It's easy to throw out opinions about this sort of thing -- "computers are no replacement for a real teacher", "the class size constraint should be relaxed", "i

It's easy to throw out opinions about this sort of thing -- "computers are no replacement for a real teacher", "the class size constraint should be relaxed", "if done well, computerized education could be a huge step forward". But without hard data about the situation in question -- details of how the program is implemented, measured outcomes from previous uses of the same courseware, etc. -- the discussion isn't very productive. The NYTimes article is disappointing in that respect: it provides little or none of the information that would help us decide whether the Florida program is a sensible adaptation to limited resources, or a sad pretense. I've seen plenty of examples of computers in the classroom doing little good, and even doing harm (mostly in the form of distraction). In the long run, I'm optimistic that computers can revolutionize education; in the short run, I'm pessimistic about most of the efforts going on. This article doesn't tell us anything about which category the Florida program falls into; without more data or context, there's not much point in debating it.