It looks like she was focusing on higher education but I would like to address two levels of education. First, I think for social and physical development reasons, K-12 should always remain in person. Children learn so much by interacting with their peers and having those hands on experiences every day. However, after high school is a whole different ball game. We are socially and physically developed enough to make decisions about our learning environment. Her argument is largely targeted to underserved populations, and while I think that issue needs to be addressed, it shouldn't undermine the other populations served. Many students will do just fine in an online learning environment and while that environment is no where near perfect, it works for many. Almost all of the members on this forum benefit from this type of learning. As with anything, there will always need to be adjustments made to target specific issues but I don't think online learning should be ridiculed for not immediately adapting to the needs of one specific population. Underserved populations have been shown statistically to fare worse academically in a K-12 environment and schools have taken measures to try and counteract that. The same will need to be done with online learning.
Are you suggesting, then, that homeschooled kids are socially and physically less well developed than their age peers?
I agree with the author of the article somewhat. I think online courses should not be made mandatory just yet. Online learning is not for everyone. But then again, most kids these days should have no excuse for not being able to learn online. My kid is a natural with computers, and would adjust well. All that Call of Duty paid off I guess. For me it was Oregon Trail I think they should offer the courses online, but reserve a classroom or two for people that really need the brick and mortar.
