I want to go back to my classroom and see my students face to face.
I’m very fortunate to be a teacher. I’ve got what I consider the best career in the world: I get to add to the lives of others. A young person walks into my room, then an hour later she walks out better than she entered. There’s nothing quite like that.
Students lose so much when we can’t meet them face to face. Mainly, they lose the ability to interact in collaborative learning, or what most people call “group learning.” I’ve seen so much good come from students who struggle alongside each other in solving a complex math equation, understanding a layered geopolitical map, or analyzing a sophisticated piece of writing. Being able to lean in, lend a gentle guiding word or two, and then lean back to watch the students continue to fight to learn is a special joy, and one which will help these students in their lives for many years to come.
So, in short, I want to go back.
The painful truth is, I can’t yet. None of us can.
I take no joy in saying that. It’s not a political statement, nor is it designed to ignore the calls for a return to normalcy from a beleaguered parent population. If you want your children to go back to school, then please understand we all want that too. More than you can imagine. I’m ultimately on the same side as all of you. We both want what’s best for your children--that’s why we went into this profession.
It’s been said that teachers who don’t want to return to face-to-face learning are being scared, are magnifying the threat beyond what is warranted. I would respectfully remind those of that opinion that in our district, teachers returned to the classroom shortly after a deadly school shooting in our own community. I don’t see how the argument of unwarranted teacher fear stands up in light of that brave truth.
I understand the losses in keeping students from face to face schooling. I understand the burden it is to a parent to keep his or her child at home. I am a parent myself, as are many of your children’s teachers. I understand that we will lose some of the magic that goes into face to face schooling if we keep children at home.
These burdens and losses are lamentable, and we need to work to mitigate them as best we can.
Keeping children at home is a huge inconvenience and a burden. But sending them back to face to face school is a danger. No matter how much I want to see my students face to face again, my ethics prevent me from letting my own desires override their best interests.
In the hybrid/blended learning model my school district has constructed, students will be in face-to-face schooling for less than half the time they would have been in a normal school year. They will be physically present on campus five times every ten school days, and when they are present, they will remain on campus for less time each day than they would have normally. The gains we claim to make from face-to-face instruction are already reduced to less than half of what they would be from this fact alone.
Almost all students find that school is much more than a place where they learn the “three R’s.” It’s a sort of community center where kids can enjoy large gatherings of like-minded peers: athletic contests, musical concerts, plays, pep rallies, assemblies, and the like. If the classrooms represent the “mind” of a school, then these activities represent the “spirit.”
Of course, none of these can be possible under current conditions. Again, then, a significant benefit of face-to-face school must be absent if we are to even consider this experiment.
Add to that that because of very sensible and necessary social distancing requirements--requirements that still put children at risk, but merely reduce the risk--the chief benefit of face-to-face schooling will be lost. Students will not be able to participate in face-to-face collaborative learning under these conditions. Yes, they can collaborate using computers, typing to one another over the Internet in class, but if that is the solution, what would be the benefit from being in the same physical space?
Much has been made of the social harm being done to children by keeping them at home. I agree that there is an element of stress to this arrangement: it’s one of the many reasons I long to return to normal in school. Many psychological studies have been done to show that children need to socially interact with their peers: it’s one of the mid-levels on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
But even more foundational and thus more important on that same scale is the need for safety, which includes health. As much as children may be suffering in their psycho-social development by remaining at home, wouldn’t they experience even more stress knowing they are entering an unsafe environment every day they are at school? Can we subject students not only to a dangerous environment in terms of physical health, but also force upon them the stress and anxiety of such a place? They will enter school only after being medically scanned for a fever, they will see their teachers and their peers in medical masks, they will be constantly admonished to remain six feet apart, they will be washing their hands with sanitizer many times a day, and they will know what it’s all for: there is a deadly virus in the air, and they are being exposed to it. If we claim that children are being psychologically harmed by stay-at-home orders, how can we in the same breath claim they will not be harmed even more so by conditions at a school?
The benefits to children of returning to face-to-face school under the paradoxically necessary yet frankly inadequate conditions we have planned are dubious at best. Face-to-face school will only take place for a small fraction of the time it would normally have and will only include half of their peers at any given time, will not include the activities that fill a school with joy and temper students’ sometimes dry experiences with much-needed flavor, and it will not allow for perhaps the greatest strength of educational pedagogy, collaborative learning.
What, then, are the benefits?
And we stand to lose so much in this experiment. Even the most ardent supporter of face-to-face learning agrees that the risk to children is higher than in distance learning. The argument is, however, that the risk is manageable and the benefits exceed the risk. I have yet to hear what, precisely, those benefits are.
Often, the argument is framed as a false dilemma--we either return to some form of face-to-face learning, or we “close the school.” I am impressed with the rhetorical skill of those who disagree with my position: they have largely managed to frame this debate around “opening” schools, as if the alternative is to “close” them.
That is not the choice.
No one is advocating schools should close. The alternative--sadly, the only one that can be adopted--is to adopt a robust Distance Learning system. I used the word “sadly,” and I did so deliberately. I don’t like Distance Learning when I compare it to safe, unencumbered face-to-face learning. I would submit that every one of my colleagues agrees with this. Given the option between returning to the style of teaching we had prior to this viral pandemic and conducting Distance Learning, every single person with whom I have contact would enthusiastically wish for the former.
Much has been made of the “failure” of Distance Learning, as if that were an inarguable truth. I would remind those who tout that canard that our district went to that model with virtually no preparation, training, or extra resources and, in the words of our own district superiors, became “rock stars.” We stumbled and made errors early, as any toddler might. But we grew quickly. We are poised now to deliver a much better Distance Learning experience than we did when we were first thrust into the situation months ago. And our students are also more experienced at the style as well.
If we committed now to training and resource procurement, to development of a Distance Learning procedure and system that would meet the needs of all students, we could deliver an exceptional learning experience for the children of our district.
It would not be as good as what we had. Nothing will replace that, and no one is advocating we remain in Distance Learning in perpetuity. The nation, and our own community, is in the throes of a massive pandemic the severity of which virtually no one alive has ever seen. We will one day develop medicines to vaccinate against and perhaps even cure the disease. We will, one hopes, one day decide to make the necessary but relatively minor personal sacrifices to reduce the spread of the virus to manageable levels.
That day is not today, nor is it likely to be on August 11.
I want to go back. But we can’t yet.
Yours respectfully,
Sean O’Brien
Teacher of Young People
I’m very fortunate to be a teacher. I’ve got what I consider the best career in the world: I get to add to the lives of others. A young person walks into my room, then an hour later she walks out better than she entered. There’s nothing quite like that.
Students lose so much when we can’t meet them face to face. Mainly, they lose the ability to interact in collaborative learning, or what most people call “group learning.” I’ve seen so much good come from students who struggle alongside each other in solving a complex math equation, understanding a layered geopolitical map, or analyzing a sophisticated piece of writing. Being able to lean in, lend a gentle guiding word or two, and then lean back to watch the students continue to fight to learn is a special joy, and one which will help these students in their lives for many years to come.
So, in short, I want to go back.
The painful truth is, I can’t yet. None of us can.
I take no joy in saying that. It’s not a political statement, nor is it designed to ignore the calls for a return to normalcy from a beleaguered parent population. If you want your children to go back to school, then please understand we all want that too. More than you can imagine. I’m ultimately on the same side as all of you. We both want what’s best for your children--that’s why we went into this profession.
It’s been said that teachers who don’t want to return to face-to-face learning are being scared, are magnifying the threat beyond what is warranted. I would respectfully remind those of that opinion that in our district, teachers returned to the classroom shortly after a deadly school shooting in our own community. I don’t see how the argument of unwarranted teacher fear stands up in light of that brave truth.
I understand the losses in keeping students from face to face schooling. I understand the burden it is to a parent to keep his or her child at home. I am a parent myself, as are many of your children’s teachers. I understand that we will lose some of the magic that goes into face to face schooling if we keep children at home.
These burdens and losses are lamentable, and we need to work to mitigate them as best we can.
Keeping children at home is a huge inconvenience and a burden. But sending them back to face to face school is a danger. No matter how much I want to see my students face to face again, my ethics prevent me from letting my own desires override their best interests.
In the hybrid/blended learning model my school district has constructed, students will be in face-to-face schooling for less than half the time they would have been in a normal school year. They will be physically present on campus five times every ten school days, and when they are present, they will remain on campus for less time each day than they would have normally. The gains we claim to make from face-to-face instruction are already reduced to less than half of what they would be from this fact alone.
Almost all students find that school is much more than a place where they learn the “three R’s.” It’s a sort of community center where kids can enjoy large gatherings of like-minded peers: athletic contests, musical concerts, plays, pep rallies, assemblies, and the like. If the classrooms represent the “mind” of a school, then these activities represent the “spirit.”
Of course, none of these can be possible under current conditions. Again, then, a significant benefit of face-to-face school must be absent if we are to even consider this experiment.
Add to that that because of very sensible and necessary social distancing requirements--requirements that still put children at risk, but merely reduce the risk--the chief benefit of face-to-face schooling will be lost. Students will not be able to participate in face-to-face collaborative learning under these conditions. Yes, they can collaborate using computers, typing to one another over the Internet in class, but if that is the solution, what would be the benefit from being in the same physical space?
Much has been made of the social harm being done to children by keeping them at home. I agree that there is an element of stress to this arrangement: it’s one of the many reasons I long to return to normal in school. Many psychological studies have been done to show that children need to socially interact with their peers: it’s one of the mid-levels on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
But even more foundational and thus more important on that same scale is the need for safety, which includes health. As much as children may be suffering in their psycho-social development by remaining at home, wouldn’t they experience even more stress knowing they are entering an unsafe environment every day they are at school? Can we subject students not only to a dangerous environment in terms of physical health, but also force upon them the stress and anxiety of such a place? They will enter school only after being medically scanned for a fever, they will see their teachers and their peers in medical masks, they will be constantly admonished to remain six feet apart, they will be washing their hands with sanitizer many times a day, and they will know what it’s all for: there is a deadly virus in the air, and they are being exposed to it. If we claim that children are being psychologically harmed by stay-at-home orders, how can we in the same breath claim they will not be harmed even more so by conditions at a school?
The benefits to children of returning to face-to-face school under the paradoxically necessary yet frankly inadequate conditions we have planned are dubious at best. Face-to-face school will only take place for a small fraction of the time it would normally have and will only include half of their peers at any given time, will not include the activities that fill a school with joy and temper students’ sometimes dry experiences with much-needed flavor, and it will not allow for perhaps the greatest strength of educational pedagogy, collaborative learning.
What, then, are the benefits?
And we stand to lose so much in this experiment. Even the most ardent supporter of face-to-face learning agrees that the risk to children is higher than in distance learning. The argument is, however, that the risk is manageable and the benefits exceed the risk. I have yet to hear what, precisely, those benefits are.
Often, the argument is framed as a false dilemma--we either return to some form of face-to-face learning, or we “close the school.” I am impressed with the rhetorical skill of those who disagree with my position: they have largely managed to frame this debate around “opening” schools, as if the alternative is to “close” them.
That is not the choice.
No one is advocating schools should close. The alternative--sadly, the only one that can be adopted--is to adopt a robust Distance Learning system. I used the word “sadly,” and I did so deliberately. I don’t like Distance Learning when I compare it to safe, unencumbered face-to-face learning. I would submit that every one of my colleagues agrees with this. Given the option between returning to the style of teaching we had prior to this viral pandemic and conducting Distance Learning, every single person with whom I have contact would enthusiastically wish for the former.
Much has been made of the “failure” of Distance Learning, as if that were an inarguable truth. I would remind those who tout that canard that our district went to that model with virtually no preparation, training, or extra resources and, in the words of our own district superiors, became “rock stars.” We stumbled and made errors early, as any toddler might. But we grew quickly. We are poised now to deliver a much better Distance Learning experience than we did when we were first thrust into the situation months ago. And our students are also more experienced at the style as well.
If we committed now to training and resource procurement, to development of a Distance Learning procedure and system that would meet the needs of all students, we could deliver an exceptional learning experience for the children of our district.
It would not be as good as what we had. Nothing will replace that, and no one is advocating we remain in Distance Learning in perpetuity. The nation, and our own community, is in the throes of a massive pandemic the severity of which virtually no one alive has ever seen. We will one day develop medicines to vaccinate against and perhaps even cure the disease. We will, one hopes, one day decide to make the necessary but relatively minor personal sacrifices to reduce the spread of the virus to manageable levels.
That day is not today, nor is it likely to be on August 11.
I want to go back. But we can’t yet.
Yours respectfully,
Sean O’Brien
Teacher of Young People
RSS Feed