**5. Results**

Here, findings from Jenkins-Bourdieu-based data analysis are presented. Data is drawn from open-ended responses to questions and contextualized with reference to participants' responses to quantitative questions. First, parents' individual sensemaking of 'emergency remote teaching' is discussed. Parents' conceptualization of it versus the reality, and how they are implicated is explored. Finally, institutional barriers and facilitators affecting parents during 'emergency remote teaching' are discussed. Where participants are quoted, square brackets indicate editing by the researcher; all spelling is as written in the survey.

#### **5.1 Individually**

#### *5.1.1 What is remote learning/teaching?*

Of all 42 respondents, only three families did not have work set online. Thus, for almost all parents, 'emergency remote teaching' meant online teaching, although 7 parents reported schools did also provide paper-based work-packs.

Parental conceptualization of remote teaching differed in some areas, but an area of agreement was that there should be an interactive element. One parent's (55 mainstream secondary) role within a remote learning provider led them to state that, 'Merely setting task and research to complete is not teaching. There also needs to be an interactive element … built into teaching material.' Parent 107 (Mainstream secondary) also felt that 'Face to face learning is essential especially in subjects like maths & sciences.' A lack of interaction in real time appeared to cause concern that there would be gaps in learning, according to parent 12 (Mainstream secondary). While only three families did make reference explicitly to a connection between interactive teaching and lost learning, those that did appeared to feel strongly about its importance.

#### *Between Home and School: Exploring Parents' Experiences of Educating in a Pandemic DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101408*

Some parents felt that because work was set online, schools were, 'Not providing online learning just suggested links,' (parent 42 – mainstream primary) and that their children, 'didn't feel that the teachers are communicating or supporting … learning' (parent 73). However, being given links and choice over what was undertaken was positive for parent 52 (mainstream primary) who noted that, 'They are providing many different ideas and allowing parents to set appropriate tasks and timings.' This was echoed by the 10 parents who noted that there was no pressure on them to complete everything or for work to be handed in.

#### *5.1.2 How is remote learning/teaching delivered?*

Parental experiences of remote learning were largely unified in that work was delivered online, with the exception of three families. A substantial proportion of parents reported that they could submit work on paper (nine families) or that there was no expectation to submit any work (10 families) upon completion. This was in addition to the 23 families who could submit work online. Most parents did not specify the platforms used but some did use MSTeams, Class DoJo or Google Classrooms at the start of lockdowns. The platform for dissemination was not cited as problematic by any parents; rather the practicalities of online learning were the barrier for some, with parents not having the capacity to support their children. In this survey, 35 children had access to their own devices. The switch to online instruction is within a context where two-thirds of parents reported that their children used no assistive technology in school. Thus, there has been a substantial culture and experience change for most families.

Twenty-four families reported that work took more time to complete at home than in school, which suggests that the volume of work set was substantial. As noted by parent 60 (mainstream secondary), schools had 'given far too much work for the time available' and were 'determined to work their way through the curriculum with little account of how online learning is very different.' Only five families found that time spent on remote-learning was in line with in-school working. One family (parent 91), whose independent secondary school routinely used iPads found 'Remote working no different to that when in school.' This differs substantially from others' experiences of online learning, who felt that 'reliance on technology has made it significantly more difficult,' (parent 57 – mainstream secondary). Having said that, only 9 families reported that accessing technology was harder at home, versus 17 who found it easier and 18 who found it in line with school access. As such, we can see that remote/online working was not a straight 'switch' for parents/carers and their children, but there were variations in experiences.

#### *5.1.3 What does remote learning/teaching mean for me?*

Delivery of teaching materials relied heavily on technology and on parents. With parents working at home, time/availability to support children was a pressure point for families. As noted by parent 113 (mainstream primary), 'I don't have the time to encourage him or help him when he's struggling.' They felt that 'work has clearly been set on the basis that the children will have access to computers to compete the work, or at least a printer with an unlimited ink supply!'

It is of note that 27 parents (64%) felt that work was pitched at the right level; with only 30% finding it too complex, they still felt work took longer at home. This suggests then, that there was too much work set and/or that the work needed substantial differentiation by parents. This echoes parental views of 'normal' lesson delivery, where two-thirds of parents were unaware of differentiation for their children or felt that teachers did not adapt their children's work.

Differentiation was minimal and parents were key in addressing this: parent 57 (mainstream secondary) reported that they, 'have had to adapt [work] for our daughter, which has taken a lot of time.' Other parents reported that work was set but that they as parents were expected to ensure that work was done, either through choosing a daily program of study for their children and/or through adapting work set so that their children could access it. Differentiation of work and adjustments for young people with SpLD was a point of contention for many families. Parent 55 (mainstream secondary) noted that there was 'a huge amount of 'project work' set which I expect is perceived as self-differentiating.' They felt that the school was not adjusting work, as did parent 73 (mainstream secondary) who noted, 'My son says that the school is not adapting work for him,' and parent 101 (mainstream primary) who said that 'nothing had been adapted for SEN' until the week that the survey was taken in mid-May.

#### **5.2 Interactionally**

#### *5.2.1 Home-school communication: paper versus reality*

Some families believed that lack of interaction would lead to knowledge gaps irrespective of young people's needs and capacity to engage with remote learning. Of respondents, 29 families were not confident or neutral in respect to teachers' ability to deliver online learning, with most families reporting that learning was not interactive or real-time. This lack of confidence may underpin families' concerns around gaps in learning.

However, this view was not universal. Some families felt that online/remote teaching was very successful for their children; 13 families reported high confidence in teachers' ability to deliver remote learning. Parent 39 (mainstream secondary) noted that, 'teachers have been emailing C and marking all his work online. Feedback has been excellent. As they are not dealing with bad behaviours, the focus is all on teaching and learning.' Parent 91 (independent secondary) found remote learning effective and noted that, 'Contact with subject staff and learning support staff is always available.' Other parents experienced contact with staff differently. Parent 99 (other) found that, 'not all tutors are chasing him for the work he is supposed to have done' and that understanding what was expected work-wise was challenging.

Parent 119 (mainstream secondary) perceived a difference in delivery dependent on teachers noting that 'some teachers have adapted better than others. Some subjects [are] being taught by the teams' platform; other subjects there has just been work set by email.'

Where delivery of lessons was problematic, it was largely attributed to difficulties in accessing platforms or loss of routine for learners, as found elsewhere [51, 52]. Parent 109 (mainstream secondary) found that 'work isn't user friendly. Platforms used like 'show my homework' is inconsistent and not very user friendly.' Parent 60 (mainstream secondary) found that their daughter, 'misses the routine, and her friends, and her timetable.' Despite some difficulties in sequencing and organizing work, some parents did appreciate flexibility and feedback from teachers. As parent 42 (mainstream primary) noted, 'They are reassuring all parents not to stress about it. Explaining all children are different. Learn in different ways.' This appeared to provide comfort emotionally and pragmatically, allowing for responsive management of children's workloads.

#### *5.2.2 Home-school: communication prompters*

Although some parents found communication from school efficient and accessible, and prompted by positive experiences, others disagreed. This theme arose from

#### *Between Home and School: Exploring Parents' Experiences of Educating in a Pandemic DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101408*

qualitative responses from some parents around communication and the forms it took; it was not a specifically structured question. However, communication between families and professionals was described in several extended answers. The issues raised were useful for consideration when addressing pragmatic outcomes from remote learning.

Lack of differentiation prompted parents to contact schools to request appropriate work. Some parental communication did result in adapted work for children. Parent 60 (mainstream secondary) noted that for her daughter, 'Some of the teachers have thankfully responded to her need for 'private' questions and I would like to see that continued as it really helps with her social anxiety.' Parent 110 (mainstream primary) found that following contact with her child's schools, the 'Teacher has emailed me more appropriate work.' Other parents found contacting teachers was less fruitful.

Parent 12 (mainstream secondary) did not have clear communication with their child's school stating, 'I'm not clear how he is at school… he says he finds things popping up on the screen distracting.' This suggests that delivery of learning was not adapted for their son. Parent 119 (mainstream secondary) found that individual contact with the school was less effective than collective action reporting. They felt the need to work alongside other parents to contact the school and request differentiated learning materials. Parent 119 (mainstream secondary) commented, 'At the start of the situation there was no adjustments in place for my child… we had to make a complaint to get this changed… all the students of one subject have complained too.' Parent 113 (mainstream primary) had 'spoken with the SENCO Manager at the school 3 times now and each time I am told they are not putting on any additional resources or remote teaching for children with SEN.' Despite contact, them school made no concessions during the first lockdown for her child and others with SEN. These themes were present in a large number of responses: schools did not differentiate work appropriaptely. However, given other work on SEN and the difficulties expected in relation to provision (see changes in policy highlighted in sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2), the lack of differentiation was unsurprising.

#### *5.2.3 Home versus school: parents' shifting roles*

Some parents have found their new roles as 'teachers' a positive experience, as noted by parent 35 (mainstream primary): 'We can discuss on a one-to-one level, make connections across subjects easier because I don't have to stick to lesson plans.' Other parents had less positive experiences: 'I don't have the time to encourage him or help him when he's struggling' (parent 35 – mainstream primary). Others described an expectation for them to step in to teach (parent 123 – mainstream primary), 'there is assumption and agreement that parents will intervene (and I do).' The shift in roles was a theme in over half of extended answers. Parents experienced changes in how they supported their children. Parents were key in actors as facilitating young people's ability to access their work through remote learning. This finding echoes outcomes in other studies undertaken during COVID-19 related remote learning.

### **5.3 Institutionally**

#### *5.3.1 Home setup: expectations versus realities*

Parents had substantial expectations placed on their resourcing and capacity at home as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns. Most parents responding to this survey had appropriate technology and devices to access learning (37 families). However,

five families did not have sufficient devices. Parents also had to manage competing demands of work and supporting their children at home.

Parent 113 (mainstream primary) reported that school was, 'not adapting the work at all. Both my husband and I are working full time… I am working full time at home whilst home-schooling 2 children.' Parent 52 (mainstream primary) also noted that at home 'he has the attention of an adult to help and keep him on track.' Parents reported that they intervened to support their children's learning despite their work commitments. This echoes findings from elsewhere and demonstrates the structural barriers in place [4, 5]; what if parents are not available to work with their children, or what should parents do, where they are without access to appropriate technology to facilitate their children's remote teaching?

Parent 57 (mainstream secondary) noted that, 'The reliance on technology has made it significantly more difficult' to access remote learning. Parents and children simultaneously working from home caused substantial difficulties for some families: they did not have sufficient access to devices. Parent 58 (mainstream primary) said, 'We only have one tablet with a small screen.' Other parents noted the importance of having access to a device: 'He has he own device [which] enables access. Technology is very important' (parent 26-other). Other families with limited devices had to prioritize which child could use it and when. This caused substantial difficulties for them.

#### *5.3.2 School setup: curricular burdens*

Parents felt that 'emergency remote teaching' highlighted their children's difficulties, particularly with literacy; 18 families (43%) reported that their children found learning harder at home than at school. Parent 55 (mainstream secondary) asserted that, 'It has really highlighted my child's struggle with reading and being independent.' Parent 35 (mainstream primary) also found this, stating, 'the reading required for online learning (it can be text heavy) emphasizes his difficulties with literacy and memory. However, multimedia like YouTube … make it easier for him.' This shows that families could to some extent 'bypass' reading to access class learning by using other learning strategies. However, parent 35 (mainstream primary) ultimately settled on 'purposefully decid[ing] not to follow the curriculum.' No other parent in this study actively chose to go 'off plan' for their children, which although not high frequency, is highly important as an apparent outlier within survey respondents.

#### *5.3.3 Resources and systems*

As discussed above, parents viewed access to ICT as essential for engagement with remote teaching. There was also the expectation within parents' sense-making/ conceptualization of remote learning that they would be 'available' to support their children at home with learning, despite their own professional demands/roles. Lack of resources has been noted as problematic by parents, both within the homesphere and within school. Parent 109 (mainstream school) felt that their child would benefit from technology, 'but I canning [can't] afford it.' Conversely, parent 108 (mainstream primary) noted that, 'School can't afford a device for every child.' There was reference made to free/integrated software addons, accessible to schools. Other parents asserted the importance of read-aloud software, touch typing, and dictation/speech-to-text capacities to support their children's learning.

Some parents found that remote learning was beneficial, as access to technology facilitated their children's learning (parent 109 – mainstream secondary;

*Between Home and School: Exploring Parents' Experiences of Educating in a Pandemic DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101408*

parent 39 – mainstream secondary). The freedom to use different technologies such as readers, Google searches and touch-typing, facilitated access to learning for some learners, according to their parents. Other parents noted that use of ICT and the systems implemented for 'emergency remote teaching' exacerbated their children's difficulties, with children's social needs not being considered initially (parent 60- mainstream secondary). 'Screen use exacerbates… issues with attention and concentration' (parent 102- mainstream primary) and some young people may be '… vile if [they have] been on technology too long' (parent 105- mainstream secondary). Difficulties interpreting pop-up information were also reported; it is likely that 'chat' functions were the reason for these difficulties, given that many software packages have that feature.
