Balancing In-Person and Remote Learning: The Hybrid Model

Most conversations about reopening schools include the hybrid model. This mix of in-person and remote instruction can have many varieties, including 2 days of in-person learning and 2-3 days of remote learning each week, with students split into two teams and alternating the days they are in-person. Other schools are opting for one week of in-person learning alternating with a week of remote learning. While I can only imagine just how much thinking and effort has been undertaken by local districts across the country this summer to implement these models, it does seem like there are some unspoken assumptions driving particular plans. Below I describe what a hybrid model might look like if learning, child care, or transportation and space constraints were prioritized. Though this is a thought experiment, I do think it’s helpful to point out the affordances and challenges of these priorities in order to question whether we’re pulling on the right levers, and which levers we’re not even touching.

Priority: Student Learning

We all learn through interaction and thrive on routine. My earliest posts for this blog highlighted these themes of learning being a social endeavor. So regardless of the learning environment, ensuring opportunities to learn with and from others, with the support of a teacher, is critical. With this in mind, allowing students, particularly our youngest students, to have as many touch points with their teacher seems obvious. Similarly, having the same teacher and a consistent group of peers also seems like an obvious component of a successful learning environment. (This report from the spring sadly notes that only 33 percent of students had regular access to teachers, 15 percent of parents received personal guidance about how to support their child, and just 13 percent of students got one-on-one time with their teachers.) And keeping a schedule as routine as possible is also advisable.

But which of the hybrid options seems to prioritize these components? None of the ones I mentioned above. Instead, half days for two groups of children would accomplish most of these goals. With half days, the same teacher instructs the kids each day of the week and sets them up with independent or project-based group work that they can continue at home. Instructions and support are largely given during the face-to-face time in school and parents are given information to support extended versions of homework. In typical elementary schools, much of the day is spent establishing routines, transitioning, doing independent reading or math work, or working with a partner or in a small group to complete an assignment. Half days are ample time for the instruction a teacher wishes to impart and for checking in with students individually to ensure they are set up for success at home. This model might be a 4-day model with an entirely remote day that allows the full group of students to interact synchronously online for part of the day and then continue with the extended homework for the remainder of the time while the teacher can engage in professional learning and sharing with colleagues around what’s working or what challenges they are facing. While not unique to this model, it also allows for the use of other adults, like special educators, counselors, reading or math specialists, assistant teachers, student teachers, or paraprofessionals to support smaller groups of students both in-person and remotely, and for these other adults to have time to meet with the teacher to discuss any concerns or struggles of individual students. So why is this model not being implemented anywhere? Mainly because of childcare, which brings me to the next consideration.

Childcare

If the hybrid model were to be designed with childcare needs as the highest priority, a consistent schedule that allows for longer chunks of time in school buildings would be optimal. This is largely why we are being offered the 2 full days per week or one week on, one week off models. While this does support working parents to an extent, it’s still a logistical nightmare for any full-time employee. Work does not stop for the 3 days each week the child is home, or for the week when children are home. (And of course there are parents who are the actual teachers too!) And on top of the inconsistent schedule for parents, children have an inconsistent learning schedule as well as inconsistent teachers.

There has been much said about how schools are not daycares. However, implicit in the model of schooling that has existed for over a century is the fact that schools are in fact caring for children while educating them. Ellen Gallinsky, the chief science officer at the Bezos Family Foundation said, “Indeed, the divide between child care and education contradicts our current understanding of child development.” Of course we’d all be up in arms if schools merely supervised children without teaching them. This is why they are not simply daycare centers. But on the flip side, we don’t choose daycare centers without enriching environments either, if we can avoid it. Needs for learning change over time--toddlers need supportive adults who can create environments for safe exploration while elementary and secondary students need structure, resources, and experts in pedagogy to impart complicated concepts, critical thinking skills, and executive functioning capabilities--but these are both equally learning-based environments based around supportive relationships with caregivers. Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, notes, “The driving force for education should not be ‘a parent needs to have a place for her kid to be so she can go to work’. We need to have an answer to that question, which is not school.” Well yes, but if that were the entire story, then wouldn’t we be prioritizing learning and choosing a different hybrid model?

Transportation/Space

If there were enough transportation for everyone to ride a bus at a social distance or for students to be housed in learning spaces with enough room to be socially distant, then perhaps there wouldn’t be these conversations in the first place. But the reality is that there are not enough buses and drivers or classroom spaces to allow for this. That’s how we’ve ended up in the current bind. Public education is bound by many regulations that make creative possibilities extremely constrained here, so this section may be pointless. But for the sake of beating my head against a wall, let’s imagine a possibility for creativity. What if we could explore common public spaces, like libraries or community centers or even abandoned schoolhouses? What if some of the government pandemic spending went to renting out commercial spaces that are currently empty because of forced closings during COVID? What if we recognized that secondary students are more capable of remote learning than elementary students and we converted high schools into more early childhood spaces? This is all to say that there could be ways of finding space if there were room to explore (pun intended). Of course, national leadership in this realm could be helpful. (And that’s as political as I wish to get!)