Digital learning has the potential to be transformative

Last week’s post asked
 
“Will digital learning, in the form of online and hybrid schools and courses, “transform” education?
 
Is “transforming” education even a viable goal?”
 
The post used as a starting point Larry Cuban’s skeptical questions about transformation in education. Cuban’s post argues that transformation is an over-hyped word and concept, used too often and with too little thought.
 
This post addresses those questions directly, in the context of online, hybrid, and blended learning.
 
What does “transform” mean to you?
The Google definition (referencing  Oxford Languages) is
 
“make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.”
 
That definition fits my general sense quite well.
 
In the context of digital learning, however, I don’t think that the way to “transform education” is to change every school. Instead, we can imagine digital learning transforming the public education system by underlying a range of course and school choices for students and families. In this vision of transformation, the overall system is dramatically changed because every student has access to online and hybrid courses and schools, while traditional schools remain an option for students and families who prefer them. The public education system would be transformed if every student had access to:

• Online courses

• Online schools

• Hybrid schools

• The full scheduling flexibility that access to the first three items requires

• High quality CTE paths, which don’t require online learning options but would be enabled by more online and hybrid opportunities

• Dual enrollment options, which again don’t have to be in online or hybrid schools, but are more likely to be prevalent in a system with many digital options.

What are the problems to which “transformed” schools is the solution?
The graphic below (from the US Census via another site) demonstrates a major problem, as well as a reason that some argue that transformation isn’t needed.

The United States has 20 million adults with less than a high school diploma. Or, to put it another way, the four year graduation rate according to the National Center for Education Statistics was 86% in school year 2018-19.
 
In his post and elsewhere, Larry Cuban argues that public schools have been changing and educational outcomes have been improving. The graphic from the US Census demonstrates this, as the number of adults in the US without a high school diploma has dropped from more than 56 million to just over 20 million, even as the overall population has gone up by about 2.5 times.
 
But is a system in which 14% of students don’t graduate from high school acceptable? I don’t think so, not in an era when more and more jobs require the types of skills that are taught in school. I’m not suggesting that every student should go to college—that’s a discussion for another post. And sure, a few students leave high school before graduating and find success. But earnings numbers alone make the argument that graduating high school is usually necessary (if insufficient) for a successful job and some level of financial security.
 
A graduation rate that leaves so many students behind isn’t necessarily the problem itself, as much as a measure demonstrating the problems in public education and society. There are too many issues to list here, but a few major ones include students who are:

• Disengaged because they don’t feel their courses meet their needs and interests

• Disengaged because they don’t feel that their school allows them to pursue their interests along with their academic career

• Experiencing health issues—especially the increasing number of mental health issues—which are not easily addressed in a typical school environment and schedule.

• Needing to work to support their family

• Impacted by poverty, violence, or other societal issues.

These topics are, of course, endlessly debated in many forums, and a short blog post can’t add much to the overall discourse. But I truly don’t understand how anyone can believe 14% of students leaving high school without graduating is acceptable, and despite lots of effort over decades, the graduation rate is ticking up only marginally. (In addition, it’s not clear that increased graduation rates are due to increased learning.)
 
What exactly is to be transformed?  School structures? Cultures? Classroom teaching? Learners?
 
All of the above, with the major caveat that none of those things has to be transformed across all schools.
 
If students had access to many more school options in their resident district as well as in charter schools and private schools, the educational experience of students needing new options would be transformed. Meanwhile, students who are satisfied and doing well in traditional schools would remain in those schools.
 
It’s obvious that online schools represent a completely different form of education, so I won’t take space to explain why they represent a transformation.
 
It may not be as obvious that hybrid schools also represent a transformation in school structure, culture, teaching, and learners.
 
In both hybrid and online schools, students have far greater control over their education and over their non-school time. Teacher roles, responsibilities, and instructional methods are very different than in traditional schools. School structures remain (mostly) organized on age-graded systems, and subject to state accountability obligations, but freed of time and place requirements.
 
These elements are mostly obvious to most DLC blog readers, but under-appreciated by most people outside our field. More importantly, they are transformative.
 
Larry Cuban’s asked six questions about transformation; this post has answered the first three. Next week’s post will address the other three.