Letter: Virtual tech and the schoolteacher

There are several fallacies at play in Marc Bernstein's op-ed, "Future lessons" [Opinion, June 3]. He promotes a revolution in online learning at the high school level.

Chief among his fallacies is the assumption that what's effective in teaching university students -- who pay thousands of dollars per semester, select their courses and are expected to be self-motivated -- will be as effective for 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds who attend state-mandated courses and may be more motivated to post Facebook updates than attend a virtual lecture. As a veteran high school teacher, I can say that the last thing my students need is more time online.

Another fallacy is that learning in a theoretically unlimited class size is beneficial to the student. Online learning requires a predetermined program to reach a predetermined outcome -- hardly an educational environment that promotes creative thinking or problem solving, or that encourages questioning and curiosity.

The savings to taxpayers burdened by oppressive school budgets is a final fallacy. Money saved by increasing class sizes and laying off faculty would be spent paying the bills of educational corporations supplying online courses and associated textbooks, materials and assessments.

Before replacing the "traditional, antiquated model" of high school with online learning, more thought should be given to the true costs of such a proposition.

Henry J. Dircks, Bellmore

Editor's note: The writer is a social studies teacher at Mepham High School.
 

I write as a student, not too long out of high school, now attending a liberal arts college and studying education.

I understand that Bernstein wants to reinvigorate the public school system, and it is certainly failing. But is he so disheartened by teachers that he wishes to reduce their time in the classroom in favor of online lessons.

What about improving teachers' education? If they continue to go through the same five-year programs, with little or no intensive study in the subject that they then teach, how are we to blame them for not being the rigorous motivators we are searching for? This is not something that can be fixed with more standardized testing of teachers.

I understand the desire to bring a university model of learning to the classroom. I go to a college where class sizes rarely exceed 20. We come to class to see great experts in their field who are also outstanding teachers. They do not merely lecture. They engage, question, invigorate.

They do not view education merely as preparation for a job. If preparation for a job is truly the only purpose Bernstein wishes public education to serve, then he should continue with his "technological revolution." But remember that there are students who love to go to school every day because they love to read, write and think in a critical manner. Discounting them in this revolution would be a real tragedy for what education was once thought to be, is for some, and could be again.

Rosette Marie Cirillo, Bethpage

Editor's note: The writer is a student at Bard College.