The following was originally posted on July 12, 2020.
I’ll preface this by saying that I’m not in favor of opening public schools until the US has implemented an effective, nationwide strategy for dealing with Covid-19 – which, unfortunately, doesn’t seem likely to happen before January 20, 2021.
There are any number of strategies that might achieve this. Some advanced nations – most prominently,
New Zealand – seem to have figured things out. Here at home, upper New England seems well on the way to stabilizing
things.
But America's southern tier is on fire, and the rest of us might not be far behind. The US is still not stockpiling PPE against renewed eruptions of The Virus. Between a third and a half of Americans don’t have the basic decency to wear a mask in public, even when the law requires it. And we aren’t testing nearly enough. (Despite the President’s assertions, the US currently ranks 23rd in per capita testing.) *
But America's southern tier is on fire, and the rest of us might not be far behind. The US is still not stockpiling PPE against renewed eruptions of The Virus. Between a third and a half of Americans don’t have the basic decency to wear a mask in public, even when the law requires it. And we aren’t testing nearly enough. (Despite the President’s assertions, the US currently ranks 23rd in per capita testing.) *
All in all, it seems likely that
businesses – and schools – will be closing and opening, again and again, from now
until a new President is inaugurated.
But that isn’t our topic today.
Today, I’m assuming the powers-that-be will, in most states, try to open schools at the usual time, or a bit later. From the experience of other countries, we might be able to open normally – with a few adjustments – for elementary school kids.
But for secondary students, while there is a plethora of plans, none looks very good. The plans that seem relatively safe rely, in great part, on a good deal of remote learning. The plans that essentially involve having most students back in the classroom don’t look remotely safe.
It would seem that we must either sacrifice learning, or safety. No third alternative has been suggested.
What I propose might be that third alternative. It offers something close to normal instruction – possibly with better outcomes for some students – together with greater safety than any in-school plan I’ve seen. It has the added advantage of having been used successfully in non-emergency situations. **
It’s called one-subject scheduling, and it works like this. Instead of the present secondary-school schedule, by which each student takes five, six or seven courses at a time – with each course meeting once a day, or once every other day – under a one-subject schedule, each student would take one course at a time, all day long, for 5 ½ or 6 weeks.
The same teacher, and the same group of students, would meet in the same classroom for that six-week term, at the end of which, successful students would have earned one credit. After a short break, during which all classrooms would be thoroughly cleaned, school would resume, with students moving on to their next courses. At the end of a year – if no health emergencies supervened – students would be exactly where they would have been had they taken all their courses under a traditional schedule.
The advantage of this one-subject system is that students and teachers would be exposed to only a small group of individuals for the entire six-week term. By working out staggered times for breaks and meals, school administrators could minimize the number of students using bathrooms, cafeterias, and other common areas at the same time. At meals, safety could be maximized by having students from the same class sit and eat together.
It wouldn’t be perfect, but with careful procedures and a little luck, it should greatly reduce the chance of viral spreading. At worst, if a student or teacher came down with Covid-19, only the people in one class would have to self-isolate. The rest of the school could, with precautions, continue to operate, avoiding a shutdown affecting the entire student body.
Indeed, using this system, a school could further reduce risks by holding classes in shifts – with some classes starting in the afternoon and running into the evening.
Of course, there would be problems calling for innovative solutions. Some subjects – math, foreign language, lab science – might actually work better if taught as an intensive course. Others, such as literature – with its heavier reading assignments – would be more difficult.
But that isn’t our topic today.
Today, I’m assuming the powers-that-be will, in most states, try to open schools at the usual time, or a bit later. From the experience of other countries, we might be able to open normally – with a few adjustments – for elementary school kids.
But for secondary students, while there is a plethora of plans, none looks very good. The plans that seem relatively safe rely, in great part, on a good deal of remote learning. The plans that essentially involve having most students back in the classroom don’t look remotely safe.
It would seem that we must either sacrifice learning, or safety. No third alternative has been suggested.
What I propose might be that third alternative. It offers something close to normal instruction – possibly with better outcomes for some students – together with greater safety than any in-school plan I’ve seen. It has the added advantage of having been used successfully in non-emergency situations. **
It’s called one-subject scheduling, and it works like this. Instead of the present secondary-school schedule, by which each student takes five, six or seven courses at a time – with each course meeting once a day, or once every other day – under a one-subject schedule, each student would take one course at a time, all day long, for 5 ½ or 6 weeks.
The same teacher, and the same group of students, would meet in the same classroom for that six-week term, at the end of which, successful students would have earned one credit. After a short break, during which all classrooms would be thoroughly cleaned, school would resume, with students moving on to their next courses. At the end of a year – if no health emergencies supervened – students would be exactly where they would have been had they taken all their courses under a traditional schedule.
The advantage of this one-subject system is that students and teachers would be exposed to only a small group of individuals for the entire six-week term. By working out staggered times for breaks and meals, school administrators could minimize the number of students using bathrooms, cafeterias, and other common areas at the same time. At meals, safety could be maximized by having students from the same class sit and eat together.
It wouldn’t be perfect, but with careful procedures and a little luck, it should greatly reduce the chance of viral spreading. At worst, if a student or teacher came down with Covid-19, only the people in one class would have to self-isolate. The rest of the school could, with precautions, continue to operate, avoiding a shutdown affecting the entire student body.
Indeed, using this system, a school could further reduce risks by holding classes in shifts – with some classes starting in the afternoon and running into the evening.
Of course, there would be problems calling for innovative solutions. Some subjects – math, foreign language, lab science – might actually work better if taught as an intensive course. Others, such as literature – with its heavier reading assignments – would be more difficult.
But resourceful and inventive teachers and administrators would find ways of
making a one-subject schedule work to everyone’s advantage. They might even find that it helps many
students focus better, and learn more.
Let me end as I began. I do not think that, in most parts of the US, we are anywhere near ready to re-open schools – at least, secondary schools. Our national and state governments have a lot of work to do before that should be even thinkable.
But if schools must re-open, states and localities should seriously consider one-subject scheduling at the secondary level. It’s safer. And it would be at least as educationally sound as what we were doing before The Virus.
** Fork Union Military Academy, in Fluvanna
County, Virginia, is one example. FUMA has
used this approach successfully for many years.Let me end as I began. I do not think that, in most parts of the US, we are anywhere near ready to re-open schools – at least, secondary schools. Our national and state governments have a lot of work to do before that should be even thinkable.
But if schools must re-open, states and localities should seriously consider one-subject scheduling at the secondary level. It’s safer. And it would be at least as educationally sound as what we were doing before The Virus.
No comments:
Post a Comment