Keeping society on the same page

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

From time to time my blogs elicit comments and questions from readers. Most of the time, the questions are personal and do not merit a public reply. But the other day a reader asked:

Have COIVD-19 school closures or episodic interruptions from COVID-19 restricted the common ground that schools provide for interaction between different social groups? Do you believe that school closures and interruptions arising from COVID-19 will result in an erosion of social cohesion, diminishing the school’s contribution to keeping society on the same page?

My reply:

People learn who they are, to whom they are related, and the power they have from the institutions with which they and their families are affiliated and the myths they are told. Families, of course, are the first and most influential context for such learning. Peers are influential, increasingly so as youngsters grow older.

Families interpret the world for the young, communicating the possibilities open to them and the limits on those possibilities. Families tell the young what they can and cannot do based upon their experience. Most parents encourage their children to aspire beyond the limits the parents faced and want their children to have the advantages the parents did not have. “You can be anything you set your mind on” is a common message to our children.

Families are tribal. They also draw the lines between family members and those outside the family. Tribalism, defence of the extended family, is a genetically programmed response designed for its protection. For most of human history, the tribal mechanism ensured survival in socially hostile environments. But tribalism has its downside, too. In a socially diverse society, the admonishment, “Don’t play with kids like that,” and the injunction to “Stick with your own kind” establish the basis for discrimination and racism.

Religion, media, and politics are essential parts of society, but they too are tribal. They divide us along philosophical lines. The optimist in me would like to believe that although we may differ philosophically, those differences are equivalent pathways in the pursuit of common human needs and in accordance with similar ethical principles. Increasingly hostile expressions of antipathy in recent years, and especially during COVID-19, are eroding my optimism.

I would like to think that most of us want Canada to be a more socially cohesive and egalitarian society. We want our children to have a sense of who they are as Canadians based upon shared values and want them to live in a society where the similarities among us outweigh the differences, but one in which the differences are respected.

Those aspirations cannot be realized without an institution dedicated to helping us to transcend our tribalism in order to live and work together. The only institution I know that has the promise of doing that is the public school.  You will no doubt have noticed that I used the word promise. While I think public schools do help us transcend our tribalism, they are imperfect – so the promise is not completely fulfilled.

When I think about the history of Canadian public schooling, I see improvement. The overt appeals to xenophobia that were once common (“our Anglo-Saxon heritage”) and the open denigration of Indigenous peoples – are diminished. Diminished, but not extinguished. Vestiges of privilege and discrimination are baked into the institution. Canada and its institutions are still settler-dominated.

I am cautiously optimistic that the manifestations of privilege and discrimination can be eliminated. I am not naïve, however. Eliminating them will require significant, conscious, and persistent effort. Since most children are in school at a point in their lives when tribalism is not so firmly "baked in," public education is the only institution capable of communicating the values I hope we share.

Schools address the same tension between individual rights and the needs of the collective that are present in the larger society. We cannot and should not sidestep the tensions but work to prevent one set of values from eclipsing the other.

It is too soon to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 closures, but the effects should be assessed. There is a variety of sound tools to assess the social climate of schools and a body of knowledge that can be called upon to improve social relations among students.

Undertaking such assessments and using the data to improve the social environment of school is not a trivial undertaking. If public schools cannot help to create a socially cohesive society, who or what can?

More effective online instruction during COID-19 and beyond

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

There is no doubt that the fall term was extremely challenging for everyone. Many of the teachers with whom I have talked or corresponded over the holidays are feeling guilty about the quality of their online instruction. They know that they have not been prepared for teaching online and believe that students are suffering as a result.

I have tried to explain to some of them that they know more about online instruction than they think they know. I’ve done this by asking them questions about their classroom teaching methods to get them to recognize and make use of what they already know. I have distilled those conversations into an interview format, calling upon what the teachers said in response to my questions. My questions are in bold with a composite of the teachers’ answers beneath edited for economy and clarity.

“What do you do in your classroom to reduce the challenges students face when they confront new material?

I check to see what students already know about the material. When I do that, I build upon what students know and can do and avoid asking them to engage with material for which they do not have the necessary prior knowledge or experience. I review with them what they know and can do.

I break the new material into small chunks or steps so that students are not asked to bite off more than they can chew. What I mean by that is that it is easier for me to check to see if they have mastered a small amount of learning before I move on.

“What do you do if there are students who are struggling to get to the next step?”

I build scaffolds and use cue cards or models to help them along. I create diagrams of the processes I am asking them to follow or a timeline or a chart. I use key terms or phrases as reminders of the ideas they are trying to wrestle with. I prepare lots of examples so that, if a student is struggling, I have a second or third or fourth example I can use. If I have checked for prior understanding, I can usually link the material back to something the student already knows or use an example within the student’s frame of reference.

If there is a process or procedure that I am asking the students to follow, I try to model it for them. As I am modelling the procedure, I talk about what I am thinking at each step. I try to phrase what I am thinking in terms that are familiar to the students. Linking to the student’s prior knowledge or experience reminds them of what they know and shows them they are being asked to make a small step up – not a big leap.

I try to build in frequent opportunities for practice for two reasons. First, it allows me to observe them working through the problems, checking their work for accuracy, and giving them hints or prompts that will help them to succeed at the task. It builds their confidence to see their own success. Second, if more than one or two students are struggling, I know that I haven’t been successful in communicating the ideas or the process that I expect them to learn. I need to go back and start that step again, but with a different approach, examples, etc.

“What do you say or do for the students who are on track to succeed or who have already succeeded in the task?”

I let them know that I recognize their success. But I try to avoid saying, “good for you.” Someone is always saying “good for you,” but that’s too vague. They need to know what specifically they have done well. I say things like “you were careful in following each step,” “you remembered to look for X,” or “you showed your work each step of the way.” If they are on track, but not quite there, I try to nudge them in the right direction. “Check to see if you have all of the steps in the right order,” “Where would I look to see X?” or “Here’s an example that might be helpful” are some of the things I say to give them a gentle push.

If they are working through a problem on paper or showing me their work on a white board, I sometimes say, “let’s mark each of the steps to see if they are all there.” Gently, but firmly providing little corrections and feedback goes a long way to building understanding and confidence. Asking students to use an assessment rubric that is familiar to them lets them check their own work. If they do that often enough, checking their own work may become habitual. That makes them more independent learners.

“What do you do when you are confident that students have achieved the next level?”

Even when they have achieved the next level, they need practice . . . and lots of it. I try to create opportunities for practice that allow them to represent what they know. “Draw a diagram or make a chart,” “Find examples that fit the model we’ve been working with,” “Teach [another student] or teach me how to do that.”

“Is there anything that you’ve said that you cannot do online?”

Not really. But when I teach online, I have tried to overpackage the experience and made a lot of other mistakes. I really haven’t checked for prior learning or broken things up as I would have in class. I’ve spent too much time talking at students rather than with them. The lessons are too long. Not enough examples. Too little practice. It’s hard to give feedback online. But, no, you are right. In the classroom I have done what I described. Now I need to put it into practice online.

Managing student behaviour, technology, and the learning environment is very difficult in an online situation. My hunch: Online teaching and its technologies threw teachers with sound teaching practices off their game. If they did what they do with their students – inventory what they know – the task might be a bit easier . . . but not easy.

COVID-19 magnifies long-standing tendencies

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Last week, a teacher turned broadcaster asked me if I would reflect on Failing Our Kids: How we Are Ruining Our Public Schools, a book I wrote in 2003. He was interested in the extent to which my appraisal had changed in the intervening years.

Most of what I wrote in 2003 is unfortunately applicable in 2020. COVID-19 has acted like the steroids that some body builders use, helping to define and magnify the themes and tendencies.

It would be an understatement to say that COVID-19 has sparked public – and especially parental – anxieties about public schooling. The media tap the vein of anxiety swollen by COVID and social media, far more powerful today than in 2003, have amplified those anxieties and injected significant misinformation.

Some elected representatives have traditionally manipulated public anxieties about education for political and ideological advantage. Some have misrepresented the data about the successes of public schooling as well as its shortcomings. During COVID-19, most have sought to deflect parental anxieties about the response to the pandemic to local boards of education.

A lack of provincially coordinated responses to COVID and the deflection of attention to local school boards have played into the hands of those politicians eager to abandon public schooling in favour of a market-driven private system. They would thus rid the public purse of the burden of preparing the next generation of Canadians. But even where there is no such political agenda, lack of coordination and deflection of responsibility will encourage some to abandon public schools.

Teacher unions have often exploited parental anxiety to improve their working conditions and membership by overdramatizing the impact to changes in education. Though the concerns of teacher unions about the welfare of their members is genuine, their public expression of those concerns is likely a contributing factor to parental anxiety about, and some flight from, public schools.

Canadian parents fuel anxiety about public schooling, their own and the anxieties of other parents. They hold competing and sometimes incompatible ideas and demands about public schools. This is particularly evident during COVID-19. Some parents demand that schools operate as they did prior to COVID, but with precautions to minimize the pandemic’s impact. Others demand online instruction of the same quality as can be achieved face-to-face. Others seek a blended approach, but one that is easily coordinated with parental responsibilities.

In the meantime, public schools are struggling to respond to the extraordinary demands that COVID-19 has imposed. The response has been uneven and imperfect. That should surprise no one. When we describe something like COVID-19 as novel and unprecedented, we must temper our expectations.  That is not to say that we should have no expectations, but the expectations we hold should be reasonable. So, what is reasonable?

Schools and school boards vary significantly in their capacity. They would benefit from greater coordination from provincial ministries of education. This will require more than the production of guidelines. Online learning is in most jurisdictions in a sorry state, but provincial – if not pan-Canadian – coordination and cooperation would improve its quality dramatically. Regulations about the uniform and open reporting of COVID cases by school would likely provide some comfort to the anxieties of parents.

Teacher unions and parents should try to look beyond the horizon of their own interests to work for the common good. One cannot address an extraordinary event by maintaining past practices. There will inevitably be some dislocation for everyone.

Employers and unions will need to modify, albeit temporarily, existing contracts to allow for different staff deployment. I am not suggesting abandonment of the existing contracts but some time-limited accommodations.

By way of illustration, it seems unreasonable to me to expect that teachers who are largely unfamiliar with online learning should be assigned those responsibilities. Those teachers who are conversant and comfortable with the kind of performance online learning demands should undertake the responsibility for developing units, lessons, and modules. The development of the material should be coordinated by the teacher specialists most familiar with the contents of the provincial curriculum. The material should be able to be accessed by classroom teachers from a provincial repository to fit their own timetables. They should be able to create a schedule for the students for whom they are responsible and complement the pre-recorded on-line modules with opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning and receive assistance in the form of small group, and individual, tutorials.

As I hope I have made clear, there are places where I think things need to be better coordinated. However, I think it is important for everyone to cut everyone else some slack at this difficult time.

Will Public Schooling Withstand the Disruptive Impact of COVID-19?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce is granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The absence of school in the Spring of 2020 and the ‘return to school’ this Fall are producing enormous anxiety for students, their parents, educators, governments, and employers. Have I missed anyone? I hope not because everyone has a stake in what happens in public education. In the absence of a disruption, many people do not think twice about the importance of schools. I have lamented society’s collective indifference on many occasions, going so far as to label it “malign neglect.”

COVID-19 has made almost everyone pay attention to the many contributions of public schooling to society. At a basic level there is the custodial function of schools. Schools provide a safe environment for students freeing their parents and guardians for other pursuits. Many of the individuals collectively referred to as “essential workers” could not have carried out their responsibilities if schools had not made provision for the care of their children. In fact, the absence of schooling for most children, youth, and young adults has made people who do not have children or grand-children appreciate the contribution that schools make to the economy.

Since the end of the second world war, schools have been regarded as ‘engines of the economy.’ The importance of equipping students with fundamental knowledge has been recognized for its contribution to what some call ‘human capital development.’ While schools do not provide workplace training, they develop literacy, numeracy, and a suite of other capacities upon which employment training, higher education depend, and innovation depend.

In a previous blog post, I expressed my concern about the impact of lost learning time for three categories of students: students for whom English is a second language, special needs students, and students from low income families. I am not alone in having this concern. The parents of these children are very troubled. They worry about their child’s successful transition to the responsibilities of adulthood, a key element of which is economic self-sufficiency. Teachers are concerned out of compassion and out of the recognition that closing any gap produced by lost learning time will fall upon them. If we stop and think about it, we should all be concerned. Compassionate concern for our fellow human beings is the sign of a strong and cohesive society. But, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, consider the economic consequences of a population that requires additional resources to try to close the gap, and, if the gap remains, for the social services they will need throughout their adult lives.

That brings me to a contribution that is often overlooked – and has received little attention during the COVID-19 pandemic: the contribution of schooling to the learning of social norms and values. By tethering successive generations of students to the core values, beliefs and social norms shared by a strong and healthy society, Canada’s education system – especially elementary and secondary schools – equips us to withstand the turbulence and discontinuities that are caused by events such as COVID-19. Social cohesion is among the most important contribution that schools make.

In another blog post, I wrote that online learning during COVID-19 was a failed natural experiment that tested the elasticity of public schooling. Technology did not – and cannot be – a substitute for the lack of human instruction that occurs in congregate settings. Online learning as it occurred in the Spring of 2020 placed unreasonable demands upon teachers, students, and families. Continuing in the same vein during the Fall will affect the long-term development of most students. But even improved online learning cannot substitute for the learning of shared norms and values that occurs when students occupy the same physical location. It is in schools that students are taught by a teacher who models the norms and values we share, explains them to students, provides the opportunity to practice them, and gives feedback to encourage improvement. Learning to work and play well with others is central to public schooling and essential for a cohesive society.

COVID-19 disrupted one of the most important stabilizing social influences. People have come to appreciate that Canada’s public schools contribute to Canada’s resilience. Like a gyroscope, public schools provide navigational stability. A permanent disruption to public schooling would have a tragic impact on Canadian society.

COVID-19 tests the elasticity of public schooling

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Catastrophic events are stress tests for the systems affected.  COVID-19 has certainly tested many: health care capacity and delivery; public and private care for the elderly; viability of large and small retail businesses; the seemingly endless growth of real estate values; “just in time” supply chains; and the development and testing of new drugs.

The final results of the COVID-19 stress test will not be in for a long time, but it has already revealed the inhumanity of an economy that depends on low-wage and contract labour and the immorality of a trade-off that someone described as “dying for the Dow.”

COVID-19 has tested the elasticity of contemporary public schooling. As I have argued, online learning has proven to be a failed natural experiment for most students, increasing inequalities between learners with advantages and those with disadvantages. COVID-19 has reminded everyone – especially parents – of the importance of the custodial function of schools.  

It is not possible to know the consequence of all stress-tests in advance of their occurrence. But it is a certainty that the consequences will be devastating if you never ask (and attempt to answer) a few key questions. What kind of stresses can the publicly funded system withstand? For how long can the system withstand those stresses? What action can we take to avoid the stress or to mitigate its impact of it occurs?

We have not explicitly asked “how long can parents cope with an unplanned school closure?” But we know the answer. Parents can cope during planned school closures precisely because they are known in advance. They can arrange with other care-givers for the supervision and care of their children during regularly occurring breaks in schooling. However, when labour conflict disrupts schooling, even sympathetic parents find it challenging after a few weeks.

COVID-19 has helped to answer the question “how much instructional flexibility can reasonably be expected of teachers?” “Fitting education to the needs of the learner” has been a slogan in education for more than a century. Today, the notion is expressed as personalized learning. Consider, for example, this passage about flexible learning environments from the curriculum section of the British Columbia Ministry of Education website:

Learning can take place anywhere, not just in classrooms. Many schools and teachers create learning environments that explore the use of time and space in creative ways. The integration of areas of learning and technology also have opened the door for teachers and schools to approach the use of time and space in creative ways – ways that adapt to students’ needs and interests.

Although the learning standards are described within areas of learning, there is no requirement for teachers to organize classrooms, schools or instruction in this manner. In effect, the Ministry of Education defines the “what” to teach but not the “how” to organize the time, space or methods to teach it.

COVID-19 was a stress-test for personalized, flexible learning. Some teachers “passed” the stress test COVID-19 imposed, but not that many and certainly not all teachers. Many teachers said they felt they were failing their kids and their families because they were unprepared for the situation into which they were thrust. COID-19 was catastrophic and, thus, unprecedented – at least in our lifetimes.

The fact that so few teachers believed that they were prepared is a failure of the system that we should have known about. Let me be clear: It was not a failure of the individual teachers; it was a failure of the system. And, it was one we should have anticipated.

We have known that “fitting education to the needs of the learner” is the promise of individualization in the context of a system of mass education. It is the promise that a system of mass education can provide to each student with the instruction that was provided to the children of the wealthy as individuals or in small groups by masters or tutors. It was an educational slight-of-hand like promising farmers higher prices for their crops while providing consumers with low-cost produce.

Does mass education mean that education cannot be fitted to the needs of learners? No, it does not. The key questions are: How much and what kind of difference in instruction can be accommodated? What are the necessary pre-conditions to providing such instruction?

One part of the answer is that teachers must have prior preparation in planning for as much individualization as the conditions under which they work allow. The preparation and conditions would need to be much different if our conception of ‘personalisation’ in our publicly-supported system of mass-education is equivalent to the education that children of wealthy parents could provide by hiring tutors or masters.

The conception of ‘personalization’ is not appropriate for public education. It suggests that the primary beneficiaries of education are individuals, but that is not true. The primary beneficiary of public education is the society. That is why we spend the taxes we collect from everyone, whether they have children or not, on public schools – to ensure that our society continues and improves. Of course, we ensure society’s continuity by improving individuals but by emphasizing what they have in common, not what distinguishes one from another.

Education has always been personalized to some extent. Special needs students receive programs that consider their needs. Elementary school students make limited choices that reflect their interests. The courses offered at the secondary school level are evidence of the wide variety of opportunities available to high school students to personalize their learning.

The elasticity of all systems is limited. We can and should consider learner needs and interests. But to do that honestly, we must acknowledge the primary purpose of a public-funded system and the limits that such a system imposes. The elasticity of public education does not extend to personalizing students’ learning. We didn’t need a crisis to grasp that.

COVID-19 was a failed natural experiment in online schooling

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

Natural experiments are observational studies of the impact of an event conducted during and afterward, focussing on differences among groups. They differ markedly from true experiments in which individuals are randomly assigned to an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group is exposed to some treatment (a new drug, for example) and the control group is not.

Coincidentally, one of the most famous natural experiments was conducted after a cholera epidemic by John Snow (famous at least among epidemiologists). Water to a region in London was supplied by two different companies. During the cholera epidemic of 1849, the two companies supplied their water from the same polluted region of the Thames, producing similar death rates.  By the time cholera returned in 1853, one of the companies had changed its source of water, creating the condition for a natural experiment. Snow mapped the outbreaks of cholera in 1853 and traced its recurrence to the water supplied by the company still obtaining it from the polluted region of the Thames.

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a natural experiment in online learning, though not exactly like the cholera epidemic in London. Online learning during COVID-19 has had a markedly different impact on different populations. Statistics Canada data show that the burdens of access to equipment, technology and support fall heaviest upon lower income households. These households have a disproportionate share of students who will have the greatest difficulty making up lost earning time, compounding the existing inequalities.

Students in homes that were relatively well-equipped with a computer and decent bandwidth were able to access the educational material. Obviously that material, and the support teachers were providing, were not available to students in homes with no or little equipment or internet access.

No one considered the online experiences as a substitute for face-to-face instruction or contact between students and teachers. However, one of the unintended but real consequences of online learning was to exacerbate the inequalities that face-to-face schooling tries to eliminate.

Even in homes with equipment and internet there was competition between parents who needed the equipment and bandwidth for working at home and their children who needed them for school. Families with the luxury of time were better able to monitor and assist their children. The differences among all students intensified.  Of course, these were not the only differences in the environments in which students were expected to learn online. Many students do not have a quiet space at home and/or parents who can help them when they struggle with a task. There are students who are on their own because their parents must work outside the home.

Teachers struggled. Many had little or no experience with online learning, video-conferencing equipment, and the content management systems that school boards made available but for which little training was available. Ever resourceful, many resorted to other online resources for help and one another for support. But most teachers were on their own in terms of what and how they planned for, and made use of, online ‘learning.’

There are lessons to be learned from the natural experiment in online learning. It is obvious, the introduction of any new practice or technology requires significant planning. Of course, no one anticipated the abrupt shift to online communication (I resist calling it learning). Those contemplating further use of internet technologies must have a plan for doing so. The COVID-19 online experience makes me wonder if Ontario will rethink requiring mandatory online coursework for secondary students.

It is important to ensure that the conditions for using the technology are favourable. Inequalities in equipment and bandwidth are not acceptable conditions. Requiring teachers to figure things out for themselves is unacceptable. They need preparation for using any new practice or technology.

Teachers should not be preparing on their own. Most teacher unions have sub-sets of teachers organized by grade level or subject. These are often called professional specialist groups or something similar. The membership of these groups is often leaders in the sub-specialty. These groups should work with teachers who have significant experience working with technology and distributed learning to prepare the material that will be used if there is a return to online learning.

If online learning continues, adjustment would be required to the traditional relationship between teachers and students, one that is presently based upon a single teacher working with a group of students (usually grouped by age) based on grade level or subject. This arrangement places enormous pressure on teachers working in conventional face-to-face environments. Online environments increase the pressure exponentially. Online learning (and face-to-face learning) would likely be enhanced if teachers were encouraged to collaborate with one another and have collective responsibility for groups of students. Online learning as it is presently practiced places unreasonable demands upon teachers and poses major challenges that could affect long-term student development.

COVID-19 is likely to recur in the fall and perhaps after. There are steps that can be taken to improve on the largely negative experience. There were many admirable efforts to address inequalities in access by providing computers and free or relatively inexpensive internet. But significant inequalities remain that must be diminished. That will be costly at any time, but they will be an additional burden in the aftermath of the huge expenditures that governments have made during the first wave of COVID-19.

The cost of improving the online experience of students, teachers, and families will need to be weighed against rescheduling schooling to make up the learning time lost by closing schools.  Closing schools during what is likely to be another COVID-19 wave (declaring them ‘unplanned school holidays’) might be preferable on several grounds. Rescheduling schooling as often happens in climates where schools are closed because of weather is much less costly than gearing up for more and improved online learning.

Because it will be difficult to ‘gear up’ before another wave occurs, the inequalities produced by the first wave of COVID-19 are very likely to persist and, thus, be worsened by resorting to the use of internet technologies to address school closures. Rescheduling face-to-face instruction is likely to be more favourable from an educational standpoint because it would not aggravate educational inequalities to the same extent as the hodgepodge that was characteristic of the response to the first COVID-19 wave.   

I belong to the “plan for the worst and hope for the best” school of public policy. I hope there is not a second wave of COVID-19. However, planning for school closures in the event of a second wave of COVID-19 is preferable to repeating the failed natural experiment in online learning during COVID’s first wave that has worsened the educational inequalities that schooling tries to eliminate.

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.

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.