Remote instruction reveals inequity in education and society

A recent post touched on an issue that calls for a post of its own:

Some companies providing online courses that families can buy for their children are reporting a large recent increase in interest in these options, suggesting that families have looked for public education alternatives, if they can afford to do so… (emphasis added)

Credit to the two reviewers of the draft of that post who both said, in different words, “You need to say more about that instead of just pointing it out.”

I didn’t say more for two reasons, one banal and one complicated. The banal reason is that I felt the post was already getting too long and this isn’t a topic that could be addressed in a few short sentences. The complicated reason is that I felt (and still feel) that it’s hard to know what to add that has value, given how much has been written by others. 

There is value, though, in stating what is becoming increasingly clear: school closures have further revealed the deep inequities in our schools, which mostly mirror the profound inequities in our society.

Alex Griffith wrote in a earlier post:

The pandemic is compounding issues that have long existed, illuminating the burdens of poverty and deep-seated systemic inequity plaguing our public educational system, problems we can no longer ignore.
 
People rarely choose poverty. Kids never say, “I sure hope I am poor when I am older.” Poverty often works in a vicious cycle, as students living in poverty have a harder time achieving educational outcomes that will lift them into a higher socioeconomic status. Too often, our schools carry the brunt of addressing economic inequality, continuously seeking innovative ways to ensure all kids learn despite their background.
 
The closing of our schools has revealed a reality educators across the nation have known for decades. For so many students and families, schools provide the means for physical and emotional survival.
 
Daycare. Meals. Safety. Emotional support. Counseling. These are students’ basic, survival needs, and they have to be achieved before learning will occur.
 
Once those needs are met, schools and students can focus on learning (the original purpose of public education) the chance for a future, and a potential chance to escape cyclical and situational poverty.

These ideas are all accurate, and powerful coming from a high school teacher who confronts these issues every day.

But how to address inequities, particularly during school closures, remains a challenge. I’ve heard more than one account of districts choosing to do less to develop remote learning than they might, because they felt that they could not reach all students, and therefore they were exacerbating inequality.

But that’s the wrong view, as Robin Lake of the Center on Reinventing Public Education put so well (in an interview or article that I can’t find, but I am pretty sure she said something like this). She pointed out that any district avoiding remote instruction because it couldn’t reach all students was only adding to inequality, because that district was therefore leaving education entirely to parents—and parents would respond in very different ways, whether due to income, work requirements, values, or other reasons. Many efforts that the district could make—even if district leaders knew they couldn’t reach all students—would lessen inequality, because it would help to level the playing field between students whose parents could purchase learning opportunities, and the students entirely reliant on their school.

Our schools reflect our society while they try to change it. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (hardly a hotbed of socialist views), on the Gini Index—a measure of inequality—the U.S. is far closer to the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, and Rwanda than it is to Sweden or Finland. As an example, the Today show reports that only 10% of students in Detroit have access to a computer and the Internet at home, making a shift to online learning very difficult at best. Social distancing requirements exacerbate these issues. A district can provide devices more easily than it can provide home Internet access (although some providers are offering low-cost access). In the past some districts partnered with local businesses to provide a place for students to get online, or used libraries or other public facilities that are not available during the pandemic. In addition, lower-income workers are more likely to be employed at jobs that can’t be done remotely, creating problems when children are at home instead of school, and making learning remotely even more difficult.

What can we do about this situation? Anything I can write seems so small compared to the issues. At the very least, I’m hopeful that as we and others continue to remind policymakers and others in positions of power of these issues, that funding, focus, and resources will flow to the students, families, and communities that need them the most.

Alex also wrote some ideas that I cannot improve upon, so I will end with them:

We have two ways we can go in terms of equity in education. We can either unite and actively fight it by investing in our students, or we can exacerbate the disparities existing for already disadvantaged populations.
 
To me, it would be grossly irresponsible not to use this epidemic as an opportunity for systemic change.