A year before my freshman year, blended learning was introduced to the Francis Howell School District. In the beginning, it was a very new and different environment, giving way for more student freedom than ever before. Students were encouraged to flex to where they felt they learned best. Now, in my senior year, restrictions have continuously grown to a point where blended learning is much closer to regular classes than when they were first available.
Exemplifying this change is Mrs. Emily Harris’ classes, AP Statistics and Algebra 2. Prior to this year’s restrictions, she would have full weeks worth of flex time for students to choose whether or not they needed to attend a lecture, given that they had a B in the class and a 90% attendance rate. These two requirements provide ample parameters to allow students to flex. With the potential freedom allotted to students, Harris saw increased class test scores across the board. During the first year blended classes were available, in the 2021-2022 school year, she took note of this–especially in a struggling seventh period class that had worse scores than all other hours.
“We implemented our first session of blended learning with only my seventh hour. Their test scores were on par with my other two courses after simply implementing blended learning for one quarter,” Harris said.
This year, a rule regarding students having to be in the classroom 40% of the time was implemented, effectively bringing Harris’ method to a halt. Rule changes are to be expected, although a change as severe as this one is detrimental to established systems, like Harris’. If this shift were to have occurred closer to the start of blended learning, it would be much different. Given that we’re almost five years in, though, it isn’t fair for some members of the district to make as impactful a decision as this one, especially since they aren’t in these classrooms.
To many, flex scheduling should be decided by the teacher on a class-by-class basis, however, I understand the reasoning behind the decision. The policy was made to try and have students in class 50% of the time, due to a five day week, the parameter chosen was 40% of the week. Though, a student with many flex classes, like junior Reed Veihman, would rather have kept blended learning the same as it had been in previous years.
“I think the 40% rule is kind of stupid. Some people feel like they’re losing their freedom and they want the quiet environment that they get by flexing more often,” Veihman said. “I think it should be up to the teacher because there’s some classes where you don’t need to be there every day.”
It isn’t only teachers’ established schedules that have been affected; students have also suffered the repercussions of this new policy. For junior Deepal Sharma, flexing off campus has become almost obsolete, and she often chooses to remain in class and get work done in that setting.
“I show up to most of my classes because I don’t have as many opportunities to flex during the week,” Sharma said. “I feel like I don’t get as much work done. So for example, in Spanish [4], I don’t get as much work done because I have so much work from my other flex classes. But then sometimes it is helpful; in [AP] Lang, you have a reading day, so it’s helpful that you can do that at your own time.”
In terms of my time with blended learning, I feel as though it has grown into a new being since its creation. Within the first couple years of its conception, it was remarked by Harris as being similar to the Wild West due to a lack of strong guidelines for teachers to follow as they took on this new venture and style of teaching. It allowed for freedom far beyond a standard classroom. It was clearly too much independence, considering that it has been stricken with regulations that strike the once exciting concept into a mere memory of its former.
