As we reach the start of a new school year along with the second quarter of the 21st century, it’s a good point to reflect back and look forward to the current state of schooling as AI enters into the equation. I always like to use a guiding question to navigate my thinking and given the current overarching AI discussion, my 2026-27 question is, ‘When it comes to teaching, learning, educational structures and change, are we reforming or transforming our schools?’
Whether it’s the traditional schools most of us grew up with, or perhaps more current models offering extended blended opportunities using technology, or the array of non traditional choices ranging from public charters to home school to fully virtual schools; transforming rather than reforming should be the primary pathway for school change. As technology offers increased flexibility options for teaching and student learning, the impact on educational related relationships is challenged. A few transformational related questions then are worth considering as a healthy balance of technology and face to face learning environments continue to evolve:
- As technology integration accelerates into schools, how can social interaction be enhanced to develop more productive social skills for students?
- How is “traditional learning” evolving and what might a ‘new normal’ be to ensure face-to-face feedback and support doesn’t diminish?
- How does the increase of technology and analytics place the student/teacher and/or parent/teacher connection at risk?
There’s certainly a host of questions that could be considered related to the multiple learning relationship factors necessary for productive school environments. I would argue that before technology weighed more heavily into educational decision-making, most school and educational mission statements leaned into the notion of relationships and engagement for all school and community stakeholders. Ideally, more integrated technology would support facilitating more face to face school learning experiences rather than reducing them… instead, increased flexibility could bend time, changing the dynamics inside and outside traditional school walls. While examining what ideal engagement might look like, I’d like to tease apart the questions posed above from my own experience and research:
- As technology continues to integrate into schools, how can social interaction be enhanced to develop better social skills for students?
Depending on one’s experience, the question can be leading. If using the pandemic model forcing teachers and students primarily into a virtual environment, a predisposition may exist that an online learning experience is inferior to a face-to face classroom experiences. This predisposition is common for parents whose own experience included a fixed academic schedule with traditional opportunities for learning interaction and social engagement. That online skepticism needs to be balanced with the quality of engagement social interactions in face-to face classrooms. For example, in face to face classrooms, is full participation expected or required from all; or is the social interaction exercised by a few? It is also fair to question the online experience a student may have and the amount of interaction facilitated by and between teachers and students. In both cases, teacher quality matters and active engagement should be observed in both venues.
There are some online experiences, especially delivered by private, for profit online schools, where a teacher has 200 or more students, and parent concerns about a school’s social development value are validated. There are online experiences though where teacher/student experiences quite interactive, requiring full participation. However, blended models including both a face-to face and online environments tend to offer a higher degree of personalized opportunities for social interaction both inside and outside of traditional brick and mortar schools. There are plenty of studies pertaining to class size in brick and mortar schools that examine the quality of class size relative to the effectiveness of teaching and learning. In this regard, technology, effectively integrated, can create flexibilities for student/teacher ratios, a greater variety of learning activities that connect to student interests, and personalized instruction along with collaborative opportunities.
One faulty assumption is that socialization and social development primarily happens in schools. Yes, there are experiences beyond the classroom like athletics and student activities. But there’s also increased chances for developing social skills outside of school using the flexible time opportunities technology can provide for internships and other experiences or activities to integrate and interconnect with the community at large. Ideally all brick and mortar schools would leverage technology to create flexibilities allowing for time, pace and place opportunities for all students…taking advantage of the proverb from last century that ‘it takes a village to raise a child.’ Examining and moving from fixed to flexible time and place opportunities for students would be a significant factor for transforming rather than reforming our schools.
- How is “traditional learning” evolving and what might a ‘new normal’ be to insure face-to-face feedback and support doesn’t diminish?
An exchange of views about “traditional learning” and the assumed relational value between teacher and student would be a great place to start community discussions about what traditional schools have provided and what can be included with a wider scope of 21st century options. Quality feedback in any learning environment is key to motivating students, and by way of the statement above, feedback is structured to be potentially greater in a blended environment from multiple sources. Whether one looks at a face-to face or virtual option, quality feedback can largely depend on student-teacher ratios, class sizes and extended resources; especially the underutilized resources available throughout local and regional communities.
The context of “traditional learning” also needs to be examined since most people reading this post had a traditional K-12 experience with a three season 180 day school year requiring individual students across all ability levels to start and stop a shared learning experience at the same time. An examination and a co-constructed meaning of a traditional learning environment should start with accommodating both students who need more time to demonstrate an applicable understanding of core curriculum areas; and accommodating students who can move more quickly with demonstrating an understanding of the same. The topics of ‘traditional learning’, ‘schooling’, or even ‘why students come to school’ requires a significant investment of community engagement to move change from a reform to transform mode. Ideally, available technology leveraged to accommodate students, teachers and community can open multiple possibilities and resolve issues that curtail transformation. These discussions can also shed light on solutions to issues that have stymied change…think scheduling conflicts, school start/stop times, expanded offerings, etc.
- How does the increase of technology and analytics place the student/teacher or parent/teacher connection at risk?
Needing to be considered is what one means by “connection.” Technology has certainly provided enhanced opportunities for parents to be communicating with their child’s school whenever necessary through a variety of means ranging from email to text messaging, and multiple forms of social media. Additionally, schools have student information systems allowing parents to access student progress, grades, and other issues anytime from anyplace. These options are the same whether a student is in a face-to face or virtual classroom. But have the varied types of communication between teachers, students and parents improved given the amount of available data; or has better knowing the personal learning interests creating passion for learning by individual students been compromised?
The question then becomes, “What is the quality of the connections between one teacher and 20-25+ students in an elementary school classroom? Or a middle school or high school teacher who interacts with 80-100+ students a day?” There are a various levels of connection, some of high quality; some more cursory. What systems or expectations are in place given the available technology that create more equity for personal connections with and deeper understandings for all students? Answering that question can create a shared understanding for how schools measure meaningful connections for students, teachers, parents and community beyond the analytics of test scores and associated data points that tend to get our hyper focused attention.
Our public schools are working hard at adapting and creating levels of change that accommodate a rapidly changing world, driven more by technology every day. We’re all running the race to keep up, trying to adapt to 21st century opportunities on the fly…building the plane as we fly it... However, at the quarter mark of the 21st century, our underlying classrooms still largely mimic 20th century models. Ideally, we can transform our schools’ structures(time & flexibility), and our classrooms(pace and place) by leveraging technology to maintain the face-to-face benefits schools provide to communities at large. Change is constant; school reform efforts tend to tip possibilities into 20th century mindsets, shortchanging students. Thinking with a transformational mindset is the pathway to creating opportunities for students to better meet the world in which they’ll live.