The pandemic’s threat to the future of digital learning

COVID-19 presents myriad threats to education, educators, students, and parents: the immediate risk related to health and safety, the possibility of major cuts to budgets as state revenues decline, the loss of learning…the list goes on.

There are also two overarching risks related to digital learning that stand out. The first has been discussed quite a bit but is worth repeating. The second is emerging. Both may produce long-term effects.

The first risk is that the remote learning that we saw in the spring, and are still often seeing in the current school year, is being confused with online learning. Experienced online educators understand the differences deeply. Online schools and courses sit on a foundation of powerful technology platforms, content that has been built on an investment of millions of dollars, teachers who have engaged with extensive professional learning and are well supported, and school leaders who have often been improving their online strategies and methods for many years.

Most remote learning lacks these markers. It’s undoubtedly true that district leaders are challenged by changing circumstances, and buffeted by fluctuating political pressures—making deeper planning and the shift from remote to online difficult at best. Still, regardless of how we assess school, district, and state leaders, it’s important to continue to make the point that remote learning is not online learning.

A recent blog post explored one related issue in very concrete terms. It reviewed the difference between real-time instruction and asynchronous, and the concern that inexperienced (in digital learning terms) leaders are over-relying on real-time instruction instead of online instruction practices that have been developed over two decades—and which with good reason rely heavily on asynchronous interactions. Another example is the extent to which districts are relying on their own teachers to create digital content, instead of building on digital content produced by experienced organizations, whether public agencies, NGOs, or private companies.  

A second risk is that education technology providers will respond to these new pressures in ways that set the field in a slightly new direction—but one that could have long-term impacts.

Michael Feldstein articulates the issue well, in writing about the “billion dollar ed tech hole” (from a post-secondary perspective, but this relates to K-12 as well):

“Vendors tend to solve the problem that their customers articulate to them. If the customers are in denial about the true nature of the problem that they need to solve, then vendors provide solutions which reinforce underlying problems…”

In K-12 public education this is not entirely a provider problem. Instead, the problem is linked to interconnected systems of procurement, quality, accountability, assessment, etc. For example, issues related just to the question of real-time versus asynchronous include:

•  How are schools funded and/or required to show student attendance? (Already we’re seeing an over-reliance on real-time interaction for funding purposes.)

• What professional learning and ongoing support is being provided to teachers and school leaders?

• How are digital content and assessment being integrated into remote learning?

• How are SEL supports being integrated into remote learning?

• How are issues of equity and access being addressed?

All of these questions are answered very differently—and perhaps incorrectly—if the foundation isn’t well planned. In this example, if all of these questions are addressed primarily through the framework of most instruction being delivered synchronously, the outcomes, in both policy and practice, will be less than ideal.

How to combat this issue? The solution starts with appropriately determining educational goals and associated questions.

In the early days of digital learning, mainstream districts would too often start by asking questions such as “How do we implement a 1:1 program (or BYOD)” instead of asking “what are our goals that a 1:1 device program might support?”

Currently, it’s clear that districts remain in scramble mode, filling the immediate and ever-changing needs of students, requests of communities, and requirements of policymakers. Educators and policymakers are constantly dealing with urgent issues. How are we funding schools? What are our attendance requirements? How are we addressing needs of all students? Etc… 

Fairly soon, however, as the start-of-year scramble dies down, everyone in the education chain should be asking two main questions:

•  What are we, realistically, trying to accomplish during this school year?

• How can what we do this year set our students on a better long-term trajectory? 

These questions are critical because in the coming weeks, decisions are going to be made that will have long-term impacts on students, schools, and all of education. It may not always feel that way, because some of these shifts may seem subtle. But if you’re setting the course of a round-the-world flight, a one degree shift is the difference between ending up in Boston vs Washington DC.

Right now, leaders are making the decisions about which course to take over the long haul. The decisions made will have long-term ramifications that are not yet clear.