Us High School Students Lose Ground in Math and Reading, Continuing Decline
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
cnn.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
EducationStandardized TestingUs Politics
Key topics
Education
Standardized Testing
Us Politics
US high school students' math and reading scores have declined, sparking debate about the causes and implications, with commenters pointing to various factors such as education policy and demographic changes.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
25m
Peak period
9
0-2h
Avg / period
3.3
Comment distribution26 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 26 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 9, 2025 at 9:36 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM EDT
25m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
9 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45181721Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:10:53 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
(But seriously, this is the "tragedy of the commons" in action, where non-private schooling is a shared space and thus part of "the commons".)
But I think the root causes here are more cultural. When I was coming up decades and decades ago we valued highly educated people, Americas rocket scientists and such. Over time, however, people started thinking education wasn't masculine, that it wasn't cool. Then social media hit the scenes and people started amplifying some of our worst instincts -- anti vaccine, anti intellectualism, pro conspiracy. What used to be your fringe neighbor became someone who could influence online.
Add the Vietnam, the gulf war, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, and you've got generational trauma of sending generations of youth off to fight. That interrupts a lot of education and when those folks become parents they have different values towards education.
Plus, as you describe, schools are a commons. We systematically under pay and under value teachers, while over paying and over valuing admin.
And there is an anti collectivist culture in the US now. In labor and in community, there's much less "let me give up my time for the community" and much more "how can I get mine" mindset.
I think it's really complicated and a lot of different factors play a part. I don't think there's a single root cause, and it's going to take a while to unwind.
Some of the communists seem to think that capitalism is unnatural, probably because it produces novel outcomes in human civilization, or maybe because it seems new to humanity (I'd argue humans have been using capitalist systems a lot longer than 300 years)
The fundamental feature of capitalism is the inversion of commodity -> money -> commodity relationship into money -> commodity -> money.
My point was more so that the underlying mechanisms of capitalism, when abstracted and measured on scales, show up in many places in nature and throughout human history.
So it's useful to debate how we can improve our capitalist system, but to do away with it all together is naive and unnatural and unlikely to lead to better outcomes, as it's doing away with distributed competition and coordination algorithms necessary for evolutionary advancement and increasing complexity.
We can pick this apart in detail and squabble over taxonomy/semantics but I would just find it interesting and enriching, and unlikely to be invalidating.
Well. We doubled the labour pool with women entering it full-time, but we didn't double the value created. We increased it further with blind-eyeing illegal immigration. Both of those lower wages and increase costs, which mean there's less time available (if only one of you works, then the other has a lot of free time to build community).
I'll avoid moron-baiting by stating the obvious that women entering the workforce isn't a bad thing, etc etc, but it does have a certain economic effect, and it doesn't stop at the women who want to work. It pulls everyone in, as house prices are up-bidded by double incomes.
Anything with limited supply...
For something like housing there are a lot of factors; construction supply chain, construction labor, permitting processes, zoning, private equity/speculation, tax rates, inter-state immigration, inter-country immigration, etc.
If you have people immigrating into a localized area faster than housing supply increases, it will increase the price of housing.
If you have vacant homes somewhere else in the country than the places people want to be (or where the immigrants are going) then it will have no downward pressure on pricing. There is nothing meaningful in a point that assumes the entire country is one market, as if supply/demand isn't tightly coupled specific locations.
Lots of them are holiday homes, not investments. But the fundamental economic driver that makes them investments is ever-increasing demand.
When I installed French drains the guy that inspected and calculated the bid was American. The guy that dug the ditches and connected the house drains was Latino (I need to add that the Latino's English was better than mine. He used to be elementary teacher in Everett and switched to construction. He explained to me the term "lingua franca" :)).
In my neighbourdhood I also see a lot of Chinese laborers working in construction (the population of my neighbourdhood is probably 50% Chinese, and the rest either Korean or Japanese or South East Asian or Indian.)
I hardly ever see US born people working in construction around me.
However if immigration disproportionately adds to construction labor supply, and if construction labor supply is the primary bottlebeck for housing supply growth, then immigration would indeed lower the price of housing.
To be clear I'm not anti immigration, I'm not Republican and I'm not even American.
I just saw a question (which I realize in hindsight was politically charged) that seemed to ignore some basic economic principles, and for some reason today I felt compelled to respond.
It's also worth noting that the comment I replied to was edited after I replied to it.
Why would that be true? I'm talking about legal immigration, not illegal.
How can you say that? GDP _grew_ by adding more workers to the workforce.
You didn't even bother making an argument about households being forced to have double-incomes in order to sustain their standard of living. You just think the cause is women entering the workforce and the effect is cost of living increases.
What about when I said this?
> It pulls everyone in, as house prices are up-bidded by double incomes.
At this point in time - mid 2025 - I will take democrats over anything republican. I don't need a perfect party with perfect policies. I only want a non-destructive party - and Republicans are just harmful to the country.
3 more comments available on Hacker News