Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education

'Staggering' Education Inequality Caused During Pandemic by Overreliance on Tech, Says UN Agency (sanjuandailystar.com) 215

A United Nations report "says that overreliance on remote learning technology during the pandemic led to 'staggering' education inequality around the world," reports the New York Times. The 655-page report from the United Nations' education/culture agency UNESCO asks if we've just experienced a worldwide "ed-tech tragedy."

Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: Some of the main findings of the report include:

1. The promise of education technology was overstated
2. Remote online learning worsened education disparities
3. Learning was hindered and altered
4. Regulation and guardrails are needed.

Remember that the report covers countries around the world, with different levels of economic development. One section of the report is actually titled, "Most learners were left behind," citing estimates that "at least half of all students expected to access remote learning systems to continue their education were unable to do so due to technology gaps... In many parts of the world, accessing education via a technology portal was so uncommon and so unrealistic that many families did not even know that the option existed when schools closed." This should not have come as a particular surprise. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the specialized agency of the United Nations for ICT, estimated that approximately 3.7 billion people — roughly half of the world's population — lacked a functional internet connection in 2020... Countries around the world invested heavily in internet-connected solutions for education, even though these solutions commonly reached only a minority of students, resulting in a bifurcation of educational opportunity.
The report begins with a warning from the agency's assistant director-general for education. "Ultimately, we should heed this publication's recommendation to exercise greater humility and caution when considering the educational promise of the latest technological marvels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Staggering' Education Inequality Caused During Pandemic by Overreliance on Tech, Says UN Agency

Comments Filter:
  • 1. Life is not fair. It never has been.
    2. Some people did better remote learning than in person. Most did not.
    3. The tech worked well in some places, and not in others.
    4. See point 1.

    • Agree.

      But you left out "tough shit".

    • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Saturday September 09, 2023 @01:55PM (#63835092) Homepage

      1. "Life isn't fair" is a terrible excuse for making life less fair.
      2. "Some" and "most" is a terrible way to quantify this. Was "some" 1%? 3%? Judging from my kids' schools, it was less than 5% even in a rich county.
      3. Yes, it mostly worked well in neighborhoods with lots of existing privilege, and poorly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
      4. See point 1.

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:46PM (#63835214)

        1. "Life isn't fair" is a terrible excuse for making life less fair.

        Indeed. And in this case, it was clear that the policies were unfair as soon as they were enacted.

        Within weeks, there was data that showed upper-middle-class kids were adapting while e-learning was a disaster for poor kids.

        Data also showed that kids were not major spreaders of Covid, so keeping the schools closed was not justified. This was clear by August of 2020.

        This was not a case of well-meaning policy that failed. This was a policy implemented with intentional callousness.

        Covid learning loss has been a global disaster [economist.com]

        • Data also showed that kids were not major spreaders of Covid, so keeping the schools closed was not justified. This was clear by August of 2020.

          Everyone's a spreader of COVID-19. There's nothing magical about being young & the day-to-day realities were complex & varied. Schools were a major concern for being "super-spreader" centres, i.e. prolonged periods of time confined indoors with large groups of people. However, schools are also typically highly controlled & controllable environments so that effective measures to reduce the risk of contagion were much easier to implement than in other places, e.g. Republican Party fundraising even

    • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:06PM (#63835116)

      1. Life is not fair. It never has been.

      Why do people say this as if this is a good reason to not address inequality when it in fact is a self evident statement that not everyone is born on equal footing, that meritocracy doesn't actually exist because of that fact and that we should be striving so everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and choice of decisions so they can in fact make the right ones.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:08PM (#63835122)

        Because they're (currently) benefiting from the non-fairness.

        Or think they are.

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )
        Because two people's idea of what's fair will never be the same in every situation. The diabetic kid who can't have a lollipop thinks it's unfair that her sister can have one. It becomes more a matter of what's right than what's fair. Is it fair that a neurosurgeon who spent 28 years in school gets to drive a Ferrari where as the high school dropout gets to drive a Yugo?
      • The solution to 'address inequality' never makes things more 'fair', whatever that is. It just picks different winners, in theory.

        The interesting point is that whatever the proposed change, people will game it. In other words, the same people more-or-less end up on the winning side regardless of the rules. The complaining mostly results from having to change strategies to maximize their results.

        The corollaries of that are left as an exercise for the reader.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You are doing it wrong. You have to create a society that isn't "winner takes all", so you can move beyond winners and losers.

          There are societies where the vast majority of people "win" a decent quality of life and level of happiness.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why do people say this as if this is a good reason to not address inequality when it in fact is a self evident statement that not everyone is born on equal footing, that meritocracy doesn't actually exist because of that fact and that we should be striving so everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and choice of decisions so they can in fact make the right ones.

        The biggest factor in outcome is parental involvement, specifically:
        - Both parents are present and involved in the life of their children.
        - The parents read to their children on a regular and consistent basis.
        - The parents are actively involved with the education of their children, wheter it be in-person or remote, public, private or homeschool.

        Children raised in such an environment will have better outcomes on average than those who aren't. But "better outcomes" aren't "equal", and parents

        • Nobody gets to choose their parents. Yes everything you are describing sounds like absolutely correct advice I would confirm and would tell parents I was talking to directly or people in terms of life decisions. That said not everybody has kids when they are ready, not everyone has the finances or time or state of mind to do everything correct or many absolutely do make the effort and have the best intentions but not the tools and skills to make it effective, maybe because their parents weren't able to give

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        It's the nature of the human condition. There is an inherent desire to get ahead. All the wishful thinking and dumb fuck liberal policies in the world won't change that basic fact.

        • Dumbfuck right wing mantras aren't a substitute for reality.

          Humans are also inherently cooperative and help each other. Even cavemen did. Especially cavemen did.

      • by bsolar ( 1176767 )

        Why do people say this as if this is a good reason to not address inequality when it in fact is a self evident statement that not everyone is born on equal footing, that meritocracy doesn't actually exist because of that fact and that we should be striving so everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and choice of decisions so they can in fact make the right ones.

        The problem with "addressing inequality" is that often the solution is not to bring the less lucky up, but to bring the more lucky down, which is actually unfair to the more lucky.

        It's not the fault of a more lucky child that they can successfully make use of e-learning and profit from it, so should they be denied that option because other children are in a different situation? With that rationale, you'd land in a "lowest common denominator" push which would not actually help anyone, be it the lucky or unlu

    • by khchung ( 462899 )

      1. Life is not fair. It never has been.
      2. Some people did better remote learning than in person. Most did not.
      3. The tech worked well in some places, and not in others.
      4. See point 1.

      5. Some people did worse in a classroom environment, and were told to "deal with it" in the past. When table's turned, it isn't fair?

  • Inventing a really good remote learning system is hard, really hard, REALLY HARD!
    Doing it properly would require years of tech and procedure development, coupled with testing and careful analysis of results
    Doing it quickly in a panic is doomed to failure

    • by dvice ( 6309704 )

      I agree with you. Remote education is hard, because actual education is hard. I have had plenty of bad teachers who could not teach anything, even when they were standing right next to me. Doing it remotely requires not only that you know how to teach well, you need to create material that either suits for all or automatically changes based on the learner.

      But even with this said, there are some students that are simply really good at learning. If you just give them some text, some examples and some exercise

  • I have family members who are grade school teachers. They both said that during the pandemic students were automatically promoted to the next grade despite their scores. Can you imagine how lost you would be as a kid if you were in a grade where you didn't understand the previous grade's work? Heaven forbid they hurt the kids' feelings and hold them back or send them to summer school; apparently it's better to destroy their educational career (or slow down the entire student body to compensate). It almo
    • They both said that during the pandemic students were automatically promoted to the next grade despite their scores.

      In California, this was announced as an official policy.

      The kids were told by the government that there was no point in doing any of the assigned work because none of it counted for anything.

      Many parents, who were already struggling to keep their kids engaged, gave up.

      • In California, this was announced as an official policy.

        The kids were told by the government that there was no point in doing any of the assigned work because none of it counted for anything.

        And yet, TFA summary says one of the findings was we need more regulation. Of an industry almost entirely controlled by governments at various levels. To suggest more government involvement will solve the problem is a triumph of ideology over experience.

        The one silver lining to emerge from the last three years is the student choice movement. I dearly hope parents stay furious at how their union-controlled government-run primary education monopoly failed and they continue to stay away in droves.

      • When I was in primary school (UK equivalent of grade school), nothing ever counted for anything. Classes were by age, you moved up a year every summer no matter what. And within a year group there was no division by ability, if the school was big enough to have two classes in the same year then kids were assigned at random. There were no exams, few tests, and very little grading (I'm not sure we even got an end of year grade, though the teacher would let parents know how their children were getting on at pa

    • Can you imagine how lost you would be as a kid if you were in a grade where you didn't understand the previous grade's work?

      That actually happened to me, because on the first day of first grade my older brother (charged with getting me to school safely) dropped me off in the SECOND grade classroom. They didn't figure out the mistake until after lunchtime. It was a great relief to be switched to the correct classroom, where everyone wasn't significantly larger and more sophisticated than myself.

      But apparently I was able to pass for a second grader for an entire half a day. Not bad.

      • by kackle ( 910159 )
        That's funny, and potentially scary.

        Because of a scheduling problem in high school, I was put in a sophomore gym class for a semester despite being a freshman. "Initiation week" was rough...
  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday September 09, 2023 @02:28PM (#63835168)

    But I'd be curious to find out - out of the 3.7 billion people who "lacked a functional internet connection", how many of them lacked realistic access to school in the first place, the pandemic nothwithstanding?

    In other words... was this report looking at the right thing, or just looking for easy things to point a finger at?

    • Just look at the first link in TFS:

      The headline of that page is "An Ed-Tech Tragedy?" (Betteridge's law of headlines would say the answer is: No.)

      The page is written like a sales pitch with every relevant buzzword you could think of for Education.

      The page's proposed solutions for future pandemics, i.e. their so-called "options", are:
      1) Make the pandemic worse by sending children out into it regardless.
      2) Forgo the children's education entirely until the pandemic is over.
      3) Disavow technology, and p
  • My fiction book of 508 pages is probably more informative than this 655 page report. They could have summed up everything using their chapter titles (some paraphrased):

    - Promises made by ed-tech (which turned out to be wrong)
    - Most learners were left behind
    - Inequalities were supercharged
    - Learners engaged less and achieved less
    - Education was narrow and impoverished
    - Immersion in technology was unhealthy (this chapter is actually probably worth reading)
    - Environmental tolls
    - The private sector's
    • Indeed, those recommendations strike me as a list of "duh, you don't say..." wisdoms.

      If that's the great revelation after doing a study that produces a 600+ page report, I'm not impressed.

  • This smells odorously of bureaucrats simply trying to blame others for their bad policy decisions.

    "Hitler didn't lose the battle of Stalingrad he just overrelied on beleaguered troops." You see it was really the soldiers' fault. They just didn't rise to the challenge of his brilliant strategy. And how could he have known they were misrepresenting themselves as being dependable and ready for victory?

    4. Regulation and guardrails are needed.

    The bureaucrats were totally uninvolved for years but now they are going to come in and make all the right

  • So what's their suggested way to solve the problem of educating people when classrooms are a hub for disease transmission (which they always are) and the disease being transmitted is very dangerous?

    More importantly: what's their suggested way to solve the problem knowing only what they did, and having only the resources available, in March 2020?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I have a solution: Make part of regular non-pandemic education remote. That way the children, and more important, the teachers will know how to do it in the next pandemic. Which is assured to hit.

  • Speak in terms of people receiving less education than before. Pissed offmess at equality is pure jealousy/envy. The solution to inequality that gets implemented inevitably standards reduced for everyone. Of course new elites will emerge from those “solutions” because ultimately you are going to hand power to the depraved and jealous.

  • Well, not all of it; it's very, very long & repetitive. It's mostly about how within countries & around the world, there's a lot of inequality. It concludes that increasing the cost of access to education, i.e. requiring expensive hardware & telecoms services, & requiring teachers & students to learn how to use them for educational applications at a distance, ended up widening pre-existing divides.

    It also mentions how poorly prepared the vast majority of schools are to provide online

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.

Working...