Rocketship is gone, and yet now we have fawning coverage of Alpha schools and their 2HourLearning model (two hours a day on a screen = full day of education). I have an uneasy feeling that lessons will not be learned.
I couldn't agree more. Even The Economist is on board! The next step is, of course, putting all tech on the table in budget discussions at every school and college/university in the country. Because right now, only faculty and staff seem to be on administrators' chopping blocks.
It's amazing how the stated goals of edtech companies so closely align with my uber-progressive teacher education program.
I think it's time for a deeper reckoning with some of these ideas about individualization and differentiation. The "queasy juncture" directly took up ideas put forward from left-leaning Ed schools. If it was opportunistic, it's because a lot of the ideas about individual "learning styles" and what teachers need to do to accommodate "diverse learners" were so widespread that they were borderline hegemonic. They are also almost completely unworkable in classrooms. Ed tech just swooped in to meet the challenge. That they did so in their characteristically horrific way should surprise no one.
Though I stand unequivocally with the Ed tech "Cassandras," I can't fully blame this sector for taking up and capitalizing on some of the worst ideas about education that came from my own political bedfellows.
This is a great point. I'm going to do an episode of my podcast about teacher education in the coming months and I'd love to include this perspective. Drop me a line if you're interested in participating.
Powerful piece! Reed Hastings new role is worth watching as he tries to reclaim his tech goals of revolutionizing education…but with the defunct DFER world!?
Change is always uncomfortable, but discomfort isn't the same as danger. The traditional model, children sitting passively for six-plus hours, was designed for an industrial economy that no longer exists. That's worth examining honestly rather than defending by default.
The 2HourLearning model isn't claiming that two hours of screen time magically replaces a full day. The argument is that focused, AI-assisted learning on core subjects can be more efficient, freeing up time for mentorship, creativity, and real-world application, things teachers are currently too overwhelmed to provide.
And on the subject of bias: human teachers are wonderful, but they are also emotional, overworked, and, like any of us, capable of bias. That's not a criticism; it's just true. An AI system trained carefully can actually reduce certain inconsistencies, though you're right that it introduces its own risks if poorly designed.
The question shouldn't be "is this different from what we know?" but rather "does it actually serve children better?" That's a conversation worth having with curiosity rather than suspicion.
As a Colorado transplant from the Land of Lincoln, I still feel stomach pain when I read Barack Obama and Arne Duncan in the same sentence. What a lost opportunity President Obama had in taking his basketball buddy to Washington to be Secretary of Education. Eight years down the dirt road that his predecessor had driven, just a sign change from No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top. We’re still going down the wrong road as your wonderful article describes.
You cannot know the joy this piece has given me today. Also laughter. LOLing that Reed Hastings of all people is running headlong into the next edugrift.
Rocketship is gone, and yet now we have fawning coverage of Alpha schools and their 2HourLearning model (two hours a day on a screen = full day of education). I have an uneasy feeling that lessons will not be learned.
Great piece, both for the analysis overall and for the *chef's kiss* use of the word "ensorcelled."
I couldn't agree more. Even The Economist is on board! The next step is, of course, putting all tech on the table in budget discussions at every school and college/university in the country. Because right now, only faculty and staff seem to be on administrators' chopping blocks.
It's amazing how the stated goals of edtech companies so closely align with my uber-progressive teacher education program.
I think it's time for a deeper reckoning with some of these ideas about individualization and differentiation. The "queasy juncture" directly took up ideas put forward from left-leaning Ed schools. If it was opportunistic, it's because a lot of the ideas about individual "learning styles" and what teachers need to do to accommodate "diverse learners" were so widespread that they were borderline hegemonic. They are also almost completely unworkable in classrooms. Ed tech just swooped in to meet the challenge. That they did so in their characteristically horrific way should surprise no one.
Though I stand unequivocally with the Ed tech "Cassandras," I can't fully blame this sector for taking up and capitalizing on some of the worst ideas about education that came from my own political bedfellows.
This is a great point. I'm going to do an episode of my podcast about teacher education in the coming months and I'd love to include this perspective. Drop me a line if you're interested in participating.
Powerful piece! Reed Hastings new role is worth watching as he tries to reclaim his tech goals of revolutionizing education…but with the defunct DFER world!?
Change is always uncomfortable, but discomfort isn't the same as danger. The traditional model, children sitting passively for six-plus hours, was designed for an industrial economy that no longer exists. That's worth examining honestly rather than defending by default.
The 2HourLearning model isn't claiming that two hours of screen time magically replaces a full day. The argument is that focused, AI-assisted learning on core subjects can be more efficient, freeing up time for mentorship, creativity, and real-world application, things teachers are currently too overwhelmed to provide.
And on the subject of bias: human teachers are wonderful, but they are also emotional, overworked, and, like any of us, capable of bias. That's not a criticism; it's just true. An AI system trained carefully can actually reduce certain inconsistencies, though you're right that it introduces its own risks if poorly designed.
The question shouldn't be "is this different from what we know?" but rather "does it actually serve children better?" That's a conversation worth having with curiosity rather than suspicion.
As a Colorado transplant from the Land of Lincoln, I still feel stomach pain when I read Barack Obama and Arne Duncan in the same sentence. What a lost opportunity President Obama had in taking his basketball buddy to Washington to be Secretary of Education. Eight years down the dirt road that his predecessor had driven, just a sign change from No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top. We’re still going down the wrong road as your wonderful article describes.
You cannot know the joy this piece has given me today. Also laughter. LOLing that Reed Hastings of all people is running headlong into the next edugrift.