≈25-30 years of age. If minds are a bricolage of sensory centers wired together through the body's interaction with the world during a lengthy period of neoteny, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘴𝘺𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯.
Opposed to this concept would be top-down injection (the vaccine mandate) version of "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯." So, IMHO there's top-down & external vs bottom-up & internal (of course this stark contrast is simplistic, but hopefully illustrative.) Adaptive self-knowledge, feedback though eyes-ears-voice-touch-muscles-taste in a loving environment, is what turns babies into humans.
It is easy to put numbers into spreadsheets & use statistics to justify dollars/student, but this is a fundamental philosophical error that goes to the core issue of ""𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙇𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣." When "𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯" becomes "𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨" & the center of focus is outside the family, then "𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴" & "𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦" are not weaned from the wisdom of grandparents & relatives (fully developed humans with the patience & love to nurture curiosity & self-knowledge) but from bean counters.
Bureaucrats do ""𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 & 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻"—grandparents do "𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 & 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗼𝗺."
p.s. Clearly I'm briefly opining about childhood development. My adult life in nuclear submarines dealt with the critical issues of effective indoctrination & training to strictly evaluated performance, —𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺!
p.p.s. BTW, there's a lot going wrong in Sweden: "no-go" zones, frequent extreme violence, ...
I worked as a teacher / learning facilitator for more than 7 years and I was constantly surprised by the government's decisions that went against what the research showed would improve well being.
Research showed students perform better academically when school starts later in the day -> school start gets pushed earlier in the day.
Research shows students perform better with less homework -> more homework.
Research shows students' mental health is worse with more standardized testing -> more standardized testing.
At this point I am starting to believe the people in power want for children to suffer.
Hello Peter. I am a support worker in British Columbia, Canada. I am wondering if you have any data that includes Canada. Is this affecting my children as well?
I'm really interested in seeing/hearing more about this: "every study I have found of effects of school pressures that separates the effects for girls and boys reveals that the effects are greater for girls than for boys." How are these studies measuring & assessing school pressure & what do they count as its effects? The reason I'm asking & curious: I've been researching, writing, & reporting on boys for 20+ years, and statistically, boys are more likely to drop out of schools, be suspended from or expelled from school (often due to acting out behavior, which research and experience have shown may be a way boys' express anxiety and depression, which may result from school pressure). Boys are also more likely to die of suicide, to commit horrific school-related violence (here, I'm thinking of school shooting in the U.S.) Boys are now significantly less likely to attend or graduate college, a trend that, to me, seems related to their experiences of school related pressure.
Does anyone know if Peter has discussed Ontario, Canada's kindergarten model? I'd love to hear his thoughts.
Interesting article. Thanks for your work.
I'm from Geelong, Australia. An Australian author, Lucy Clark has written a well researched book which is worth reading:
She writes about PISA and South Korea...
https://www.amazon.com.au/Beautiful-Failures-Lucy-Clark-ebook/dp/B01AV416NO
Thank you for the work you’re doing. I am in my 27th year as a high school science teacher. I do want to add - in response to this section (pasted below) - that common core has not directly impacted my teaching in any way. Or the learning in my classroom. Zero. And this is not because I ignore it or I’m better or any of that. It’s because it has no impact. None. It makes absolutely no difference. Now, I’m not saying it might not impact others - I imagine it likely has. But in my 27 years, including since 2012, it hasn’t impacted me or any teachers I know. And probably not the students either.
I can tell you that screens and phones and social media have surely impacted students, teachers, and learning.
I’m not interested in arguing one way or another. I’m not qualified. I’m only adding in my experience. *though clearly I am saying it would be really bizarre if what you are arguing for and against were true.
“In the United States, 2012 was the year when most states adopted the Common Core Curriculum, which dramatically changed the nature of schooling across the country by adding high stakes testing in selected subjects, narrowing the curriculum to focus on test drill, and using those test scores to evaluate teachers, schools, and school districts. Teachers became far less free to engage students in creative and intellectually enjoyable activities, as administrators began cracking down on anything that didn’t seem to them to be oriented toward improving test scores.”
Et tu, Sweden? It just goes to show how ideas spread. Who will be brave enough to let go of high stakes testing and the absurd notion that all children must learn the same thing at the same time? Thanks for calling attention to the problem.
I live in Sweden. You will be pleased to know that the government we elected in 2022 has been a harsh critic of the so called reforms of 2012. They have spent a lot of time studying the problem and have already made some changes .... more reading, more books, less screen time and starting later in life, more free time, no phones in school, lmmersion classes for pre-schoolers who do not speak Swedish at home. see: https://www.government.se/articles/2024/02/government-investing-in-more-reading-time-and-less-screen-time/
We keep getting pelted with report after report... new one out end of April, another one in June so it is hard to keep up with these things. But a good deal of our current problem has, at its root, the unwillingness of certain immigrant groups to assimulate. Now that it is allowable to measure and report on such things, it is clear that it isn't the ethnic Swedes who are doing badly at school, except in some areas we think are related to too enthuthiastically embracing a digital revolution, but rather that we have a large number of extremely low performing immigrant students. We've tried a lot of things, but still are very bad at teaching them. Many children still come from families who see education as indoctrination, and who are hostile to the whole concept of secular learning, working for wages, and self-directed learning. They concentrate into whole schools, where they cannot learn how to be Swedish because ethnic Swedes are only a tiny minority there .... and perhaps not the best role models for all that. There is talk of razing certain neighbourhoods and demanding that the rebuilt ones only have a certain per centage of immigrants families, and parcel the immigrants around the country. Since they are living in government provided housing, it could be done in theory, as it is done in Denmark, but it would be a lot harder to do here, if only because of the scale of things.
I don't know of a single case where forced assimulation has worked. So we have little reason to hope we can learn how to do this thing. But asking the schools to assimulate the children has only worked where the children have wanted to assimulate, and where the parents are supportive. So it continues to be a mess.
I live in Sweden too. And sadly the ongoing government investigations are focused on making the Swedish school system even stricter, increasing the pressure on students. National tests are set to carry even more weight, and students' influence over their education will be further reduced. Instead of moving towards a more balanced approach, the system is heading in the opposite direction — towards more control and even greater emphasis on assessment and performance. They also plan to turn the current preschool class into the equivalent of grade 1, effectively increasing the amount of formal schooling for six-year-olds. Instead of having a playful and exploratory first year in school, the preschool class will become more like "real school," with a stronger focus on structured learning and academic goals at an even earlier age.
The government tends to place much of the blame on screen time, rather than acknowledging that many of the issues began after the curriculum reform in 2011. At least, that is what I have gathered from what I’ve read. The government is now doubling down with even stricter rules and more centralized control. This shift risks ignoring the real causes behind declining student well-being and performance, while placing even more pressure on young people.