Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus,
The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce granted if
authorship is acknowledged]
Tutoring was proposed as a possible solution to the “pandemic recovery.” The phrase “pandemic recovery” was a label for the learning that would have occurred in the absence of COVID-19 but did not. The theory underlying the panel seemed to be that learning unrecovered will have a deleterious impact on the economic future of Canadian learners and, perhaps, Canadian society and its economy. I inferred much of this from the sponsors and individuals involved in the panel.
I agreed to be a panelist because the invitation came from people I respect and like. However, the problem to which tutoring was the solution being explored was not clearly defined. It is common that people want to address a vaguely defined problem with a familiar and preferred solution.
The leadoff often question for the panel was a clue that the problem had not been clearly identified. The question was, “what are some of the key issues we need to grapple with, post pandemic, for K-12 students?”
Like other panelists, I was given a brief opportunity to respond to the question. My response posed questions that I think need to be addressed in this context or in any other policy context but frequently are not: What is the problem? What is the source of the problem? What is the universe of alternatives for addressing the problem? What criteria were used to select tutoring from among the available alternatives? What did the analysis of risks suggest about the obstacles to the success of the provision of tutoring on a mass basis? How will those obstacles be addressed? What are the costs and consequences of doing nothing? Will doing something – in this case tutoring – make things worse unintentionally? How might the resources that would be devoted to tutoring be used with greater effect and efficiency?
The second question I was asked to address was, “what do you see as the obstacles and opportunities when it comes to integrating tutoring into our planning for an educational recovery?” I used the brief time at my disposal to raise issues that came to mind regarding tutoring that might also apply to other initiatives intended to address some problem in education, even if ill-defined.
Equity
of access to the proposed solution:
I wanted to know what mechanisms have been established to ensure those most in need receive the proposed solution (in this case, tutoring). What I had in mind were the obstacles to implementing the solution. Knowing that providing teachers in small, rural, and remote regions of Canada is challenging, for instance, I wondered how one could ensure that those regions would receive tutoring support? I wondered how, if support would be provided via the internet, would inequities in access to internet, equipment, and bandwidth be overcome to ensure the intended benefits?
Equity
of outcomes:
If there are inequities of access and opportunity, there will almost certainly be inequities in the outcomes. I wondered what consideration had been given to preventing a seemingly well-intentioned solution (tutoring) from exacerbating pre-existing inequities that might have been made worse by COVID-19. In Canada, for example, finding tutors for students in French immersion programs is likely to be difficult.
Quality
assurance:
With equity in mind, I said it was important to know what mechanisms had been established to ensure that the quality of the tutoring that vulnerable students receive is commensurate with that of their more advantaged peers.
Unintended
consequences:
I asked if there was a danger that tutoring might relieve school systems of the pressure for addressing the educational needs of the students receiving tutoring. “Yes, she’s behind, but the tutor is handling that!”
Providing
and allocating resources:
It was my understanding that efforts were underway to persuade the Government of Canada to provide resources that will be spent in the education sector. I wondered whether the proponents had considered the jurisdictional obstacles that might impede the success of the initiative or even the need for tutors to have passed criminal record checks.
I also asked what thought had been given to whether the education system had the capacity to implement the proposed solution and, if the solution was being implemented by persons outside of the system, how school system employees and employee groups would perceive the assistance.
I had other
questions, ones that I routinely try to ask, when analyzing problems such as how
do we know what problem we are trying to address, the alternatives we have for
addressing it, how we will select the most effective and efficient alternative,
ensure its faithful implementation, and evaluate its impact. Getting answers to
those questions is sometimes helpful in avoiding putting the cart before the horse
which is what I felt happened yesterday.