Steven Singer writes here on the theme: Online courses for the poor, teachers for the rich kids. (This is familiar to me; I discussed this subject near the end of The Death and Life of the Great American School System, recalling an article by the technology editor of Forbes, who predicted this development more than 30 years ago.)
Singer writes:
Pennsylvania has a long history of under-resourcing its public schools.
State Rep. Jason Ortitay has a solution.
The Republican representing Washington and Allegheny Counties envisions a world where poor kids learn from computers and rich kids learn from flesh-and-blood teachers.
It’s all in his proposed legislation, H.B. 1915, passed by the state House on Monday. It now moves on to the Senate.
The legislation would assign the Department of Education the task of organizing a collection of online courses for use by students in grades 6-12. Some classes might be created by the state and others would be made by third parties with approval for state use. If anyone so desired, the courses could be utilized by anyone in public school, private school, homeschool and beyond. The online learning clearinghouse thus created would be called the “Supplemental Online Course Initiative.”
The purpose of the bill is to help financially stressed districts, not by funding them but by giving them a cheap alternative.
This bill provides an alternative for schools where the local tax base isn’t enough to fund traditional classes presided over by living, breathing teachers.
In the distant past, the state used to made up some of the slack to level the playing field for students born into poverty. However, for the last five years, the legislature has forced the poor to make due with almost $1 billion less in annual state education funds. This has resulted in narrowing the curriculum, the loss of extra-curriculars, increased class size, and plummeting academic achievement.
While the majority of voters are crying out for the legislature to fix this blatant inequality and disregard for students’ civil rights, Ortitay’s proposed bill lets lawmakers off the hook. It allows legislators to provide a low quality alternative for the poor without necessitating any substantial influx of funds.
Where is the curriculum coming from?
Internet-based classwork – like that which would be collected in the clearinghouse – makes up the curriculum at cyber charter schools. Moreover, these online schools have a proven track record of failure and fraud.
A recent nationwide study found that cyber charters provide 180 days less of math instruction than traditional public schools and 72 days less of reading instruction.
In addition, researchers found that 88 percent of cyber charter schools have weaker academic growth than similar brick and mortar schools.
They have an “overwhelming negative impact” on students, according to researchers.
And THAT kind of curriculum is what the state House voted to increase using public money!
Singer reminds readers that Pennsylvania cybercharters have experienced major frauds, and two cybercharter leaders are currently under indictment. Cybercharters have a sorry track record in Pennsylvania and everyone else.
That makes them just right for children who live in financially distressed districts. No one in the legislature cares about educating THEM.

I really resent that well-meaning ed tech people didn’t anticipate this- that low income schools would use this as a fall back to mitigate the effects of budget cuts.
It was almost inevitable this would happen. Now that it is happening will they admit error and halt it, or is everyone in a low and middle income school going to be stuck with garbage “online learning” replacing teachers?
They’re robbing these kids and it isn’t going to be applied “equitably”. It will be limited to poor and working class schools. How naive are these people? I mean, Jesus, at some point they’re delusional.
We’re already replacing language classes in my working class public school with “online learning”. That is a rip-off to students. They’re being cheated by these adults and it’s outrageous that they’re selling this cheap garbage replacing teachers as “equitable”. Do they have no shame?
I want high income districts to go first. Conduct these experiments in the country’s wealthiest schools. Get back to me after it’s proved a good value for low and middle income schools. We’re not the national experimental population. We didn’t volunteer to test every fad they come up with.
LikeLike
Ed reformers ask parents to believe two things- public school teachers are all venal and “self interested” but tech giants peddling these products are noble and well-meaning and not at all self-interested.
That’s ridiculous. That they ONLY apply this “self interested” analysis to public school teachers but exclude the actual commercial concerns that stand to benefit from their “reforms” is nutty as hell. No one outside the echo chamber should buy it, because it never made any sense. Either all the various actors are self-interested to one extent or another or none of them are. They can’t just pluck out their favored reforms and decide there’s no “self-interest” involved. They’re assigning motives based on nothing.
LikeLike
The latest turn in this campaign to get schools addicted to tech as a money saver says” School budgets do not need to be increased with proper investments in “talent” and instructional technology.
This is the message from Public Impact.com and especially in the project called Opportunity Culture funded by the Joyce and the Carnegie Foundations with some contributions from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; The Colorado Legacy Foundation, and The Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. The business of education in an”opportunity culture” is presented in http://opportunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/An_Opportunity_Culture_for_All-Public_Impact.pdf
The menu of choices for greater efficiency and effectiveness in delivering instruction is topped out with an image of star teachers reaching 400% more students, working fewer hours, with higher pay while lesser paid underlings (merely excellent teachers, paraprofessionals, and instructional delivery assistants) do most of the work with students.
Star teachers are found by employing VAM to see who produces 1&1/2 year’s worth of gains in test scores year over year. The smart cookies in teaching (a small part of the education business) produce videos of their star-quality teaching, write their own contracts for lease purchase of rights, and get marketing experts to attract investors. Never mind that VAM is a pathetically misleading and wounded measure of teacher quality.
You can see an infographic of the schemes for transforming teaching at
http://opportunityculture.org/infographic/
LikeLike
There are a couple of items that were not addressed: Internet connections, WiFi, & band width, computers/laptops/chromebooks. Who pays for those?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We must also keep in mind that many low-income (and these days haphazardly administered) schools no longer budget for tech personnel, so computer labs are often (1) not connected and (2) not functioning.
LikeLike