Preparing to Re-open? It’s Not about Choosing the “Right” Model
Guest Author: David Sherer
This fall, should students only be taught online? Or should they be physically present? Perhaps it’s best if they experience some type of “hybrid” classroom? If so, what ratio of in-person to digital instruction should they receive? Should students and parents get to choose their options? How about teachers?
Right now, districts across the country are agonizing over these questions. However, such decisions about which instructional model to choose may be less vital than we imagine. Here are two reasons why.
First, we don’t know what works. Although recommendation guides for re-opening are emerging, and researchers are combing the archives for insights about online learning, the American school system has never tried an instructional shift at this scale during pandemic conditions. As a result, currently there is no way to know, with anything approaching certainty, which instructional model our districts should choose.
Second, execution is everything. Decades of educational research has taught us that “Implementation dominates the outcome.” Whatever model we choose, the most important question may be how we put that model into action and how we learn to improve it over time.
If you accept these points, then you might be thinking, “Well then what are school districts supposed to do?” Of course, it’s important that districts choose some type of instructional model based on their best interpretation of existing research, their own experiences, and opinions from the community. This choice will likely be constrained by what is politically feasible and/or operationally possible. However, I argue that making this choice is only the beginning.
Given the novelty of our current conditions, districts must also put in place systems to continuously learn about their instructional models, determine if they are having their intended effects, and adapt them for particular schools, classrooms, and students. But how should they do that?
First, it’s important for district or school staff to specify work processes that groups of educators will carry out. This specification might be led by central office staff, school leaders, or teacher teams (e.g. all 4th grade teachers might agree to try guided reading).
Second, districts should identify and track measures of outcomes (e.g. reading performance) and the processes that are intended to impact these outcomes (e.g. what % of students are participating in guided reading per week).
Third, districts need routines for regularly looking at evidence in order to determine whether these process are occurring as planned and whether they are having an impact. Such inquiry routines can lead to the adaptation of interventions, their abandonment, or inspiration for new ideas. When used well, these routines also help district teams learn about what is working for different populations of students and thus are essential for identifying equity gaps in their efforts and working to rectify them.
Taken together, these elements of a learning system provide a means for districts to both execute their model well and improve it over time. Importantly, to use such a system, it’s vital for districts to approach their work with humility and a learning stance—where they are open to being wrong and interested in “learning as they go.”
Districts are trying to answer a lot of questions right now about their instructional plans. But, as they prepare to re-open, it’s important for them to realize that putting in place good systems for “learning as they go” may be more important than choosing the “right” model. _____
If you want to learn more about how to develop systems for continuous learning, I recommend checking out the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the Carnegie Foundation.