The digital learning PR battle continues
Recently I’ve been optimistic that perhaps digital learning in all its forms was becoming better recognized and understood, as when I wrote Online learning gains acceptance and They’re (mostly) singing our tune.
But the battle is still in early stages, as evidenced by an article in The Hechinger Report: Luring Covid-cautious parents back to school (which also appeared in the Washington Post under a slightly different title.)
The article tells the story of parents choosing to continue with remote learning, centered on Prince Georges County in Maryland and telling a reasonable story of one parent in particular, who says that the virtual schooling option has been a “blessing” for one of her sons, particularly because “There’s no one around to distract him.…Those students who aren’t progressing — give them the opportunity to go back to school if that’s what their parents want,” she added. “My children are just fine.”
The story goes on to explain that the numbers of students remaining in remote learning in Prince Georges is unusually high, and discusses links between these higher numbers and the fact that Black and Latino parents are more concerned about health risks than White parents, as has been documented elsewhere.
But the article then goes awry with these three paragraphs:
“Vladimir Kogan, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University, said that parents become more willing to send their children to school when districts are open for full-time, in-person instruction — and remove other options. The continuing reluctance represents a broader failure to explain risks clearly to parents, including the risks of missing in-person school.
"The parents who are demanding the virtual options — I don’t think that’s a reasonable position at this point to have, and it’s been a societal failure of risk communication. Parents don’t get to withhold education from their kids, just like parents don’t get to withhold food or medical care,” Kogan said.
“We have normalized something that before the pandemic seemed crazy,” he added, “which is that parent anxiety is a justification to opt out of compulsory education.”
In sum, the professor of political science (who does list one of his areas of expertise as education policy) is equating online learning with opting out of education.
It’s easy to read too much into this article. Regarding the professor, I’ve been misquoted or had comments taken out of context enough times to be cautious about ascribing ignorance based on just one article. And the story, in fact, touches on the fact that online schools exist, so the equating of remote or online learning with opting out is in some ways refuted within the same article. Finally, as noted earlier, the beginning of the story is evenhanded and paints a positive picture of parents.
Still, this is yet another high-profile example of 1) equating remote learning and online learning, and 2) ignoring that online learning existed pre-pandemic. And it is made worse by Kogan’s suggestion that in fact districts should remove all education options other than fully onsite.
Here’s the better way to think about this:·
For most students and families, onsite learning is a better fit than online.
For a small percentage of students and families, online learning is a better fit.
Hybrid learning—well thought-out onsite/online combinations, but not the pandemic flavor of hybrid learning—appear to serve many students well, although hybrid is in early stages.
All states, and many districts, should offer a variety of options so that students and families can choose.
This article was sent to me by a Digital Learning Collaborative member. The DLC is about to launch a significant project to help address these PR issues. We’re not quite ready to announce yet, but stay tuned!