For as long as I taught school, it seemed that every five years or so a new method would come into the system and the schools and the patrons had to make an adjustment to a new system.
Once again the "new" electronic system is loudly proclaimed to be the wave of the future. I note that your editorial policy is to support this new concept. But I feel several questions have to be answered first.Who is going to pay for the computers for those students who cannot afford them? You just say in your editorial that some way will be found for that cost. At an average cost of $1,000 per home, I wonder. Schools are being drowned in providing fee waivers for all sorts of fees and activities. To me this is just an additional cost.
Who will supervise those students at home? In this age of single parents, no one is at home during the day to maintain this supervision. While many students have the necessary drive to handle this sort of program, many do not. If the police were busy picking up truants before, can you see the confusion this will cause? Also, who will ensure that the student goes directly to and from their allowed time at school?
I know of no business that will invest millions in a building and then only use it for about 200 days a year. Again, your earlier editorial advocating longer school days and year would seem, to me at least, to be a better solution.
I recall three National Science Foundation summer schools that I attended, each proclaiming a new and better way to teach chemistry. But as I look at my grandson's chemistry book, not much has changed over time.
Computers are great, just as calculators are great and helpful. But I feel we need to go slow on a mass adoption of that sort of system.
Lorin M. Bailey
Price