Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Nextdoor (Opens in new window) Nextdoor
Hello Pedro, I have a question about this article. Paul is saying that teachers at all levels had to respond literally overnight to an unknown and unplanned situation. In my experience that is not entirely true. Some teachers and entire schools were prepared and had a very good backup. So the question I have is why do you think so many schools and teachers were (or are) not capable of continuing lessons? It’s not that there is no technology available. I’m very curious about the role of schools and learning experts who have been denying to discover the opportunities digital instruments could bring. Why didn’t they adopt any of it during the last twenty years? Why are most schools desiring to get back to the normal situation and get rid of technology?
From what I’ve seen in Flanders, the UK and the US, most schools weren’t prepared at all. The differences between schools were huge, and only a few were ready fast. This was recently also described by the OECD linked to the TALIS-data.
But the second part of your question is not entirely correct: it’s not that they are denying it, but sometimes there is cold feet, sometimes it’s not enough time for PD,…
The desire to get back to normal seems inspired by several reasons. One of the main I’ve learned from a survey of Flemish teachers: the majority prefers IRL teaching.