Apprehensive and optimistic: Parents split on hybrid learning

With the announcement of a hybrid school option, members of the U-High community are faced with the option to return to campus beginning March 8 — one that will require serious consideration not just from students but also from their parents. 

While some parents are concerned about the safety and practicality of a hybrid program, others believe in-person school to be a crucial factor in alleviating the detrimental effects of remote learning on students’ mental health. 

After initially learning about a hybrid option, Laura Yergesheva, parent of junior Kira Sekhar, believes that an in-person program is in the best interest of many students’ mental health. 

“I think it’s a good idea. A lot of the kids need the social aspects of the school,” Ms. Yergesheva said. “As long as it’s in a safe way, where people have thought about it carefully and have made sure that the teachers are vaccinated.”

Ms. Yergesheva’s sentiment is shared by over 200 parents who signed a petition in late January arguing that remote learning has been harmful to student mental health and asking the school to develop an in-person option for their students. 

Among these petition-signers is Laurel Harris, parent of junior Katie Baffa. Ms. Harris was initially enthusiastic about an in-person program, but later expressed great disappointment with the school’s current approach to hybrid learning after a parent meeting on Feb. 4.

“We are greatly disappointed in the lack of creativity, intention and passion in the recent return to school announcement,” Ms. Harris said. “What is the value to my high school student sitting in a room once a week, learning, essentially independently, surrounded by students she doesn’t know, and without a teacher present?”

On the other hand, Talia Baker, parent of junior Emma Baker, worries that an in-person program will force students to make difficult academic adjustments, and their already rigorous classes may be harder to handle in-person. 

“Not only does hybrid learning put people at risk, but more importantly, it presents a new learning challenge on top of the challenging environment the students have already adapted to,” Ms. Baker said. “I think a plan to go back to school when it is safe to do so in the fall would be more optimal.”

Marshall Baker, another of Emma’s parents, also raised a number of concerns regarding the safety of an in-person program, especially with new variants of the coronavirus. 

“We don’t know how likely these variants are to cause significant illness in teachers or young people or how effective the current vaccines will be at establishing immunity to the new variants,” Mr. Baker said. “With these uncertainties, I don’t think it makes sense to move back into hybrid learning, particularly when the school has done such a good job thus far with e-learning.”

In contrast, Ms. Harris believes that the school’s approach to upholding safety guidelines is more extreme than necessary.

“Why is the university forcing a significantly more conservative approach than the IDPH and CDC indicates to be safe?” Ms. Harris said. “We have repeatedly asked to hear directly from the university leadership making these decisions and are met with silence.”

With the announcement that individual students could possibly only attend in-person classes once a week, Ms. Harris worries that the underlying issues of distance learning will continue to present themselves.

“As I see it, the real social and emotional risks to the students, particularly adolescents who now have to face their tremendous physical and social changes alone in their rooms,” Ms. Harris said, “reside squarely with the university leadership team.”