Student Survey Confirms that LfA Systematically Disadvantages the Most Health-Vulnerable Students; Far from Being a Method to "Meet Students Where they Are," It is a Post-Hoc Justification for a Decision Made Solely on Financial Grounds

A new student survey has confirmed the argument I made at the start of the semester: that the Learn from Anywhere (LfA) system is socially unjust because it systematically disadvantages students based on health vulnerability.

While the LfA approach was touted as being a new, innovative educational approach designed specifically to improve education and "meet students where they are" in terms of how they learn best, I argued back in late August that the primary factor that would determine whether students came into the classroom or attended virtually was their health vulnerability -- that is, either how susceptible they are to severe manifestations of COVID-19 or how scared they are about becoming infected.

A new student survey released yesterday revealed that my initial impression was correct and that the propaganda surrounding LfA was wrong. Students who chose the remote option were asked the reasons why they did so. The results?

Only 9% of respondents reported that they chose the online option because of a "learning preference." In contrast, more than one-third of students (35%) chose the online option because they were concerned about COVID-19 risk. And since students were able to choose more than one reason, it is very possible that even less than 9% of students chose the online option primarily because of learning preference (many students concerned about COVID-19 risk may also have had a learning preference). 

But even taking these percentages as they are, it is overwhelmingly clear that the LfA approach primarily separates students on the basis of how much health risk they are willing to or able to accept, not on the basis of how they best learn.

The truth is that the LfA approach is inconsistent with the School of Public Health's commitment to social justice because it systematically disadvantages students based on health vulnerability. Students with greater health risks or concerns are systematically denied the opportunity to interact in-person with their professors and to reap the other benefits of attending class in-person.

These results should dispel any lingering misconception that LfA was primarily designed with the educational interests of students in mind. No - it was simply a post-hoc justification for a decision that had already been made by the university on financial grounds. Rather than simply telling the truth and acknowledging that for financial reasons, we were going to offer hybrid education, the university and the School of Public Health misled students and faculty into believing that LfA was primarily some sort of educational innovation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Copy of My Open Letter to the BU School of Public Health Community

Open Letter to BUSPH Urging the School to Start Classes Online this Semester Due to Peak COVID-19 Conditions

Despite the Claims of Safety, Spending Three Hours in an Indoor Classroom Entails Significant COVID Risk