Classic debating style. My preference has all benefits, no costs. It’s delusional, but it’s the tool of choice for the intellectually dishonest.
Some who favor keeping schools closed for safety reasons—not an unreasonable position in and of itself—argue as if there are no costs (or minimal ones) with remote learning. The data indicates otherwise.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/school...88kulyrpm4rs7cu&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Test scores receding, learning stunted, with minority and low income students most affected. None of which is news to anyone who interfaces with those outside the bubble. Or to parents. I’ve yet to find one who was satisfied. I had one in private and the school was exceptional (but still not close to in person and the Head of School acknowledges as much). Had another in public—and a very good public one—abject disaster. Technical problems, lack of oversight, rampant cheating by students, etc. College experience was better, but maturity difference is huge there.
And as the very experienced teacher in the article notes, learning remotely and playing games are not the same. Kids will stick to a screen if it’s what they WANT to do; force them to do something they don’t want and it’s a different story. Plus, they’re already in front of screens all day, which is terrible for them. Now you’re adding 4-6 more hours.
And that doesn’t even touch the significant portion of the population with learning difficulties (ranging from ADHD to autism to dyslexia). It’s an incredible challenge that won’t be worked out by fall and no one believes otherwise. Educators don’t actually think this is a good substitute; they just don’t know how to handle the public health part of it. Understandable, but it doesn’t somehow make the remote learning cost-free.
It’s a trade-off, and low-income kids and those with learning challenges will bear the brunt of it, as will 3-6 year olds in dual-working family situations (not every family can afford to have a parent quit or go part-time). Those are critical developmental years that can’t be replicated.
You don’t get to ignore those costs and pretend them away because they’re inconvenient to your preference for safety. Instead, you have to show that the benefits from safety are worth these trade-offs. Maybe they are, but it’s not because remote learning is devoid of costs.
Some who favor keeping schools closed for safety reasons—not an unreasonable position in and of itself—argue as if there are no costs (or minimal ones) with remote learning. The data indicates otherwise.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/school...88kulyrpm4rs7cu&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Test scores receding, learning stunted, with minority and low income students most affected. None of which is news to anyone who interfaces with those outside the bubble. Or to parents. I’ve yet to find one who was satisfied. I had one in private and the school was exceptional (but still not close to in person and the Head of School acknowledges as much). Had another in public—and a very good public one—abject disaster. Technical problems, lack of oversight, rampant cheating by students, etc. College experience was better, but maturity difference is huge there.
And as the very experienced teacher in the article notes, learning remotely and playing games are not the same. Kids will stick to a screen if it’s what they WANT to do; force them to do something they don’t want and it’s a different story. Plus, they’re already in front of screens all day, which is terrible for them. Now you’re adding 4-6 more hours.
And that doesn’t even touch the significant portion of the population with learning difficulties (ranging from ADHD to autism to dyslexia). It’s an incredible challenge that won’t be worked out by fall and no one believes otherwise. Educators don’t actually think this is a good substitute; they just don’t know how to handle the public health part of it. Understandable, but it doesn’t somehow make the remote learning cost-free.
It’s a trade-off, and low-income kids and those with learning challenges will bear the brunt of it, as will 3-6 year olds in dual-working family situations (not every family can afford to have a parent quit or go part-time). Those are critical developmental years that can’t be replicated.
You don’t get to ignore those costs and pretend them away because they’re inconvenient to your preference for safety. Instead, you have to show that the benefits from safety are worth these trade-offs. Maybe they are, but it’s not because remote learning is devoid of costs.
Last edited: