Principles to Guide the Post-COVID Transition

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Many of those eager to see schools reopen talk about “returning to the new normal.” Leaving aside the contradiction between ‘returning’ and ‘new normal,’ I expect that those who use the term ‘new normal’ recognize that It is neither practical nor feasible to return to the conditions that prevailed before COVID-19. Those conditions were pretty good, but not without their shortcomings. I doubt that the parents of students with special needs, Indigenous students, students for whom the promise of schooling is not fully realized, and students seeking a more challenging educational experience wish to return to those prior conditions.

Suggestions about how the school system should transition from COVID, and what schooling will look like after COVID-19 are numerous. Many seem attractive. Commentators recognize the importance of caution and nuance. Many suggest a gradual approach to “opening” schools from the present state of partial closure (some provinces are providing an on-site education to the children of essential service workers) to schools that are completely open. The provincial health officers will likely authorize regions, boards, and communities to reopen according to different schedules.  

An important consideration is the ordering of the categories of students permitted to come to school. As mentioned, some children of essential service workers are already in schools. Students with special needs - for whom the absence of the support of teachers and educational assistants is a significant impediment to their learning and well-being - might be next. Similar sequencing could occur by grade level. Grade 12 students first, grade 11 next, etc. On the other hand, some have suggested that after grade 12 students return, the next group should be primary school students who are the least adept at managing online learning.

It has been suggested that staging the re-entry of students would enable teachers whose students have yet to return to assist those whose students are re-entering. This would allow for some structural social distancing to occur during the initial period of phasing in but would obviously diminish as successive waves of students arrived.

A related idea is the phase-in of certain subject areas. What we called “solids" in my youth (English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies) might be first, followed by Art, Music, Physical Education, etc. Another consideration is the timing. It would be prudent to develop a set of contingency plans phased from the worst-case scenario (for example, schools not opening until November), and working back from there to the best-case scenario.

Some have suggested that special consideration needs to be given to early childhood learning and the transition to school for the cohort of children entering school for the first time. Inequality among children in terms of their readiness is a factor that is important to consider.

There are suggestions about facility-usage and cleaning, the possibility of periodic closure should the virus manifest itself in ways the Provincial Health Officer deems to be harmful. Dividing class/cohort groupings in two and alternating the days they attend is one suggestion about maintaining physical distance between students. Another is having half the cohort/class attend in the morning and the other in the afternoon. Attention would need to be given to how to use the time of a reduced day; simply transferring a lesson for 25 students to a group of 12-13 would not be the optimum approach.  A group of 12-13 would however offer an opportunity to students and teachers to combine more group work with teacher-led instruction, and for the teacher to closely observe and coach during the group learning.

Concern has been frequently expressed that virtual learning is exacerbating inequities among students that must be addressed. Some have suggested dividing the cohorts/classes would allow teachers more scope for assessing and working with those students who have fallen behind because of virtual learning.

Whatever form the transition may take, a return to school could be short-lived if the winter flu season causes Covid19 to revive. With that in mind, some suggest that resources should be devoted to developing a more robust and standardize provincial capability for the provision of blended learning, a combination of online education with face-to-face learning.

Active communication between schools and families (not just newsletters or web announcements, but conversations) must be sustained. The transition is likely to continue to be fluid and varied, necessitating common understanding and commitment to new approaches.

Each of the suggestions – and others not mentioned here – are plausible. Each has benefits and deficiencies. On their own, however, they fail to capitalize on the opportunity the post-COVID transition provides for rethinking and addressing the imperfections that impede a good system from being a great system – especially by addressing the needs of the students about whom I wrote in the introductory paragraph.

As readers of this blog know, I have my ideas and suggestions for system improvement. You likely have yours. What we need are principles to guide us in the post-COVID transition so that we do not simply replicate an imperfect system.

The post-COVID transition and the conditions to which the transition leads should ensure:

Safety: the health and safety of students, employees, and their families

Success: improvement in student academic success and well being

Equity: gaps in student learning and inequities among students diminish over time

Evidence: decisions are informed by the accumulated evidence

Respect: respect for Human Rights and democratic participation/voice

Confidence: the public’s confidence in its public schools will be enhanced

Without a set of principles to guide the transition, we do not have a way of making distinctions among the many ideas being discussed and about the conditions we wish to prevail following the transition. Moreover, thinking first about principles forces us to consider what we value and the relative priorities among what we value.

International Education Before and After COVID-19

International Education Before and After COVID-19

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded many Canadians of the quality of life we enjoy. Stable and well functioning institutions (peace, order, and good government), accessible health care, mostly high performing school systems, and the relative absence of inequality. These are many of the elements that provincial governments and local school boards use to recruit fee-paying, international students to Canada.

International student recruitment is highly competitive. British Columbia competes with other provinces and with other nations for the relatively advantaged students who seek or whose families seek for them an education outside of their home country.

British Columbia has been competitive because of the quality of its schools and the safety and care students enjoy.  British Colombia’s schools are less socially stratified than those of some other countries where school ranking and examinations can determine one’s life chances.

The recruitment of students from other countries makes schools more diverse, providing the opportunity for Canadian students to be enriched through their contact with international students and vice versa. In turn, students who successfully complete a Canadian secondary school program can seek admission to post-secondary study in Canada.

Recruiting fee-paying international students to Canadian schools, and licensing off-shore schools by provincial governments, are what one colleague describes as “asset stripping” by which he means that Canada is stripping other countries of their highly educated young people. By virtue of their Canadian education and enculturation, some international students are more likely to seek to stay – and most important – work in Canada. Those international students who choose to stay help to increase the number of young, working, tax-paying Canadians upon whom older, retired Canadians depend.

All good? Well, that depends upon your standpoint. The more international students are educated in Canada the less likely they are to maintain their heritage language and culture. I know that this is something that most international students do not realize. At least not initially. The parents of international students may recognize the trade off and willingly sacrifice cultural maintenance for an education that will enable their children to have a better life in a country with the qualities Canadians enjoy.

COVID-19 makes the situation a bit dicey for the teachers whose employment depends on international students and for school boards and post-secondary institutions whose revenues are significantly affected by international student enrollment. “COVID-19 hits teacher jobs in Coquitlam school district” read the April 10^th headline in the Tricity News. The subhead proclaims, “International student enrolment expected to plummet in wake of global pandemic, layoffs expected for the first time in three years for teachers in Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody schools.” Coquitlam is one of three school boards in BC - West Vancouver and Burnaby are the other two – where revenue from international student tuition accounts for more than 10% of the board’s total budgeted revenue.

The revenues derived from recruiting and educating international students are substantial. The approximately $35 million Coquitlam derives from international student revenues is nearly equivalent to 12% of the money it receives from the basic grant from the Ministry of Education. In West Vancouver, the proportion is 16% ($10 million); Burnaby is 11% ($24 million); Greater Victoria is 9% ($16 million). Overall, international students probably account for about 800 teachers in BC, most of whom work in secondary schools.

The tuition fees charged to international students exceed the per pupil amount allocated by the province for students from British Columbia, often by a significant margin. Some are in the range of 140% to 160% of the Ministry of Education’s per pupil allocation. While some of the difference can be attributed to additional support that international students require (language assistance and counselling, for example), some of the supports and services provided to local students are being subsidized by international students.

The loss of revenue will not be felt proportionally across school boards. More than half of the provincial revenue from international student tuition is received by boards in the metropolitan Vancouver region. Metro boards receive about four times as much as the next region, Vancouver Island. Northern region boards receive about 1/160^th of the revenue received by the metro boards.

In addition, the impact will be disproportionate according to grade level. Approximately 85% of the international student enrolment occurs at the secondary school level. The proportion of international students increases from grade 8 to grade 12, with approximately 50% of the international high school students at the grade 11 and 12 level.

The negative impact of COVID-19 on the education of international students is likely to be significant, causing substantial dislocation for them and their families. But, as mentioned above, the impact will not be confined to international students. Supports and services for students from British Columbia will also be affected. The magnitude of the impact is difficult to gauge without knowing the nature of the contingency plans that school boards have made for such an eventuality.

It is doubtful that many parents know school boards are using unstable sources of revenue to fund supports and services for students from British Columbia. They assume that the learning supports their children receive are funded from their tax dollars. If revenues diminish or disappear as appears to be the case in Coquitlam, school boards must reduce staffing and programs. Entreaties to the provincial government to replace the lost revenue from international programs are unlikely to succeed. Even if the Province were positively disposed, which is improbable, facing significant fiscal pressure because of COVID-19 it simply will not have the resources to replace the lost revenue.

Helping parents to survive COVID-19 without teaching

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

In just a few weeks of coping with COVID-19 we’ve learned or rediscovered some important lessons about the part that parents play in the educational process. I do not mean “parents as teachers” of their own children because I do not think parents should or can be asked to take on the responsibility for teaching their children – even when the parent is an experienced teacher. I mean the part that parent-child interaction plays in developing the child’s curiosity about the world around them and their interest in learning.

It will surprise no one that school achievement is related to the home environment. But it is worth remembering while we attempt to cope with COVID-19. There are many no-cost things that parents can encourage their children to do and do with their children if their time permits.

Those who have examined the relationship between home environments and student achievement have observed that households with toys and household objects that prompt children to use fine motor skills help stimulate a child’s creativity. Fine motor skills are developed by scribbling, drawing, colouring, and writing; using scissors to cut; tying one’s shoelaces, buttoning up, putting on a belt, zipping a zipper; using cutlery to eat; opening and closing zip-seal containers; brushing one’s hair and cleaning one’s teeth are all fine motor skills. They are also developed by making toothpick sculptures, completing puzzles, making a collage, playing string games, learning slight of hand tricks, juggling, etc. Making a sock puppet or a paper-bag mask (not for COVID-19), the possibilities are many and can be tailored to the age of the child. All are activities that are fun for both children and their parents that do not require parents to “teach.” These are activities parents just need to demonstrate or suggest.

Playing conversational games is fun and educational. Almost everyone know how to play 20 questions. The alphabet game can be played by two or more. Pick a letter at random (“B”) and category (“animals”) and take turns trying to name as many animals that start with the letter b (bears, bats, birds, etc.). Play this or that? (also called “which would you rather?”) to discover a person’s interests by giving them two choices from which they must choose “bungy-jumping or sky-diving?” Repeat the question many times and encourage the kids to keep track of the choices and compare them with those of friends and relatives. Can you talk on-topic for just a minute? It’s not easy. Put topics on scraps of paper in a bag, draw one at a time, and take turns trying to talk about the topic for a minute. The point here is to have fun using language.

Parents who have time to watch a movie with their children can ask them about what they liked or disliked about the movie, a character in the movie, a plot twist, or the conclusion. One important part of this activity is to ask questions that prompt kids to think about what they’ve seen and to develop a way of talking about what they’ve seen. A second important part is parents listening and responding to what their kids are saying. Parents and their children can do the same activity with a favorite story or novel.

Reading to one another develops oral fluency and expression. Cooking together develops many skills, including recipe reading, measurement, cooperation. Playing board games develops turn taking and, often, planning a winning strategy. Kids can interview relatives by telephone or chat app about what they were like and what they liked when they were their age. It’s likely that the relative will welcome the opportunity.

There are many things parents can encourage their children to do and do with their children that will stimulate mental effort, curiosity, and the use of the skills that the kids have learned in school. They can be done without the parents having to “teach.” They can be done at little or no cost. Although there is a bit of competition in some of the activities, the major emphasis is on having fun.

Let’s encourage parents to interact with their children in ways that will develop their curiosity about the world around them and their interest in learning without requiring parents to “teach” during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Lost Learning Time During COVID-19

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[Permission to reproduce if authorship is acknowledged]

COVID-19 has parents concerned about the safety of their children and their educational welfare. Parents know that they don’t have the skills to teach their children. COVID-19 helps them to appreciate that managing the learning of one child is challenging, that teachers’ work is complex.

While parents are clearly anxious about ‘continuity of learning’ during COVID-19, anecdotal evidence indicates that their expectations are less demanding than would be the case if schools were closed because of a labour dispute. They are, nonetheless, concerned about the long-term impact of the loss of instructional time on their child’s learning.

That concern is well placed. My hunch is that schools in British Columbia may not reopen until September 2020 and possibly later than that. I explicitly use the term hunch because it is no more than a guess or gut feeling. Regardless of the duration of school closure, parents are justified in their worry about the time lost in school.

Concern about lost learning time is long-standing, dating to the early 1900s. Although it is sometimes called summer learning loss or summer learning gap, I prefer the term lost learning time because there is no reason to believe that lost instructional time does not have an impact even if it occurs at other times of the year.

The study of lost learning time is complex, but the accumulated evidence vindicates parental concern. Studies[1] indicate that “summer learning loss” is roughly equivalent to about one month of schooling. Losses are greater for mathematics than for reading, likely because students read during the summer, but are less engaged in mathematics. Losses are projected to be larger for older than younger students. Losses are also greater for less advantaged students than for more advantaged students, likely because of the opportunities afforded the former. According to some research, the losses have “lasting consequences.” [2]

Summer learning loss is often attributed to fewer opportunities to use and practice what student have learned during the year. Notwithstanding the efforts of teachers during COVID-19 some instructional time will be lost and the opportunities to practice diminished despite the efforts that teachers are making to ensure continuity of instruction during COVID-19.

At this point, ‘continuity of learning’ appears to differ from school board to school board, school to school and teacher to teacher. Those differences are likely to manifest themselves in what and how students learn during the pandemic. Children in more advantaged families are less likely to be affected negatively than students in less advantaged families because of their access to resources such as personal computers and access to the Internet.  

There are three categories of students for whom lost learning time is most detrimental. Students for whom English is a second language will not have the systematic exposure to the language they are trying to learn. Special needs students will not benefit from the teaching and learning strategies imparted by specialists, and by teachers often working with outside agencies. Low-income students will not have the learning time they need to maintain progress with their peers.

If schools were able to resume during July and August, some of the negative impact of lost instructional and learning time because of COVID-19 might be mitigated. That’s still a big ‘if’ at this point. Moreover, if medical health officials believe that COVID-19 will abate a bit during the warm, summer months and then reoccur in the Fall (and there is no ‘summertime school’), lost learning time would likely have a greater impact.

Restarting schools in July or even August would require significant effort for everyone (parents, teachers, educational assistants, administrators, support staff, school board officials, and of course, students). But a summer restart might just be a welcome and beneficial opportunity.

---

[1] Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta‐analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268; Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Lee, V. E., & LoGerfo, L. F. (2004). Social‐class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1–31; Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Keep the faucet flowing: Summer learning and home environment. American Educator, 25(3), 10–15.

[2] Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167–180.

Coping with COVID-19

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

 

[Permission to reproduce if authorship is acknowledged]

The suspension of school-based learning has taxed the ability of school systems to provide the educational programs required by legislation. But the provision of education programs is not all that school systems do. In many locations, children depend, at least in part, on the meals provided at the schools they attend. This is especially true of children who are homeless.

All indications are that school systems have been making care for students their priority, especially for those who are the most vulnerable. Many districts have organized meal and food distribution programs. In Los Angeles, the second largest school system in the US, corporations have donated toys, art supplies, diapers, wipes, baby food and blankets. A Teamsters local worked around the clock to delivered items to the 64 “Grab & Go Food Centers” in the district.

Instructional programs vary from student to student, school to school, and district to district.  My granddaughter in grade nine in Los Angeles has one live, on-line class per day (Math on Mondays, English on Tuesday, Science on Wednesday, etc.). Each class is approximately one-hour long, including brief breaks. Many teachers use a chat feature to pose questions to students and answer the questions student have. There is no student to student interaction, something my very social granddaughter misses greatly.

Some classes include on-line quizzes about the material previously presented. All have complementary assignments to reinforce what has been taught. When I asked my granddaughter, she said, “it’s pretty much like school without being with your friends!” She works, attending class and doing homework about 5½ to 6 hours each day. “It’s not too bad,” she says. “My friends and I miss each other, but we’re getting used to that.”

Other systems appear to have been challenged to do much more than just assign work that students must do on their own or with the support of their parents. Parents struggling to support their kids have developed a new appreciation of the work that teachers do. People for Education Canada reports that one parent quipped, “Now that I’ve home-schooled my 6 year-old for 30 minutes, I realize that teachers should be paid at least $1 million per year.”

I saw a funny video clip of a parent ranting about the implicit expectations placed on parents to keep their children on task, the challenge parents have when their children ask for help, parental fear of exposing their ignorance to the children, etc.

School boards in British Columbia have been developing their plans. Suzanne Hoffman, Superintendent of Schools for the Vancouver School District, the second largest in the province in terms of student enrollment, says that the VSB has four priorities:

• Ensure the health and safety of students, staff and communities.
• Communicate thoughtfully, transparently and in a timely manner.
• Provide connections to ensure students feel valued and have a sense of belonging and community.
• Continue learning opportunities so that all students can successfully transition to their next phase of learning.

The VSB has already taken steps toward the first priority by promising to continue feeding students who depend upon schools for some portion of their daily nutrition. Regarding the rest, Hoffmann says that “school staff will reach out to provide further information on plans about how students can access materials and belongings from their schools, potentially some ideas about the continuation of learning, and plans to support the most vulnerable students and their families.” It isn’t clear yet what steps the VSB will take to ensure that the educational programs of students continue. Hoffman realistically points out that whatever the VSB does “. . . will not be perfect and there will be bumps along the way.” No doubt!

Similar efforts are likely going on in all school boards across the province. Although there appears to be some cooperation among BC’s education partners, the challenge of providing for the continuance, if not the continuity, of education seems primarily to rest with individual school boards. According to the Ministry’s FAQ “ Each school district and independent school authority will develop a plan that best responds to the needs of their local community.”

That worries me for two reasons. Larger school boards have the advantage being able to capitalize on scale economies that benefit larger entities. Smaller and more remote school boards whose students are more dispersed are likely to have a harder time mobilizing their resources. My second concern is about a patchwork of educational opportunities. I use the term ‘opportunities’ because I am reluctant to refer to them as programs since they are not likely to have the coherence that one expects from a program.  I fear that educational inequalities will be exacerbated by differences among districts.

I am also concerned that educational inequalities within school districts will be exacerbated because less advantaged homes are unlikely to have the technology, bandwidth, and supports that more advantaged homes enjoy. Families for which food and shelter security are issues with which they cope everyday have fewer resources that they can devote to the support of the education of their children.

Some of these challenges can be mitigated if the provincial education organizations work together, pooling their knowledge and resources. The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation can bring expertise to the design of instruction. The BC School Trustees Association can determine how shared resources can mitigate some of the disadvantages that smaller school districts are likely to have. The BC School Superintendents’ Association, the BC Principal and Vice Principals’ Association, and the BC Association of School Business Officers can pool their expertise about logistics. The Knowledge Network may be able to play a role as TVO/ILC, the Ontario Ministry of Education’s provider of distance education, does in Ontario.

This kind of cooperation and coordination will require each school district and each association to see beyond the horizon of its own interest to foster the common good. This will be difficult, but not impossible. We’ve seen how well BC has addressed public health and safety during COVID-19. I am confident that the same can be done in education under the leadership of the Ministry of Education. It should ensure standards are met and the education of students is not at greater risk because of differences in capacity and resources.