In my school district they still haven't figured out how to proceed. The problem is there are a lot of low income families that they know don't have internet access or a computer. They can give those kids a chromebook, but that isn't very helpful with no internet access. Legally (and morally) they can't move ahead with online school if a big chunk of the students are left out.
On the other hand, I was talking yesterday with a family member in another state where they have been doing online school almost since the first day (including PE, art, etc.!). I asked them what they are doing for students without a computer or internet access and apparently that state doesn't have the same equality laws so its basically a case of too bad, so sad for poor kids.
What I hope comes out of this is the realization that internet access is a utility on the same level as water or electricity.
> On the other hand, I was talking yesterday with a family member in another state where they have been doing online school almost since the first day
It's highly likely they aren't supposed to doing that. A lot of school districts around me decided to go their own way when the state didn't give specific directions after shutting every school down, mainly really rural ones interestingly enough. They are now having to back-peddle as the state steps in and exerts their authority over the districts. Similarly, in districts that simply postponed everything indefinitely (as they were supposed to), there were a number of individual teachers who tried to immediately start doing remote instruction with their kids and were quickly reprimanded by their district as soon as they were found out.
The reason is of course education equality. The state wants to make sure that every student is accounted for first. My wife is acutely aware of it since she has a non-zero number of students that lack home internet access. Students who many people would like to disregard in favor of the vast majority who do.
I feel like both sides are valid though...you can't simply not educate 99% of students because of the problems of the other 1%, but at the same time you need to make sure that 1% is able to get access too, because every child does matter.
> there were a number of individual teachers who tried to immediately start doing remote instruction with their kids and were quickly reprimanded by their district as soon as they were found out.
Not if you spend enough time chatting with teachers. From what I have heard, oftentimes they find themselves blocked by administrative busybodies at every turn, as a matter of course.
> From what I have heard, oftentimes they find themselves blocked by administrative busybodies at every turn, as a matter of course.
This doesn't seem to be a case of "administrative busybodies", though, there are material consequences to only educating the students with access to internet.
Under another president, we could be looking at turning internet into a public utility. Sadly, we are stuck with making do with this crisis the best we can.
So the most equal solution is no school for anyone.
Of course, that likely has more impact on the kids without family support than those in families that can manage some education on their own, and actually makes inequality worse than starting with best effort and working to fill in the gaps.
if we are in this by fall, it will be moot because people will run out of money to pay for their internet. Not many people can stay out of work for 4+ months.
Guidance from the Federal Department of Education...
>To be clear: ensuring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), † Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act should not prevent any school from offering educational programs through distance instruction.
This concern is generally less related to disabilities and more related to poverty. The constitution requires that all students have equal access to education - Brown v. Board of Education is an important decision in this vein, for example. Moving the school district to a system which some students are not able to access due to inability to afford the means of access would almost certainly be found in violation.
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is a federally recognized civil right, states and districts can't opt out of it.
Unfortunately it takes lawsuits to resolve these kinds of disparities, but there is no legal basis to proceed without making appropriate accommodations for students in low income families.
The Department of Education disagrees. Look, let's do what we can to cure disparities --- special education, access, etc, but we should still be providing services to as many kids as possible.
My kids in a private school are getting high quality services and distance education right now; we shouldn't deny it to most kids in public education because a few might be left behind.
I don't know how you understood my comment to mean that we should be withdrawing education from students who are able to access it. Remedy in these situations typically looks like making up lost educational hours and paying for internet access for students who are unable to afford it.
There are districts that are actually withdrawing education and providing only enrichment instead of distance learning because of this exact rationale. I thought your comment was in support of these actions. (Indeed, one sibling of your comment is in this position).
Let's do what we can immediately, and then try and make it as fair as we can next.
In California, at least, students are eligible for subsidized ($20/month) LTE hotspots. Apparently it is provided by Sprint as part of an agreement they made when they leased spectrum that had previously been set aside for educational use. These could and should been made free for low-income families.
I’d be interested to see how that breaks down in terms of household sizes, location, etc. Is this a rural problem? Urban? Are those households primarily childless, or with school-aged children?
> Also, would it the solve not just be to provide loaner 4G access points to those families?
It probably would, but I don't think most school districts planned for a multi-week or multi-month pandemic. So buying access points and Chromebooks, finding all the students who need them, and distributing them, probably won't happen in the short term.
I think this has likely become worse in recent history. I expect all of these households have "internet" access through a smartphone, but won't have a home connection to use with school issued chromebooks.
If you don’t have a strong need for it, paying for cellular internet for every phone plus a home connection becomes hard to justify, and the cellular ones are probably the more useful of the two, for most people.
Many people have internet, but only on phones. So you could ask them to use the phone or tether a loaned laptop, but this will raise costs and other equity issues.
When things are cleared up with covid - just go to the library and see all the seniors who have next to nothing, then think - how many of them have a grandchild in their care?
In the Swedish community I live in they give all children a MacBook, and they've been doing this for many years.
Given that this is Sweden almost everyone already has internet access, and if you don't you can still go to the public library and get it (and borrow a computer if you want).
Would public libraries still be open? States are shutting down businesses every week, and SF has a "shelter in place" policy. For some students, libraries and other sources of public wifi are not available at the present moment.
We are dealing with this in south Dallas right now. Many of the kids don't have access to computers or internet at home and the libraries and other places with hotspots (coffee shops, mcdonalds, etc) that kids normally go to to for internet are all closed.
The districts are planning on giving kids Chromebooks for classes but they are also figuring out how to give them personal hotspots or enable LTE on the Chromebooks. Overall, it seems most of Juniors and Seniors that couldn't afford internet before and were close to dropping out to help pay their family's bills just got their parent's approval to start working instead of going to school.
It will be very interesting (and sad) to see how this affects graduation rates and preparedness for classes come fall.
Good point. Yes, there is government housing, where the rent and utilities are subsidized or free, based on need. I was thinking of low-income folks who live in their own homes.
The house stimulus bill has money for funding broadband for this reason (and remote work though if can't afford internet probably can't work remote...).
The Republicans are attacking it as 'Obamaphone 2.0'...
Which actually sounds like a much quicker way to get internet to more kids in cities.
We've already spent how much money failing on rural broadband - but I think the same issues with rural cell service.
On the other hand, I was talking yesterday with a family member in another state where they have been doing online school almost since the first day (including PE, art, etc.!). I asked them what they are doing for students without a computer or internet access and apparently that state doesn't have the same equality laws so its basically a case of too bad, so sad for poor kids.
What I hope comes out of this is the realization that internet access is a utility on the same level as water or electricity.