
How AI and Charter Schools Could Close the Tutoring Gap
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The greatest school in history isn't Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or any other university you know. And no matter how hard you try, your kids won't get in. Why? Partly because it was so selective it only admitted one student — but mainly because it closed in 336 BC. For me, Aristotle's seven-year tutelage of Alexander is the education against which all others should be judged (after all, more than 2,300 years later we still refer to the lone pupil as 'The Great'). It's the ultimate testament to the power of tutoring — a power that artificial intelligence is poised to unlock.
The problem with tutoring is it can't scale. Or it couldn't. Because even as we're besieged by concerns that AI-aided plagiarism is destroying education, we're starting to see evidence that AI-enabled tutoring might supercharge it. Getting the technology right, though, will require lots of real-life experimentation. While there's a limit to how much our traditional public school system allows for this kind of test-and-learn approach, this need creates an opportunity for the country's growing crop of charter schools to make a unique contribution to the future of education.
The wealthy's appreciation of tutoring did not die with Alexander. I paid rent my first year out of college as a private math tutor and today there are a host of companies offering tutoring services, with those at the high end often charging more than $1,000 per hour.
But for every student who can afford tutoring, there are hundreds more who could benefit from it. A meta-analysis of dozens of experiments with K-12 tutoring, conducted with students of all socioeconomic statuses, found that the additional academic attention significantly boosts student performance. And let's say you could overcome the cost issue — with more than 50 million students in US primary and secondary schools, there will never be enough tutors to work with them all.
Early experiments with AI-based tutoring suggest it might help fill the gap. In a study of three middle schools in Pennsylvania and California, researchers found that a hybrid human-AI tutoring model — where the technology supported human tutors, allowing them to work with many more pupils — generated significant improvements in math performance, with the biggest increases going to the lowest-performing students. And in a study of four high schools in Italy, researchers replaced traditional homework in English classes with interactive sessions with OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 and found that all the AI-aided groups did at least as well as those engaged in traditional homework — with some performing significantly better.
It could help at a college level, too. In a Harvard University physics course, for example, professors trained an AI tutor to work with some students (replacing their normal class time) while others had a traditional instructor-guided class. Students with AI tutors performed better — in fact they learned twice as much — and were more engaged with the lessons than those in the normal class, even though they had less interaction with a human instructor.
The most impressive findings may come from the developing world. Rising Academies, a network of private schools with more than 250,000 students across Africa, has implemented Rori, an AI-based math tutor for students, and Tari, a support system for teachers, both powered by Anthropic's Claude and accessible via WhatsApp. Students who used Rori for two 30-minute sessions twice a week for 8 months showed an improvement in their math performance 'equal or greater than a year of schooling.'
None of this means AI-aided tutoring is a panacea. But it does suggest that such tutors are, if well-designed and implemented, very likely to be helpful even if they remain inferior to the best human options. Since many families can't access or afford traditional tutoring, what matters is if they are better than no tutors at all.
But 'well-designed and implemented' is a crucial part of that sentence. We don't yet know what the best practices are for AI tutors. Learning this will require extensive experimentation. And, much as it pains me to say this as a proud product of public schools, that kind of free-form experimentation is likely to be a struggle for public school bureaucracy.
Research by the Department of Education and the Center on Reinventing Public Education at Arizona State University suggests that charter schools, which operate with more freedom about how they staff and teach, are often more innovative than traditional public schools. And because charters are not private schools, they cannot charge tuition or be selective about who they admit. This lets them generate useful data about what does and doesn't work.
Of course, this doesn't mean that charter schools are better than their public counterparts. Most innovations fail. But however painful failure is for an individual school, it can actually benefit the system because even bad outcomes produce useful information. Successful AI-based tutoring programs pioneered at charters can and will be adopted by public schools, and failed ones avoided. Given the potentially revolutionary change in education AI is driving, learning should be our primary goal — and charters are likely to be our best instrument toward it.Elsewhere in Bloomberg Opinion:
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Gautam Mukunda writes about corporate management and innovation. He teaches leadership at the Yale School of Management and is the author of 'Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter.'
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Big tech on a quest for ideal AI device
ChatGPT-maker OpenAI has enlisted the legendary designer behind the iPhone to create an irresistible gadget for using generative artificial intelligence (AI). The ability to engage digital assistants as easily as speaking with friends is being built into eyewear, speakers, computers and smartphones, but some argue that the Age of AI calls for a transformational new gizmo. "The products that we're using to deliver and connect us to unimaginable technology are decades old," former Apple chief design officer Jony Ive said when his alliance with OpenAI was announced. "It's just common sense to at least think, surely there's something beyond these legacy products." Sharing no details, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman said that a prototype Ive shared with him "is the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen." According to several US media outlets, the device won't have a screen, nor will it be worn like a watch or broach. Kyle Li, a professor at The New School, said that since AI is not yet integrated into people's lives, there is room for a new product tailored to its use. The type of device won't be as important as whether the AI innovators like OpenAI make "pro-human" choices when building the software that will power them, said Rob Howard of consulting firm Innovating with AI Learning from flops The industry is well aware of the spectacular failure of the AI Pin, a square gadget worn like a badge packed with AI features but gone from the market less than a year after its debut in 2024 due to a dearth of buyers. The AI Pin marketed by startup Humane to incredible buzz was priced at $699. Now, Meta and OpenAI are making "big bets" on AI-infused hardware, according to CCS Insight analyst Ben Wood. OpenAI made a multi-billion-dollar deal to bring Ive's startup into the fold. Google announced early this year it is working on mixed-reality glasses with AI smarts, while Amazon continues to ramp up Alexa digital assistant capabilities in its Echo speakers and displays. Apple is being cautious embracing generative AI , slowly integrating it into iPhones even as rivals race ahead with the technology. Plans to soup up its Siri chatbot with generative AI have been indefinitely delayed. The quest for creating an AI interface that people love "is something Apple should have jumped on a long time ago," said Futurum research director Olivier Blanchard. Time to talk Blanchard envisions some kind of hub that lets users tap into AI, most likely by speaking to it and without being connected to the internet. "You can't push it all out in the cloud," Blanchard said, citing concerns about reliability, security, cost, and harm to the environment due to energy demand. "There is not enough energy in the world to do this, so we need to find local solutions," he added. Howard expects a fierce battle over what will be the must-have personal device for AI, since the number of things someone is willing to wear is limited and "people can feel overwhelmed." A new piece of hardware devoted to AI isn't the obvious solution, but OpenAI has the funding and the talent to deliver, according to Julien Codorniou, a partner at venture capital firm 20VC and a former Facebook executive. OpenAI recently hired former Facebook executive and Instacart chief Fidji Simo as head of applications, and her job will be to help answer the hardware question. Voice is expected by many to be a primary way people command AI. Google chief Sundar Pichai has long expressed a vision of "ambient computing" in which technology blends invisibly into the world, waiting to be called upon. "There's no longer any reason to type or touch if you can speak instead," Blanchard said. "Generative AI wants to be increasingly human" so spoken dialogues with the technology "make sense," he added. However, smartphones are too embedded in people's lives to be snubbed any time soon, said Wood.


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Meta's $14.8 billion scale AI deal latest test of AI partnerships
By Jody Godoy Facebook owner Meta 's $14.8 billion investment in Scale AI and hiring of the data-labeling startup's CEO will test how the Trump administration views so-called acquihire deals , which some have criticized as an attempt to evade regulatory scrutiny. The deal, announced on Thursday, was Meta's second-largest investment to date. It gives the owner of Facebook a 49% nonvoting stake in Scale AI, which uses gig workers to manually label data and includes among its customers Meta competitors Microsoft and ChatGPT creator OpenAI. Unlike an acquisition or a transaction that would give Meta a controlling stake, the deal does not require a review by U.S. antitrust regulators. However, they could probe the deal if they believe it was structured to avoid those requirements or harm competition. The deal appeared to be structured to avoid potential pitfalls, such as cutting off competitors' access to Scale's services or giving Meta an inside view into rivals' operations - though Reuters exclusively reported on Friday that Alphabet's Google has decided to sever ties with Scale in light of Meta's stake, and other customers are looking at taking a step back. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Alexandr Wang, Scale's 28-year-old CEO who is coming to Meta as part of the deal, will remain on Scale's board but will have appropriate restrictions placed around his access to information, two sources familiar with the move confirmed. Large tech companies likely perceive the regulatory environment for AI partnerships as easier to navigate under President Donald Trump than under former President Joe Biden, said William Kovacic, director of the competition law center at George Washington University. Trump's antitrust enforcers have said they do not want to regulate how AI develops, but have also displayed a suspicion of large tech platforms, he added. "That would lead me to think they will keep looking carefully at what the firms do. It does not necessarily dictate that they will intervene in a way that would discourage the relationships," Kovacic said. Federal Trade Commission probes into past "aquihire" deals appear to be at a standstill. Under the Biden administration, the FTC opened inquiries into Amazon's deal to hire top executives and researchers from AI startup Adept, and Microsoft's $650 million deal with Inflection AI. The latter allowed Microsoft to use Inflection's models and hire most of the startup's staff, including its co-founders. Amazon's deal closed without further action from the regulator, a source familiar with the matter confirmed. And, more than a year after its initial inquiry, the FTC has so far taken no enforcement action against Microsoft over Inflection, though a larger probe over practices at the software giant is ongoing. A spokesperson for the FTC declined to comment on Friday. David Olson, a professor who teaches antitrust law at Boston College Law School, said it was smart of Meta to take a minority nonvoting stake. "I think that does give them a lot of protection if someone comes after them," he said, adding that it was still possible that the FTC would want to review the agreement. The Meta deal has its skeptics. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts who is probing AI partnerships involving Microsoft and Google, said Meta's investment should be scrutinized. "Meta can call this deal whatever it wants - but if it violates federal law because it unlawfully squashes competition or makes it easier for Meta to illegally dominate, antitrust enforcers should investigate and block it," she said in a statement on Friday. While Meta faces its own monopoly lawsuit by the FTC, it remains to be seen whether the agency will have any questions about its Scale investment. The U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division, led by former JD Vance adviser Gail Slater, recently started looking into whether Google's partnership with chatbot creator was designed to evade antitrust review, Bloomberg News reported. The DOJ is separately seeking to make Google give it advance notice of new AI investments as part of a proposal to curb the company's dominance in online search.


Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
'They copy-pasted from AI': Tech company offers Rs 20 lakh, can't find a single techie who understands code
You Might Also Like: AI cannot replace all jobs, says expert: 3 types of careers that could survive the automation era A technology firm recently launched a hiring campaign for a well-compensated entry-level position offering a handsome Rs 20 lakh per annum. However, despite conducting a staggering 450 interviews, the company failed to find a single candidate suitable for the role. The recruitment team turned to the Developers India subreddit to share their ordeal, hoping to shed light on the complexities of hiring in the AI company had posted job listings on LinkedIn for junior-level frontend and backend developers, as well as QA roles. The salary range—up to Rs 20 lakh—attracted a wave of over 12,000 applications. From the outset, the hiring team filtered out nearly 10,000 applicants, citing reasons such as poorly tailored resumes and a lack of relevant technical abilities. According to them, the early elimination was not about being overly selective but about saving both their own time and the applicants' from fruitless interview who did make it to the interviews were tested on fundamental programming principles as well as standard data structures and algorithms topics like trees, heaps, linked lists, and graph traversal methods such as breadth-first search and depth-first search. Interestingly, the firm even permitted the use of tools like ChatGPT during assessments to simulate a real-world working this modern approach backfired. While candidates were quick to churn out working solutions—often copied directly from AI—the problems began when interviewers asked for an explanation. Most were unable to describe what their own code was doing or provide details about its time and space complexity. This led to the realization that many candidates were simply copying and pasting without comprehending the logic behind the code—a phenomenon the recruiter described as "vibe coding."This troubling pattern prompted the company to reflect on its own methods. Was the interview process too rigid or flawed? Or was it indicative of a larger issue where aspiring developers rely too heavily on AI tools, skipping the foundational learning necessary to become competent programmers?The Reddit community didn't hold back in its response. Some users questioned the company's recruitment practices, pointing out that spending 450 hours on interviews without hiring a single person suggested deeper internal problems. One user criticized the process as inefficient and misguided, arguing that the HR team might be more at fault than the candidates themselves. Another suggested that if so many interviews yield zero hires, it could be a sign that the hiring strategy—and not the talent pool—is hiring saga mirrors a broader anxiety echoed by Godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, who recently warned that roles relying heavily on intellectual replication—like coding without understanding—are among the first to be replaced by AI. As companies seek talent that can think, not just code, this recruitment roadblock may signal a growing divide between tool-dependent developers and genuinely skilled professionals.