Larry Ferlazzo, teacher blogger, concludes that students will be okay this year—they had already finished most of the academic year when schools closed. But another year of distance learning would be toxic.
The harm will be most significant for the most vulnerable students.
Ferlazzo wisely understands that remote learning is a poor substitute for real face-to-face interactions in a classroom with teachers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is the most schizophrenic site. On one hand: students are miserable, online “learning” is horrible – even fraudulent, students will be harmed if schools continue fully or partially online next year.
On the other hand: we can’t possibly open schools until it’s safe! There’s no way to maintain social distancing! Kids won’t wear masks! Teachers (and even students) will be at risk!
Which is it? As I’ve said before, there are four possibilities: fully online, hybrid online/in person, fully in person, no school. What, specifically are you recommending?
This site discusses options.
There are few ideas written in stone.
One is that Trump is a menace to the world.
Another is that every child should have a good education.
There is no blog position on when or how to reopen schools in the midst of a global pandemic.
I think there is a position we agree on: Whatever is done to mitigate the risk of disease spread this fall, it cannot be part of the Goliath scheme to impose austerity measures that last for years instead of weeks. Disaster capitalism is happening. It needs to be temporary. Online product use needs to be over and done as soon as possible. People who have to deal with online products need to be listened to so that no one gets caught up in the techie fantasy of a futuristic future of futurey techno-awesomeness. Distance products are not the future. They’re the present. We don’t even know they’ll be relevant two months from now. I look forward to them being the past.
Austerity is going to last for years, not weeks. There’s no way around that. That should be been clear from the first unemployment report during the lockdowns.
This is a global pandemic. It is causing enormous damage to lives and families. It causes depression, suicide, death, bankruptcy. Tens of thousands of small businesses will disappear, while the big-box stores–most of which stayed open because they are “essential”–will thrive. A tragedy for millions.
There’s a difference between online learning for absolutely essential needs–such as a public health emergency–and online “learning” to save money. The district in which I teach is moving to Summit “Learning” in many of its schools. It will save money and is all tech-y, which the superintendent is really big on. They call it 21st Century “learning,” and tell us that it’s “the wave of the future.” The district wants us doing “blended learning” every day, even if we are back in school full time this fall.
Dienne, you keep ignoring this distinction. We need to keep children and staff safe and healthy, OBVIOUSLY. That may require distance learning for a time. But what the district in which I teach is doing is not for public health reasons. It’s to save money and get rid of teachers. There is a HUGE difference.
schizophrenic is the perfect word for the so many confusing calls to ‘get back to normal’
In any other major OECD country we wouldn’t be conflating re-opening conditions during covid (less than ideal) with concerns that online ed will replace IRL teaching (absurd).
Dienne,
Don’t know how your polemic relates to this nuanced set of articles [Ferlazzo’s commentary, Goldstein’s 6/5 NYT article, & its backup links w/views from around the country). There is no one recommendation to be made. Decisions and methods revolve around regional covid stats, & sufficient onsite health protection to warrant parent/ teacher/ community confidence. We will no doubt see all four options exercised to varying degrees in response.
There’s no argument that remote ed is inferior, nor that it fails worst for highest-risk students. Ferlazzo’s commentary mainly highlights one of Goldstein’s points: in a full or partially-online environment going forward, proportionally more resources need to be spent on most-vulnerable students. Suggestions include boosting tech connections, providing live interactive classes, giving them preference on restricted # of IRL classes.
I also did not see the shut down this year as incredibly traumatic for most of my students for the same reasons that Larry writes about.. It was, however, very bad for a vulnerable population and I agree with the idea of equality versus equity, particularly on my mind because I went to DC yesterday. I had several students completely dropped off the radar when we went to remote learning. And I know those families have some very large struggles. Effort were made many times to reach them with no results.
From what I’ve heard about possible plans for next year from my admin, it will once again treat everyone the same. It’s time to add a little some differences to the plan As Larry suggests.
I have a question. If schools do reopen to full or partial extent in the fall, how will administrators and teachers “force” students and staff to adhere to safety procedures? Before school ended in March, I saw students and staff NOT following safety practices that the CDC suggested. I had kids cough out into the air after I told them to cover their mouths. I had kids sneeze out into the air and make a screaming “ACHOO” sound because they were just mocking “the rules.” One day, in the hall, I moved away from another staff member to have at least 6 feet between us. She said to me, “But I don’t have any symptoms!” This is a real question considering schools are going to have many people congregated in an enclosed area and that we know the virus can live for 2-3 hours in the air.
We can’t. I’m in an area where it’s a badge of “courage” to not wear masks–“free-dumb!” I expect I will be exposed dozens (if not hundreds) of times in my classes of 35-40 in a 70 foot square metal trailer. My entire family, save me, is asthmatic. We are already making plans for me to self quarantine once school begins–because I cannot in good conscience live in close proximity to my immediate family and expose them, so I will have to go into seclusion in my own house. I get to live a monastic lifestyle for the “calling” of teaching both online and live classes (I expect 12-16 hour days) for less money.
But hey, my state is “opening the economy.” And that’s all that matters (sarcasm).
Online learning cannot duplicate the type of learning that trained professional teachers can provide. A continuation of at home interaction with cyber products would be disastrous for our most vulnerable students. It would serve to exacerbate existing inequalities among students. Students that require specialized instruction are short changed in online cyber offerings. Many poor students do not have access to technology in their homes, and cyber instruction does not provide the type of instruction that trained professionals offer. For some students online offerings are like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.
By the way I wonder how well all the sports teams would do if they only had a virtual “coach” to guide them. My guess is that they would play dismally. Depersonalized “learning” is more training than real learning. It lacks depth, substance, and human interaction, and there is no peer effect as in a regular classroom.
What, they will learn to read quicker?
Mr. Ferlazzo’s blog, as always, blends common sense and research. The compelling point in this one is when the pandemic closed schools (end of the year (and, ha! cancelled state testing)) and how much kids learn in the first half of the year compared to the second.
Add to that the point that teachers had to learn, adapt, and implement literally overnight. Talk about Reflective Practice and Action Research! Already, teachers know and are sharing what worked, what didn’t work, and what could actually complement “regular school” in the future. (To those whose definition of remote learning is all one-way, digital worksheets, and meaningless – learn more or stop reading).
Millions of students will not start school in a school building next year. That’s a given.
Or at minimum, not full days, five days a week. So doing nothing is not an option and repeating what didn’t work these past 10 weeks should not be an option.
TEACHER, STUDENT, PARENT VOICE: Policy makers, administrators, and teacher leaders need to listen and learn from students, teachers, and parents. And, calendars and schedules must accommodate them.
EQUITY AND ACCESS: Learning at home must be equitable and accessible to quality instruction and resources as in a school building. Organization, structures, and routines for learning at home and school are non-negotiable this time. Will that be 100%. Of course not. But the necessary trial and error of spring 2020 must transfer to best practices and quality for fall 2020.
“MY SCHOOL” The student-parent-school relationship is critical to well-being, equity, and motivation to learn. From day 1 a student at home needs that excitement of his/her new teacher(s), singing and smiling with the principal’s opening welcome, and feeling connected and sense of belonging.
DON’T TEST: Do not leap into standardized diagnostics and trying to measure learning loss. And, do not fall in the trap of increased (or even the same) formative standardized-like testing to prove and rank schools’ progress. We need to know where kids are – Diagnose and formative assess with authentic assessments.
DON’T CONFUSE “BLENDED LEARNING MODELS” (good) with “ONLINE LEARNING” (bad)
FUNDING EQUITY: Parents in wealthy / middle wealth communities probably have the capacity for kids to stay home and accommodate learning. Urban communities less likely. To accommodate technology access, potential increases in transportation (can’t pack kids on buses), potential increases in staffing (10-1 student-teacher ratios means more adults), and more increase costs for districts that can afford it the least.
DON’T LET POLICY MAKERS BE FOOLED BY CORPORATIONS AND CHARTER LOBBYISTS as the vaccination and cure of this stay-at-home virus.
Don’t think that not starting full time in person school next year is a “given.” In the district in which I teach, there is NO planning for anything other than back to “normal” in the fall. The whole idea is that the “economy must restart,” and schools are part of that. I expect that we will be forced back into a regular school pattern in some places, regardless of what the numbers of cases are doing.
Blended learning models are the camel’s nose under the tent for Competency Based Instruction: constant standardized multiple choice testing and artificial intelligence grading “teaching” software intended to replace teachers and smaller class sizes. All our privacy and autonomy nightmares come true. Blended learning models are more dangerous than all-virtual school. They are the opposite of good. Blended learning models must be resisted above all other stopgap measures right now.
And with blended product use, lives are still put at risk during the pandemic. It’s all risk and no reward.
I think savvy parents that live in neighborhoods where they pay more than $10,000 per year in property taxes would see it as a scam.
The online learning platforms are all mindless test prep. When school is required to be online even part of the time, teachers lose control of what we teach and must use the competency based apps instead of our abilities. The apps get the licensing, and all the books in the library, for example, will be inaccessible. The curriculum will be effectively privatized and monopolized, starting in the most populous cities.
The most vulnerable will be the first and foremost undesirably affected. The blended models will be widely despised, but if history is any lesson, teachers will be blamed for “poor implementation” and the billionaires will double down on carrots and sticks to force us to “get it right”. And there will be marketing — mass, sustained, ubiquitous marketing. This needs to be nipped in the bud, or civil rights and public education are going to take a huge leap backward.
JH, I have seen from your previous posts that your experience with online learning these two months has been more positive than many here have experienced. Also that you defend “blended learning” in your recent experience of it, which I gather excludes “personalized learning” platforms & drill-kill/worksheets. You seem to be describing rather a combo of live videoconferencing interspersed w/interesting, related, teacher-generated at-home projects. You’ve also described if I remember correctly smaller-than-full-class videoconference sections, 1-on-1 tutoring, & (I think) bringing in teaching support from other sources [?]. AND you’ve mentioned teachers collaborating/ sharing what works/ doesn’t.
Just wondering: where is this flexible, well-funded, teachers-treated-as-independent-professionals district located, if you care to share. Are all students online/ participating? Are you able to focus just on teaching, i.e., no need to chase down whether students are OK/ eating right etc? Is this some ideal [scalable] organization, or just the happy consequence of a well-heeled well-connected district?
And just a other niggle: if teachers are actually conducting multiple videoconferencing sessions per class [re: small groups, 1-on-1 tutoring], aren’t they working, like, 12-16hr days?
“DON’T CONFUSE “BLENDED LEARNING MODELS” (good) with “ONLINE LEARNING” (bad)” Where’s the research demonstrating that blended learning is “good?” Your expose sounds more like a sale pitch than a blog comment.
You all are all over the place.
First – many districts may be able to accommodate all children depending on hot spots, the county, etc. Risk factors vary regionally. But we’re talking two months. Do you expect a cure-all “it’s safe for all to open” announcement. (Ok – the president will but that is meaningless).
Based on the health standards and communications at this time, large inner-ring suburban districts with “full” schools, full buses, and anxious parents are as at risk. Urban districts small and large will full schools, many of which are in hot-spots will not be able to hold full buildings.
In all cases, significant high numbers of parents will not be sending their children – yet.
Second – so you don’t like blended learning and are waiting on research. How do you define it? There are minimum seven models of which I am aware. Did you observe classes in the last 10 weeks? Did you some of the remarkable strategies and creative ways teacher connected with kids online because there was no alternative? Did you see some of the schlock that’s out there pretending to be quality remote learning?
I saw both. And, want to talk about equity? Access to quality? Want to see evidence of a division on racial lines? Do you have the stats on “technology at home” in urban vs. suburban vs. rural districts.
As Mr. Ferlazzo points out, the end of the year was/is different than September. We better get it right for 100% of the kids come August/September. Access to technology? Health and wellness supports. Lessons that go beyond rote work.
What is your alternative for kids who are at home due to district capacity or parent choice? What do you propose that is even close to equitable for kids learning at home? Links to online worksheets? Drill and practice websites. A couple of days of a teacher’s lesson videoed and expecting kids to follow it and work independently.
Who is going to tell this to Einstein Cuomo? He thinks public education should go completely virtual.
The shutdown has been terribly traumatic for my kids. I’ve written about it before and won’t go into details again. They probably won’t fall too far behind academically because we’ve hired tutors who actually do live instruction (unlike their teachers at school).
How do you manage the live tutoring at home, FLERP? [i.e., masks? tested for covid?] Or do you mean live videoconferencing? If the latter, am also interested in how you found them – are these folks you already knew of, or is this some new searchable service?
I meant videoconference. Yes, these are people we’ve known for years.