Children observe their peers, learn about differences, have to deal with jerks, discover interests as a consequence of conversation...they also have teachers as role models, for good or ill--and either way, that modeling is useful. A kid sees someone they'd like to emulate, or someone they'd never want to be--it's a lesson, regardless.

I think cyberschool is a pisspoor substitute for brick-n-mortar school. I feel sorry for kids who are stuck doing that because their parents are afraid to expose them to different people.

If the parents have time to monitor the kid sitting in front of a computer all day, they have time to volunteer a few hours in the classroom, and help to guide perspectives and priorities.

I know someone who is doing this, and the kid, nice kid and all, is clueless and far behind his peers. He's not stupid, either, he's just "unlearned"--or as they call it "unschooled" (and they think that's a good thing).

I think it's sad when kindergarteners have a better grasp of some subjects than an eight year old.

of knowing the individual students and meeting them, as much as possible, where they are in any given moment.

A computer doesn't know if a child is tired, or hungry, or looking out the window, etc. All a computer knows is key strokes.

You're right, though--the interpersonal knowledge between student and teacher is so damn important.

A spelling bee on the computer just wouldn't be quite so rewarding or suspenseful. You might learn to spell just as well on the computer, but you wouldn't, couldn't have the emotional experience that develops your memory and hones your interest.

We remember and forget in part because of the input of our emotions. The center of our emotions is in a part of the brain that is different from the rational part of the brain, I believe.

Computers do not permit the same kind of emotional give and take, the joy and, yes, the hurt, that helps us learn and remember and evaluate what we are learning.

We are not computers. We are not automatons. We are not solely rational beings. That's why computers can aid learning but not replace the immediate human interactions that are a part of learning in a classroom.

that this is what Bill Gates and his privatizing cronies hope to achieve across the nation: put a Microsoft product in front of every student, and destroy our system of 'public' education.

This bears repeating: the corporate megalomaniacs--who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy--want a system of public education that spits out factory fodder and service industry drones. Critical thinkers need not apply...

Music? Walking home after school? Lunchroom with other kids?

How boring! I'd quit too.

Too bad, seems like the kind of endeavor they would fund.

There's no control. At least there's none mentioned.

Not even a fudged one, where you make sure that the online students' profile matches in some way, possibly pointless, regular students'.

Ed research is painful. I can read at most one journal article a day in most peer-reviewed journals. Either I laugh myself silly, i'm outraged that the article made it through peer review (and wonder what those rejected were like) or just get a headache from saying, "But ... but ... but ... but ..."

Controls. That's usually the biggie. Most ed research I've seen does a bad job with controls.

Should we assume that the kids at K12 versus the population as a whole, once you've controlled for "demographics," are just a random sample? Cyberschool doesn't attract a certain kind (or kinds) of parents and students?

Sorry. If there's one thing kids are masters at it's producing non-random sorts of themselves.