,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
So, let me get this straight. We're in search of something that hasn't yet been proven to work and if implemented may have a disastrous negative consequence as compared to a possible alternative (i.e., more robust public transit)?
If that's the case, it's already here, and it's called algorithm-driven education, which many misnomer as "personalized learning."
"Bold" ideas only, apparently. How about a bold idea like reducing the # of students in a writing class to discipline-recommended maximums? Is that bold enough? It's evidence-based. 
I can't even with this stuff. I just published a carefully researched book about how we could being to move towards a superior approach to teaching writing. I've sent it to every Fordham Institute person. Totally ignored.
Improving instruction doesn't require anything like a moonshot. The very notion that it does is a false premise. I like to assume good faith among these folks, but this kind of stuff makes it very hard. Why do they ignore so much evidence for approaches that already exist?
