The Trouble With Hybrid Models for Reopening K-12 Schools

This article is written by Brianna Donaldson. If you are interested in this topic, please join us for The Future of Education on June 17.

Without adequate funding for staffing, technology, and childcare, hybrid models will have dire consequences for education and equity, and less-than-certain benefits for public health.

Schools across the U.S. are facing draconian budget cuts while grappling with CDC considerations for reopening safely — particularly maintaining adequate physical distancing and small, consistent groups of students. Many are considering hybrid instructional models, in which students attend school in person on alternating schedules and engage in distance learning the rest of the time. Hybrid models are being suggested not just by the CDC itself, but also in policy briefs (such as the American Enterprise Institute’s Blueprint for Back to School), state guidelines for school reopening (including California’s), and comments by leaders from Mayor Bill de Blasio to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In essence, hybrid models focus on achieving smaller class sizes without expanding facilities or staffing by “staggering students in rotations.” A typical proposal splits students into two groups for their in-person school time. For example, students may attend school in person during alternate weeks, in morning and afternoon shifts, or two days per week per group.

Hybrid models may seem to balance the need to educate our students safely with the desire not to spend more money on K-12 education. However, unless we support critical needs like additional staffing and distance learning technology for all students, while also investing in safe and consistent out-of-school care options for families, hybrid models will have dire consequences for education and equity, with less-than-certain benefits for public health.