The Case for Shutting Schools Down instead of Moving Online

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it better than doing nothing?

Better for whom?

Many schools are trying to figure out if they should transition to online or distance learning during a shut down. I agree with the Washington State department of education, which argued that most schools won't be able to switch to online; they should just close and pick up in the summer or September.

A growing body of evidence suggests that online learning works least well for our most vulnerable learners. If you are going online, the number one question is not: “What tech to use to teach online?” It should be: “How will you support your most struggling students?”

You may have heard of the “no significant difference” phenomenon. That's an argument developed in the 1980s that the medium of instruction (whether courses are taught face to face, by radio or TV or via computer) doesn't matter; only the quality of the instruction does.

But that research was mostly from small-scale, “hothouse” experiments. And the best experimental research then was often in medical schools.

Plus, the “no significant differences” argument pre-dates widespread online learning.

To be clear, this “no significant difference,” or NSD, argument was that a student would learn as much from a computer or a filmstrip as from class, as long as the instruction is the same. NSD was a kind of shorthand for “good enough, and probably cheaper.”

But over the last 10 years we’ve deployed online learning at a massive scale in K-12 schools, colleges, through large-scale MOOCs, etc. And the emerging picture is much different than those NSD findings.

Many students do worse online than in face-to-face classes, and the most vulnerable students are the most negatively affected.

For instance, a Washington State community college study found that most students on average do worse in online courses compared to face-to-face ones, but younger students, Black and Latino students, and students with low prior GPA do even worse.

And at Ohio’s virtual charter schools, students in all subjects do worse on average than those at traditional and charter schools that teach face-to-face. And that is especially true for students with low prior achievement.

In MOOCs, we found that students whose parents didn’t earn a BA were more likely to drop out than students whose parents have a BA. And that effect was most pronounced for the youngest students.

As Susan Dynarski argued in the New York Times, there is good evidence that online course harm the students who need the most help.

And that recent research comes from reasonably well-planned online learning courses for students who choose to sign up for them. I have every expectation that if schools at attempt rapid, unplanned transitions, things will be much worse for vulnerable students.

Some elite schools are going online quickly and getting media attention, but most schools should not use them as a reference. The Harvard and Princeton admissions departments are designed to only admit kids who can teach themselves anything. Your college probably has to teach everybody.

These are hard choices, and I won’t second guess the folks in the trenches who have to make these hard decisions. But if your school does go online, the first question should not be “what tech should I use?” The first question needs to be "How do we support our most vulnerable students?”

How will you support students who depend upon schools for food and safe shelter? How will you support students with special needs? How will you support students without reliable access to devices and the internet?

If you do go online, figure out how you will make ongoing, human connections with your most vulnerable students. The best online teachers I’ve met tell me that most of their time is spent tracking down students who need help, especially those who don’t ask for it.

There is another thread to be made about the fact that for many students, school is the place young people go to get healthy meals, find safe spaces to spend the day, to get laundry done, et cetera. Your local and regional safety net depends tremendously on public schools.

Most schools should pick up days in June or Sept rather than try to go online. If you are a teacher and you have to go online, think about how you will allocate time to make daily or regular human connections with your most vulnerable students.

There are lots of lists popping up of “best practices in online instruction.” I haven’t yet found one that starts with “Consider how you will identify struggling learners and personally connect with them.”

That should be the first thing on the list.

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

As long as it's not your kid.

[Anonymous]

I didn't get it before. But now I guess I understand. Public education is a right to which all are entitled. If you provide something knowing that it will not be effective for a significant percentage of the population, then you are denying a protected, absolute right. Selfishly, I think that you should do what helps the majority of students, but I see why policy makers would hesitate.

FYI - my perspective is from a mother who has a child in public school and another (younger) in private. I believe in public education and understand the challenges of closing the achievement gap. As a mother of a child with educational challenges, I also understand how IEPs and 504s stress the system. Unfortunately, the more schools try to be everything to everyone, I find that they become less helpful to everyone. The focus is on the very top and very bottom, and everything in the middle is an afterthought. Again, my kids aren't going to Harvard. They are bright, not geniuses, and definitely are not perfect students. Still, having seen my challenging student go from struggling, checked out, despresed, and downright obstinate about school when he was in public to a Dean's List student in the smaller classes with more personal instruction at a small (not top) private, I can attest to the benefit of a smaller more focused learning environment.

Being "fair" to everyone just isn't possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't get it before. But now I guess I understand. Public education is a right to which all are entitled. If you provide something knowing that it will not be effective for a significant percentage of the population, then you are denying a protected, absolute right. Selfishly, I think that you should do what helps the majority of students, but I see why policy makers would hesitate.

FYI - my perspective is from a mother who has a child in public school and another (younger) in private. I believe in public education and understand the challenges of closing the achievement gap. As a mother of a child with educational challenges, I also understand how IEPs and 504s stress the system. Unfortunately, the more schools try to be everything to everyone, I find that they become less helpful to everyone. The focus is on the very top and very bottom, and everything in the middle is an afterthought. Again, my kids aren't going to Harvard. They are bright, not geniuses, and definitely are not perfect students. Still, having seen my challenging student go from struggling, checked out, despresed, and downright obstinate about school when he was in public to a Dean's List student in the smaller classes with more personal instruction at a small (not top) private, I can attest to the benefit of a smaller more focused learning environment.

Being "fair" to everyone just isn't possible.

Whom do you think it's acceptable to be unfair to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

As long as it's not your kid.

If my kid needs to repeat, it is OK. Much better to have the opportunity to retake than just get passed on without learning anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Screw that. Online is better than shutting down for the vast majority. If it hurts some unknown small number of "vulnerable" students, tough.

Typical DCUM parent response. Me, me, me..my kid, my kid, my kid” Disgusting!

I find it hard to accept the argument that it’s somehow better for society if no students are learning during this time period, because there are some students who will have trouble with it. That is absolutely insane.

There's nothing stopping you from making sure that your kids are learning during this time period.

We’re enrolled in catholic school. Teaching has moved online for us. I’m not worried about my kids, I’m worried about our community as a whole. We are all better served if education continues during this time, even if it means that some of the kids have an easier time with it than others. I do not understand the mindset that says if some kids can’t learn, then no kids should learn.

[Anonymous]

I mean, traditional educational approaches are also more effective for well-rested, well-fed, emotionally and financially secure kids with well-educated parents.

We don't cancel traditional instruction because it works better for some kids than others - we provide traditional instruction AND work to reach those other kids, which is what MCPS could do if they were engaged in forward and proactive planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, traditional educational approaches are also more effective for well-rested, well-fed, emotionally and financially secure kids with well-educated parents.

We don't cancel traditional instruction because it works better for some kids than others - we provide traditional instruction AND work to reach those other kids, which is what MCPS could do if they were engaged in forward and proactive planning.

Apparently what we do, four days into an unprecedented and likely economy-collapsing response to a viral pandemic, is complain that MCPS isn't already doing everything. DCUM's gonna DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, traditional educational approaches are also more effective for well-rested, well-fed, emotionally and financially secure kids with well-educated parents.

We don't cancel traditional instruction because it works better for some kids than others - we provide traditional instruction AND work to reach those other kids, which is what MCPS could do if they were engaged in forward and proactive planning.

Apparently what we do, four days into an unprecedented and likely economy-collapsing response to a viral pandemic, is complain that MCPS isn't already doing everything. DCUM's gonna DCUM.

It really is unbelievable, isn't it? Within 2 weeks, the economy has fallen apart, unemployment is skyrocketing, businesses are all shut, hospitals are running out of supplies, every step outside the front door has to be assessed for risk, and on DCUM people are complaining that MCPS hasn't instantly figured out every single issue to flip their entire model and meet the needs of all 160,000 students, by somehow knowing exactly how to plan for an event that no one on this earth has experienced in their lifetime, or their parents'. Because their neighbor's 250-student private school with no IEPs and no FARMS got it done, and it's exactly the same! Jeez Louise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it better than doing nothing?

Better for whom?

Many schools are trying to figure out if they should transition to online or distance learning during a shut down. I agree with the Washington State department of education, which argued that most schools won't be able to switch to online; they should just close and pick up in the summer or September.

A growing body of evidence suggests that online learning works least well for our most vulnerable learners. If you are going online, the number one question is not: “What tech to use to teach online?” It should be: “How will you support your most struggling students?”

You may have heard of the “no significant difference” phenomenon. That's an argument developed in the 1980s that the medium of instruction (whether courses are taught face to face, by radio or TV or via computer) doesn't matter; only the quality of the instruction does.

But that research was mostly from small-scale, “hothouse” experiments. And the best experimental research then was often in medical schools.

Plus, the “no significant differences” argument pre-dates widespread online learning.

To be clear, this “no significant difference,” or NSD, argument was that a student would learn as much from a computer or a filmstrip as from class, as long as the instruction is the same. NSD was a kind of shorthand for “good enough, and probably cheaper.”

But over the last 10 years we’ve deployed online learning at a massive scale in K-12 schools, colleges, through large-scale MOOCs, etc. And the emerging picture is much different than those NSD findings.

Many students do worse online than in face-to-face classes, and the most vulnerable students are the most negatively affected.

For instance, a Washington State community college study found that most students on average do worse in online courses compared to face-to-face ones, but younger students, Black and Latino students, and students with low prior GPA do even worse.

And at Ohio’s virtual charter schools, students in all subjects do worse on average than those at traditional and charter schools that teach face-to-face. And that is especially true for students with low prior achievement.

In MOOCs, we found that students whose parents didn’t earn a BA were more likely to drop out than students whose parents have a BA. And that effect was most pronounced for the youngest students.

As Susan Dynarski argued in the New York Times, there is good evidence that online course harm the students who need the most help.

And that recent research comes from reasonably well-planned online learning courses for students who choose to sign up for them. I have every expectation that if schools at attempt rapid, unplanned transitions, things will be much worse for vulnerable students.

Some elite schools are going online quickly and getting media attention, but most schools should not use them as a reference. The Harvard and Princeton admissions departments are designed to only admit kids who can teach themselves anything. Your college probably has to teach everybody.

These are hard choices, and I won’t second guess the folks in the trenches who have to make these hard decisions. But if your school does go online, the first question should not be “what tech should I use?” The first question needs to be "How do we support our most vulnerable students?”

How will you support students who depend upon schools for food and safe shelter? How will you support students with special needs? How will you support students without reliable access to devices and the internet?

If you do go online, figure out how you will make ongoing, human connections with your most vulnerable students. The best online teachers I’ve met tell me that most of their time is spent tracking down students who need help, especially those who don’t ask for it.

There is another thread to be made about the fact that for many students, school is the place young people go to get healthy meals, find safe spaces to spend the day, to get laundry done, et cetera. Your local and regional safety net depends tremendously on public schools.

Most schools should pick up days in June or Sept rather than try to go online. If you are a teacher and you have to go online, think about how you will allocate time to make daily or regular human connections with your most vulnerable students.

There are lots of lists popping up of “best practices in online instruction.” I haven’t yet found one that starts with “Consider how you will identify struggling learners and personally connect with them.”

That should be the first thing on the list.

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

Read it again and think of all the online courses you've taken, maybe for certification or continuing education. Lots of clicking, maybe some concurrent YouTube watching or phone scrolling. Very little actual learning. Probably no actual learning. And we're adults.

And you're eager for your kids to start this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't get it before. But now I guess I understand. Public education is a right to which all are entitled. If you provide something knowing that it will not be effective for a significant percentage of the population, then you are denying a protected, absolute right. Selfishly, I think that you should do what helps the majority of students, but I see why policy makers would hesitate.

FYI - my perspective is from a mother who has a child in public school and another (younger) in private. I believe in public education and understand the challenges of closing the achievement gap. As a mother of a child with educational challenges, I also understand how IEPs and 504s stress the system. Unfortunately, the more schools try to be everything to everyone, I find that they become less helpful to everyone. The focus is on the very top and very bottom, and everything in the middle is an afterthought. Again, my kids aren't going to Harvard. They are bright, not geniuses, and definitely are not perfect students. Still, having seen my challenging student go from struggling, checked out, despresed, and downright obstinate about school when he was in public to a Dean's List student in the smaller classes with more personal instruction at a small (not top) private, I can attest to the benefit of a smaller more focused learning environment.

Being "fair" to everyone just isn't possible.

Whom do you think it's acceptable to be unfair to?

Policy makers make those decisions and determine what the priorities are. One approach is not to take action that would benefit the majority of students because the most vulnerable would be left behind. It is judgment call aimed at equity, and as I said in my post, I understand why leaving disadvantaged students even further behind would not be the right decision. At the same time, though, you can't say that decision is the best for those students who would rather do online learning than just abandon the semester. What is fair for the system, may not be fair to an individual student.

[Anonymous]

Back in the late 70’s and 80’s, during the civil war in Lebanon, we did our whole schooling in chunks. We would go to school during cease fires, then stay in shelters ( often with no electricity) and study on our own with textbooks and workbooks. When we went back to school again ( after a few weeks or months) teachers gave us a placement test to know where to start from. Each grade level had 2-3 levels. Obviously we had no internet at that time. However, there was actual teaching versus assigning work and expecting students to be self sufficient at all times. Even with French education and twice a week lessons in English, many of us did very well on the French baccalaureate as well as the SAT and Toefl exams administered at the American University.
The education industrial complex is a huge business in the USA, with curriculums being altered every couple of years. Go back to textbooks/ workbooks and simplify everyone’s job while maintaining adequate level of instruction for every student. For those who are very advanced, there are lots of online programs to supplement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

As long as it's not your kid.

If my kid needs to repeat, it is OK. Much better to have the opportunity to retake than just get passed on without learning anything

I don't think you understand how devastating being held back is to kids. Either they all pass and work harder next year, or they all make up the work. You don't just hold kids back, especially when this was out of their control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back in the late 70’s and 80’s, during the civil war in Lebanon, we did our whole schooling in chunks. We would go to school during cease fires, then stay in shelters ( often with no electricity) and study on our own with textbooks and workbooks. When we went back to school again ( after a few weeks or months) teachers gave us a placement test to know where to start from. Each grade level had 2-3 levels. Obviously we had no internet at that time. However, there was actual teaching versus assigning work and expecting students to be self sufficient at all times. Even with French education and twice a week lessons in English, many of us did very well on the French baccalaureate as well as the SAT and Toefl exams administered at the American University.
The education industrial complex is a huge business in the USA, with curriculums being altered every couple of years. Go back to textbooks/ workbooks and simplify everyone’s job while maintaining adequate level of instruction for every student. For those who are very advanced, there are lots of online programs to supplement.

Textbooks and worksbooks are part of curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it better than doing nothing?

Better for whom?

Many schools are trying to figure out if they should transition to online or distance learning during a shut down. I agree with the Washington State department of education, which argued that most schools won't be able to switch to online; they should just close and pick up in the summer or September.

A growing body of evidence suggests that online learning works least well for our most vulnerable learners. If you are going online, the number one question is not: “What tech to use to teach online?” It should be: “How will you support your most struggling students?”

You may have heard of the “no significant difference” phenomenon. That's an argument developed in the 1980s that the medium of instruction (whether courses are taught face to face, by radio or TV or via computer) doesn't matter; only the quality of the instruction does.

But that research was mostly from small-scale, “hothouse” experiments. And the best experimental research then was often in medical schools.

Plus, the “no significant differences” argument pre-dates widespread online learning.

To be clear, this “no significant difference,” or NSD, argument was that a student would learn as much from a computer or a filmstrip as from class, as long as the instruction is the same. NSD was a kind of shorthand for “good enough, and probably cheaper.”

But over the last 10 years we’ve deployed online learning at a massive scale in K-12 schools, colleges, through large-scale MOOCs, etc. And the emerging picture is much different than those NSD findings.

Many students do worse online than in face-to-face classes, and the most vulnerable students are the most negatively affected.

For instance, a Washington State community college study found that most students on average do worse in online courses compared to face-to-face ones, but younger students, Black and Latino students, and students with low prior GPA do even worse.

And at Ohio’s virtual charter schools, students in all subjects do worse on average than those at traditional and charter schools that teach face-to-face. And that is especially true for students with low prior achievement.

In MOOCs, we found that students whose parents didn’t earn a BA were more likely to drop out than students whose parents have a BA. And that effect was most pronounced for the youngest students.

As Susan Dynarski argued in the New York Times, there is good evidence that online course harm the students who need the most help.

And that recent research comes from reasonably well-planned online learning courses for students who choose to sign up for them. I have every expectation that if schools at attempt rapid, unplanned transitions, things will be much worse for vulnerable students.

Some elite schools are going online quickly and getting media attention, but most schools should not use them as a reference. The Harvard and Princeton admissions departments are designed to only admit kids who can teach themselves anything. Your college probably has to teach everybody.

These are hard choices, and I won’t second guess the folks in the trenches who have to make these hard decisions. But if your school does go online, the first question should not be “what tech should I use?” The first question needs to be "How do we support our most vulnerable students?”

How will you support students who depend upon schools for food and safe shelter? How will you support students with special needs? How will you support students without reliable access to devices and the internet?

If you do go online, figure out how you will make ongoing, human connections with your most vulnerable students. The best online teachers I’ve met tell me that most of their time is spent tracking down students who need help, especially those who don’t ask for it.

There is another thread to be made about the fact that for many students, school is the place young people go to get healthy meals, find safe spaces to spend the day, to get laundry done, et cetera. Your local and regional safety net depends tremendously on public schools.

Most schools should pick up days in June or Sept rather than try to go online. If you are a teacher and you have to go online, think about how you will allocate time to make daily or regular human connections with your most vulnerable students.

There are lots of lists popping up of “best practices in online instruction.” I haven’t yet found one that starts with “Consider how you will identify struggling learners and personally connect with them.”

That should be the first thing on the list.

This type of mail messages make me angry on so many different levels. If some kids have to repeat a grade- fine.

Sometimes life is not fair. When the Titanic was sinking and there weren't enough lifeboats for everyone, I agree that how those lifeboats were allocated was not equitable; indeed it would have been impossible to have a fair method. I vehemently disagree that the equitable thing would have been to not use the lifeboats at all and insist everyone drown.