Good.is , which has shown itself to be a good source of education news and trends, recently featured this video with a story about “hybrid schools”. Teachers, remote-tutors, computers, robots (okay, not quite), and personalized algorithms converge to produce some impressive educational outcomes at School of One. Who wouldn’t want their own child to have that opportunity?
It is clear that technology offers us a way to individualize education beyond what was available just a decade ago. The diversity of a student population, its language needs, talents and challenges can be met through effective diagnosis and prescription. Daily monitoring, especially if the student is involved in goal setting and knows exactly what needs to be mastered, can work wonders and accelerate learning. Being able to “challenge” and “pass” an objective will mean less time devoted to repetitive work. Students can move at their own pace when the content is made to suit.
While the benefits of tailoring education through mathematical algorithms that figure out what a student needs can work great for math, yet more evidence is needed to see how well this would translate for Writing and Reading, a more personal and subjective area where content mastery beyond spelling and grammar is difficult to pin down.
While these and other hybrid schools look great in their videos, are they leaving anything out? What about music and sports? Can a school integrate all of those components? So many new schools and charters are shoved into office space and abandoned churches. In many cases they give up many things that larger, standardized institutions can accommodate, like decent playground. It might be excessive to demand everything of them, but the question must still be posed.
School of One is exactly what charters schools were supposed to be like, laboratories for innovation. But achieving this vision for students across the board will require heavy investment, and commitment from the federal government and other public agencies. There aren’t enough foundations and endowments and grants to finance this educational renaissance.
Until such things are a reality in low-income schools, we will continue to demand “tequity”.