![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Happy 4th of January : )
Jan. 4th, 2012 12:46 am(No, it's not a holiday that I know of, I just want to be cheerful and happy today.)
So here's an article on the effect of noise on your brain. They mention, of course, a case of an elementary school near train tracks. The kids in the classrooms on the train side did noticeably worse on tests than the kids on the other side.
What they don't mention, of course, is that the effect of noise on learning and education is class based. It hardly bears mentioning (but it's so much unmentioned that you have to wonder) that of course, the people most likely to live near train tracks have less money than the ones with money. Who wants to live that close to the train? And I'm not going to run around and check, but I'm guessing poorer districts are more likely to have their schools close to noisy structures as well. And they're definitely less likely to be able to afford really good soundproofing.
People talk about why different groups do better or worse in school, but it all seems to build up together, doesn't it? You can't cure any one part of it because the others just... like... expand to fill the gap. There's a school near us that's slated for closure, not for the persistent bullying problem (I know two different families who both managed to get a transfer for safety reasons, and that's not as easy as it sounds!) but because the test grades are so abysmal. There are protests about "keeping the kids in the neighborhood", though it's all a bit silly. The city's not going to waste a perfectly good school building, they'll just open a new school in the same building. But at any rate, the kids aren't "neighborhood kids" that much. At any given time, a significant proportion of the student body is homeless. Those that have more permanent residences are, frankly, somewhat short-term, and it's unusual for a kid to be in that school more than two years. In and of itself, that wouldn't be a problem, but moving schools repeatedly, probably mid-year, isn't great for anybody's education, and no doubt they've made other school changes before. Those kids aren't going to do any better just because they put new staff in that school and call it a new name. The school might help if they cut the classes in half, but do they have the money?
The city could probably help these kids, with a plan and some effort, but all they're going to do is close the school and open a new one. And in a few years that school will have persistently failing grades as well. (This school's right by the train as well, maybe a fifth of the mile on one side and, because the track curves there, a third of a mile on another. We live HALF a mile from the train and I can clearly hear the doors opening and closing at night.)
I got rambly. Sorry.
So here's an article on the effect of noise on your brain. They mention, of course, a case of an elementary school near train tracks. The kids in the classrooms on the train side did noticeably worse on tests than the kids on the other side.
What they don't mention, of course, is that the effect of noise on learning and education is class based. It hardly bears mentioning (but it's so much unmentioned that you have to wonder) that of course, the people most likely to live near train tracks have less money than the ones with money. Who wants to live that close to the train? And I'm not going to run around and check, but I'm guessing poorer districts are more likely to have their schools close to noisy structures as well. And they're definitely less likely to be able to afford really good soundproofing.
People talk about why different groups do better or worse in school, but it all seems to build up together, doesn't it? You can't cure any one part of it because the others just... like... expand to fill the gap. There's a school near us that's slated for closure, not for the persistent bullying problem (I know two different families who both managed to get a transfer for safety reasons, and that's not as easy as it sounds!) but because the test grades are so abysmal. There are protests about "keeping the kids in the neighborhood", though it's all a bit silly. The city's not going to waste a perfectly good school building, they'll just open a new school in the same building. But at any rate, the kids aren't "neighborhood kids" that much. At any given time, a significant proportion of the student body is homeless. Those that have more permanent residences are, frankly, somewhat short-term, and it's unusual for a kid to be in that school more than two years. In and of itself, that wouldn't be a problem, but moving schools repeatedly, probably mid-year, isn't great for anybody's education, and no doubt they've made other school changes before. Those kids aren't going to do any better just because they put new staff in that school and call it a new name. The school might help if they cut the classes in half, but do they have the money?
The city could probably help these kids, with a plan and some effort, but all they're going to do is close the school and open a new one. And in a few years that school will have persistently failing grades as well. (This school's right by the train as well, maybe a fifth of the mile on one side and, because the track curves there, a third of a mile on another. We live HALF a mile from the train and I can clearly hear the doors opening and closing at night.)
I got rambly. Sorry.
