> there should be ample room to innovate in low-cost high-quality instruction. Lots of other countries and US states seem to be doing very well without MOOCs,

> there should be ample room to innovate in low-cost high-quality instruction. Lots of other countries and US states seem to be doing very well without MOOCs, which indicates there are probably more fundamental changes the US can make. That aside... MOOCs seem like a panacea. Individual experiences with MOOCs help reinforce this perception for many reasons: * Most people take MOOCs in areas where they have previous experience or are intrinsically motivated. * MOOCs tend to cover technical material, which is far easier to teach than sophisticated reading or writing. * MOOCs tend to cover introductory or intermediate university material, and assume a certain level of intellectual maturity that many teenagers do not yet possess. * Many high school courses are far more difficult (for high schoolers) than university-level courses (for high school graduates). In particular, most CS 101 courses probably rank somewhere between high school Algebra I and Algebra II courses in terms of time and intelligence required to master the concepts (for relevant age groups). Effective instruction at the secondary level requires knowing your students and reacting to their individual strengths and weaknesses. Most often, and especially at the secondary school level, it's impossible to teach effectively without actually spending lots of time in front of your students. "Delivering the content" is not enough -- you have to determine (in real time) whether students understand and help fill in gaps. So although MOOCs can probably play some role in improving secondary education, they will never replace the classroom teacher.