THE PANDEMIC TEACHING EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED
Depriving students of 60 per cent of their education not solid plan, says Gillian Burnett.
My children’s Grades 6 and 9 report cards arrived home last week, landing with a virtual thud.
They confirmed what I already knew: that the “asynchronous” (at-different-times) learning experiment of the last three months has failed, for my family and for every family I know. The marks don’t reflect its failure because teachers were directed to maintain the status quo. But the comments reveal the utter lack of consistency in my kids’ efforts, my own availability to help them and their teachers’ individual approaches.
That’s no one’s fault. None of us was prepared for COVID-19. The question is what to do next?
Parents, kids, teachers and school administrators now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s unreasonable to ask schoolaged students to manage their own education. It’s also untenable to expect ill-equipped parents to substitute-teach while working, when we have a public education system with the workforce and tools to do so, and sufficient lead time.
And yet. We are barrelling toward a school year in which the likeliest scenario is that physical distancing will be required, and our high-schoolers will receive two days per week of structured education.
This is what no one in a leadership position will say, but what many within the secondary system will, and what is clear from the Education Ministry’s own literature describing a Stage 2 reopening for high schools: Not one of the planned scenarios, come September, involves teachers educating classes online.
Instead, decision-makers are planning a “hybrid” approach in which kids will receive two days of in-class instruction per week. The rest would be unscheduled, unstructured and unsupervised, meaning students will receive 40 per cent of an education, with parents again required to fill the gap. The proposed solution would see students attend either on Monday/Tuesday or Thursday/ Friday, and Wednesdays would be an online-only day, reserving classrooms for cleaning.
It’s one thing for a generation of kids to make up for three months of lost learning. It’s another to plan to deprive tens of thousands of students of 60 per cent of their education, when the technology to give them 100 per cent is available. What if the pandemic continues for years? The decisions made now will set our course for an unknown period of time. Is this really the best we can do?
Clearly not. Many Canadian private schools successfully replicated their in-class schedules via Zoom or similar platforms, requiring a monumental initial effort but with good results. Why do our public-school kids deserve any less?
The solution is at hand — with some hurdles — but it is doable.
First, move high schools to a semestered schedule, allowing students and teachers to focus on four subjects at a time rather than eight.
Second, ensure students have equal access to equipment and Wi-Fi. If they don’t, invite tech giants with B.C. headquarters to supply it or allow kids who aren’t equipped to attend school full time.
Third, provide teachers with the hands-on support and training needed to teach their usual lessons at their usual pace, streaming their classes live for whichever students are at home.
Setting up recurring online meetings and requiring attendance is perfectly possible. Only part of each period would need to be actively taught; just as in a regular classroom, breaks for reading or group work (which the technology allows) could be built in. And, instead of emptying schools for an entire day for cleaning, have it done after 3 p.m. and give teachers and kids back that fifth day.
This approach would provide structure, a normal pace of instruction, direct support and supervision, and a continuous connection to school. Students would be getting as full an education as possible.
I’ve talked to friends who work in education to understand the potential pitfalls here, and some have mentioned the teachers’ collective agreement, which accords individual teachers autonomy. But teachers are already required to follow a curriculum and show up for class. This solution simply asks that they accommodate online participation in their classes, not alter their content or presentation or methodology.
In fact, asking teachers to broadcast their classes is far less disruptive than asynchronous learning. And, should the expected second wave of COVID-19 happen, a synchronous approach can easily be adapted to learning from home.
What if parents interfere with what’s being taught?— a legitimate concern, though most will be too busy working to listen in. Let’s write a clear policy that spells out the rules of engagement and creates a process to resolve concerns.
Some educators say the asynchronous approach offers flexibility to students whose family circumstances make daily attendance challenging. Instead of designing a system for all students around the needs of a few, why not equalize their access? Record each lesson and make it available to students who need that option.
Now is the time for the kind of creativity and flexibility that has been seen in all quarters of the province in recent months. With a relatively small investment, we can ensure we have a safe, viable model of public education, for the sake of our kids and our province’s economic future. What it requires is leadership that understands the technology and a willing group of practitioners who receive the direction and training they need before the new school year begins.
My kids have been extraordinarily fortunate with the teachers they’ve encountered in their combined 17 years of schooling. These hardworking, dedicated professionals, many of them parents, have broadened their horizons and helped shape their interests.
In recent months, teachers have been unmoored, with no clear direction and little support to master an unfamiliar platform. I don’t doubt that they’re willing, but we can’t solve this problem with a patchwork of individual solutions.
That brings us to leadership, which has been second to none in the realm of public health in B.C. A June 25 release from the Ministry of Education, while short on details about the fall, acknowledges: “We know there is no substitute for in-class instruction.” But there is a close facsimile: Streamed in-class instruction.
We now need the Ministry of Education, school boards and union leaders to work as one toward the only acceptable goal: that our children will receive the education, come September, that they deserve.
Asking teachers to broadcast their classes (online) is far less disruptive than asynchronous learning.