> If one teacher is an outlier that uses it badly then sure, the teacher is to blame and be judged. But if a collective is using it badly, then perhaps the capability of the collective should have been evaluated before handing the tool to them.

You won’t get any argument from me that most teachers are poorly trained. Money can largely buy someone out of that trap.

That said, just forbidding a tool that is critical in modern life just because some/many people are bad at using it does not strike me as a particularly constructive solution to the problem.

> I don't have an answer - it is bad to withhold a tool from the hands of people who will use it badly. But the overall outcome has to also count.

My “solution” to this is not a popular one. Lower expectations for public mass education.

Over the last 120 years, we have taken a curriculum that was targeted at elites and forced it onto almost everyone.

High quality education should be available and cheap or free to everyone, but I really don’t think it should be mandatory.

If we stopped compulsory education at 8th grade and replaced most high schools with some sort of other skill development program or work/study program, the expectations and outcomes would probably be better aligned.

Large parts of the tertiary education system would be gutted, but maybe that’s a good thing.