I don't get the cynicism. The article leads with a concrete example of technology working and producing better outcomes. I have no doubt that having a human co

I don't get the cynicism. The article leads with a concrete example of technology working and producing better outcomes. I have no doubt that having a human coach is a big win and results in better outcomes, if you get a good one. One of the opportunities the tech can present is the ability to augment a good coach so that they can effectively help hundreds more students. I bet some teachers/coaches are bad enough that software without a coach would be superior. One thing the tech industry has proven to be great at is getting users addicted to things, I have to wonder, why aren't we seeing apps that get kids addicted to something they actually learn from? (My best guess is there just isn't enough money in the space to attract the best tech talent.) No disrespect intended to teachers, but a lot of times when they get involved in the discussion they keep going back to "that's why you need to have a good teacher who teaches correctly," and that's completely true, but the problem is, there aren't enough of them, and there may never be. To me it always feels like there's a lot of entrenched and regressive thinking in this discussion, well the reality is that Facebook owns the attention of millions of kids in the developing world now. The educators, the NGOs, etc. already lost the war. The kids are Facebooking instead of doing their homework. These people consistently applied the tech in dumb ways and Facebook won because they were smart. This lesson is a bitter pill but it needs to be swallowed.