In terms of "efficiency," of course I know you meant it in terms of learning speed, but of your two final scenarios there is certainly an efficiency gap in that that the tech learning environment involves all the literal $ costs of the traditional school plus all the costs of the tech equipment and software. In the US we have school systems paying literally tens of thousands of dollars per student for Ed tech software every year - literally $200,000+ for a class of 20. Somehow I doubt the results are better than what could be achieved by simply hiring 2x more teachers.
I think what people are hoping is that if you get a tech platform that works its unit costs will be very favourable compared to hiring a human. But if they need humans to work well the economics breaks down.
Great post, as always Daisy, but I feel like I need to point out that the OECD PISA in Focus doesn't (and can't) make conclusions about differences between classes within schools.
The sampling design of PISA lacks information about student grouping within schools: there isn't information about which class a student is in, only which school they are in. So, the report does say that the variation in ability of 15-year-olds within a school is often larger than the variation between schools, but it can't tell you whether those students are all in the same class or not, nor how many classes of 15-year-old students the school's sample is spread across.
This doesn't really undermine the point you are making, but it is a nuance that should be noted. Because even where a small school may only have one or two Year 10 classes (or whatever grade 15-year-olds are usually in, in a particular country), the variance of ability can be huge across the individuals - and that variation can't be completely explained by a single cause like variation in teacher quality between classes.
I first read this research in work by MacBeath and Mortimore (2001): The Intelligent School. It could be argued that 25 years ago it was easier for a good teacher to thrive in a poor school or even to try out new ideas in a good school. With the rise of multi academy trusts and the systems that accompany them room for innovation seems limited. But I'd stand by the variance of teacher quality. I also had experience of teaching in small rura primary schools in England where it was common to have one class for each key stage. A good teacher can do this although it's hard work.
In England independent & grammar schools take a lot of high performing students and it hasn’t collapsed the rest of the system. In fact I’d argue the top non selective state schools have better pedagogy and outcomes than a lot of the selective schools!
I just can’t see the alpha approach working for under 11s. As I say, I might be wrong!
I said in ‘a free market’, which the UK does not have. My point was that in a fee market, alpha type schools will emerge and disrupt the existing educational market. This assumes that alpha style schools work, are scalable and that there is a demand for them from sufficient parents.
Their on-screen adaptive learning approach - according to the Alpha website- does not seem to involve human teachers at all. The coaches and mentors who motivate students, independent, entrepreneurial projects are expressly forbidden to act as teachers. So, the students never see a subject specialist throughout their schooling - but train intensively for SAT grades ?
PS You're right about traffic and medieval towns. I live in one in England and people do get hot under the collar about the traffic. Unfortunately our town straddles a river with only one vehicular bridge so excluding all town centre traffic would be trickier.
Thanks for a great article. I can remember being alerted to the research which showed more variation between classes in a single school than between schools. As a local authority adviser I definitely saw that and often. Similarly I saw great practice in a school that was en route to failing its next Ofsted and overall good practice in schools where the headteacher was a poor leader and often not much cop as a teacher either. I was just starting out as a primary teacher in the early 1980s when IT was appearing in schools. We had one BBC Micro in the school. It ran on tapes and took about an hour to warm up! But IT advisers were also becoming a thing and the mantra was don't let the IT lead your teaching or dictate how you teach. There were a flurry of computer aided learning programmes (CAL) around then and they really only offered a novelty version of what was more efficiently done on paper. Especially if you only had one PC per school. I'm not sure about online professional development for teachers. My experience as a teacher, head and adviser running courses for teachers getting out of the classroom and talking with other professionals is hugely beneficial. I've had the opportunity to learn from some amazing top flight educators particularly at conferences and I don't think the impact would have been comparable on screen. Maybe that's why many of the current crop of undergraduates feel disillusioned about their HEI experience. My degree was taught mostly through tutorials and seminars. If I'd had to learn mostly through mass lectures and/ or online I don't think I'd look back with the same fondness as I do now.
Loved reading this. When you mention the travel agency, what is the education equivalent of getting £50 off? All students learning more or more time for teachers to develop their exposition for the in-person moments? Tried to word this question not as a criticism because I don't disagree with what you've laid out but more an exploration of the consequences of if this does go well?
In terms of "efficiency," of course I know you meant it in terms of learning speed, but of your two final scenarios there is certainly an efficiency gap in that that the tech learning environment involves all the literal $ costs of the traditional school plus all the costs of the tech equipment and software. In the US we have school systems paying literally tens of thousands of dollars per student for Ed tech software every year - literally $200,000+ for a class of 20. Somehow I doubt the results are better than what could be achieved by simply hiring 2x more teachers.
I think what people are hoping is that if you get a tech platform that works its unit costs will be very favourable compared to hiring a human. But if they need humans to work well the economics breaks down.
Great post, as always Daisy, but I feel like I need to point out that the OECD PISA in Focus doesn't (and can't) make conclusions about differences between classes within schools.
The sampling design of PISA lacks information about student grouping within schools: there isn't information about which class a student is in, only which school they are in. So, the report does say that the variation in ability of 15-year-olds within a school is often larger than the variation between schools, but it can't tell you whether those students are all in the same class or not, nor how many classes of 15-year-old students the school's sample is spread across.
This doesn't really undermine the point you are making, but it is a nuance that should be noted. Because even where a small school may only have one or two Year 10 classes (or whatever grade 15-year-olds are usually in, in a particular country), the variance of ability can be huge across the individuals - and that variation can't be completely explained by a single cause like variation in teacher quality between classes.
I first read this research in work by MacBeath and Mortimore (2001): The Intelligent School. It could be argued that 25 years ago it was easier for a good teacher to thrive in a poor school or even to try out new ideas in a good school. With the rise of multi academy trusts and the systems that accompany them room for innovation seems limited. But I'd stand by the variance of teacher quality. I also had experience of teaching in small rura primary schools in England where it was common to have one class for each key stage. A good teacher can do this although it's hard work.
Thanks! I thought there was some Hanushek research making this point - will have to double check.
Hi Daisy, what about alpha schools in the US?
https://alpha.school/
In a free market something like this would capture the top x% of pupils and thereby collapse the entire school system.
In England independent & grammar schools take a lot of high performing students and it hasn’t collapsed the rest of the system. In fact I’d argue the top non selective state schools have better pedagogy and outcomes than a lot of the selective schools!
I just can’t see the alpha approach working for under 11s. As I say, I might be wrong!
It’s really not clear how the Alpha subject delivery works
I said in ‘a free market’, which the UK does not have. My point was that in a fee market, alpha type schools will emerge and disrupt the existing educational market. This assumes that alpha style schools work, are scalable and that there is a demand for them from sufficient parents.
I wouldn’t bet against Stanford and tech.
Their on-screen adaptive learning approach - according to the Alpha website- does not seem to involve human teachers at all. The coaches and mentors who motivate students, independent, entrepreneurial projects are expressly forbidden to act as teachers. So, the students never see a subject specialist throughout their schooling - but train intensively for SAT grades ?
PS You're right about traffic and medieval towns. I live in one in England and people do get hot under the collar about the traffic. Unfortunately our town straddles a river with only one vehicular bridge so excluding all town centre traffic would be trickier.
My parents remember the plan to bulldoze through Covent Garden and build a main road! Crazy!
Thanks for a great article. I can remember being alerted to the research which showed more variation between classes in a single school than between schools. As a local authority adviser I definitely saw that and often. Similarly I saw great practice in a school that was en route to failing its next Ofsted and overall good practice in schools where the headteacher was a poor leader and often not much cop as a teacher either. I was just starting out as a primary teacher in the early 1980s when IT was appearing in schools. We had one BBC Micro in the school. It ran on tapes and took about an hour to warm up! But IT advisers were also becoming a thing and the mantra was don't let the IT lead your teaching or dictate how you teach. There were a flurry of computer aided learning programmes (CAL) around then and they really only offered a novelty version of what was more efficiently done on paper. Especially if you only had one PC per school. I'm not sure about online professional development for teachers. My experience as a teacher, head and adviser running courses for teachers getting out of the classroom and talking with other professionals is hugely beneficial. I've had the opportunity to learn from some amazing top flight educators particularly at conferences and I don't think the impact would have been comparable on screen. Maybe that's why many of the current crop of undergraduates feel disillusioned about their HEI experience. My degree was taught mostly through tutorials and seminars. If I'd had to learn mostly through mass lectures and/ or online I don't think I'd look back with the same fondness as I do now.
Loved reading this. When you mention the travel agency, what is the education equivalent of getting £50 off? All students learning more or more time for teachers to develop their exposition for the in-person moments? Tried to word this question not as a criticism because I don't disagree with what you've laid out but more an exploration of the consequences of if this does go well?