This is a well-written argument against what we'll simply call 'the ed tech industry'. It fits in nicely with current criticisms of the introduction of AI in schools. Mostly the narrative isn't wrong - Diane Ravitch points (with a nod to Audrey Watters) to a litany of failures, and (with a nod to Anya Kamenetz) unsavory practices, and (with other relevant nods) to relentless promotion from the companies and a corresponding decline in U.S. education test scores. And yet... it strikes me as interesting is that there is no mention of No Child Left Behind and (related) the singular transformation of the U.S. system into a centralized teach-to-the-standardized-test type of management. And while I won't ignore the fact that ed tech companies were part and parcel of this transformation, it didn't have to be that way. And, I mean, education has largely survived everywhere else in the world, even in an era of ed tech, and it remains true to this day that the biggest predictor of educational outcomes isn't ed tech, its socio-economic status and (on a national scale) inequality. There is amnesia, as Jennifer Berkshire says, but it's a very selective amnesia. Related: Eric Sheninger, From Compliance to Competency (summarized).
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
