You know how I feel about running schools like they've always been run,
but let's for a moment pretend that we won't make fundamental changes
based on what we now know about learning and children that we didn't
know in 1900, when the current system was new. We're going to
pretend that because that's the way it'll probably happen.
They
way we run schools is to get as many children in a room as we can, up
to the limit that the union enforces. Sometimes that's ten,
sometimes – too often – that's 30. Almost every one of the
hundreds and hundreds of classrooms I've ever been in have been the
same size, regardless of what they're being used for. So: lots of
bodies in close proximity. Lots of activities, movement, contact,
talking, shouting, laughing (nearly all of which, in normal times, is
a good thing). Often a non-trivial number of runny noses and kids
who are sick but came to school anyway, for any one of a number of
reasonably good reasons. And all these students moving around the
school quite a bit during a typical day, coming into contact with a
large proportion of the adults who work there.
We
are told that we will defeat the coronavirus with masks, personal
distance, hand-washing, testing and contact tracing, and anything
less will not be enough. So unless the virus is pretty much
completely defeated, we can't start school in the fall and still
pretend that we're keeping everyone safe.
So
– unless the virus is defeated by September 1, there will be
millions of children out of school – at home, we assume – who
would normally be in school. “Normally” will be a fond memory.
We haven't heard much about how the new normal will be achieved,
although it will no doubt involve online classes, split sessions and
other systems, none of which include all children being in school all the time.
How
long will the new normal last? Long enough to leave a lasting
impression on the new world? Some folks have written about the
permanent impacts that this spring's endless recess will have, but
none of them offer any evidence that suggests they're doing anything
more than speculating for clicks.
Kids
at home mean supervision. Parents? Someone said today we could
retreat from the two-job family. That would leave a mark. Older
siblings? Or will they be out looking for the jobs that their
friends' parents had to give up? Reimagined and vastly expanded
daycare?
Virtual
classes and split sessions probably mean less learning each day.
This wouldn't be a really big deal for children of upscale and
well-educated families, who already supplement their children's
education, or send their children to private schools which could
easily double tuition and halve enrollment. Who wouldn't put off
buying that second yacht in order to send their children to a safe
place like that? But generally, less learning, less direction, would
have to lead to bigger gaps between the haves and have-nots.
Would
we be forced to pare down our teaching and learning to what is most
important? This would require the education world to figure out what
education is for and what the best possible outcomes are, something
that's never really been done. Pressure to teach more in less time
might result in a new paradigm for public schools, leading to a
system that actually prepares children for the real world. Sure it
would.
I
just remembered that my original thought about this post was that it
would be short and simple: less school time, more home time for
kids, big impact. That's still the point, and it's still going to be
a very big deal. The more you think about it, the more extensive and
complex it gets.
Big
impact. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment