Comment by shortstuffsushi

Comment by shortstuffsushi 2 months ago

I would argue that unlike "remote work," where the COVID shift made it clear "hey most of us can just work from home" - the K12 "hack fix" most schools implemented was barely sufficient to get through the year or so that students were forced to stay home. I suspect that most standard public schools would do better to drop this offering altogether and leave it to 3rd party online schools, if such a thing exists and can get enough traction to stay alive.

toast0 2 months ago

I think most students didn't do well with it, but there are some students that thrived.

If there's enough of such students in a district's boundaries, I think it makes sense to accomidate them within the district, rather than push them out. It will allow easier movement to/from a classroom setting, and feels more likely to provide continuity than a 3rd party offering. Then again, school districts cut things all the time.

Reply View 0 replies

duxup 2 months ago

I think there's a big difference between the ad hoc COVID online schooling and actual "doing this with planning and intent" schooling that I've seen.

Reply View 2 replies

digging 2 months ago

I'd agree, but also note that plenty of remote jobs were and still are ad hoc. The difference is adults have more agency to improve their own situation even if their work doesn't make any concessions to the nature of fully remote work; children have very little agency over their schooling.

Reply View | 1 reply
- duxup 2 months ago
  
  Public schools are also really limited by the tech they buy, price sensitive, regular staff aren't up to date on tech, and they don't pay their IT teams much.
  It makes it hard for them to adjust fast.
  The purpose built school from home programs are often far better run / budgeted IT wise. I was at my son's high school and the school from home kids were there for an in person day borrowing the lab for some in person time / activities and etc.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies