My general reaction to this perspective is not that it's wrong, but that it's insufficient. Obviously, great teachers are going to be more effective than lazy/i

My general reaction to this perspective is not that it's wrong, but that it's insufficient. Obviously, great teachers are going to be more effective than lazy/inexperienced/incompetent teachers. What a great online teacher can't do is help a child who doesn't fit the mold (which, suprise!, a great many don't). If a child isn't physically, cognitively, or emotionally prepared to learn they will just shut down when confronted with an online teacher (no matter how great that teacher may be). They will check Facebook, play games, or simply walk away from the computer. A flesh-and-blood teacher can intervene and redirect a student. Perhaps, they can substitute an element of the lesson to more closely align with the needs of that student (and often those needs may not always seem strictly rational). It would be great if the full impacts of that great teacher could be distributed over audio-video - but there is no substitute for personal interaction. Concordantly, The answer should not be to substitute a bad teacher with a great digital lecturer - it should be to turn that bad teacher into a great one (or replace them if it's not possible).