I've told this story before: Back when I was in college, I had a summer internship at a place that was a service center for the K-12 schools in a large county. Microcomputers were the big new thing. We had a facility with one of each kind of computer (Commodore, Apple, Radio Shack, etc.) and all the software we could lay their hands on. Teachers could come in and try things out.
My impression was that the "educational" software was extremely crude and one-dimensional, basically glorified flash cards. Today, the "educational" software is Web based, and more flashy, but still retains that lack of breadth. It's hard and expensive to write interactive software, so a lot of the apps are basically one or two templates, with different sets of data / parameters for different lessons.
Here's a picture. Move your mouse around. When something lights up, click on it, and a little box of text will pop up for you to read. I kid you not. This is real. Today.
Now I have two kids who are in high school. We have acquired (can't say bought in most cases) piles of educational technology, yet little or none of it was "EdTech." The most glaring example was Microsoft Office. The kids used it to create reports, presentations, drawings, etc. It has been supplanted by Google Docs, which they now use heavily, including for collaborative assignments.
We've played with Jupyter/Python. My son is learning solid modeling using some free app. One of them uses DuoLingo daily, as does my spouse.
Some of their educational technology is still in the analog domain: Musical instruments. ;-)
I think the take-away for me is that we are providing our kids with technology that supports their education, but it isn't written for kids. It's the same stuff that grown-ups use. Jupyter/Python is an example -- it's my primary computing tool for my job. Another common feature is that these are creativity tools, not consumption tools.
Part of the problem is that programming is supposed to be "fun", as in "fun and games", not as in a serious topic that you enjoy so much you call it fun.
This is why a lot of programming is taught through graphical games. I'm not knocking Minecraft style programming lessons, they can be very motivational and build up programming skills and thought processes.
Unfortunately, I'm not that kind of programmer. I'm more the type who enjoys scikit-learn and kaggle than xbox. Even as a kid, I was more interested in programming to know who had the advantage in 3v2 rolls in Risk than programming a game itself (in other words, I wanted to program to get insight into a game, not to play the game itself).
But I wanted to introduce my 12 year old to programming, so rather than trying to learn about Minecraft, I helped him install jupyter notebook and showed him how he could automate some of his math homework. We wrote a method to calculate mean, median, range, that sort of thing, and he learned how to feed a series of lists into it, and graph it.
Believe it or not, this pleased him a great deal. He left feeling slightly buoyed, like he'd gained an edge.
But if programming remains an add-on to a school curriculum, who wants to do more math in an after school program, or a summer camp? So "learning to program for kids" will probably remain heavily focused on graphics and games. Which may be ok, my interest in simulating a dice roll rather than programming a game per se may not be reflective of how most kids (who have great potential) are wired.
And honestly, programming Minecraft is among the best of the educational software. Zoombinis was pretty cool, too, even if it was purely a game. Truth his, much educational software just re-teaches math, or history, but with buzzers and rewarding little cartoons for wrong or right answers.
I think there's a spectrum from graphical games to full programming. Games can be designed which can explore problem solving, debugging and programming.
For example "Human resource machine" is entirely visual but if you happen to click 'export' you get a very basic assembly language style output. If you never clicked export you wouldn't even realise you were "programming", you were just solving the problems on screen. The game does at time explain the analogies used. If you prod the people they'll describe linked lists but such understanding isn't required to progress.
Moving across the spectrum a little there are games like TIS-100 and Shenzhen I/O which do involve programming but with very small instruction sets and graphical debugging and feedback.
These aren't aimed at children so are more complex than would be suitable for children but what I'm trying to get across is that they don't specifically teach programming. You won't come out of it knowing python or C. You won't know about stacks or function calls. But they do teach problem solving and the run/explode/debug loop of getting an instruction set to work on different sets of data.
By being games they gameify the process of wanting to reach acheivements while also solving the "what do I build?" aspect of more freeform/creative programming learning which can often be a dead-end without a sense of aiming toward a goal.
I think a Human Resources Machine style game aimed at a younger audience could be greatly impactful on teaching a programming mindset.
Zoombinis (1996) was neat to play through with the first 2–5 loads of Zoombinis, maybe a few hours of gameplay, but the puzzles topped out at a very easy level, so continuing to play the game to get more of the little creatures to their destination (out of a possible 40 trips or something) quickly became a time-wasting grind.
I think kids would ultimately have more fun with one or more Smullyan books.
I believe neither is necessary, and writing a program in an actual programming language should probably remain a special interest kind of thing.
They should however teach the basics as they do teach math.
I'm thinking the very basics of discrete mathematics. Like, we can make lists of things, then we can do things with lists, like adding, intersecting, indexing, traversing...
> Truth his, much educational software just re-teaches math, or history, but with buzzers and rewarding little cartoons for wrong or right answers.
Honest question: what's wrong with Skinner boxing kids to get them addicted to memorizing an introductory corpus of data? At some point you want them to get creative, but creativity is impossible without some sort of foundation.
My n=1 anecdote is that I now know way more about geography than most of my peers, largely thanks to playing Carmen San Diego 20+ years ago. That game had me look up facts in an accompanying reference book in exchange for a little cartoon reward. I played it many times and eventually retained the facts.
PS: Kudos on teaching your kid to use jupyter notebooks! I taught myself how to do stats in college by implementing it in lisp.
Britain funded computing in schools very well from some point in the 1980s until the early 1990s. Lots of good software was produced. Schools had computers, and parents were encouraged to buy them for education at home.
My favourite software was The Crystal Rainforest. I think this was for 6-8 year olds. There was a long story (4 floppy discs in 1992!) leading through a rainforest, solving puzzles using increasingly complicated computer programming along the way. Here's a screenshot of rebuilding a rope bridge using a simplified LOGO/turtle graphics: [1]. (There is a playthrough on Youtube, which has skipped all the puzzles. I think someone missed the point...)
I suspect the general market for software has increased so much, that the money to be made on educational software is no longer appealing. It's probably easier to cut out the learning and sell a game, rather than made a few hundred or thousand sales to schools.
I provided the disc images of my copy of the original (not the sequel) to the people at this forum [1] — I think the "provisional images" must be mine — but they haven't released the game to the public.
> We've played with Jupyter/Python. My son is learning solid modeling using some free app.
Have you seen OpenSCAD? It's open source constructive solid geometry modeling software, and I use it in my math classes. If your son enjoys Python, he might really enjoy this approach to modeling.
Thanks for linking to OpenSCAD. I'm very interested in how you're using this in your math classes. What level are you teaching? Could you offer an example on how you're using this in your classes?
I teach high school math and science, mostly to students who have not done well in math earlier in their education. So I spend a lot of time doing pre-algebra and algebra 1 work. I love teaching at a school that lets students spend as long as they need on these topics until they truly understand them and can use them in real-world projects. There's no effort to rush students into algebra 2, although I can support students all the way through calculus if it's appropriate for them.
Students do a separate, adaptive curriculum for their skills work. For modeling, they do a series of mini-projects that build their skills. They sketch a number of things like snowmen, robots, apartment buildings, skateboards, ice cream cones - things that can be represented through cubes, spheres, cylinders, and cones. Then they model these shapes and learn to translate and rotate elements. They also learn to use the difference function. The last required skill is using parameters, which is the core of the reason we can offer this for math credit. It makes them think about the relationships between all the parts in their model.
They also have the option of using modules, hull, minkowski, rotate_extrude, or any other feature that helps in their projects. They propose a final project of appropriate complexity. The range of projects is just fascinating.
We may open a Shapeways shop for our school in the next few months. I have two students designing a chess set as an extension project, and one student who came up with a functional design that hasn't really been done well on Shapeways.
I'm happy to share more if you're curious, my email is in my profile. Also, I wrote a student-friendly intro to openscad a few years back:
I absolutely love OpenSCAD! (for me, not for my kids yet; in my son's class they're taught 3D modeling with SketchUp -- don't know if it's good or bad but it certainly is more immediately rewarding as one can apply textures, etc.)
The limiting thing about OpenSCAD is its inability to import svg; for complex shapes it makes much more sense to draw them in a graphic software, import into modeling software and extrude them there. How do you go around this problem?
For the modeling I've wanted to do, I haven't run into any limitations through openscad. As a programmer and not much of an artist, it's perfect for me.
I also love that I can use it as a core part of my math curriculum, which I couldn't do as easily with most other modeling software. Students are learning measurement, geometry, and most importantly relationships through the use of parameters. It also makes for a great segue into more general programming languages.
I recently started working with polyhedrons for a terrain modeling project. Could you convert svg data to a polygon and then extrude it?
So I invested weeks in openscad but as a fusion 360 user now I have to shamefully admit that I choose fusion every time I want to make real parts.
I switch accounts regularly here to not tie to my real life identity but hopefully I hve enough unrelated crap not to seem like a shill.
Just silly stuff like I want to print part of it but laser cut other parts of it and I can't find an easy way to get the surfaces out, or I have to go back and remodel because my fabrication approach has changed.
It's probably me. But I feel like I'm fighting the software sometimes more than using it. Also no fit or mechanical (altho those features are often crap).
I want to like openscad but I can't efficiently use it to make stuff.
There exists interesting interactive technical software (not just glorified flash cards). For instance I can remember playing some puzzle game about optics circa 2000, and another about mechanical devices. I’ve never heard of such software being used in a math class though.
The one bit of very nice software that does get used some places is interactive constructive geometry tools like Geometer’s Sketchpad (1995), Geogebra, or the like, though we didn’t know about those in my high school geometry class (also circa 2000).
Ah yes, the annual resurfacing of this blog post :) unfortunately I think most of it is still true. I should do a follow up...
Edit: I'll address the comments/thoughts here in a follow up blog post. Glad to see so many people thinking about this space. It's a great thing for the world to have entrepreneurs building here.
I thought I had read the post before. Thank you for the insights, and I hope that you can do that follow-up!
One thing not mentioned which I think is important is the ease of paying (whether the edtech is app or web-based). It’s all very well to target those in poorer countries, but many of them (consumers) still don’t have online banking, and payment gateways are often local and clunky (I did notice in my last trip to Asia that this is improving.) I’d love to hear your thoughts on this :)
> The average, middle class person thinks about education as an expenditure, not an investment.
The way I remember it, middle class folks in Kansas City suburbs really, really care about the quality of their schools and levy property and sales taxes to fund it. Rural Ohio townships where dual earners are making 17k less than the national median for such households may not have a lot of middle class to speak of.
Cost and outcomes have always been a tradeoff. 1:1 tutoring is the gold standard for educational outcomes. We know that from there, outcomes fall as teacher:student ratios rise. This fundamentally puts a cap on returns to improved quality -- if your improved school outcome is comparable to adding one additional teacher per grade level, well, you better be cheaper than those teacher's salaries. And good luck finding that data in the first place. It's not easy to convince folks to run the experimental treatment on their children to get that data.
"1:1 tutoring is the gold standard for educational outcomes."
Is it? I'd be interested to see some data to support or refute this. I'd always assumed that students benefit somewhat from other students being around (due to observing how others learn, being pushed to be better etc.), so perhaps the ideal ratio would be in the 1:2 to 1:4 range.
If people have really figured out that 1:1 is better than 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4, I'd love to see that data.
I think a mix of 1:1 tutoring and student collaboration is the best deal. No data, but when I worked in a primary school with high % of school meal children, the literacy rate was noticeably higher when there were more literacy specialists doing 1:1 tutoring. The sessions are often 5-10 minutes but occur daily. They also have classroom literacy where they get a chance to do lots of partner work.
I worked in a high school for 5 years teaching English as a foreign language. I was not a great teacher because being a teacher is really hard, but I learned a lot in those 5 years. I will let you in on a secret.
Education is not what the teacher does: it's what the student does. Most people think that the job of a teacher is to organise information and explain it to students to make it "easy to understand". This is just plain wrong. In fact, by doing so you cheat your students because you steal their opportunity to organise information and discover how to understand it.
1:1, 1:2, 1:20, or 1:40 doesn't actually matter from a perspective of teaching material. If we make the teacher the font of all information, then we also make the teacher the bottleneck of learning. I was teaching language and if you want native level fluency and proficiency, then you might need to spend up to native level time acquiring the language. In other words, to get to a 10 year old's ability, it might take you up to 10 years of nearly full time practice. Sorry, but I'm not going to teach you 58,400 hours (10 years, 16 hours a day) unless you have Bill Gates level money to spend.
So, you're going to spend something like 3 hours a week in my class, and only something like 30 of those weeks are going to be productive in a year (if I'm lucky). So that's a pidly 90 hours of instruction per year. I'm going to teach you practically nothing in that time.
This is what is wrong with education.
But getting back to 1:1 vs 1:40. In a 1 hour class, if I have 40 students I can spend just over a minute paying attention to each student. In other words, I'm going to present my pidly amount of information and hope like hell that you're going to do something useful with it -- because I do not have enough time to interact with even one person in the class. If you assume that 1 in 40 students have a behaviour problem (just 2.5%!) you will see that I will expect to be interrupted in every single one of my classes. So probably I won't even be able to present my pidly amount of information. Probably I will just babysit and the students who know how to study will do well, while the others do poorly.
As we reduce the ratio, I have more time to interact with the students. But it's really important to realise that if I waste that time trying to teach the material, I will do no good. So in fact, what I want to do is let the students study and then watch them so that I can can correct their behaviour. By doing that, they can become good students and succeed in studying.
How many students I can handle depends a lot on my class management skills and also on the students. Some students require no intervention. They just need a friendly, welcoming, and engaging environment in which to study. Some students need considerable attention. 1:1 might be amazing for some students, but even 1:10 or 1:20 could be amazing for others (depending on the teacher). Some students like to study alone, some like to study in pairs, some like to study in groups. You have to be flexible.
My first day with my new violin teacher, he asked me who my teacher was. I gave the normal answer, and he said 'Wrong! You are your own teacher. I am just here to help you teach yourself.' Have never forgotten those words.
We need teachers who will enable their students to learn for themselves. Only then can the teacher no longer be the bottleneck.
I'm making a low-cost multilingual audioplayer, that students can take home to get more exposure to a language. Programmable in JS. Just in case anyone is interested.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gLvng2La37aWIADE3
I feel good online classes fit this scenario. Often all the material required for the course is presented and allows students to work at their own pace. Homework/papers are due every week to allow teachers to understand if students are learning the material properly. If not, the teachers will spend time with those students via video conference and other means to sheppard their performance. Of course, I've taken several bad online courses too where the teachers simply do not interact with students hardly at all.
> So that's a pidly 90 hours of instruction per year. I'm going to teach you practically nothing in that time.
Well, there’s always not enough time to teach something properly :) I don’t think that teachers need to be so idealistic, just as long as they tick-box the curriculum (sadly exams do matter a lot) and plant plenty of seeds which, we hope, would set root soon if not later in their lives.
By that I mean spending significant classroom time on interaction and the “fun stuff”. For example if it’s ESL and the students are into pop music, okay let’s decipher some Beyoncé or let’s try and mimic some funky singer’s accent. Do some immersive stuff, make it real. I’m a big fan of flipped classrooms, where students study most of the formal stuff for homework - this will also help them construct the knowledge in their own way - and then present it in class and have more meaningful discussions.
But I would say that if the students are beginners, then yes you do need to organise information to make it as easy as possible. The initial learning curve is always the hardest! When they become more comfortable and confident, they can always go back and revise their mental models.
Edit: Sorry, I didn’t take into account that you might be a private tutor. If you were, then I can absolutely relate to the frustration! Parents’ (totally unrealistic) expectations also do not help at all
- For language learning, total study time should be a multiple of classroom time. (From personal experience, I've found 10:3 to work pretty well.)
- Teaching can be very effective in groups of 1:10 or 1:20
- Classroom time should not be spent on introducing new material
However:
- For language learning in particular, I don't believe that 'let the students study and then watch them...' approach is best. If you're doing 1:1 or 1:2, you can actively manage the learning process by asking the student questions in the target language, and (for example) making them reply using newly-acquired grammatical structures.
- You've made the point that teacher:student ratio isn't the only important factor (agreed!) but haven't made a strong case that it's insignificant, or addressed my question about whether 1:1 is better (assuming money no object) than all other ratios.
As an ESL teacher myself I sympathize with you. For real, it's frustrating how people [more like parents] just expect to send their kid to a private academy after school [more like 3-4 academies] 2x/3x a week and just expect them to know English. Even if the kids are actually interested, that's a paltry amount of time actually spent practicing English. Very few people understand this so private academies continue to be a big industry.
You are correct that course sizes matter to educational outcomes for a variety of reasons. If the groups are too small, it is possible that nobody has enough of what is needed for the class and everybody flounders, requiring intensive instructor led tutoring and learning. This brings us back to the 1:1 situation.
If we are interested in how many students are required to support peer to peer learning, you might enjoy the following articles (popular and academic) about how Harvard physics professor, Dr. Eric Mazur has embraced and studied peer-to-peer instruction. This should provide a partial answer to your questions.
b) 2015 - Miller K, Schell J, Ho A, Lukoff B, Mazur E. Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 11. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010104
Googling for "ideal group size for peer to peer learning physics" brings up articles from Vanderbilt University and those mention groups of 2-4 or 5-7.
As there are many different models of peer learning, this article does a nice job of discussing practice and the theory behind peer to peer instruction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29128431)
My personal beliefs and experience is that people tend to like groups of 6 or fewer and the groups which speak the most among themselves range from 2-5 people. The limitations are that at least 1 person in the group must be advanced enough to help the others learn.
Last, if we look at apprenticeship models of learning, we are back to the 1:1 ratio (expert : learner). However, any single student can also have multiple 1:1 "teachers" and apprenticeships/internships usually include a peer group which engages after the 1:1 instruction. We see this in music and sports with individual sessions with a variety of experts followed by group work or performances with varied sized groups.
I don’t know whether there has been large-scale empirical testing of this, but anecdotally it sounds plausible. I can typically have a deeper and more efficient knowledge-sharing conversation about some technical topic 1:1 than 1:4 (e.g. in a professional context).
In a 1:1 interaction, it is possible to efficiently figure out where the two interlocutors’ common premises are, and then explain concepts in whatever amount of detail is necessary for understanding, skipping over any parts that are known, with frequent checks that the other party is following along (not just pretending, and not suffering some misconception).
In a 5-way interaction, it is typical for each participant to be coming from slightly different background / preparation, and have difficulty with different parts of the new material, which makes it necessary to take time for (sometimes extended) digressions to fill in whatever details are missing for anyone. It’s easy to accidentally not notice that 1 or more participants is missing crucial background, because it is time consuming to verify that each separate participant has a solid understanding of every idea. A problem that is too hard for one student will be too easy for another.
Things might be better if you had the same 4 students to 1 tutor for, say, 3–4 years at a stretch. Then you could assume a lot of shared history, and amortize digressions to fill knowledge gaps for particular students. Better hope the students learn at a similar pace.
When actively trying to solve a set of problems, with the students working independently with minimal guidance/help from an instructor, and if the only goal is problem-solving efficiency, then having more people is helpful, because different students will have trouble with one problem or another, and they can then confer and fill in the other answers at the end. Often the weaker students don’t fully understand everything to the extent they could solve a similar problem independently, but that’s often an acceptable standard. [Same story if you are trying to build some work project with many parts, etc.]
But if the goal is to get everyone to understand every answer deeply and accurately, then in a 1:1 tutorial setting the expert tutor can ask leading questions, give appropriate hints, or just outright explain the answer if the problem gets to be too big a time suck. And the student can get more direct personal experience with trying to solve all of the problems with a fast feedback loop and without getting bogged down, and hopefully feel like they personally figured out most of the main breakthroughs.
One issue is that often tutors (probably more than other types of teachers) are amateurs rather than experts in the subject or in teaching. For instance the tutor might be a slightly older student, a family member, a retired person volunteering, or the like. In that case 1:1 tutorial is still helpful vs. the student working alone, but obviously pales in comparison to highly skilled tutoring.
One problem I see is that the scale of teaching has defined what teaching is. Since there is usually a very small ratio of students to teachers, "teaching" has evolved into lecturing and homework, in hopes that it can become more scalable.
One problem is that this method of "teaching" is not appealing to most of us, so the ratio of teachers to students does not increase.
Another problem is that "traditional" lectures, homework, and testing are not the most effective methods of learning, they are simply more well-known, and known to be scalable.
It doesn't seem scalable for each student to follow her/his own curriculum, since that would create more contexts for teachers to respond to, thereby creating a need for more teachers. What is ignored here, is the redefinition of "teacher". Such a teacher is much more of a "mentor", and that is certainly a more appealing job to me.
I worked for an Education startup a couple of years ago. They had a really good math learning product which blew away the competition in terms of software quality but they didn't achieve exponential growth. It was linear growth but at a very good rate. The trick was to sell directly to schools and educational institutions.
There are new challenges there but it's also very high-reward. You can sell 1000 licenses from a single deal with a school. If you get a government public school contract you could be looking at 100k licenses from a single deal.
I think that companies which do big b2b deals have become greatly undervalued. VCs are so obsessed chasing exponential growth curves that they seem to have forgotten that the earth only has limited population and that buying power has become much more centralized and is becoming increasingly centralized.
I work with an education start up now. Company does really well in the b2c space but we are looking into the b2b (educational institutions). Were you guys dealing with individual schools or going straight to districts/counties?
There is truth to the centralization issue in education, we see more and more deals being done at 100k levels. Makes the current way of doing business on smaller language markets obsolete, I'm not sure it's for the better.
I think a problem is that most parents (in the west) don't have any ideas or opinions about what learning tools are best for their children - Most parents are happy to let the education system decide what's best.
I think most busy parents these days tend to see the school system as an end-to-end automatic education machine; you insert a young uneducated child, put some money in it and several years later an educated adult comes out.
With that mindset it's easy to see why it's better to do deals directly with schools than trying to get the attention of the parents.
I'm currently working for an education startup right now. We are struggling. Have been for the past few years. The biggest problems I've noticed:
1. Cost. When you deal with school districts, you usually sell for X number of devices. So for example, all devices for 5th-7th grade, something like that. When you sell alot, schools will usually ask for volume licensing. Schools don't want to see prices above $5. This goes for devices for the quality of the devices they purchase. Often, the student device is cheap, low-powered, and in the case of Windows devices, packed to the brim with all sorts of software running in the background: web filters, virus-scanners, and some educational apps. Top that off with apps that students install like Spotify and games, it slows the machine down to a crawl or causes problems that might interfere with your software solution.
2. Different school districts have different needs. Although our software solution was initially meant to be for general use by all schools, we kept running into school district that needed very specific needs to that school or district. That lead to developing new features that only a small handful of school district would use, sometimes confusing users who did not need such features, or didn't even know we had the feature.
3. If your software solution works with student information systems data, it can often be a nightmare getting school districts to create that data.
4. School IT teams are...pretty terrible. Or rather, they're swamped with so many issues from so many products and devices, that they care very little as to learn how to deploy your product properly. Have documentation? Trust me, they probably won't read it. You will most likely get an e-mail asking how to deploy.
5. Trials, trials, trials. Schools aren't going to pay up just because they see a video demo of your product. They're going to want a trial at minimum for half the school year, maybe more. Then...
6. ...Politics. Decision to purchase needs to be approved by some board.
Coming from the grades 9-12 sysadmin side, I might be able to provide some perspective. Every school is wildly different, so I would recommend against applying my perspectives too broadly.
1. Cost: Windows licenses for student PCs are just under $20/PC/year (for us). Is your $5 software 25% as useful to students as their operating system is? Even worse, the reality is if I put your software on my 1000 computers I'll be lucky if 300 of them use it. That's something to keep in mind when working with per-device licenses. I agree installed system software bloat is a problem. That results from every department having different needs. We might be a little different in that we don't allow students to install/run foreign software (using AppLocker).
2. I agree different schools are amazingly different. I collaborate with a few other schools around me and whenever we meet I'm pretty floored by how differently each one approaches basic problems. These significant differences really add up and I can understand how supporting schools might be a pain.
3. It seems like every vendor wants access to my SIS. That's a privilege not granted lightly. I'm generally okay with automated CSV dumps of bare minimum data uploaded over a secure channel, but some vendors have the nerve to request direct LDAP or Oracle database access over the public Internet. No way!
4. I'll agree school IT teams are generally terrible. Among my peers and schools I collaborate with, I'm the only one with a degree in IT. Many are older and migrated to the role from something else (former math teachers surprisingly often). Some find themselves shoehorned into the role because they happened to be the most technically-inclined among the staff. These guys are uncomfortable in powershell/cmd and typically use contractors or local PFYs to handle technical details. Schools do not pay enough to attract decent talent. I could work for a local company and make 1.5-2x more doing less than I do here, but for now I like this environment.
5. While video demos can be helpful product overviews. I distrust video demos just as I distrust other marketing wank. I want to test drive the car before I decide to purchase it. That said, I wouldn't expect anyone to let me demo something longer than 60 days. The long time in my case is that exploring new software is usually a backburner project, and I am likely to have other things come up that take priority. I never put production data into trial software however.
6. Yes, purchasing processes are a pain. I 100% agree. I currently have a request for $60 of printer toner that's been sitting in the requisition process for over a week. Trust me, it's just as bad for us on the inside.
Thanks for providing your perspective! I've always wondered what it was like on your side.
1. I totally understand this. I've actually often wondered what a waste of funds it is when I see school districts purchase several hundred licenses of our product, but only a handful of teachers and students end up using it. I understand though that it's hard to just purchase the right amount of licenses, since you never know if another teacher/student down the line might want to start using it.
4. Yes, I've been to a few local schools for support and there's quite a few teachers who are handling the simpler IT side of things. From the IT staff that I've met in schools, I think I would like the environment too.
The article correctly identifies consumer-facing education businesses as being incredibly difficult. I used to work in education and Chegg is the only consumer-facing company I can think of in the industry. Most other education companies have either sold or partnered with schools (Neverware, Clever, Jamf, etc). One of the interesting things with the market is that it's difficult to start penetrating districts since school budgets can vary year to year AND because many purchases have to be approved by school boards. But as soon as you're in, you essentially have a monopoly for a number of years. It's enterprise sales without the immediate huge money payoff. That said, there's a lot of money out there in education
I'd add Texas Instruments, with their graphing calculators. They have an extremely low tech product whose prevalence actually detracts from kids learning to make effective use of computation. But they've established a monopoly position by understanding what real problems they're actually solving: 1) Moderating development to within a pace that teachers and the curriculum / testing industry can keep up with. 2) Keeping cheating under control.
Disclosure: I have two kids in high school, both of whom need graphing calculators for their schoolwork. Both would prefer to use Python/Jupyter.
I got all the way through high school (AP calculus, etc., high school class of 2004) and through lots of technical courses in college without ever needing a graphing calculator, except once during the AP exam, and possibly once for an in-class exam, for which I could borrow one from the school (the rest of the time I just had a $5 used “scientific calculator” but a slide rule would have been just fine, and in college a laptop with real programming languages on it). Learning arcane features of the calculator’s function is not really necessary for the AP exam and is a waste of time, but I would recommend spending a couple hours familiarizing oneself with the basic features before the exam.
Students and parents are often fed a misleading impression of what tools they will actually need to work through a course, and pressured to buy calculators that are not necessary, preying on their desire to succeed at school. I think I was the only student in the class with enough moral outrage about TI’s calculator scam to try such a thing, but my impression was that it really had no practical consequences, except for me spending a lot less time than the other students playing low-quality snake, brickout, and tetris clones.
Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with writing code in Basic or Z80 assembly language, for a very limited device with no proper keyboard, 24K of user-accessible memory, a 96x64 pixel 1-bit display, and no other sensors or output devices, but I’m pretty sure the time could be spent more effectively in some other programming environment.
When I was in grade school, 20+ years ago, TI calculators were legitimately an impressive high-tech product. (and in some classes or for some quizes, you weren't _allowed_ to use them). They... haven't changed too too much since then. Somehow TI got from there to here, maintaining market success the whole time, but completely changing in how they fit in the environment somehow. Odd.
I remember in high school, TI-83 graphing calculators were just being mandated to be used in classrooms. All students were required to buy one. No idea what happened with students who weren't able to afford one, they weren't cheap in my high school mind. I do remember being annoyed because I couldn't see how buying the TI-83 helped me to learn algebra or anything else better. But we all enjoyed playing Tetris on the darn things....
We all complained about the TI-83 being a prime example of school boards being clueless and putting technology in the classroom for technology's sake.
I was in the required but too poor group. I had to borrow others or do the work by hand. I eventually was able to get gifted one from one of those "help families in poverty with school supplies" donation drives. I had those books with tables of logarithms and one other one constantly checked out from the public library just so I could do my homework.
A calculator that can handle logarithms and trigonometric functions can be had for a few dollars second-hand (on ebay I see some for $3.50 with free shipping). Slide rules can be found at yard sales and flea markets for next to nothing.
16 year old me had no clue, no help from parents or other adults and teachers that disallowed all calculators that weren't the required ones. I learned about they books of tables from an old man who helped me withmy homework I was doing at the public library, it's likely the only way he knew how. Not to mention, my main source of food during this time was the free school lunches and I was working 3rd shift to help pay rent and utilities, $5 was a lot of money (to us at least, this would have been mid 90s).
Yeah, fair enough. TI has a very effective racket going, and a lot of people and institutions have bought into it wholesale, and the main marks are uninformed and easily pressured students and parents who think it will help lead to success.
Sorry to hear about your tough financial situation in the past. It’s a tragedy that kids go hungry in such a rich country. If an expensive calculator is going to be mandated in school, there should be financial aid available for it.
I'm a math teacher and a programmer, and I can't wait to see the end of the TI dominance in education. I would happily let students in my classes use Python/ Jupyter for most of their work, and use calculators as needed to get ready for any tests that require their use.
They don't. It's strictly recreational. Right now one is in 2nd year calculus, and the other is in "Algebra 2 and trig." There is little or no use of computation in their classes, perhaps because it's so cumbersome. When there is any computation, there is an emphasis on the graphing calculators because they're allowed by the standardized tests, and the teacher is familiar with them. The Algebra teacher even stipulates that he can only work with TI calculators, not Casio.
I think there are a couple of broader issues here. First of all, I'd like to see more of what I call computation for lack of a better term, in the K-12 math curriculum. This isn't for turning people into professional programmers, but because computation has had a huge influence on how people do both practical and theoretical math. Thus, a computation-free K-12 curriculum misrepresents what math is.
Of course the other issue is teacher training, and standardized testing. Changing the curriculum requires changes to both teacher training and the tests. If it's not on the test, then it can't be taught. Remember proofs in geometry? Gone.
This article was written in 2011, and I think since then with the "learn to code" movement becoming so popular and coding bootcamps promising to help people get software development jobs, things have changed a bit--at least for edtech companies teaching programming skills.
There are a ton of popular websites that teach people coding/software development/design skills online now that have grown incredibly over the last few years, but still not really getting to mainstream status. Treehouse, Code School, DataCamp, Udemy, Frontend Masters, Udacity, Thinkful, Codecademy are just a few popular websites where people can learn to code today and all of them have a subscription plan. I don't think any of these have reached "mainstream" status, but there are definitely a lot more websites and applications today teaching people to code via subscription plans than there were 6 years ago.
Whatever your thoughts are on the whole "learn to code" movement, it's clear that the landscape for edtech companies teaching programming/software development has changed since 2011. Will any of these companies teaching people to code ever reach "mainstream" status, I don't know.
Thinkful pivoted from a subscription model to being a school focused on job placement a couple years back. Our core products are remote immersive & part-time courses in software development & data science. But tying back to the OP, the immersive program has a no tuition till you're hired financing option, (which a few other schools offer too). It's been pretty exciting hearing the joy from applicants who wouldn't have been able to afford the course w/ traditional financing options.
I built Textfyre in 2007 and closed in 2011. Gates Foundation put our ideas in their grant program and put all their resources into existing publishers. Later, Pearson was on NPR spouting many of Textfyre’s pitch points. None of these companies have figured out Interactive education or reduced cost or improved quality.
I still believe we could have, but we couldn’t convince others. Mostly because a real MVP would have cost millions to create.
But we could have saved states billions by replacing textbooks with online, interactive, cross-discipline content.
The market is closed to startups. The industry is fighting disruption in every way they can.
I completely agree that Pearson sells itself as innovative but it is anything but that! Their "mylab" type products aren't innovative. It is just the same old same old. I would even argue that it has been counterproductive because they're now moving to FORCE students to buy new expensive textbooks to get the homework grading code. Pearson has absolutely zero interest in disrupting anything. They only care about building their monopoly on textbooks.
However, I am an optimist and believe that even with well entrenched interest groups (big textbook publishers, school districts, unions etc.) there is still paths to disruption. At a fundamental level, education is simply teaching someone something new. That's it! If you are providing something quality then people will naturally flock to it or share it.
I think the future education startup simply needs to focus on building high quality learning materials. Then either give those products away for free or innovative monetization models (ie. watch 5 video ads to unlock the content etc.). Don't focus on trying to sell to school districts. Focus on going straight to the consumer: students or parents. Every student I know is already going online to get extra homework help, resources, youtube videos etc.
The only way we'll change education is to disrupt the classroom from a systemic point of view. We have to prove there is a better way. That can only be done with high quality content newly constructed for interactivity.
This is where Pearson, Britannica, et al fail. They have a library of content created over decades with a guaranteed state-driven pipeline into classrooms. This content is specifically created by old school experts specifically for printed chapters in a bound book.
Creating real interactive content would require content experts work within an interactive digital agency framework, which would require a sizable R&D budget with a lot of trial and error. We're talking millions of dollars spent before a completed product was available.
But here's the upside. Textbooks cost each state roughly $100 per student per year. An online system might charge a fraction of that (Textfyre targeted $1/student/year).
Imagine the state of Illinois saving $99 per student per year over several years.
The investment is risky to a degree, but I view it no differently than Kennedy choosing to go to the moon. You decide to do it. You find the best and the brightest to enable the vision. You enact the vision. There is an upfront cost, but the vision and results would alter the course of history in the world.
Interactive, adaptable education systems are the future. They would be able to reach everyone on the planet regardless of age, gender, politics, class, or any other identity labels.
I have a second start-up (Wizely). I'll probably keep swinging if it doesn't hit a nerve. If I ever have one succeed and make (a lot of) money, I will re-invest my profits into education and what I call positive social engagement.
My advice to ed-tech startups. Find a way to make money, but immediately redirect all profits to attacking the classroom. That's where we need the R&D to go. As the OP said, consumer-based ed-tech has its limits.
The classroom is where we need to drive innovation.
I completely agree with you and I agree with disrupting the classroom. A good approach is to simply make an online classroom that has all the bells and whistles of innovative technology - on-demand, free or low-cost, high-quality materials, community interaction and so on. For traditional subjects the existing textbooks are good from a content point of view. They've been peer reviewed hundreds of times. The problem is that it is difficult to just self-study these books and understand the subject completely.
Lots of solution-focused dialogue here but from my experience, I've come to believe that education startups fail because the education marketplace is actually a loose confederation of communities and consumer preferences are more akin to individual values and beliefs. This makes it really difficult to market evidence-based solutions or scale your sales strategy.
- It's very hard to measure to value add of education; people have spent lives working on this
- Only half the value of educational institutions comes from educating people; the other half comes from the credentialing where they pick out the 'brighter' individuals, but measuring how much a credential is worth is almost impossible for most individuals
Credentials aren't immune from disruption. Just look at how the trades work. They all are using some sort of independent testing company that certifies people. In the future employers might not care if you have a BA degree if instead you have an electrician certificate or some comptia certification. Those credentials might be more valuable. Perhaps in the future there will be certifications for programming languages that are industry standard. Accountants have their CPA and lawyers have their BAR exam so on so forth.
But theirs more than one way to do it :-) and from my dads experience chartered status is more about who you know not what.
And in the USA in particular what point are BAR exams when you get people with ZERO experience of law appointed to senior legal positions - No offence to one of Obamas Supreme nominations but they had no real world judging experience - shades of E l Wisty
There is another facet to this equation. Think about an investment banker. The skills an investment banker learns in college are largely irrelevant to his job.
One could say that his degree was entirely a waste of time, yet in order to qualify for a job in investment banking you need to go to a prestigious school and excel.
I see many spaces where education is largely irrelevant and functions only as a filter to reduce the supply of people who are qualified for a job.
That structure won't last into the future. Investment banking is already being disrupted through blockchain ICOs and similar stuff like that. More and more people are just using index funds so there is no need for an investment professional anymore. There will always be the goldman sachs and similar firms but how much people do they really employ?
Unfortunately I’m on my phone and I don’t have access to my laptop that has my research on this. Sadly, ed tech doesn’t work. The UK realized this. The US is starting to, state by state. This is not to say it can’t work. So far the startups have issues with not being able to provide an innovative product that works reliably.
What about companies like The Great Courses (formerly teaching company) that takes out full page spreads in the WSJ on a regular basis? Are they still niche?
Yup, still niche. If you look at their courses it is primarily consists of unique topics or subtopics of a bigger topic. If they want to be a disruptor then they need to start creating college courses and reduce the price. Create a certification system and create innovative learning systems for the courses.
Interesting article! If you're thinking about targeting consumers in edtech, there's a lot of good advice in here. My company mainly sells to medical students, which are a highly incentivized group of consumers, so we can avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned in the article. However, most of the action in edtech is focused on selling to institutions because that's where the money is. The good news is institutions are more willing than ever to try out new technologies if you can convince them you can impact recruitment, retention, graduation rates, etc. Of course, that's easier said than done. Not many startups can wait around for 5 years to do a comprehensive research study. And you get all the classic problems of selling to institutions (and magnified in education): slow sales cycles, multiple decision-makers, politics, etc.
I think an interesting problem in edtech today is there are a lot of "startups" that fit in that dangerous area between a small business and a high-growth startup. You'll find dozens of companies that help improve mathematical skills, create STEM games, or build products for improving reading and writing comprehension. A lot of these companies might grow to be multi-million dollar companies over several years, but they won't fit that "classic" startup growth curve. Since venture money is flowing relatively well (and a few VCs focus specifically on edtech), a lot of these companies get funded. But there's a dilemma for these entrepreneurs: what do you do when you realize that your company is growing 2x each year (which is great!), but not at 10x where your investors want you.
What this post is lamenting is the loss of some actor like MECC. We had great software written for students (not adults) at one point. Many of us here have used it and fondly remember it. Titles like Oregon Trail, Reader Rabbit, etc...
Unfortunately, MECC got spun-off from the actual Minnesota education system, then purchased by a giant ed-tech company and left to wither. The endowment that MECC (in its purist form) left behind faded in time.
There is still a lot of great educational software out there. It's just all locked away on a MacOS 9 box, tied to libraries and runtimes that never made the jump to Mac OS X and then iOS.
From the business side of it, we'd honestly need something of a PBS-like software company to reconstruct what we lost with MECC. I think that's the only way it'd work. The software would have to be made, not because it was profitable, but because it needed to be made and was a good thing for our society to have.
I understand this article is a bit outdated, but companies like Duolingo or Clever seem to prove a few of the author's arguments wrong.
One would think there would be a market for Duolingo style apps for other subjects, such as mathematics, where the user is simply charged on a subscription bases. Could such a business not survive?
People want/need to learn another language for a very wide variety of reasons. While it is “teaching,” it’s also squarely in its own domain. I’m not sure they’d have an easy time transitioning to Duolingo for math. While I don’t have their demo stats, language learning often extends well into adulthood... many corporations will pay for employees to learn a new language, and English schools are popular world-wide. Not as many adults are motivated to learn calculus, which then leaves a younger market with less ability/willingness to pay.
I do think that the overwhelming majority of Duolingo users are likely learning on their own volition, rather than for their job.
> While it is “teaching,” it’s also squarely in its own domain
Could this idea simply be because, for the most part, language learning applications have been the most successful? Other than Khan Academy, which is mostly videos, i've never heard of another company building similar products for other subjects.
I'm not sure whether it's because the market doesn't exist or that it hasn't been tried.
Language is pretty unique. You can be interested in, marry into, befriend, worship in, born from, work in, read in, watch in, move to, befriend, and be moved to a new language.
As humanity requires language, learning a new one can happen at any stage of life. Rarely do people spend casual time learning what is typically taught in youth. Yes there are always people interested in TED talks but that’s effectively TV. Yes people go back to school but that’s focused structured time.
Language is better if learned interactively, in both casual and formal settings. I can read a history book and feel accomplished. Reading a French textbook without application won’t work as well. Language requires active learning, where as many other subjects do not. Language apps such as duolingo are well suited accordingly (even better would be a really great conversational bot that could help you better pronounce your words).
I’m not saying there aren’t other markets, but I am positing it’s def not evenly distributed across subject matter.
> but companies like Duolingo or Clever seem to prove a few of the author's arguments wrong.
Except we have no idea whether these companies are actual businesses or not (i.e. have profits). Anectodal - Clever has just as much funding and number of employees as another EdTech business I know about that also interacts with "millions of students" but is barely pushing beyond a few million dollars in revenue. This isn't enough to sustain a business with 100+ employees in the bay area.
Clever has a slightly unique business model (we sell to edtech companies, not to consumers or schools), but we do have a healthy, growing, sustainable business.
They started off with a business model which entailed having users translate documents for partners. Last I read, they have pivoted to using ads and in app purchases, along with charging for certifications. I don't know whether or not they are turning a profit with these methods.
Facebook, Airbnb, Stripe, PayPal, Hulu etc are making money. I think the point is that if education is a good area for entrepreneurs to make money, there should be some example success stories already. So far, nothing worth mentioning in education segment.
There's also the issue that single point tech solutions often don't help schools, or districts, in a meaningful way.
This is because "the tech" is just the tip of the iceberg and there's a disconnect between the districts that purchase software and the teachers who are left to try and figure it out on their own.
I am trying to build an online coding school for kids ages 6-13. I mostly agree with what's being stated because we already have customers in China, Korea, and Japan despite doing no marketing there. They are hard markets to ignore, especially when US parents are a harder sell. In order for us to be successful in the long-term, we must be a cross-border company.
Coding is one of the things that parents are increasingly willing to pay for, but it is still in the process of becoming a middle-class family demand.
I have a 4 year old, and I have found most of the educational things that work well at a young age are crafts and STEM based kits.
I was looking at the apple app store today as we were waiting for an appointment. It is quite flooded with all sorts of educational apps, but most that I tried were of low quality. Performing a search for the best reading or math app did not improve much.
I think there may be an opportunity here, but it would take a team with diverse talents and not just a team of developers to build something good.
I appreciated the point that VCs think about education differently than the masses.
Reminds me of the AirBnB guys pitching their original idea of people renting out their couch for strangers to sleep on and getting thrown out by virtually all of them. “Who would EVER want that??”
I joined an edtech company earlier this year: yellowdig.com. I think the thing I'd echo from this post is that time definitely needs to be on your side. Having connections also really helps. I'll keep the points about cost in my back pocket.
If you are a startup marketing for the Asian market especially China, feel free to send your BP to me(tianshuo@galaxyinternet.com), we are a VC that helps foreign startups (and local startups) understand the very complicated Chinese education market.
In China(or South Korea, or Japan), it is totally a different story. Majority of the parents think education as an investment, thus one of the best places to do an education related startup would be in China.
Good points. I think the blog post would have benefited from a definition of the "education product" the author has in mind, because otherwise it remains a little vague.
I can think of at least a dozen educational services and products and it's possible/likely the optimal growth strategy would be different for each of these. For example, tutoring service (in person or remote), learning web application, learning mobile app, classic content products (print textbook, digital textbook, recorded video lessons), new-media content products (e.g. new apps or learning modality), etc. Then there is the whole "credentialing" aspect, which we all hope will go away but currently it's still a very important: people are easily impressed by big-name universities, and three-letter degree acronyms.
The "edtech space" is very interesting. The OP is totally right that it's not obvious how to make money given that neither schools nor students have money... (Sure there are rich kids and motivated parents who can pay and they will enjoy the value, but it's a very ugly thing to deny access to knowledge to someone behind a paywall/subscription just because they can't pull out a credit card and follow the funnel.)
In addition to the traditional for-profit startup model, there are big developments in the ed-tech sector by non-profits like Khan Academy. Some of the best learning UX/UI and content to come out in last decade is from KA. More generally, the open educational resources (OERs) are starting to be a thing now... there lots of good open content and there is potential for companies to be "service providers" on top of the vast sea of "commons." Open source gave us an interesting last two decades. Now imagine what will happen when open content becomes mainstream too?
On the other hand being too open with the content and starting with a "yes take it all for free" strategy is a sure way to end up out of runway. How many non-profit projects shut down because of lack of funding. Aren't there always strings attached when receiving funding from governments, NGOs, and philanthropists. What if they change their mind next year? Or two years form now? There is something beautiful and robust about a self-sustaining project like a for-profit startup. I know teacherspayteachers and other for-profit projects that are doing very well. Definitely something to learn there.
It all depends on what you want to optimize for, but the fundamental algorithm in the edtech space remains the same as in all other spaces: deliver more value than you capture and be in the right place to ride the wave up.
We offer a free, licensed, MBA course and offset the operational costs via a hiring engine that takes a cut on employment match. Online only, interactive, non-video content. There's also an extremely low-cost, licensed, EMBA program for those people who are already gainfully employed and just want to develop their business / operational knowledge.
Top Hat — a Toronto based post-startup — has successfully gone against just about every point in this article. This article is full of whatever the inverse of survivorship bias is.
i would include self-apprenticeship as well since people can learn many things easily on their own now (via internet)... unfortunately taking a bad class can rapidly kill a person's interest, especially if they have already invested considerable time into the subject matter
Figure out a way to franchise high schools to make them into coworking spaces. All teachers are remote and all teaching happens over skype. The employees on site are there only to make sure the kids dont kill each other. Offer an insane amount of subjects (this is possible since there might be only 30 kids worldwide interested in xyz, now they can take a class on it).
The future of education is something along these lines I think.
One could really make a lot of money with this because the costs will be fractional compared with real high school. Also no "athletic departments" fuck that shit.
Or just change the way we do school. I teach in a small school in Alaska, and we get to do school the way it makes sense for everyone, not just the way that makes it easiest for administrators and students.
At our school, everyone's in classes like any other school. But towards the end of a session, after most of the teaching has been done and everyone's working on final projects, students are free to go at their own pace. If you finish before the end of the session, you can do an extension and earn more credit, not just a higher grade. If you don't finish your work by the end of the session you keep working on that class until you're finished, and you don't start a new class until you've finished your existing work.
This is working really well. The culture of our school has shifted from students feeling like teachers are giving them work, to students looking at us as the educational resources we're supposed to be. Students are in charge of their own pace to a large degree; there's no concrete expectation that everyone will graduate in exactly four years. The range is closer to 3-5 years.
Coworking spaces sounds great for a high school. Access to remote experts sounds great. But "all teachers are remote" sounds really stifling.
I look at some of these replies and I think back to my own High School many moons ago. None of these ideas would have worked. You guys might as well be describing schools from another planet.
In my school, 5% of the class (probably less) were actually there to learn, were on a college track of some sort, and would take advantage of educational resources. Their parents took an active role in their education and pushed them. A good 70% or so were pretty much furniture. They were there because they had to be, and their parents saw school as free babysitting service. They would end up in a trade school afterward if they were lucky, or a more likely future drifting between unemployment and Walmart/McDonalds employment. Then there were the 25% who were actively opposed to learning. They existed to disrupt everything, start fights, and waste all of the teachers' and administrators' time. Most of them were into gangs, selling drugs, etc. and their presence detracted from everyone else's experience. This group is likely dead or in prison today.
Aside from the political reasons already covered by other posters (school boards playing politics and being more interested in mandating and banning things than furthering education), there is this reality that education startups ignore: The vast majority of their end users will not want to be end users.
I spent nearly the last decade teaching high school math in public schools in the US and this is my attitude as well. Most of your intended users are adversarial; most students enter the classroom not wanting to learn most of the subjects they are required to. The district I worked in the longest had one laptop per student at the secondary level and we tried lots of different products. What I saw with my students was that those few who were self-motivated would be successful and those that were not motivated would just drag along, no matter how much interaction and gamification was involved. So the outcome was the same as if you just gave them textbooks, except that textbooks don't have the web to distract users.
> A good 70% or so were pretty much furniture. They were there because they had to be, and their parents saw school as free babysitting service. They would end up in a trade school afterward if they were lucky, or a more likely future drifting between unemployment and Walmart/McDonalds employment. Then there were the 25% who were actively opposed to learning. They existed to disrupt everything, start fights, and waste all of the teachers' and administrators' time. Most of them were into gangs, selling drugs, etc. and their presence detracted from everyone else's experience. This group is likely dead or in prison today.
There is so much here that can be looked at critically if we want to change how education is done. Looking at people as furniture is really telling about what you think of their potential. If you're people like this from a student's perspective, I can understand this. But anyone carrying this mindset as an educator should leave the profession.
I have spent my life teaching the kinds of students you describe. They're the people whose father died when they were 8 or 10 years old, and whose mom had to try and hold their family together. They're the kids who have never known sober parents. They're the kids of parents who are angry at the world. They're the kids of parents who have been arguing and hitting each other their entire lives. They're the kids whose parents never opened a book with them by the time they got to first grade.
Yes, there are some kids who grew up like this and inherently took school seriously and flourished. But they're the exception, and we can't expect everyone to respond like that. Schools really need to be restructured to truly meet kids where they are at, and work from there. It can be done, and it's not overly difficult. We tend to meet kids where they're at for a little bit, and then expect them to catch up to everyone else and stay there.
There is a small portion of the population that is really difficult to reach. But schools can do a lot more to bend to students' needs than they're currently doing, which is asking everyone to change to meet the schools' needs.
What you seem to be describing approximates the inverted/flipped classroom model, which has been written about since the 1990s and applied in practice at the secondary and post-secondary level in a number of places. (Flipped classrooms are a little different in that the static lecture content is usually moved out of school entirely, while in school time is used for practical exercise with mentoring and supervision, essentially reversing the in-class vs. homework elements of traditional classrooms, hence the name.)
unlike high school? lol. you are right, being on someone schedule for idk 12 hours a day (classes + hw) is one of the most humane experiences. in my model at least you get to pick your own path and each student might get a pretty unique experience if they choose to.
I like the idea. The role of the teacher would be to coach students (like giving them advice, monitoring progress). What was missing from the MOOC formula was real person, in the flesh accountability for learning.
Yes, human in the loop is definitely good. Reminds me a bit of the "Granny cloud": https://youtu.be/dk60sYrU2RU?t=12m (talk is worth watching from the beginning)
If online education got people cushy jobs the way university degrees get people cushy jobs - online education would be massively profitable.
That's not the case. There's nothing else to it.
Regarding online education in general:
Universities/colleges should have to post their full curriculum, lecture notes and all textbooks and chapters used for each class - that's enough.
There's no need for businesses here - just tell us what you're teaching your class, and anyone interested can go read the textbook. Make video lectures available as a bonus for a little bit of money, that's it! A lot of students already don't attend classes and just read the lecture notes and chapters needed.
These online education start-ups remind me of companies that take Craigslist and start adding unnecessary bells and whistles to justify their existence. We already have craigslist and it works folks. Stop trying to make a buck by being so incredibly boring.
Universities already do that. Simply go to google, type whatever course you want to learn followed by syllabus. Some of the bigger schools have all the teachers list their syllabus on a central page as well. Obviously it is for the benefit of the student but indirectly the syllabus is the outline of the course - lists textbooks used, chapters covered, homework problems etc. To get notes you might be able to find online somewhere.
Great. This is not obvious to most people. Especially people who've never been to university like me.
So the last mile left to accomplish in 'online education' is to standardize the presentation of the syllabus/outline and inform people that that is a viable option.
Basically consumer facing spending is about delivering cheap services, whether that be babysitting style tutoring, textbooks or slinging a minimally viable educational experience that aligns with government programs.
Targeting schools is an enterprise play. You either have the ability to survive the public school sales cycle, or the connections to get the money people behind charter schools to buy your crap.
Personally, I think this is a shitty startup market. It’s an insular industry, most non-content plays have entrenched competition or a bunch of players (Microsoft, google, apple) doing a half ass job for free/cheap. It’s easier to do enterpsie style business with normal government entities.
Targeting poor people is dumb because poor folk give zero shits about education. If you have the political juice, targeting a government agency with money to burn on helping poor people makes more sense.
How many low income households are spending money on Kaplan courses?
You may find that harsh, but it’s reality. Doing what the author suggested (producing low quality cheap crap) may sound more sensitive, but in my mind is unethical.
Things like Khan academy have traction because third parties pay the bill. Online degree mills have traction because an uncritical third party (ie the government) loans the cash to students.
My impression was that the "educational" software was extremely crude and one-dimensional, basically glorified flash cards. Today, the "educational" software is Web based, and more flashy, but still retains that lack of breadth. It's hard and expensive to write interactive software, so a lot of the apps are basically one or two templates, with different sets of data / parameters for different lessons.
Here's a picture. Move your mouse around. When something lights up, click on it, and a little box of text will pop up for you to read. I kid you not. This is real. Today.
Now I have two kids who are in high school. We have acquired (can't say bought in most cases) piles of educational technology, yet little or none of it was "EdTech." The most glaring example was Microsoft Office. The kids used it to create reports, presentations, drawings, etc. It has been supplanted by Google Docs, which they now use heavily, including for collaborative assignments.
We've played with Jupyter/Python. My son is learning solid modeling using some free app. One of them uses DuoLingo daily, as does my spouse.
Some of their educational technology is still in the analog domain: Musical instruments. ;-)
I think the take-away for me is that we are providing our kids with technology that supports their education, but it isn't written for kids. It's the same stuff that grown-ups use. Jupyter/Python is an example -- it's my primary computing tool for my job. Another common feature is that these are creativity tools, not consumption tools.