I have been asked by a few colleagues whether I am finding the current national shift to digital instruction gratifying. I even had a former colleague call me to thank me for helping to make this shift possible. While I am humbled and grateful for his thanks, I have to say that I don’t want my name on whatever it is that’s going to happen because I fear that the coming months may set back digital instruction by a decade.
Lest I be accused of revisionism, I have advocated for greater integration of digital tools in education for almost two decades. I know that, used correctly under the guidance of a strong teacher, digital tools can improve performance and expand access. However, if you read that last sentence, there are several qualifiers, none of which is being met in the current ” throw them in the deep end of the pool and see if they swim” approach. We are being forced to make the digital shift too quickly after not preparing people for it for the past ten years when it has been clearly coming.
There are several elements of this shift that make it necessary, but unlikely to have broad success beyond having an untrained workforce. Students who have been instructed and assessed in one set of methodologies are suddenly completing the year using another. It is inevitable that performance will change, and the reliability of assessments will shrink. Talking to teachers I know, I’ve heard that many schools and districts, realizing this fundamental unfairness, are indirectly (and directly) telling teachers not to let performances during this digital shift affect overall grade. This would be fine if instruction were only about grades and not about learning. Another inequality is the gap between levels of access and equipment. Though some districts are loaning equipment during the shift (anecdotally, some are running out) and some cable companies are even supplying free access, this is far from a level field. Advantages based on background go all the way back to Gatsby, but a quick shift such as this will exacerbate these further. For schools that have already moved to tru 1x1environments, this issue is not as clear, but even these represent a small portion of schools today.
Even the assumption that a class designed to be live can flip a switch and become digital is highly flawed. Many teachers will fall into what I have called for some time the “Old wine into new wineskins” trap, assuming that things that work in a classroom situation simply have to be made videos or handouts and expecting the same results. Digital tools call for very specific types of instruction and simply scanning lecture notes is not a replacement for a live classroom discussion.
“So, what’s the big deal?” some might ask, “We do this for a few months and then go back to the old way and we will be that much further ahead in our use of digital tools from this experience.” While I wish this could be so, I believe that widespread failure, or even lack of brilliant success, may be used to set back the integration of these tools by a decade or more. The anecdotal stories of “how hard” it was or how it just seemed that the students weren’t leaning as well (locked in their homes, learning in a new way, with the co-pressures of a global pandemic and a global economic collapse surrounding them), will pollute the stream of progress and will be used as excuses to not take necessary steps. One of the most pernicious things I regularly hear from (mostly veteran) teachers is, ” We tried that, it didn’t work.” To which I always want to reply, “Well, maybe that’s because you stank at it, and we should do it better!”
So while I remain confident that digital integration is part of the future of education, I do not take this current turn on a dime as a harbinger of good things to come. More likely it will be one more cost of this challenging time.