Loading

Posts by Paul Costello1

How parents can shape a child’s future with small moments of joy

Feeling safe and supported and able to discuss even difficult subjects will help your kid to flourish, experts say.

By Perri Klass, MDAugust 5, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. EDT

In the pediatric world, we’ve worried a great deal about what we call ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences, which can disrupt children’s lives and get in the way of the safe and stable nurturing relationships they need. Research has shown us the long shadows that early adversity can cast over health and mental health.L

But more recently, the relatively newer science of PCEs, orpositive childhood experiences,has reframed the discussion, and helped balance out our understanding of how children grow, and the power of parents and caregivers to help them, even in tough times.

A study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics in 2019 examined the effect of these PCEs. In addition to asking about ACEs, the researchers asked 6,188 adults seven additional questions about their childhoods.

Had they been able to talk to their families about their feelings? Had they felt their families stood by them during difficult times? Had they enjoyed participating in community traditions? Did they feel a sense of belonging in high school? Were they supported by friends? Were there at least two non-parent adults who took an interest in them? Had they felt safe and protected by an adult in their home?

The risk of depression or mental health struggles dropped by 72 percent among adults who reported six or seven of the positive experiences listed above, and by 50 percent for those reporting three to five.

Christina Bethell, the lead author, is a professor of child health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she directs the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. And those positive experiences, Bethell said in an email, affect the nervous system of the developing child and help bolster a sense of worth and identity all through life.

“High adversity does not mean you’re doomed,” Bethell told me, pointing out that every person in a child’s life has the opportunity to help that child feel connected, safe and well. And those nurturing relationships are what help children overcome what life throws at them. “The absence of the positive is the problem,” she said.

Small joys like reading can make a difference

As a pediatrician, my cause has been encouraging a very particular positive, reading aloud with young children, using checkups to encourage and support families so they start as early as possible. This program, Reach Out and Read, now reaches 4.2 million children a year, offering guidance, encouragement, modeling and books.

When I see an infant or a toddler, happy in a parent’s lap, going back and forth over a book with babble or gestures or words — well, something in me feels that child is going to be okay. It’s language and early literacy, but most of all it’s being held and attended to, because for young children, learning and development happen through relationships and interactions.

I was excited to see a study, published in June, that looked at more than 10,000 young adolescents in the United States and found those whose parents reported that they had started reading for pleasure at an early age had better cognitive performance, increased brain cortical areas and better mental health in adolescence than children who had started reading for pleasure later — or never started. The study, conducted by researchers from the universities of Cambridge and Warwick in Britain and Fudan University in China, involved brain scans, cognitive test scores and measures of academic performance, as well as mental health symptoms and behavioral problems.

One of the authors, Barbara Sahakian, a clinical psychologist who is a professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University of Cambridge department of psychiatry, said in an email that the size and design of the study allowed them to control for confounding factors, and the types of analysis involved made it possible to suggest a probably causal relationship.

“We found that the effects of reading for pleasure in early childhood were beneficial for adolescents regardless of family socio-economic status, family income and parental education.”

Why doctors have focused on bad experiences

The science of ACEs rocked medicine when the original studies began coming out.

Physicians at Kaiser Permanente in California, working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surveyed patients about 10 kinds of childhood exposures that could interfere with children’s emotional development and the relationships they formed: Had they suffered emotional or physical neglect, emotional, physical or sexual abuse; had they had a household member who was incarcerated, addicted or mentally ill; had they been exposed to divorce or to domestic violence?

The original study was conducted from1995 to 1997, with results published in 1998, showing that higher numbers of adverse experiences in childhood were associated with not only higher rates of mental health problems and substance use disorder in adulthood but also higher rates of heart disease, cancer and chronic lung disease.

The science of teasing out different kinds of early adversity became more sophisticated, taking into account community and social factors such as poverty, racism and deprivation. Research in neurobiology helped draw the causal connections, always emphasizing the importance of early relationships, explaining the ways these early adversities, by disrupting those relationships, affected the body and mind.

The CDC offers an ACE Pyramid, showing the progression from adverse experiences to disrupted neurodevelopment and cognitive impairment, through health risk behaviors and on to disease and early death.

In 2014, a study showed that children with two or more ACEs were more than twice as likely to have a chronic medical condition or mental health problem — and more likely to have school problems and many other difficulties. But the researchers who were looking at adverse events in children were also looking at resilience, because it was clear that there was a lot of variation in children’s trajectories, Bethell said.

“It was true that children who faced ACEs and adversity were more likely to have mental health and behavioral health problems, but most did not,” she said.Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare

A new look at flourishing children

In that study, resilience was protective — the capacity to stay calm and in control, the ability to communicate and to ask for help.

Researchers needed measures that assessed more than the presence or absence of problems — questions that actually looked at whether children were flourishing.

Flourishing children are interested in learning new things, can manage their emotions and behaviors in challenging situations, and can persist to achieve their goals.

Bethell said the research showed — for children facing high levels of adversity — “the tremendous protective power of family resilience and parent-child connection.” But notably, it also showed “how important these are even for children without adversity.”

In a paper published in 2019 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers looked at data from almost 30,000 children from infancy to age 5, collected in the National Survey of Children’s Health. They examined what they called Positive Parenting Practices (PPPs), including reading stories, storytelling, singing, eating meals together andgoing onfamily outings.

Their results showed that while adverse experiences had a negative effect on development, the positive effects of PPPs could mitigate and even overcome those negative effects.

One of the authors, David E. Bard, a psychologist who is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, said the most fascinating finding in the project was that there was almost no correlation between the adversity score and the PPP score.

In other words, looking at whether bad things had happened in a family didn’t tell you whether good things were also happening.

“I had expected maybe these were two sides of the same coin,” Bard said. If adverse experiences were happening, wouldn’t that also mean that families were generally dysfunctional, that parents might be too devastated to be nurturing? Instead, they were almost unrelated — lots of parents who were facing problems were also managing to nurture their children. And parents who didn’t necessarily face those negatives were not necessarily engaging in those positive practices.

“The parenting influences were actually stronger than the adverse influences,” Bard said. “It’s a very promising message, we ought to be doing everything we can to help parents create those positive experiences.”

How small moments of joy add up

There are many different ways for parents to do that.

“The very first study we did in 2015 really showed me there was no magic bullet,” Bethell said. “It’s more about how you are than what you do.”

That is, she said, parents don’t need to set impossibly high standards for themselves, or create special big moments of connection; instead, they need to invite connection, reflection and interaction in all the small moments.

“What I’m really saying is it’s the quality of their presence and connection with the child that is the magic juice that makes those behaviors really matter even if you’re not doing it perfectly, that is what is lodged in the nervous system of the child,” Bethell said.

It’s about using the moments of your day to be present and caring with your child, she said, and about children being able to talk about their feelings and problems.

Do it when you’re cooking or cleaning or driving or shopping, ask about what they’re experiencing and feeling, and model self-reflection by narrating your own experience, including acknowledging difficult feelings and mistakes.

Children feeling safe and supported and able to discuss even difficult subjects leads to flourishing. And every person in a child’s life has that power to connect and support, she said.

“For a child to feel safe and well and heard, the power is all with us,” Bethell said. “We don’t lift that up enough.”

“We need to make it easier for parents to do what I would call the right thing,” Bard said.

That means policies that support families and reduce stress, and support the mental health and well-being of parents (and child-care workers, and teachers, and maybe even pediatricians). It means policies and programs that reduce the disparities and deprivations that increase risk for many children and many communities.

It also means honoring the everyday interactions and connections and rituals within homes, within extended families and within communities. The moments really matter, and the positives do add up, sometimes in ways we cannot see clearly as we go. Yes, the reading is good for the developing brain — but so is the pleasure.

Perri Klass is a professor of journalism and pediatrics at New York University and author of “The Best Medicine: How Science and Public Health Gave Children a Future.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/08/05/happy-moment-shape-kids-lives/

The stories we tell about ourselves: understanding our personal narratives with psychologist Dan McAdams

How the stories we tell ourselves might help create consciousness | CBC  Radio

Antonia Mufarech,Jan. 25, 2022

People are natural storytellers. We constantly revise and edit the ways in which we talk about the past and future. It’s through storytelling that we make sense of the world, and Dan McAdams, a Northwestern professor that specializes in a concept he calls “narrative identity,” is a practitioner in this craft.

According to McAdams, the theory behind narrative identity is that beginning in adolescence, people start to become historians of the self. People begin to see their past as something that they can make meaning out of, and reconstruct it in a way that helps them understand where they may be going in the future. McAdams shares his research’s findings with NBN.

How do people develop a narrative identity?

McAdams: Everybody does this a little differently, but the general trend is to create stories that integrate our lives and give us a sense of who we are. Once this project develops, it stays with us pretty much for the rest of life. We remain storytellers of the self. These stories can always be changed, modified. There’s nothing fixed about these stories. That said, they often take a decisive form, and people will often make decisions in their lives based on narrative assumptions they have about their own lives.

Knowing that stories can change, how can we shape our stories with more meaning?

McAdams: The whole process of creating a story and editing and revising and so forth, is a social process. It’s something that involves our connections to other people. It’s not like we go off to a remote spot in the universe and ponder our identities and then come back fully formed. There is some introspection for some people, but a lot of it happens in social relationships – with friends, parents, teachers, and so on – where we try out different kinds of narrative and create stories. And then we tell them to other people and we get feedback from that.

What impact can the people around us have on our stories?

McAdams: Certain people, I think, are in a very good position to help us with our stories – people that we are close to being the most important. But sometimes those people can be in positions of authority. And so teachers and parents have a big impact with respect to narrative identity. This impact can be positive in the sense that they encourage us in certain directions and we go in that direction. But it can also be negative, as when an authoritative figure presents a certain kind of identity and we try to resist it. We say, ‘I don’t want to be that way. I’m not going to live a life like my mother. I’m not going to follow this path or that path.’ Either way, we have to confront this menu of different narrative options that are presented to us in everyday life. And we pick and choose, appropriate and reconstruct, based on that menu.

What are some small changes we can make about how we think through certain situations?

McAdams: Life stories are psychological resources. We use them to help us make decisions and move forward in life. It’s great when those stories affirm positive messages: when they affirm hope for the future, when they tell us that we are good people, when they celebrate our achievements and our triumphs, and when they help us overcome suffering – that’s all good. Yet, the story also has to be true to your lived experience. And so, if you’re going through really horrible things in your life right now, coming up with some sunny reconstruction of it that exudes a kind of strong optimism will not work immediately. It’s not true to who you are. You’re fooling yourself in those kinds of situations. And so I tend to be resistant to offering overall recommendations. That said, there is research on what features of life stories are associated with psychological wellbeing.

What does this research say?

McAdams: There’s pretty clear research actually, which has four points to make. The first is that life stories that feature protagonists or main characters who feel empowered and agentic tend to be associated with psychological wellbeing. When people feel beaten down, when the main character of the story is passive and has no control, those kinds of stories tend to be associated with negative outcomes. Communion is also good. It means having a story in which the main character is connected richly to many other people and finds meaningful interactions, relationships, love, friendship and so forth. The third one is redemption, which refers to stories in which suffering is overcome. Stories in which people find positive meanings in negative events. And finally, stories that are more coherent and easier to follow, tend to be associated with psychological wellbeing. So, it’s good to tell life stories in which the protagonist is agentic, is engaged in warm close relationships, is resilient and forms a coherent narrative. Still, you can’t just make those up. Lived experience needs to resonate with the story.

Could you explain the concept of redemptive stories?

McAdams: In a redemptive story, the main character of the narrative is delivered from their suffering to an enhanced status or state. That comes in many different varieties. For example, somebody might talk about their life in terms of a really terrible love relationship they had that went really bad. And then, they manage to extricate themselves from that relationship and find true love with another person. That’s a classic redemption sequence, where the early suffering is undone or redeemed. The other way that redemption stories play out is when the person, in retrospect, interprets the negative event in a positive way. For instance, I can look back at the divorce of my parents and say, ‘It was really a bad thing. It meant that I never had a father. I felt ashamed because the parents of other kids weren’t divorced,’ you know? So it’s not like it was great. It was bad. But looking back on it, the narrator might say, ‘Maybe I’d rather they never got divorced, but nonetheless, I find some benefit in that. It made me grow up fast, and it gave me a certain perspective on relationships.’ So that’s the kind of interpretation that occurs after the event. Now the flip side of a redemptive story would be a contamination story.

What is a contamination story?

McAdams: These are somewhat rare, but nonetheless not rare enough. And most of us could come up with a few of these in our lives where you have a really wonderful scene in life, and then it goes rather dramatically and suddenly bad. It can be psychologically debilitating if you have a lot of contamination stories, because there is a sort of fatalism that goes with them. For instance, research suggests that that’s a strong predictor of depression, neuroticism and high anxiety.

Is there any advice you would give, specifically to young people, regarding how we can shape our stories?

McAdams: People in their teens and early twenties – or even in their early thirties – are really young, which means that there’s a lot of storytelling to do. One of the satisfying and hopeful features of the idea of narrative identity is that it’s not a psychological quality that gets fixed early. Unlike your traits and even your values, life stories are more fluid and malleable. And so, we get lots of opportunities in life to change them. That’s good news when you’re young and when things seem really difficult. One of the great things about being young is you’ve got a lot of time to work on a life story. There are a lot of different experiences and people that will have an impact. And so one shouldn’t get too discouraged if, at any given point in time, it doesn’t seem to be going well.

How can storytelling bring people together?

McAdams: Stories are always about time. How we make sense of time, how we stay the same over time, how we change. That’s really what stories are fundamentally about: human intention organized in time. And that’s a basic feature of human nature. Human beings, all over the world, know that they are moving forward in time. They’re trying to make sense of what they want over time and how their lives are going to unfold. So, stories, or the way that we do that, are a human universal. And even though every culture has its own unique narrative and cultural customs for storytelling, the idea that life is like a story can be found across the globe.

It’s important to remember, especially when we’re feeling lost or confused, that we can reshape our stories. There will always be different settings and characters to discover, as well as lessons to be learned. Although we can’t control everything that happens to us, we can control the stories that we tell about ourselves.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Thumbnail courtesy of the School of Education and Social Policy.

https://northbynorthwestern.com/the-stories-we-tell-about-ourselves/

What Can We Do About Pandemic-Related Learning Loss?

Pages falling from a calendar onto a student working at a desk.

Remote school was devastating for many students. In Richmond, Virginia, a plan to switch to a year-round calendar brought promise and pushback.

By Alec MacGillisJune 19, 2023 New Yorker

Angela Wright became the principal of Fairfield Court Elementary School, in Richmond, Virginia, in the fall of 2020, but she didn’t meet her students until a year later. At the start of the pandemic, Richmond had moved all of its twenty-two thousand students to remote learning. By the time they returned to the classroom, in September, 2021, after every other school district in the state, it had been eighteen months since they’d been inside a school building.

For Wright, the posting at Fairfield Court was the culmination of a steady rise: from instructional assistant to teacher to assistant principal to principal. When her father saw her first monthly paycheck as a teacher, he asked, “Is this for a week?” “He said, ‘Are you sure this is what you want to do?’ ” she recalled. “I said, ‘Yes.’ When you see kids light up, when you see that they get it, when you see kids who were tier three or lower rise to the top . . .”

Wright had previously been a principal in a rural school district, but after arriving in the Richmond system she settled for being an assistant principal for a few years. “Coming into an urban school district, I wanted to step back and take a look at their structure, their processes,” she said. Now she was eager to tackle the challenges facing the student body, which was almost entirely Black. Many of the students lived in an adjoining public-housing development, also called Fairfield Court. But Wright, in her first year, could offer guidance only at a remove. She dropped in on virtual classrooms, where students logged on from their beds or from crowded kitchen tables; often, they were not able to log on at all, because the concrete walls of their home interfered with a Wi-Fi signal. “Sometimes it was just, ‘Oh, it’s not working today,’ ” she told me.

When the students returned to the school building, Wright found that their needs were far greater than she could have imagined. Research released by Harvard and Stanford last fall found that Richmond’s fourth through eighth graders had lost two full years of ground in math and nearly a year and a half in reading. Even more apparent was their difficulty with basic interactions—fifth graders hadn’t been in person since third grade; second graders, since kindergarten. “Socialization with each other was huge. How to be around each other—those are building blocks for ages six to ten,” Wright said. “There was a whole retraining—what does it look like when you and another student disagree? They had missed that, not being in the building.”

Richmond is a particularly stark example of what education researchers say is a nationwide crisis. Student learning across the country, as measured by many assessments, has stalled to an unprecedented degree. Researchers have pointed to a number of causes, including the trauma experienced by children who lost family members to covid, but the data generally show that the shortcomings are the greatest in districts that were slowest to reopen schools. They also show that the falloff was far greater among Black and Hispanic students than among whites and Asians, expanding disparities that had been gradually shrinking in recent decades. “This cohort of students is going to be punished throughout their lifetime,” Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, said, at a conference in Arlington, Virginia, in February. He presented findings demonstrating that the economic consequences of pandemic-related learning loss could be far greater than those of the Great Recession.

The federal government has sent schools a hundred and ninety billion dollars in pandemic-recovery funds, and districts are using some of that money for a range of interventions—intensive tutoring, expanded summer school, and after-school programs—though they have been hampered by the shortage of teachers and tutors. Even before the pandemic, Fairfield Court and other schools in the East End of Richmond, which has high levels of poverty, had received additional resources for social workers and for math and reading coaches; the new federal funding was used to provide an extended-day program three days a week for about forty kids. Wright appreciated the support, but she could see that more would be needed to make up the lost ground.

In Richmond, as in many other districts, the learning-loss debate has centered on time: the greatest challenge is finding extra hours for supplementary instruction. In early 2021, as it became clear that Richmond was not going to reopen its schools that spring, Jason Kamras, the superintendent of schools, shared in online forums the rudiments of a possible remedy: switching to a year-round calendar, with summer vacation limited to July, and four two-week breaks during the school year. Most students would still have a hundred and eighty school days a year, but the district would select five thousand students to receive up to forty days of extra instruction during the breaks. Teachers who volunteered to work would be paid more.

Kamras cited a report issued by staff of the Virginia legislature which indicated that, according to recent research, a year-round calendar produced varied results over all but had clear benefits for Black students. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology at Duke, who has researched the issue, told me that, though most students suffer from a “summer slide” in math, losses in reading are bigger for students from low-income families, possibly because wealthier kids are more likely to have books around at home. He said that it made sense for districts to rethink summer break, which was a vestige of a more agricultural era and longer than in peer nations. “Our school calendar now is out of synch with the way most Americans live,” he said.

Wright, a fifty-seven-year-old Black woman, was in favor of the plan. “Having those kids start instruction early, we can get those kids to really feel good about themselves,” she said. “We need to have them here in the building.”

Richmond’s school board has been elected by voters since 1994, two years after Virginia became the last state to allow for direct election, rather than appointment, of board members, a system that now prevails in nearly all of the nation’s thirteen thousand school districts. In recent years, in Florida and elsewhere, school boards have attracted attention for culture-war skirmishes over book choices and instruction about gender and sexuality, but most of them labor in relative obscurity. Supporters of elected school boards see them as safeguards of citizen input into how taxpayer dollars are spent and how children are taught, an exceptional feature of U.S. public education which embodies the principle of local control; detractors view them as bastions of dysfunction, captured by interest groups or lacking the expertise to make decisions about pedagogy. In Richmond, the board’s nine members receive an annual stipend of ten thousand dollars; the chair, who is elected by the board, gets an extra thousand dollars. Meetings are held twice a month, at 6 p.m., and they often run until close to midnight, at which point public attendance, typically sparse to begin with, has dwindled to virtually nothing.

Stephanie Rizzi ran for the board in the fall of 2020. Growing up, she had bounced between her grandmother in Richmond and her mother, in Caroline County, north of the city. “I grew up poor and hungry,” Rizzi said. “I can remember being thirsty, not having access to water.” Her solace came at school. “My teachers saved my life,” she said. She attended Virginia Commonwealth University, in Richmond, and went into education. (She is now an administrator at V.C.U.) She taught English in three counties, all the while trying to get a position in the Richmond schools, which her children attended. After being unable to get hired by the district, she decided to run for the board that oversaw it.

Among those whom she joined was Kenya Gibson. Gibson had lived in Richmond before attending graduate school in architecture at Yale; she moved back in the late two-thousands, for a job designing retail stores. She joined a local effort that was fighting for more school funding and became vice-president of the PTA at her daughter’s school. When her local board seat came open in 2017, she ran for it, winning against an interim appointee who was backed by Mayor Levar Stoney and other “corporate Democrats,” as Gibson came to call various politicians and business leaders, some of whom had pushed in vain to switch the city to an appointed school board, in the mid-two thousands. “It’s about allowing the community to have a seat at the table,” she told me. “Not having a democratically elected school board is a scary notion.”

Seven of the board’s nine members were Black. One of the two white members, Jonathan Young—also the only man on the board—had long been in favor of switching to a year-round calendar. Young, a faculty administrator at Virginia State University, a historically Black institution, exuded an ornery independence, striking a critical stance against Kamras even as he often sided with his administration in disputes with other members. “To be quite blunt, we’re doing everything wrong,” Young told me. “It’s important to be able to say that the patient needs amputation, not just surgery.”

After Kamras unveiled the proposed calendar, hundreds of comments were submitted to the district’s online portal. At the March 15, 2021, board meeting, which was held online, Kamras’s chief of staff, Michelle Hudacsko, spent two hours reading the comments aloud. Many parents and some teachers expressed their support for the new calendar as a needed response to the pandemic closures. Meghann Kennedy, a parent, said, “It would be so beneficial for our kids, who have lost so much time.”

Other parents and teachers expressed opposition. Some cited practical concerns, such as the fact that they had already planned trips, camps, or second jobs for the summer. But the overriding argument was that, after the pandemic’s upheaval, the district shouldn’t add disruption. “What students need most this summer is normalcy—time to reach out to family they’ve missed, time to breathe,” a teacher named Amy Brown said. “Asking more than that of teachers and kiddos is nonsense.” Shannon Dowling, a parent, said, “Our teachers have experienced trauma—they are running on fumes right now. Our families have experienced trauma. We need a break.”

After the comment session was over, Tracy Epp, the district’s chief academic officer, reminded the board just how dire the educational setback was shaping up to be. She presented the latest data on early-elementary students, which showed a large increase in the number of children who were considered at high risk of struggling to read, especially among Black and economically disadvantaged students. More than half of all first graders were at risk, up fourteen points from the previous year. “The science is clear about what it takes,” Epp said. “There’s a lot we can do during the school day, but, when we look at fifty per cent not being on track, we’ve got to find more time to tackle these literacy issues.”

“If this doesn’t alarm everyone in the city of Richmond, I don’t know what will,” Young, the male board member, said. “If this data doesn’t say that a business-as-usual calendar is inadequate, then I don’t know what would.” Several of his colleagues also expressed dismay.

Others were more sanguine. Rizzi, the former schoolteacher, said that perhaps the district needed to help parents do more at home to teach reading. “There are some small things they could do to support their kids,” she said. “This doesn’t mean kids need to be in class forever.” Gibson, the former PTA leader, cited the opposition voiced by teachers and parents, and suggested that the district instead put the money toward improving summer school in 2022: “We owe the public to say, ‘We heard you.’ ”

The meeting had been going for almost five hours. Kamras was rubbing his eyes. Finally, he suggested that, if the board wasn’t ready to switch to a year-round calendar for the coming school year, it could resolve to do so for the 2022-23 school year. “Let’s put a stake in the ground,” he said. “We have a reading crisis that is going to impact our students for the rest of their lives unless we deal with it.”

The board approved the idea, with Young the only holdout. “Congratulations, everyone,” the chairwoman, Cheryl Burke, said. “We’re going to have a traditional calendar for this school year, and then move into the 2022-23 year with added changes for year-round.”

Kamras had spent a summer during college working as a tutor in a housing development in Sacramento, his home town. He came away from the experience with two insights: that he really liked working with kids, and, he said, that “the third and fourth graders I was working with were every bit as capable as any other kids I’d been with, but had clearly not had the same opportunities that I’d had—and that just struck me as wrong.”

He joined Teach for America after college and started out as a middle-school math teacher in Washington, D.C. In 2005, he was named National Teacher of the Year, and shortly afterward he joined the administration of D.C.’s schools chancellor at the time, Michelle Rhee, in a role focussed on teacher recruitment and retention. In three years as chancellor, Rhee presided over rises in test scores while clashing with the teachers’ union over her efforts to cull underperforming educators.

Across the nation, the two-thousands showed steady gains for students, as measured by such tests as the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Notably, the achievement gap between Black and white students narrowed. “It’s useful to remind people that things before the pandemic were improving,” Thomas Kane, an economist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told me. “We had been making progress.”

Kamras became superintendent of Richmond’s schools in early 2018. The district faced challenges. For one thing, many families did not enroll their kids in its schools. The city has roughly equal shares of Black and white residents, but its public-school enrollment is sixty per cent Black, twenty-five per cent Hispanic, and ten per cent white. Still, Kamras noticed that many people who had attended Richmond Public Schools and sent their children there felt a great sense of ownership. “I was struck by how much pride there is in R.P.S.,” he told me. “It’s the engine of mobility for so many people here in the city.”

Before the pandemic, Kamras had been skeptical about a year-round calendar, but he was alarmed by the effects of virtual learning. “Three decades of gains were wiped out,” he said. “You’ll hear this now from elected leaders and others: ‘Stop talking about the pandemic, you can’t blame everything on the pandemic.’ I am most certainly not, but to ignore the impact of the pandemic and the fact that it’s going to have repercussions for years would be tantamount to sticking our heads in the ground.”

He began to see year-round school in a new light. For one thing, it seemed more workable than adding hours to the school day, given how drained many teachers felt at dismissal time. And it avoided the drawbacks of a long break for struggling students. Kane, at Harvard, noted that traditional summer school is often insufficient, because it’s typically voluntary and plagued by low attendance rates. Although paying teachers and staff for additional weeks of work was an added expense, extending the year was logistically easier than other supplements, such as hiring a whole new corps of outside tutors. “We already have the school buildings and the teachers,” Kane said.

“I shifted and said, ‘There may not be any better time than now to rip the Band-Aid off,’ ” Kamras told me. “No, it may not be perfect, but we’re going to be dealing with the impact of the closure for years to come.”

But, in the fall of 2021, some members of the school board started wavering about the year-round calendar. On November 15th, Kamras presented to the board several options—one with the same number of school days as the status quo, plus extra days for certain students, and others with ten extra days for all students. The most expansive option would cost roughly thirteen million dollars a year in additional pay for teachers and staff, to come from the district’s federal recovery funds. The plan was to hold a public survey on the options.

Kamras was taken aback when several board members declared that the survey should have another option, too: the status quo. Gibson said that changing the calendar would spur teachers to quit, and that it was unfair to students. “We’re basically merging school into a full-time job,” she said. “It’s not right that Black and brown students in our district are chained to their desks essentially further into the school year while their counterparts in the counties get to play and have a summer.”

Kamras noted that the calendar would still have a six-week summer break, but several members were unmoved. “I wonder if there’s a way to address summer learning loss without adding days or going to year-round,” Rizzi said. “Is there some kind of way that we can take a creative approach and try something that isn’t going to feel like an extra job for our parents and our children?”

Kamras replied that he was simply following the directive of the board’s vote for a year-round calendar. He spoke with the tone of forced agreeableness that often characterized his contentious exchanges with the board. “I do believe that coming out of the pandemic we do owe our students more,” he said. “I do believe this is the right direction for this school division to go. I do believe this was what I was directed to do by the board.”

The survey went out with the status quo as an option, and it received the most votes, with higher support from white families than from Black ones. Kamras presented the results on January 10, 2022, in the midst of another challenge: keeping schools open during the Omicron wave. A week later, he proposed a traditional calendar for the coming year.ADVERTISEMENT

Young was the only board member to vote against the traditional calendar. “This board, when it punted on an alternative to the status quo, said that we would adopt it for the next school year,” he said. “That, I presume, did not mean anything when it was said.”

Recently, I asked Rizzi, who is now the chair of the board, about the change, and she said that her vote in the spring of 2021 was not to approve a year-round calendar but simply to study it further. She had doubted that it would actually happen, given resistance from teachers and their union, the Richmond Education Association. “I knew that the R.E.A. was mobilizing against it, and that there was going to be a lot of pushback, and teachers wouldn’t want it,” she said. “It wasn’t that we would definitely support it next year, it was that we would return to discuss it.”

Across the country, other school districts were also grappling with how to add more instructional time. Atlanta added thirty minutes to the school day. Los Angeles added four days to the school year, which it said would be optional for both students and teachers, with extra pay for teachers who took part; the teachers’ union objected, saying that it fell outside their contract agreement, and participation by students ended up being very low. Dallas had more success: it gave schools the option of adding up to twenty-one days for selected students, and forty-one schools, roughly one in eight, decided to do so. Five others opted for an extended-year calendar for the whole school. Hopewell, which is half an hour south of Richmond and has a majority-Black student population of slightly more than four thousand, became the first district in the state to institute a sweeping year-round calendar, in 2021. In Dallas, the schools with the added days showed slightly larger learning gains; Hopewell has reported lower rates of teacher turnover now that there are more breaks throughout the year.

Other districts have gone in the opposite direction: cutting down on classroom time in the name of safeguarding student and staff mental health, an explicit priority of some of the federal funding. Spokane, for example, reduced students’ classroom time partly to give teachers more time for professional development. Marguerite Roza, a Georgetown University research professor of education policy, was sharply critical of this approach. “How can you believe that less school is an intervention for learning recovery?” she said. “You can’t imagine that less school is the remedy for having all that learning interruption. The kids aren’t even there.”

Dan Goldhaber, the director of the Center for Education Data & Research at the University of Washington, told me that one challenge to building support for added instructional time is that parents and other community members are not always aware of just how steep the drop-off has been, in part because many schools have been grading more leniently in recognition of the pandemic’s challenges. “There’s a real urgency gap,” he said. “It’s asymmetry between what we can see empirically about where kids are and what parents think, based on opinion surveys. There’s the belief that kids are doing O.K., and the desire to snap back to normal. And that’s problematic, because normal seems to have gotten us back to the pre-pandemic pace of test-score growth, but the pre-pandemic pace does not make up for the pandemic, and we need to be on a much higher trajectory.” An analysis of data from about eighty per cent of public schools in the country has found that, in districts that went remote for ninety per cent or more of 2020-21, the decline in math scores represented the loss of two-thirds of a year, nearly double the drop in districts that were remote for less than ten per cent of the year. And these numbers don’t take into account the millions of students who have vanished from the rolls entirely since the extended hiatus during which the norm of attending school eroded.

Roza detected a more depressing factor contributing to the urgency gap: people have simply grown inured to talk of underachieving schools. “The system has always had some kids failing, and now we have more,” she said. “There’s maybe a numbness to it.”

Recently, I spoke with a newly elected member of the executive board of the Richmond teachers’ union, Melvin Hostman, who said that it was hard to agree to Kamras’s push for additional instructional time when there were so many other problems that needed to be addressed: lack of toilet paper, school buses arriving late, and widespread absenteeism among them. He added, “The whole thing about learning loss I found funny is that, if everyone was out of school, and everyone had learning loss, then aren’t we all equal? We all have a deficit.” When I noted data showing that the loss had had racially disproportionate impacts, he said, “Of course—because our society is inherently unequal.”

Hostman, who is in his sixth year of teaching high-school history, said that what bothered him and his colleagues was that the pandemic had laid bare how much in society had been broken for a long time, making it possible to reorder things in a dramatic way: “Now people are saying, ‘We’re going back to the way things were before.’ But we didn’t like the way things were before.” He didn’t see extending the school year as a new approach: “They’re taking the weird policymaker position that what we’re doing isn’t working, so we need to do more of it.” He offered additional insight into why teachers were suffering low morale now that they were back in the building. As hard as remote learning was, he said, “there are many teachers who feel like the only time they had a work-life balance acceptable to them was during virtual school.” Teachers had been able to work from home, and many districts had cut back class hours to reduce screen time, giving teachers more flexibility to run errands, exercise, and walk their dogs, just like other professionals doing remote work.

Now teachers were back in school daily, still cramming in class prep during their few empty periods, still bringing a lot of work home at night while many of their professional peers were enjoying hybrid schedules. “An industry that functions only because of additional labor that’s unpaid is trying to get people to return to that,” Hostman said. “And it’s difficult.”

Ayear after the defeat of the year-round calendar, Kamras decided to try again. His relations with the board had grown increasingly strained: In August, 2022, after the latest state test scores showed the district doing even worse in math and science than it had the year before, there was speculation that the board might vote to fire him. Mayor Stoney, who is Black, had strongly backed year-round school, and he urged the board not to act rashly, saying that firing Kamras just before the start of the school year would be “catastrophic.” “No one should be surprised that prolonged virtual learning and the trauma of the pandemic would negatively impact academic outcomes,” he tweeted. “It’s why Superintendent @JasonKamras wisely proposed a year-round academic calendar. The School Board dismissed his proposal.”

This time, Kamras moved more incrementally. At a meeting this January, he told principals that he was launching a pilot program in which a few schools could adopt an extended calendar, adding twenty days by ending summer vacation in late July.

Under the terms of the pilot, which emerged a few weeks later, teachers at participating schools would receive a ten-thousand-dollar bonus and some additional salary, plus five thousand dollars more if their school attained certain metrics. The total cost would be a little more than a million dollars per school. A school could participate only if it had strong support from staff and parents. Kamras invited principals to apply; he would then winnow the list of candidates to a handful, after which principals would survey their school community to gauge receptiveness.

Angela Wright seized on the idea. The social dislocations from the pandemic were still pervasive, and included heightened levels of violence in and around the city’s schools, and frequent alerts from a monitoring system on students’ laptops that was used to detect threats to other students or to themselves. In mid-October, a seventeen-year-old boy was found in a garbage can in the Fairfield Court housing development, fatally shot. “There maybe are some schools that don’t need those twenty days,” Wright told me. “But we know that, for some of our kids, having that whole summer out—it would have been better if they had been in a safe learning environment, so they can prosper.”

Allison El Koubi, the principal at Westover Hills Elementary, south of the James River, was also interested. Westover Hills had a lower rate of student poverty than Fairfield Court did, but it, too, had suffered steep drop-offs in achievement, in addition to a brush with violence: in October, a woman had been fatally shot during an altercation just outside the school shortly before afternoon dismissal; a teen-ager was later charged with the killing.

Like Wright, El Koubi saw the pilot program as an opportunity to build stability. “We had this huge disruption, we’re seeing increased levels of trauma in students and more need for social-emotional learning, and there’s not enough time,” she told me. “Students with additional challenges can learn the same amount in a year as their higher-income peers, but they tend to lose more in the summer, and that gap just keeps widening every year.” She also saw the pilot as a way for teachers to earn more money. “When I heard about how much the increase in salary or bonus would be, I thought, This is too big a decision to make on my own,” she said. “I want our staff to have a possibility to weigh in on it.”

Both principals applied for the pilot. Wright began gradually building support with her staff, but El Koubi, under the impression that principals weren’t supposed to publicize the proposal until Kamras settled on a list of candidates, held off.

On January 31st, the local CBS affiliate, WTVR, reported that Kamras had chosen four candidates for the pilot, including Fairfield Court and Westover Hills. The news caught teachers and staff at Westover Hills off guard, and many of them recoiled from the idea. In a straw poll conducted two days later, only thirty-seven per cent of employees said that they were interested in learning more about the pilot. “When it came out in such a jarring way, that created a lot of strong feelings about it immediately,” El Koubi said. “It felt like it was just too much.” She removed the school from the pilot. One teacher told me, “The thought is good—that we’re trying to combat whatever we lose from the students being gone so long in the summer—but the idea being brought so quickly was a tad bit too hasty.” He went on, “When you’re told that you have to work harder when you already work as hard as you possibly can, day to day, it’s not necessarily what you want to hear.”ADVERTISEMENT

At Fairfield Court, Wright charged ahead. She held a string of sessions with small groups of teachers and staff to explain the program. Together, the educators looked at the data showing the drop-off that kids had suffered during the summer of 2022, losing much of what they had gained the prior year, and started imagining better outcomes. It was “everybody believing in the same dream that we needed to move kids to the next level,” Wright said. “We all have to believe in our kids—that we can be successful in doing this.” All but two staff members voted for the pilot, so she was able to start surveying parents.

Wright also needed support from the school board, which would get a final say on the pilot. On February 6th, Giordana Buffo, a teacher at Fairfield Court, came to a board meeting to testify on behalf of the proposal. “Yes, this extended school year will come with some challenges for me personally, as well as many other teachers,” she said. “But, in the end, I feel like it would be beneficial to the academic success of our students, and help mitigate some of the learning loss that many of our students face when they’re not in school for an extended period of time.”

Wright spoke a few minutes later, praising Fairfield Court as the “hidden gem in the East End.” She told the board about the data showing that the gains her students make during the year are often lost over the summer. “When we create the opportunity for underprivileged scholars to overcome disadvantages and find success, it levels the playing field,” she said.

The next speaker was Anne Forrester, a middle-school teacher on the union’s collective-bargaining team, who, a couple of months later, was elected chapter vice-president. She warned the board that the pilot might be “wasted money.” “This proposal for a two-hundred-day calendar, it might work, sure,” she said. “But, to me, it doesn’t make sense to do that until we’ve gotten our schools up to where they need to be. You’re putting an addition on a house that has a leaky roof.”

One Tuesday in late February, I visited the Fairfield Court housing development. A few days earlier, the district had announced that schools would be closed that day, to align with surrounding suburban counties that were closing for a special congressional election. The day before had been Presidents’ Day, making for an unexpected four-day weekend. It was warm, and kids were milling around on the stoops and in the courtyards of the development, a collection of well-worn two-story brick buildings.

The mothers and grandmothers whom I spoke with were in favor of a year-round calendar and the two-hundred-day pilot, casting it in terms of common sense: kids had lost a lot during the pandemic, their summer break was longer than in much of the rest of the world, and they didn’t have enough to do during it. “Other countries don’t do it the way we do it, and we’re consistently falling back on our education,” Octavia Bell, whose three daughters were in middle and high school, said. “You don’t have to reinvent the wheel if you see something working somewhere else.”

I spoke with several women on the next block who among them had about a dozen grandchildren in city schools. When I asked about the argument, made by some parents, that the shorter summer break would interfere with family trips, they scoffed, saying that few people in Fairfield Court could afford to go anywhere. Other parents “are too busy worrying about what they’re going to do when the kids are in school,” Diane Hicks-Taylor said. “ ‘Well, I had plans, I wanted to do this and do that.’ No, let the kids go to school!”

When it came time for Wright to survey Fairfield Court parents, she approached the task like an election campaign, reaching out to parents anywhere she could: at a coffee hour outside school, at an awards ceremony, at a soul-food lunch. She had staff call the parents who still hadn’t voted. In the end, ninety per cent of families voted in favor of the two-hundred-day pilot. The twenty-one remaining families were told that they would be able to transfer to another school if they wanted.

On March 6th, Wright came back before the board to tell its members about the survey results and watch them vote on the pilot. Kenya Gibson, the former PTA leader, said that she opposed it, because she wasn’t sure how it would be funded after the federal money ran out. Kamras replied that, if the pilot showed success, the city could seek funding from the state or other sources to expand it.

Only two members voted no: Gibson and a woman named Mariah White. After two years of efforts to expand instructional time, the board had finally approved such a move for one of its fifty-four schools. Two weeks later, the board approved the pilot for Cardinal Elementary, which has a heavily Spanish-speaking population. This time, Rizzi voted against it, saying that she shared Gibson’s concerns about whether the bonuses for teachers at the pilot schools violated their collective-bargaining agreement. The fourth of Kamras’s original candidate schools, Overby-Sheppard Elementary, was deemed to have insufficient family support.

All told, only about a thousand of the district’s twenty-two thousand students will return to school in late July.

After the votes, Rizzi elaborated on her resistance. “ ‘Learning loss’ is largely a subjective term,” she told me. “Working to standardize our kids at any point in their learning process is an artificial exercise. So we experienced this pandemic, and some of our students aren’t performing as well from a standardized perspective. Characterizing it as learning loss looks at it from a deficit perspective. We should be looking at it as where we are now, and go from there.”

The day after the vote on the Fairfield Court pilot, I got a tour from Wright. The school was a hive of activity, and a reminder of how much beyond academic instruction is provided by many schools: in one room, children were getting free eyeglasses; another group was off at a pool having free swim lessons. In a kindergarten classroom, a teacher was helping her students to count to a hundred, while, in the hallway outside, a reading coach was huddled with some second graders who had been pulled out for extra help.

In her office, Wright talked excitedly about the school’s detailed plans for the extra twenty days, which will begin on July 24th. “This is not just about growth, it’s about accelerating to the next level,” she said. “We want students to be a hundred-per-cent proficient. We want kids to continue pushing through the ceiling.”

Later, I visited Westover Hills, where Allison El Koubi told me about the things that she had hoped to accomplish during the pilot. The next day, she informed her staff that she was leaving her job as principal at the end of the year. Her departure would prove unexpectedly abrupt: On June 6th, a shooting outside the graduation ceremony for one of the city’s high schools killed a graduate and his stepfather, and wounded five other people; police arrested a nineteen-year-old man. The district closed schools for the remainder of the week, ending the year several days early.

After speaking with El Koubi, I asked parents picking up their kids if they had been disappointed that the pilot hadn’t proceeded. One mother, Alanna Scott, said she hadn’t really seen the point of extending the year to make up for what children lost in the pandemic. “It’s past now,” she said. “Whatever they know, they should keep rolling with it. The kids don’t know what they missed.” ♦

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.Published in the print edition of the June 26, 2023, issue, with the headline “The Pandemic Generation.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/26/what-can-we-do-about-pandemic-related-learning-loss

If Loneliness Is an Epidemic, How Do We Treat It?

An illustration of multiple variations of one person in different colors. The figure in the middle has a downcast expression and holds a pill in her hand.

By Eleanor Cummins and Andrew Zaleski NYTimes July 16th 2023

Ms. Cummins is a journalist and an adjunct professor in New York University’s science, health and environmental reporting program. Mr. Zaleski is a journalist who covers science, technology and business.

Stephanie Cacioppo thought she would be single forever. “I was an only child,” says Dr. Cacioppo. “I always thought that was my fate to be alone.”

Despite that, Dr. Cacioppo, a behavioral neuroscientist, dedicated herself to studying the science of romance. In 2011, when least expecting it, she met the love of her life. His name was John Cacioppo, a twice-divorced neuroscientist and one of the world’s leading researchers on loneliness.

After they married, in a joyfully spontaneous ceremony in Paris, they were hardly ever apart and even conducted research together at the University of Chicago. They were known among their academic peers by complementary monikers: She was Dr. Love; he was Dr. Loneliness. But in 2018, at age 66, he died, very likely from complications of salivary gland cancer. She was only 43. “They not only shared the same office (the sign on the door said ‘The Cacioppos’),” his New York Times obituary read, “but also the same desk.”

In the wake of her husband’s death, she experienced a crushing loneliness. So she decided to apply the couple’s research to her life while using herself as a case study for further research into solutions. She reached out to friends, ran six miles a day and picked up doubles tennis, all of which she chronicled in her 2022 memoir, “Wired for Love.” It’san effort that Dr. Cacioppo, now an adjunct assistant professor of behavioral neuroscience at the University of Oregon, is still undertaking, with the goal of studying how to prevent loneliness and restore strong connections.

More than one-fifth of Americans over 18 say they often or always feel lonely or socially isolated. Among older adults, social isolation has been linked to various adverse physical and psychological effects, including increased risk of dementia and heart disease. “Addressing the crisis of loneliness and isolation is one of our generation’s greatest challenges,” wrote Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in The Times in April, discussing a national framework for rebuilding social connection to combat what he called an “epidemic” of loneliness.

If loneliness is an epidemic, how do you treat it? Given its myriad health consequences, some experts argue it’s time to consider new remedies. This calls to mind a trip to the pharmacy to pick up a bottle of pills, but treating loneliness the same way doctors treat high cholesterol isn’t exactly the idea here. As a growing body of research indicates, loneliness is a biological phenomenon with far-reaching consequences. Neuroscientists have found that brain signals that should trigger someone to seek social connection are the same ones that, under different circumstances, can turn people defensive and vigilant — more apt to hunker down instead of reach out. Under this rubric, loneliness isn’t simply a symptom of societal failure to foster deep relationships but rather a wariness that takes root, steadily snowballs and reshapes the brain. Loneliness may be a communal problem, but healing begins with the individual.

“Thinking of loneliness as a clinical problem — I actually think that’s an appropriate way to think about the issue,” says Daniel Russell, a professor in the department of human development and family studies at Iowa State University. It was Dr. Russell who, in the 1970s, helped develop the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, a 20-item questionnaire still commonly used in research to measure how lonely a person is.

It’s not entirely obvious what the medical system can or should do with loneliness. Proposals range from the simple (adding loneliness scales to annual checkups) to the medically far-fetched (a pill for loneliness) and are sure to come with side effects and controversies. Even Dr. Cacioppo, who has dedicated her life to studying human connection, including pharmaceutical solutions for loneliness, questions the value of medicalizing it. (Can you imagine the insurance premiums?) But experts hope to help millions of struggling Americans find their way back to one another. “We are each other’s key to a long life and healthy life,” she says. “We need to be accountable for the well-being of our friends and teammates and others.”

Declaring loneliness an epidemic first requires an understanding of what loneliness is and how it works in the brain. Only when the latest insights into the lonely mind are considered can Americans begin to hope for a solution. Folk wisdom has dictated the terms for too long, but hard science is available.

While sometimes mistaken for social isolation, loneliness is different. Social isolation is an objective state: Are you interacting regularly with other people or not? Loneliness, by contrast, is a paradoxical puzzle — an entirely subjective experience of distress at one’s perceived lack of social connection. That can be true whether you’re alone most of the time or at the center of a dance floor.

An illustration of multiple variations of a second person in different colors. The figure in the middle has a downcast expression and holds a pill in his hand.
Credit…Yann Kebbi

“You’re lonely because the set of relationships you have, your social network, is not meeting your expectations,” says Dr. Russell.

People feel lonely for many reasons: relocating for school or work, grieving a spouse, struggling with counterproductive coping mechanisms or even having a natural disposition toward gloom. If these are the causes, then there are at least known remedies to try. Nonetheless, experts feel as if they’re banging their heads against a wall. How many times can you give someone the same tired advice to join a club, call a friend or make small talk with a stranger?

Many lonely people not only feel sad; they also feel endangered. Social situations are perceived as a threat, not an invitation. Over the past decade, those who study loneliness have begun to better understand why. Although loneliness is usually understood as an experience of mental anguish, in reality it is “a whole-body affliction,” as the historian Fay Bound Alberti writes in “A Biography of Loneliness.” Research suggests chronic loneliness is related to a range of physical and neurological problems, including increased susceptibility to infections and cognitive decline.

In other words, loneliness is more than just a mental struggle. Dr. Cacioppo explains it as a “biological signal that tells us that there is something wrong in our social environment.” Compounded over months and years, loneliness can gradually become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And when the emergency sirens are already blaring, it can be difficult to make the changes necessary for a more fulfilling life.

Neuroscience has plumbed the depths of the lonely mind for decades. In 1992, John Cacioppo helped coin the term “social neuroscience.” He later co-founded the University of Chicago’s Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, where he documented the dangers of loneliness. A steady stream of research has since demonstrated just how much loneliness is manifested in the brain.

“There’s lots and lots of evidence” for it, says Dr. Danilo Bzdok, an associate professor in McGill University’s department of biomedical engineering. During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, he and several colleagues carried out the largest studies to date looking for loneliness markers in the brain — studies they conducted in response to the social isolation people were experiencing. Their work demonstrated that the default network was larger in the brains of lonely people. This network is an area seated deep within the brain that lights up when we think about others, especially with respect to how we interpret their intentions.

Research has shown that a lonely brain is transformed. Neurotransmitters important for bonding and social connection go haywire. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, responsible for modulating stress, is hyperactive. The amygdala, which triggers our fight-or-flight response and helps process emotional reactions, is in overdrive: In previous studies, Dr. Cacioppo found that lonely people detect negative or threatening pictures and words in under 400 milliseconds. This might explain not only the sadness that accompanies loneliness but also the palpable sense of danger.

Such changes in the brain may help to explain why lonely individuals perceive their social environment as threatening. “We cannot perceive the world for what it is,” Dr. Bzdok says.

Depression, grief, social anxiety — a full-body cascade of what might be termed symptoms of a lonely life — can follow. Dr. Alberti calls loneliness an “emotion ‘cluster,’” in which feelings ranging from “anger, resentment and sorrow to jealousy, shame and self-pity” can take hold. For some people, loneliness becomes a self-perpetuating feedback loop and turns chronic. The neuroplastic nature of the brain, its ability to create different structural pathways, can reinforce these changes. But what’s important to know is that the brain can also snap back.

Dr. Cacioppo has experienced both ends of this spectrum. “I really wore my solitude as a badge of honor,” she says of her early life.

After her husband’s death, Dr. Cacioppo continued the couple’s research into a pharmaceutical intervention for loneliness in the form of the hormone pregnenolone. It has been shown to reduce stress by calming the amygdala as well as the insula, another area of the brain, which, if dysfunctional, can contribute to a lonely person’s hypervigilance to social threats. While it couldn’t treat loneliness directly, the hormone, the Cacioppos theorized, might ease symptoms and help people connect again.

From 2017 to 2019, Dr. Cacioppo conducted a trial on the effects of an oral dose of pregnenolone in lonely individuals. She says the preliminary results indicated that self-reported loneliness declined. In other words, the pill was working as intended. But after processing her grief through exercising in the outdoors, she felt the possible side effects of a pill — which might range from worsened sleep quality to cardiovascular problems — could no longer be justified.

“I personally stopped the clinical trial because I think that we could boost pregnenolone and social connections naturally,” Dr. Cacioppo says. Walking, meditation, time spent in nature — all of these activities have been shown to produce similar changes to those of her pill, with none of the downsides. So if a pill for loneliness is not the right approach, at least for now, what is?

Dr. Cacioppo’s experience suggests a lonely mind might be healed with help from the body. A clinical conception of chronic loneliness, then, most likely takes shape by combining natural remedies as the ones she employed with medical interventions already available to us.

The simplest is what Dr. Murthy wrote about in The Times: Go to the doctor. A recent essay in The New England Journal of Medicine argued that clinicians should see themselves as part of the front line in reconnecting Americans. A report on loneliness in America published by Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education two years ago has a similar starting point. Doctors “should be asking patients if they are lonely as part of annual physicals,” the authors wrote.

An illustration of multiple variations of a third person in different colors. The figure in the middle has a downcast expression and holds a pill in his hand.
Credit…Yann Kebbi

From there, doctors can help patients single out components of chronic loneliness and line up appropriate treatment. People struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, which can manifest as prolonged periods of intense loneliness, need a different type of attention from people whose anxiety makes them feel reluctant to go to a social gathering.

Whatever the root source of loneliness, given what we know about the brain’s capacity to rewire itself, coaching social interaction through mindfulness therapy or cognitive interventions can make up elements of a clinical response.

Dr. Bzdok says that training people on “processing emotional cues or social interactions on a regular basis” can lead to adaptations in regions of the brain that govern social interaction. He notes that activities that reinforce social bonds, such as exercising together and eating together, while not an answer in and of themselves, are “possible parts of a response.”

There is a risk involved in assessing chronic loneliness on clinical grounds. Medicalization can reduce individual suffering, says Gary Greenberg, a practicing psychotherapist and the author of “The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry.” But it might also lead people to believe that loneliness, by all accounts a crisis on a societal scale, is nothing more than an unfortunate series of individual failings. This, in turn, “might distract attention from the question of: Why in the world are we so isolated? And what should we do about that?” he says.

Clinical assessment of loneliness faces more practical barriers, too. As Dr. Russell points out, health care providers have yet to come up with criteria that describe when a person is sufficiently lonely to the point that physicians should do something about it. Some medical organizations, he adds, use a shortened form of the U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale as a screening tool, but absent criteria for diagnosing loneliness, there’s no research that has been done to evaluate the scale’s diagnostic ability. Also, objective measures, like hitting a score based on the scale, might be imperfect or incomplete.

“An important distinction is between individuals who may be lonely now but that may not last very long, versus individuals who become lonely and remain lonely and may have always been lonely,” Dr. Russell says.

Unlike depression or anxiety, loneliness is not a mental health disorder. The American Psychiatric Association has developed clear diagnostic criteria for those other conditions, contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. Such standards do not exist for chronic loneliness. Though the goal is not to pathologize loneliness or to add it to the D.S.M., health care workers will need clear guidelines for identifying loneliness and triaging care.

Even if a pill for loneliness were to become widely available, the goal should not be to get rid of these emotions that make up loneliness or the insights that a short period of loneliness can provide. Rather, it’s to make sure that people can move forward — that their loneliness can work as an effective alarm, calling out their need for connection, rather than becoming the soundtrack of their life.

“We don’t want to just adjust that or, you know, moderate that feeling,” says Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University, an author of the New England Journal of Medicine paper and the lead scientist on the surgeon general’s advisory on rebuilding connection. “We also want to make sure that those objective needs are actually being met.”

Loneliness will never be cured. But it probably can be treated. Medicine will play an important role in recovery, and social reform is essential to prevent future generations from succumbing to chronic loneliness. But the most important source of change are the lonely people themselves.

In his social connection advisory, Dr. Murthy recommended a number of potential societal-scale interventions, including investing in shared infrastructure like public transportation and parks and beefing up community organizations that bring neighbors together. Dr. Cacioppo recommends reframing our relationship with social media platforms that can be a source of disconnection, especially among young people. There’s nothing like a glamorous Instagram post to make people more attuned to whether their life is falling short of expectations.

An illustration of multiple variations of a fourth person in different colors. The figure in the middle has a downcast expression and holds a pill in her hand.
Credit…Yann Kebbi

“If people can use social media as a way station rather than as the destination, that could really help,” Dr. Cacioppo says. “Social media can be a great tool to form connection. It all depends on how you use it.” Limiting the amount of time spent online, the platforms visited or the accounts followed can help.

Finding ways to help people reset their expectations, possibly through therapy, while coaching them on new ways to engage with the people around them could be helpful. As is helping people understand where their loneliness is coming from and why it keeps returning.

Health care providers of all stripes can serve as a resource for those looking for a way back to connection, says Dr. Holt-Lunstad. In addition to offering support, doctors can connect their patients with organizations that can provide means to aid them on their journey, including exercise classes and support groups.

Friends and family must also be proactive about engaging with lonely people on terms that work for them. Finding ways to support others gives lonely people a chance to connect — and can help them break out of a kind of self-centered thinking that loneliness can exacerbate.

Most important, lonely people must remember that while they are not necessarily responsible for the conditions that plunged them into loneliness, they can take steps to pull themselves out of it. This may involve forcing themselves to connect — even when they don’t feel like it. Dr. Murthy wrote eloquently about this “medicine hiding in plain sight”: “It could be spending 15 minutes each day to reach out to people we care about, introducing ourselves to our neighbors, checking on co-workers who may be having a hard time, sitting down with people with different views to get to know and understand them and seeking opportunities to serve others, recognizing that helping people is one of the most powerful antidotes to loneliness.”

Instead of investigating a pharmaceutical solution to loneliness, Dr. Cacioppo is now promoting the acronym GRACE, which stands for “gratitude, reciprocity, altruism, choice and enjoyment.” It’s fairly self-explanatory: Be grateful for what you have, ask for and offer help to others and make time for fun. But one letter is more controversial than the others.

“It’s a choice to remain lonely or not lonely,” Dr. Cacioppo says. Put another way: Loneliness doesn’t have to be a permanent state. With the right support and a lot of determination, the brain can learn to connect again.

https://www.skyline725.com/if-loneliness-is-an-epidemic-how-do-we-treat-it/

Schools are using restorative justice to resolve conflicts. Does it work?

Maryland lawmakers prioritized the alternative disciplinary practice four years ago, but the rollout has been complicated

By Caralee AdamsJuly 15, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

The skirmish last fall began on a Montgomery County school bus.

Someone — no one is sure who — tossed a water bottle from the back of the bus, smacking a sixth-grader sitting near the front. The next day, the victim retaliated by throwing a container of milk to the back, dousing a seventh-grader.F

The two girls, who live near each other, were headed for a fight — and possibly suspension. But their parents called the school for help, and one of the Montgomery County Public Schools’ newly appointed instructional specialists in restorative justice got to work.

With permission from the families, Floyd Branch III, the specialist, brought the girls together for lunch and a “restorative circle” to defuse the tension. Neither of the girls really wanted to target the other, but they were embarrassed by the incident and by students laughing at them on the bus.

“They were able to talk it out and say they were sorry,” Branch said. “Children can’t learn if they don’t understand what the mistake was, or when there’s no conversation.” The process did not turn the two into friends, he said, but they have been able to ride the bus together without any more fighting.

This situation, and its resolution, is a good example of restorative justice at work, say supporters of this approach to discipline and community building. Instead of focusing on punishment, restorative practices invite those in conflict to talk through the issue so they can understand the harm caused, take responsibility and find ways to move forward.

Elements of restorative justice have long been used in Indigenous cultures, and, since the 1970s, as part of alternative sentencing programs in the criminal justice system. The practice spread to schools in the 1990s and accelerated after 2014 as an alternative to “zero-tolerance” suspension and expulsion policies for misbehavior. Those consequences, experts say, are fraught with problems. Exclusionary discipline doesn’t serve as a deterrent and often derails a student’s educational path: Black students, boys, and students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended and expelled than other students, and school administrators often discipline Black students more severely and frequently than White students who engage in the same behaviors.

In 2019, Maryland legislators passed a law requiring districts to incorporate restorative approaches in their discipline policies. Montgomery County, which is the largest school district in Maryland, with more than 160,000 students, has leaned into the practice, adding staff whose job is to help to build and repair relationships among all members of a school community — students, teachers, parents and administrators. There are still suspensions for serious offenses, according to the system’s code of conduct, but restorative justice is among the discipline that schools can use.

Shauna-Kay Jorandby, who oversees school engagement, behavioral health and academics for the district, said that based on the results of a recent survey, students are looking for the support that restorative justice promises.

“We know that our kids need help communicating, talking and understanding each other,” Jorandby said. “We know that they need help with conflict, whether it’s at school or at home. We know they need help with the stressors in their life.”

Opinion: Don’t fret over antisemitism in schools. We have restorative circles.

But the school system’s efforts are coming at a time when there’s been a call among some for stronger penalties for acting out in schools, in response to higher misbehavior rates after students returned from pandemic shutdowns. In some districts, police, who were banned from campuses in 2020, have been asked to return.

In Montgomery County, some parents, teachers and students have pushed back against restorative justice, saying harsher discipline is sometimes necessary to hold students accountable. Others question the way restorative circles are conducted, noting that the circles are often led by staff from the district’s central office, who the students don’t know or trust. They want to see more training, consistency and transparency about the process.

The new approach to student behavior is leading to a “free for all” in the schools; kids are getting away with hurting one another, said Ricky Ribeiro, a parent and PTA vice president at John F. Kennedy High School in Silver Spring. He wants the district to explain why the restorative approach is better than what’s been used in the past and provide evidence.

“Implementing this system is not going to be easy. It’s unclear if it will be successful, if we even know what success looks like, and if we have enough resources to make it successful,” Ribeiro said. “And yet, MCPS is going all-in with the kitchen sink on it, and I don’t know [if] that’s a good idea.”

The district’s restorative justice work was put to the test earlier this year after an antisemitic incident roiled a high school.

The school system is coping with a spate of hate, bias and racist incidents — an average of one per day, which is three times higher than previous years, Superintendent Monifa McKnight told the community in an address April 27. Last December, two students on the school debate team at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda allegedly made antisemitic comments about their Jewish teammates on an off-campus trip.

The offenders were disciplined by the school, and the district brought in restorative justice specialists to hold sessions with students. Rachel Barold, who was a ninth-grader at the time of the incident, said she felt the process didn’t work in that situation and let the offenders off too easily.

“Restorative justice circles are great for maybe bullying or other offenses at MCPS, but acts of hate against a group of people based on the ethnicity or religion — that is not the place,” said Barold, who is Jewish. “Restorative justice is a lot about forgiving who did it. And having to sit in the same room with them. It’s really re-traumatizing victims.”

Restorative justice sessions are voluntary, though Barold said she and other members of the debate team felt pressure to participate. Going into the restorative circles, students didn’t know the district specialists leading the conversation or what to expect, she said. For example, some students had prepared remarks saved on their cellphones, but were told cellphones weren’t allowed. Afterward, school administrators acknowledged they had made mistakes. Barold hopes the district will use the feedback to modify a process that she felt favored the offenders over the victims.

The school’s principal, Robert Dodd, did not respond to three interview requests. Whitman’s school paper, The Black and White, reported that the students received a month-long suspension from the debate team.

Jorandby said restorative conversations don’t take away the hurt, but they can be a first step to healing, even with hate and bias. The district has developed a consent and feedback form for formal restorative conferences emphasizing that the process is voluntary and gives parents the opportunity to decline consent for their child to participate.

OPINION: Restorative justice isn’t a panacea, but it can promote better relationships among students

The official consent form is among the ways district officials say they are trying to make the restorative justice program more robust. Last school year, the district hired six restorative justice specialists in the district’s central office, bringing the total to nine. Each specialist is assigned to serve a cluster of schools. The district is also paying a stipend to a staff member in each school to act as a restorative justice coach. All staff are required to take a short restorative justice training session and administrators have been asked to consider restorative approaches when crafting new goals for school climate, culture and student well-being in school improvement plans.

“It’s a work in progress,” said Damon Monteleone, an associate superintendent in the office of school support and well-being for Montgomery County schools. The district’s own data shows this: Nearly three-quarters of school leaders who participated in a self-evaluation released in May said they were either early in their development of restorative justice processes or had no processes in place at all. Only 3 percent believed they had a “mature” process in place.

That is not surprising. With the pandemic and its ensuing disruption of in-person learning, 2022-23 was the first normal school year for restorative justice in the schools since the 2019 state policy change, Monteleone said. The district itself is still learning what works, but it’s not ignoring criticism, he said.

It can take time for restorative justice to take hold in a school’s culture — as much as three to five years, say experts — and, as with any major shift, the process can be controversial. But research consistently shows the approach has a positive effect on students. A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges.

Opinion: When students stumble, colleges should turn to restorative justice before expulsion

Such work also needs money. The Maryland law, while well-intentioned, isn’t adequately funded, said David Hornbeck, a former Maryland state schools superintendent. In March, he launched Restorative Schools Maryland, a nonprofit that advocates for restorative justice policies and funding.

Rather than a few people from a district’s central office being called to put out fires, the work of restorative practices requires full-time staff in the schools, Hornbeck said.

“We face a challenge in people thinking that restorative practice is a kind of touchy-feely, namby-pamby, let-the-kids-off-the-hook thing — and that couldn’t be further from truth,” he said. Hornbeck said he also wants schools to track suspensions, teacher turnover, and student absenteeism to make sure their restorative justice practices actually work.

For this approach to work, supporters say, it will require investment on the front end. In Montgomery County schools, officials say about 80 percent of the restorative justice work is preventive (holding “community circles,” promoting self-care, teaching conflict resolution strategies) and 20 percent is responsive (repair practices and restorative conferences).

Daphne McKay, who retired at the end of the year as a restorative justice coach at Kingsview Middle School in Germantown, said the circles give students space to process experiences and create a sense of belonging.

“The more people we have in our lives supporting us, the better,” she said. “Restorative justice is all about sitting down and hearing one another’s perspectives and trying to find a way to come together and understand one another.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/

This report about restorative justice in the classroom was produced by The Hechinger Report [hechingerreport.org], a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

2024 won’t be a Trump-Biden replay. You can thank Gen Z for that.

By Celinda Lake and Mac Heller Washington Post July 20 2023

Celinda Lake, a Democratic Party strategist, was one of two lead pollsters for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. Mac Heller is a documentary film producer, most recently of “Rigged: The Voter Suppression Playbook.”

It’s easy to envision the 2024 presidential election becoming the third straight contest in which a veteran Democrat goes up against Donald Trump. Once again, the Democrat wins the popular vote but swing states are tighter. Could go either way — and has, right?

But things are very different this time, and here’s why: The candidates might not be changing — but the electorate has.

Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.

Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.

Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.

And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.

Similarly, though not as drastic, we have seen a 7 percent increase in voter registration among under-30 voters since Gen Z joined the electorate. In midterm elections, under-30s have seen a 20 percent increase in their share of the electorate, on average, since Trump and Gen Z entered the game.

Yet Trump is not the deciding factor for these voters. When pollsters ask why, Gen Z voters say their motivation is not a party or candidate. It is, instead, strong passion on one or more issues — a much more policy-driven approach than the more partisan voting behavior of their elders.

That policy-first approach, combined with the issues they care most about, have led young people in recent years to vote more frequently for Democrats and progressive policies than prior generations did when of similar age — as recent elections in Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin have shown.

In last August’s Kansas abortion referendum, for example, women under 30 turned out at a rate of 41 percent and helped win the contest. A similar Michigan abortion referendum brought youth midterm turnout to 49 percent — and 69 percent of voters younger than 30 voted to put abortion rights protections in the state constitution compared with just 52 percent of voters 30 and older. Michigan voters elected Democratic majorities in both state houses for the first time in years, and reelected their Democratic governor, attorney general and secretary of state.

While American voters historically have tended somewhat to become more conservative as they age, no one should expect these voting patterns to change drastically. About 48 percent of Gen Z voters identify as a person of color, while the boomers they’re replacing in the electorate are 72 percent White. Gen Z voters are on track to be the most educated group in our history, and the majority of college graduates are now female. Because voting participation correlates positively with education, expect women to speak with a bigger voice in our coming elections. Gen Z voters are much more likely to cite gender fluidity as a value, and they list racism among their greatest concerns. Further, they are the least religious generation in our history. No wonder there’s discussion in some parts of the GOP about raising the voting age to 25, and among some Democrats about lowering it to 16!

There are lessons — and warnings — here for both parties. For Republicans, the message is obvious: Listen to the voices of this soon-to-be-dominant group of voters as you formulate your policies on climate, abortion, guns, health care, inclusion and everything else. Unlike some older voters, they are listening to what you say — and to how you say it. Change your language and style from the unmitigated male id of “Never Back Down” and “Where Woke Goes to Die” to words of community, stewardship, sharing and collaboration. That’s the new patriotism, and young voters believe that approach will solve problems more effectively than what they’ve seen over the past two decades.

There are stark messages for Democrats, too. Meet young voters where they are: on social media, not cable news. Make your messages short, funny and somehow sarcastic yet authentic and earnest at the same time. Your focus should be issues first, issues second, candidates third and party identity never.

A final word of warning: Both parties should worry about young voters embracing third-party candidates. Past elections show that Gen Z voters shop for candidates longer and respond favorably to new faces and issue-oriented candidates. They like combining their activism with their voting and don’t feel bound by party loyalty. And they can’t remember Ross Perot, Ralph Nader — or even Jill Stein.

We suspect both campaigns know most or all of what we have written here. Habit might prevent them from acting on it, but they have these numbers. In one of life’s great ironies, the group that doesn’t know it is young voters. They think of themselves as ignored, powerless and marginalized in favor of big money and shouting boomers. But over the next year, they’ll figure it out. Gen Z will tire of waiting for Washington to unite to solve problems, will grab the national microphone and will decide the 2024 presidential race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/19/gen-z-voters-2024/

So your historical quote turned out to be fake

Analysis by Gillian Brockell Washington Post July 20th 2023 

Former police chief turned yoga instructor turned Jan. 6 defendant Alan Hostetter had a quote to share with the court during closing arguments in his federal trial, for which he defended himself.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” Hostetter said, attributing it to Thomas Jefferson. This, he said, explained his bursting into the Capitol with weapons on that fateful day in 2021.

One problem: There’s no evidence Jefferson said that, according to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which maintains the third president’s Monticello estate.

Misquoting Einstein, Jefferson and Gandhi: Study finds members of Congress can’t resist

Hostetter’s views on the 2020 election might be on the far right, but when it comes to historical misquotes, he’s got plenty of bipartisan company. Presidents, Congress members, candidates — many are guilty of putting spurious words into the mouths of figures they admire.

Take, for example, rapper and former presidential candidate Kanye West — now known as Ye. In 2018, he told TMZ that “400 years of slavery” was a “choice,” later citing Harriet Tubman as saying, “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” There’s no evidence Tubman said this, according to Tubman scholar Kate Clifford Larson. It appears to have emerged in the late 20th century “when white and black conservatives frequently used it to scold young black men,” she wrote in Vox.

It isn’t just the “College Dropout” rapper who has invoked the fake Tubman quote; Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), an Ivy Leaguer, tweeted it in 2016.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former president Donald Trump and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton have at least one thing in common: All have misattributed his quote — “First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi is not known to have said this, despite myriad social media memesclaiming such. It appears to have originated with Nicholas Klein, a union organizer speaking in 1918: “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you,” he said. “And that is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.”

Not every popular American Founder quote is fake, though many have more complicated sourcing than is often acknowledged.

Benjamin Franklin’s “A republic, if you can keep it” was invoked countless times in 2019 as members of the House debated impeachment charges against Trump. As the legend goes, while leaving Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, someone asked Franklin, “What have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” to which Franklin said, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The quote doesn’t appear in the public record until 1906, but historians have found contemporaneous notes and letters indicating Franklin may have actually said it, though in a different setting — in the home of society lady Elizabeth Powel.

Did Ben Franklin really say ‘A republic if you can keep it?’

And, of course, there’s Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death,” supposedly shouted at the Second Virginia Convention in 1775. Little mentioned is that Henry was probably quoting from the play “Cato, a Tragedy,” which was popular among Americans in the 1700s. In Act II, Cato says, “It is not now a time to talk of aught/But chains or conquest, liberty or death.”

According to the Journal of the American RevolutionNathan Hale’s famous “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country” was probably a paraphrase of Cato’s line, “How beautiful is death when earned by virtue?/Who would not be that youth? What pity is it/That we can die but once to serve our country!”

Jefferson is a frequent victim of spurious attribution. Other quotes for which there’s no evidence he actually said?

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

“That government is best which governs least.”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Jefferson’s powerful last public letter reminds us what Independence Day is all about

In any case, the false Jefferson quote cited by Hostetter does not appear to have worked as intended. He was convicted Thursday of conspiring to obstruct and obstructing an official proceeding, and trespassing and engaging in disorderly conduct with a dangerous weapon.

Just remember, folks: The definition of insanity is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It’s falsely attributing that definition to Albert Einstein without double-checking to see if it’s true.21CommentsGift this articleGift Article

By Gillian BrockellGillian Brockell is a staff writer for The Washington Post’s history blog, Retropolis. She has been at The Post since 2013 and previously worked as a video editor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/07/14/quotes-thomas-jefferson-january-6/

The future isn’t what it used to be

By Ramesh Ponnuru Contributing columnistWashington Post July 25th 2023

American politics is awash in nostalgia. It’s bipartisan, and it starts at the top. All of our recent presidents have trafficked in it. Donald Trump’s inaugural address in 2017 portrayed a nation that had fallen from its peak because “a small group in our nation’s capital” had plundered the country for years while “struggling families” were left with “little to celebrate.” President Biden says our economy has been lagging behind other countries, at least until he took office, and that misguided policies have been impoverishing the middle class for 40 years.

Americans agree that the present doesn’t measure up to the way things used to be. In April, the Pew Research Center reported that 58 percent of respondents to its survey said life for people like them is worse than it was 50 years ago.

There’s some debate over what accounts for this sentiment. One school of thought holds that economic trends amply justify the public’s sense of decline. According to this view, wages have stagnated for decades, making it harder for young people to marry and to start families. But the best evidence contradicts this story. The Congressional Budget Office reports that households in the middle of the pack had income growth of 26 percent from 1990 to 2019 — and of 55 percent if you count taxes and government benefits.

Those impressed by such statistics wonder why we are so ungrateful. Maybe it’s the negative bias of the news media, they speculate, or the natural wistfulness of an aging society. Or maybe our unhappiness is not mostly a matter of economics. Social conservatives point to declining rates of church attendance and marriage as causes of lamentation, although they cannot pine for the higher divorce and abortion rates we had 50 years ago.P

I have a tentative theory about the hold the “good old days” seem to have on us. Yes, we have more material possessions, more wealth, more access to medicine and more educational opportunities for our children than we did 50 years ago. But living standards were rising more rapidly back then. And that steady upward movement is a large part of what we miss — even those of us with no personal memory of it.

This idea of progress was not merely material. The civil rights revolution was making our society more just. Most Americans trusted the government to solve problems and work in the public interest. During the 1960s and 1970s, that confidence cratered. (It partly recovered in the 1980s and early 1990s and then resumed its downward trajectory.) Even if that confidence was misplaced, as it certainly was in the 1960s, it’s understandable that we would regret losing it.

Social changes have continued, often using the civil rights struggle as a model. But even as most Americans see same-sex marriage as a social advance, the conviction that the arc of history bends toward justice, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. liked to say, has faltered.

The sheer size — and current age — of the baby boom generation is surely responsible for some of today’s nostalgia. But not all of it. When its members were kids, the country really did look forward to what lay ahead more than we do now. The problem isn’t that we’re idealizing the past. It’s that the future’s not what it used to be.

If I’m right, then convincing Americans that we were poorer than we remember in the old days will not suffice to change our mood. We will have to find a way to recapture yesterday’s way of looking at tomorrow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/24/nostalgia-is-about-losing-confidence-in-future/

MyScore can change the story

THEORY OF CHANGE
MyScore is built on a narrative theory of change.

The outcome we aim for in our work is a new story, a new frame of meaning, rather than just a new set of skills. Or put in another way, if we insist on skills, the new set of skills we impart to our students and that comes from the mentoring is interpretive skills, a new applied hermeneutic that better honors their human experience.


We want to invite our students to see and hear their lives differently. Instead of seeing their struggle as signaling failure or always being a victim, oppressed by trauma, disadvantage and despair, they come to see themselves inhabiting the story of a courageous and successful life learner. (SLL) That is not to underestimate their circumstances or the serious disadvantages they face, but to help create a belief that adversity does not have to define them. That is the point of the intervention that Project CHANGE is instigating through its members. Why is that important? Because life, as William James writes, can change if we can change our attitude to it. He wrote, “The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes.”

STORY AS OUTCOME- NOT IMPACT
As a result of the mentoring, advocacy, and continuing emotional support that a member gives a struggling student over a year, that student will grow into to a truer, deeper, and surer self-awareness (“I believe in me”.) That includes their attitude to their emerging identity, their own ability to learn, to get along with others, and to cope with the challenges that life inevitably throws at them, and all of us.   Challenges might impact this population more significantly because our clients, through no fault of their own, often start from behind. As a result of our service, the students will have a better chance of shaping a larger future for themselves. It is less a goal to be achieved than a life orientation to be adopted, or a direction that we encourage the student to move toward, to replace a deficit mindset with a growth mindset. In the final analysis, the best evaluator of that change is the students themselves. They must be able to claim it to live it. What matters is not what others know about themselves from outside, but what they know and live on the inside. That is how they will show up and shine through.

This element is critical to human flourishing — yet missing from the news

Hope: The 3 Things needed to Grow and Thrive | SCA

By Amanda Ripley Contributing columnist Washington Post March 30 2023

At a cocktail party in a crowded Washington living room some years ago, I met a magazine editor who was working on a high-profile new book. It would transport the reader into the future, he told me, describing in vivid, terrifying prose all the catastrophes that might happen because of climate change: unbreathable air, dying oceans, hunger, drowning.

Would it offer people any hope? I asked.

“It’s not my job to give people hope,” he said, sounding vaguely disgusted. I got the sense that hope was for the weak. And that by asking my question, I was weak, too.

A year later, his book ended up being a bestseller. So, I figured, maybe he was right. Maybe hope is not our job. But then, I couldn’t help but wonder, whose job was it?

Last summer, I wrote a piece in this newspaper admitting that I have been selectively avoiding contact with the news, even though I’m a journalist myself. Traditional news coverage, I had slowly come to realize, was missing half the story, distorting my view of reality. It frequently overlooked and underplayed storylines and dimensions that humans need to thrive in the modern world — with the three most notable elements being hope, agency and dignity.

Amanda Ripley: I stopped reading the news. Is the problem me — or the product?

That column sparked an unexpected response. I heard from thousands of readers caught in the same struggle — wanting to be informed about the world but not bludgeoned into fatalism. Many of you reported that you had taken matters into your own hands. One man, after listening to devastating stories on the radio, does his own Google searches to find examples of people trying to solve the very same problems. Then he shares the links he has found with his friends and family on Facebook, basically doing a job reporters don’t want to do.

Others urged me to check out alternative sources they had found, including the Progress Network newsletter, which curates stories of human cooperation and ingenuity, and the 1440 daily briefing, which attempts to strip bias from the news. Still others said they have sought refuge in sports, hyperlocal news, Wordle and, for one reader, medieval history.

This year, with your help, I’d like to revisit each of the missing elements, starting with the most controversial of the three.

The word hope sounds gauzy and fey, like rainbows and sunsets. It feels like a gateway drug to delusion and denial. “I don’t want your hope,” climate activist Greta Thunberg said at the World Economic Forum in 2019. “I want you to panic.”

But rainbows and sunsets are explicable phenomena, the scattering of sunlight in the distance, and it turns out that hope is, too. For more than 30 years, scientists have been researching hope and deconstructing its building blocks. And it’s surprisingly tangible. “It’s important to say what hope is not,” Rebecca Solnit wrote in her book “Hope in the Dark.” “It is not the belief that everything was, is, or will be fine.”

So what is it? Hope is more like a muscle than an emotion. It’s a cognitive skill, one that helps people reject the status quo and visualize a better way. If it were an equation, it would look something like: hope = goals + road map + willpower. “Hope is the belief that your future can be brighter and better than your past and that you actually have a role to play in making it better,” according to Casey Gwinn and Chan Hellman in their book, “Hope Rising.”

Decades of research have now proved that hope, defined this way, can be reliably measured and taught. Using 12 questions, called the Hope Scale — a version of which you can take yourself here — more than 2,000 studies have demonstrated that people with stronger hope skills perform better in school, sports and work. They manage illness, pain and injury better and score higher on assessments of happiness, purpose and self-esteem. Among victims of domestic violence, child abuse and other forms of trauma, hope appears to be one of the most effective antidotes yet studied.

Still, there is resistance to hope, even among those who know it best. For a long time, Hellman, a psychologist by training, did not think giving people hope was his job, either. At conferences, he would wave people off when they asked him how to build their capacity for hope. “I don’t do hope. I study it,” he’d tell them.

I recognize myself in this story. As a journalist, trying to look smart in story meetings, it always felt safer to remain skeptical. It was easier to pitch stories about buffoonery than about progress. It’s a strange trick of the mind, especially because it’s the news media’s relentless negativity that has led so many people to give up on institutions — or on journalism. Cynicism feels protective, even when it’s not.

Martin Baron: We want objective judges and doctors. Why not journalists too?

About a decade ago, Hellman decided to stop sitting on the sidelines — partly because of his own life story. All through high school, he had been homeless, always on the precipice of catastrophe. And specific people had helped him imagine another life and feel as if he was capable of getting there (remember: goals + road map + willpower). So he decided he had an obligation not just to study hope but to teach it.

So far, he and his colleagues at the Hope Research Center at the University of Oklahoma at Tulsa have trained more than 22,000 government employees in Oklahoma, California and Washington to cultivate hope on purpose — not just among individuals but across entire systems, in welfare programs, school districts and prisons, among other places. They have found that it reduces burnout and improves outcomes for workers and those they serve. “It literally is strategic planning,” Hellman says. “Hope is the process. Well-being is the outcome.”

As it is, when journalists try to do hopeful stories, they often end up insulting our intelligence — with stories about small acts of kindness, often involving animals. There is no goal or road map.

But if this other, more muscular kind of hope is critical to human flourishing, then why can’t journalists make it part of their job? It would mean asking totally different questions, just as doggedly as ever: What are realistic goals, in the face of a wicked problem? What are some of the ways other communities have tried to get there? And how did they manage to press on, even when things didn’t go as planned?

What would it look like if careers were made (and prizes won) based on this kind of inquiry and storytelling? We might see fewer column inches just describing (over and over again) the alarming rise in depression among teens — and more stories such as this one by Anya Kamenetz, investigating a surprising remedy that has been shown to reduce psychological distress. When it comes to crime coverage, we might become as obsessed with declines as we are with spikes. Why are homicides down 31 percent in East St. Louis over the past four years, when they remain high in so many other places?

When it comes to climate change, there is hope, defined this way, at least, and there always was. Humans still have enormous control over what happens to our planet. In the past five years, we have cut expected warming almost in half. The world is on track to add as much renewable energy generation in the next five years as it did in the past 20, according to the International Energy Agency. There’s much more to be done, of course, but getting there requires rigorously reported stories that help us visualize a road map. Why not report out hope, the same way we report out dread?

I know it is difficult for some in my field to make this shift. The more hopeless news you consume, the harder it is to see hope in the wild — and no one consumes more news than journalists. But the research also shows that it is possible. “Hope is malleable,” says Matthew Gallagher, a clinical psychologist who studies hope at the University of Houston. “It’s not a static thing, like how tall you are. It can change.”

For journalists, hope is a defiant way of being in the world: ever on the lookout for what is but always alert to what might be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/30/amanda-ripley-hope-news/