Immersed in the world of virtual schools as I am, I encounter many educators from the bricks & mortar world who seem to start every sentence with “yeah, but…” Here in Minnesota, “yeah, but…” is an antonym for “you betcha.” The yeah-butters see the logic of virtual schools and the benefits they can provide (and are providing) to a wide range of student populations. However, our system is so ingrained that it’s hard for them to envision a system that fully embraces online learning.
Many such conversations got me to thinking, what if virtual schools came first? What if, by some weird quirk of history and technology, we had a whole system of virtual schools well established, and then someone came along and said, “Hey! Let’s build a system of bricks & mortar schools so kids can all come together face-to-face to learn!” The change agents would extol the benefits of students and teachers actually working together in the same room, sharing equipment, talking to each other in real time, and so on.
Because there are always those who resist change, what would the yeah-butters say in this historical fantasy?
“Yeah, but we’d have to build huge buildings in nearly every neighborhood or town! The cost would be outrageous!”
“Yeah, but we’d have to find ways to transport all those kids! We’d need large vehicles specially designed for 30, 40, 50 kids! Imagine the pollution, the safety issues. The cost would be outrageous!”
“Yeah, but then we’d be putting 500, 600, 2500 kids all in the same building for 7 hours each day! (Are you nuts!?) I can’t even imagine what kinds of management and behavior issues that would cause. And teachers would have to deal with all that? No thanks.”
“Yeah, but how would they teach!? All those kids, all those learning styles, all in the same room? I don’t think so. Teachers aren’t trained for that.”
“Yeah, but then we’d have to feed them at least lunch and maybe breakfast, too! So these buildings have to have kitchens and cafeterias and the staff to cook and serve, not to mention the quantity of food we’d need to provide the kids with the same healthy meals they’re getting at home now. Aren’t schools supposed to focus on education, not catering?”
“Yeah, but then all the teachers and students would have to be from the local area! We couldn’t use the best teachers available worldwide! Students wouldn’t be able to work so easily with all their friends from other parts of the world! That would be terribly isolating, especially in small towns.”
“Yeah, but then parents would never see their kids! It would be like the schools were a daycare provider.”
“Yeah, but everyone would have to be on the same schedule! We’d have to have start times and end times, and neither students nor teachers would have the flexibility they have now to work or volunteer or whatever.”
“Yeah, but everyone would have to follow the same calendar! Families couldn’t take vacations wherever and whenever they wanted, and everyone would be trying to go on vacation at the same time.”
Then there’d be the political arguments:
“Yeah, but that’s taking socialized education way too far!”
“Yeah, but you’re talking about the government taking kids away from their parents for most of the day! (Communist!)”
As this historical fantasy continued, schools would no doubt try to maintain as many of their virtual school habits as possible because that’s how the system – from teacher training to funding to pedagogies – was designed. Maybe the kids would be all sitting at computers in a classroom while the teacher sat at their own desk using all the usual virtual school tools. No doubt teachers would struggle with f2f interactions because it wasn’t the job they were trained to do. Some students would immediately take to the new environment, while others wouldn’t be able to participate in the faster-paced classroom discussions (as compared to asynchronous online discussions).
Back here in the real world, the yeah-butters and the traditional system conspire to force virtual schools into the same old mold that created our bricks & mortar schools. From funding laws to calendars to teacher-centered instruction, most virtual schools today are not – indeed, cannot – take advantage of all the chronological, geographical and pedagogical flexibility that our modern tools can provide. But we’re making progress. Blended models are already the norm in higher education and the K-12 system is well on its way. Ultimately, the legitimate concerns of the yeah-butters and the vision and enthusiasm of the you-betchas will result in more flexible system that maximizes the benefits of both worlds and thus better serves the students. All students.
To that, we can all say, “You betcha!”
Perspectives and Information on Education (PIE) 
Pingback: Blogging About K-12 Online Learning « Virtual School Meanderings
This is a nice paradigm that will certainly leave out-dated-thinkers with a bad taste in their mouths. Regardless of the education system that’s in place, I think most would agree it too will eventually become mired down in its own demise. Online education is certainly here to stay and as those old, stuck-in-the-mud, policy makers begin to retire, we will see a transformation of the old system, into the new which will certainly reflect the archetype that Glick describes. So really, it’s not a paradigm but a vision of the future and the today’s old system eventually becomes one paragraph in a future textbook about the history of education.
My question to this is, “when do we realize that we have reached this new system and have something entirely new on our hands, one that is exactly what Glick describes? Also, when do we realize that this structure will eventually become the old one and a new system will take its place. Getting our policymakers to understand that what they build today must have components in it allowing for the greatest flexibility so the future of education never ends up bogged down like a parasite that eats its own host.