Poor policy part two

Two weeks ago we wrote about how we were seeing quite a few “Poor policy ideas bubbling up.” At the time, we were hopeful that perhaps those ideas were a short-term anomaly. Instead, it now feels like some of these policy ideas are becoming more widespread. These policies, if implemented and/or continued, risk two negative effects:
 
1) Further restricting educational options for students and families
2) Drawing artificial and useless distinctions between online and hybrid options based on whether or not they existed pre-pandemic, and/or whether they are offered by a mainstream district versus a charter school or other entity.
 
This post looks at the first of these two issues. A future post will look at the distinctions between pre- and post-pandemic online learning.
 
Restricting educational options
As the blog post from two weeks ago stated:

If there’s one lesson that should be clear after the last year, it’s that students learn in different ways. (For anyone who thinks that is obvious, note all the policies and practices that states have in place that fail to honor that concept.) During remote learning, some students thrived, while many flailed. Anecdotally, some of those “thrivers and flailers” were surprises, to their teachers and/or parents. (A separate issue is the distinction between online learning and remote learning, which we have previously addressed.) 

Let’s leave aside how much thriving and flailing was due to individual teachers, schools being more or less prepared, state policies, etc. One lesson that should be clear is that having more options is better than having fewer options. (emphasis added)

 
That post went on to note restrictions being put in place, or seriously considered, in New Jersey and Texas.
 
In the last two weeks the situation has gotten worse in at least a few states. The main reason why is policymakers appear to be unable to distinguish between pushing for schools to reopen to provide an in-person option for all students (a worthy goal), and restricting or eliminating any online option for students and families who would like to have such options.
 
Recent action by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) illustrates this issue. ISBE passed a resolution which it says “supports” in-person learning:
 
“Beginning with the 2021-22 school year, all schools must resume fully in-person learning for all student attendance days, provided that, pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/10-30 and 105 ILCS 5/34-18.66, remote instruction be made available for students who are not eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine and are under a quarantine order by a local public health department or the Illinois Department of Public Health.”
 
A close reading shows that ISBE is requiring in-person learning for essentially all students, except those that are not eligible for a vaccine AND are under a quarantine order—which is, by fall 2021, likely to be an extremely small number.
 
Let’s be clear about this policy. It is “supporting in-person learning” only by taking away online options (more on this below)—which is a terrible way to implement a policy goal.
 
By analogy: I support public transportation. If I was in a position of political power, I would fund busses, rail, etc. But by ISBE’s logic, the best way I could support public transportation would be by banning all cars. Despite the fever dreams of the Agenda 21 conspiracy crowd, that’s not how supporting public transportation works. You don’t provide support to one policy goal by eliminating access to other accepted, positive, popular options. 
 
But that’s exactly what ISBE’s policy is doing. Pre-pandemic online learning options for students in Illinois were extremely limited.  In the name of supporting in-person learning, ISBE is ensuring that post-pandemic online learning options will also be extremely limited. This is despite significant interest from districts in Illinois in providing new online and hybrid options to their students—which we have heard about directly from our Illinois district contacts. They want to offer new options to students and families, and are being told that they cannot.
 
What about that exception for students who are not vaccinated and are quarantined? It’s too small of a number for districts to invest in creating their own online programs, or even partnering with a provider in a meaningful way. It’s generally hard for providers to offer high quality online learning options, including significant student support, to a small number of students in a district. More likely, those students and families are going to leave public education for private or home-school alternatives.
 
It’s not just Illinois. Other regions that are implementing or seriously considering policies that will restrict online learning by pushing a restrictive version of in-person learning “support” include Maryland and New York City, and almost certainly other states that are under our radar.
 
We’ve been optimistic that a positive outcome of the past year’s remote learning challenges would be the creation of more online and hybrid learning options for students and families, especially those that had not had such options pre-pandemic. At this point, the policy winds in too many states are trending towards more restrictions, not more access.