3 ms·

> the goal is to employ teachers and education of students is a welcome-but-unnecessary industrial byproduct. This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking,

> the goal is to employ teachers and education of students is a welcome-but-unnecessary industrial byproduct. This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking, albeit less eloquently, as I read this article. The entire article, while it made good points, always had an undertone of "Khan Academy is dangerous to me, therefore it's dangerous for everyone." It could just be a difference of perspective - the author is a teacher and has been trained in a certain way of educating students, so any idea that isn't the way they were taught seems weird, scary, and wrong. I'm not saying that Khan Academy is entirely the right direction to take - I haven't used it enough to say, and I'm too old to be able to stand in the shoes of its target demographic - but the entire time I read the article, I felt a bias underpinning the entire thing.

visarg 15y ago
> I'm not saying that Khan Academy is entirely the right direction to take ... Delivering a lecture is not what teachers should spend their time on most. Why should millions of teachers explain Pythagoras' theorem all over again, verbally, when we could hire the best one to make a video and then use that video? Teachers should be education counsellors, couches if you want. They should spend their time guiding students, not regurgitating the same lecture for the 1000th time. Khan Academy has no fault. The author is just a scared teacher. He should focus more on his students and leave the presentation of material to the most eloquent. There only needs to be one or a few of those.