|
In response to
"Education isn't a topic I know much about but this seems....bad -- (link)"
by
ty97
|
A lot to unpack here.
|
It’s a philosophy that goes back decades to the days of TV classrooms and the Open University, but an uninformed mayoral candidate advocating this approach for K-12 education isn’t going to win the argument.
In the parlance of the Open University, as “developing” countries become “developed” countries, we’re just not going to have enough teachers - much less physical infrastructure like classrooms - to teach all these students. That’s where *ASYNCHRONOUS* education comes into play. That’s where you put materials online - including video - for students to consume at their own pace. It’s not on par with synchronous - real time - education but it’ll need to serve the increasing demand.
To suggest that synchronous education to mass student bodies - much less groups filled with K-12 students - is ever going to work is naive *at best*. Why would a teacher - or students for that matter - want to teach a class in real time to 400 students? What benefit does anyone get from that? You cannot expect any kind of engagement from that, so why not just record the content and put it online for later consumption instead? Not that the latter is much better - especially for K-12 students who don’t have the maturity to maintain a self-paced curriculum.
And none of this speaks to the fact that, for K-12 students, going to school is a form of child care. Keeping children at home to learn from their screens implies the need for parental supervision, which just isn’t a reality we can achieve.
In short, no.
|
Responses:
|