What is the Best Instructional Model Amidst the Pandemic?

An Analysis of Blended vs. Distance Learning Models 

(By a group of San Francisco Bay Area Teachers)

While blended learning offers the obvious appeal of enabling students to return to campus part-time, we must first ask some critical questions: Will the quality of blended instruction be stronger than synchronous distance learning? Will it increase meaningful connections and improve mental health for students? Does it merit the investment of resources, while justifying the risk of disease?

1. How does blended learning impact the amount of instructional time students receive?

Current blended learning models assume that class sizes must be reduced by half to two-thirds. Any models that limit class sizes will be profoundly inefficient, as they inherently cut back direct instruction by 50% to 66%. For example, if teachers are limited to teaching 12 students at a time instead of 35, they would need to repeat the same lesson plan 3 times over for a single section of students. Not only is it an inefficient use of teachers’ time, but it also carries the significant cost of reducing the number of instructional minutes that students access. To illustrate, the second chart below compares the average amount of structured classroom time across each of the recent bell schedule proposals (as of 6/7/20):

A quarter system model further exacerbates the loss of direct instructional minutes; teachers would need to cover double the amount of material in half the time. To put it more concretely, with the A/B/C Day model, teachers would need to squeeze what they would normally spend 9 hours teaching over 2 weeks into 2.25 hours over one week. Any benefits that students might gain from in-person instruction are thus outweighed by significant losses in direct instructional minutes.

2. Can teachers create impactful online learning if most of their working hours are devoted to in-person instruction?

The current blended learning model proposes that students access curriculum online on days they are not at school. Yet if teachers spend the majority of their time recycling the same content to smaller groups of students in person^[1], logic dictates that there are not enough hours in the day to also prepare screencast lessons for students at home. To ask them to teach all day and then create and manage additional distance learning is unrealistic and unsustainable -- a recipe for teacher burnout.

If teachers lack the capacity to create enriching online content for students to access from home, they may likely resort to assigning greater loads of what is traditionally experienced as homework. Students will ultimately spend the majority of their week studying in isolation at home, disconnected from their peers and teachers, with limited access to asking questions in real time.

From an equity perspective, at-risk students historically also tend to struggle more with homework completion. In fact, our district’s alternative school, Peninsula High School, typically does not assign any homework for that very reason. Models that rely heavily on students engaging in independent work from home without the supportive presence of their teachers may further widen existing achievement gaps.

Finally, it should be noted that with a distance learning model, we could still build in opportunities for students to come to campus as the need arises. For example, a distance learning schedule could potentially incorporate on-campus supports for specific populations (e.g. English Learners, students with IEP’s, etc.).

3. Does blended learning offer more opportunities for connection compared to synchronous distance learning?

One of the strongest arguments that can be made in favor of in-person learning is that it helps promote connection and community. While this is certainly true in a traditional school setting, the stringent safety measures required for in-person learning could end up making school feel like a stale, cold, almost dystopian experience. After waiting in long lines to take their temperature, students will be greeted not by a warm smile or touch, but by adults repeatedly warning them to stay 6 feet apart from their friends. When they look around the classroom, they may have little idea what their peers might be thinking or feeling, with faces hidden behind masks. Students may go through the day without seeing a single smile. Instead, their limited hours at school will be marked by relentless reminders that they must stay ever vigilant against a deadly virus.

Students' most connecting experiences often occur during brunch, lunch, open periods and extracurricular activities. Most of these opportunities will now be stripped down due to safety restrictions. Because synchronized online courses can meet more frequently, ironically they offer more time to connect. Distance learning can provide a safe space for teachers to facilitate community using technology, such as Zoom breakout rooms. Teachers will have the ability to support group work, visit chat rooms, answer questions, and give feedback in real time.

	A/B/C Days	A/B Days	Distance Learning
Average frequency of connection	Once or twice per week (Total 7.5 hours /week)	2 to 3 days per week (Total 11.25 hours/week)	5 days per week (Up to 20 hours/week)
Quality of connection	Controlled, distant, obscured nonverbal cues with masks, tainted with fear of contamination		Safe, open, relaxed
Teacher-guided group work	Impossible in person due to social distancing restrictions		Possible via online meeting tools

Ultimately, physical presence in itself does not automatically equate to engagement and community. One must consider the quality of that presence. Is it possible that daily connections with others virtually might be at least as beneficial as less frequent contact in person -- especially when you can actually see others’ faces and exchange ideas without an awkward, anxious space in between? Furthermore, are we not resourceful enough that we can establish other creative means of helping students connect? Given the proper resources, intentional community building and social-emotional learning can very well be built into distance learning models.

4. Will the in-person model be an effective use of resources?

In-person learning models carry a high and perhaps hidden overhead cost, in that they ultimately strip time away from the essential work of delivering high-caliber instruction -- the core mission of school itself. As of early June, we have just two months to figure out how to prioritize our limited time and resources. Would it be wiser to dedicate this time toward thoughtful development of a strong online learning system, or will we devote our energy toward overhauling the existing structures of our school in order to accommodate a physical return to campus?

a.    Will blended learning be the most efficient use of our time and energy?

Reopening schools safely will require a huge lift in terms of time spent planning and modifying existing systems:

●     District and site administrators must take on the entirely unfamiliar role of becoming experts in disease prevention measures, coordinating the execution of an extensive list of CA COVID-19 Industry Guidelines in order to reopen.

●     Site administrators will need to draft an unprecedentedly complex master schedule, enforce consequences to breaches in safety rules, and mitigate concerns that arise as individuals become infected.

●     Teachers will need to restructure their curriculum in order to accommodate the drastic reduction in direct instructional minutes, while also learning to juggle between in-person and online learning.

●     Counselors will spend the first several weeks of school untangling the inevitable flood of scheduling conflicts and changes, pulling them away from supporting students’ academic, social-emotional and college readiness needs.

b.    Is returning to school a financially sound idea?

Our school district is facing an impending budget deficit. Distance learning would reduce facilities cost significantly that could be re-invested in curricular development.

●     Schools closed to students would cut down on utilities and facility maintenance costs.

●     No money would be needed to fund disinfection and protective equipment, or to increase staffing for sanitization, symptom monitoring and contact tracing systems.

c.    Will efforts to reopen schools ultimately detract from our ability to offer quality distance learning if a resurgence occurs?

Infectious disease experts have warned that a new resurgence of outbreaks is likely to occur with the coming flu & cold season. Consider recent events in South Korea and France, where hundreds of schools had to close just days after reopening. Would it not be more strategic to start the school year with a strong and consistent distance learning model, in the plausible event that schools will need to close again?

 Although the current proposal makes it seem as if schools can seamlessly flow back and forth between blended and distance learning, the reality is that such transitions will likely be disruptive and detrimental. Although distance learning is neither ideal nor perfect, in the midst of this global crisis, it offers simplicity, predictability and stability -- all of which ultimately benefit our students.

5. Which educational model best guarantees student and staff health and safety?

The reality is that active transmission of COVID-19 continues to occur daily in our community, at a rate that has not shown signs of slowing despite widespread closures. Until a cure or vaccine is broadly available, it is misleading to tell families that it is “safe” for their children to return to school. One can only say that there is a lower or higher risk of disease transmission at any given moment; safety is not a promise that can be guaranteed with any authenticity.

For better or worse, the decisions that we make today will have a direct impact on the health and safety of over 9,000 students and school employees, and their families. New research indicates that COVID-19 poses not merely a threat of death, but also debilitating long-term illness and permanent cardiovascular damage -- including for young or otherwise healthy patients (see Washington Post or SF Chronicle articles, or the latest Atlantic article on how COVID-19 is lasting several months for thousands). If someday, students or staff end up suffering lifelong health impairments as a direct result of contracting COVID-19 at school, will we be able to look back and say it was all worth it?

When recently surveyed, two-thirds of our district’s teachers expressed a preference for distance learning over the proposed blended learning model. As the experts in their field, we would hope that teachers’ perspectives in determining the best options for student learning would be acknowledged and valued.

Within our schools, our teachers are arguably our greatest asset. If we are to ask the majority of them to come into school against their wishes, we would hope that the benefits would far outweigh the risks. If we are to ask them to put not only their own health at risk, but also that of their partners, their children, and their loved ones, we would hope that in-person learning is an absolutely necessary cost that cannot be avoided in order for students to access quality education. Yet is it truly essential? Is there evidence that it will even be superior, from an instructional or mental health perspective? We feel the answer is “no.”

In summary, distance learning increases access to direct instruction, enables teachers to focus 100% on developing quality online curriculum, and ensures safety for staff and students. A blended model is unlikely to increase social connectedness in ways we would hope, and poorly allocates precious educational funding and resources. We will end up risking the lives of many in exchange for poorer quality education.

---

^[1] For example, with the A/B/C quarter system model, a teacher with 3 sections of the same course would have to repeat the same lesson plan 9 times over the course of 3 days.