There is, of course, the possibility of staying on in the student market by bringing my programmes online. The immense problem is that, because of the nature of the programmes I’ve developed for students, they were designed for in-person sessions and a lot of it cannot be translated online.
Yes, there are alternatives - online labs, simulations, etc. - but even seasoned educators generally agree that they are temporary substitutes for the situation we are in, not adequate replacements. There are intangible benefits to in-person learning that can never be replaced by online learning.
I recognise that they are useful in the current situation and they definitely hold a place in education. That said, because my programmes aren’t curricular, I always intended for them to be as immersive and experiential as possible.
Unfortunately, this means that they can’t quite be translated to an online version without losing a lot of their intended effects.
There is the possibility of creating a new programme aimed directly to be done online, as I’ve done with some of my other programmes (for the adult learner market), but this will take time. Also, those programmes aren’t intensely-hands-on science-based programmes, so it’s not difficult to do so.
Furthermore, because I’ve spent at least 3 months creating the original programmes without recouping the resources I’ve put into it, I don’t feel inclined to create any more new programmes.
The schools seem to think that 20 hours of in-person training should translate into 20 hours of online training, as if they are the same thing. This is something I find strange because they had to translate their curriculum online last year and, surely, they must realise that you can’t translate things minute for minute.