In the final day of my graduate course “Computers and the Study of English,” the inevitable question of the future of teaching was raised. I pointed out that the continuing inability of educational institutions to deal with the challenges of teaching technological literacy might be construed as evidence that schools, as we have conceived them, are tied to print technologies and may not thrive in a new media, information environment.

Of course this does not mean that people will no longer learn nor that they will no longer be taught. Presumably teaching and learning happened before the first school was built and will continue when and if the last school is closed. However, the more pertinent question, particularly for these students who are aspiring to be high school English teachers, is what will happen to the profession of teacher.

The answer may revolve around processes that are only tangentially technological, specifically the increasing commodification of the educational process. Fredric Jameson, among others, has noted the expansion of capitalist logic throughout our culture, and education has certainly not been immune to this expansion (Bill Readings made this argument most eloquently). The increasing emphasis on “results,” whether in the form of standardized tests (in public schools) or program assessment and accreditation (in higher education) marks this commodification. The result of this is that the merits of education become a factor of quantifiable results and the expenditure of resources (which ultimately are entirely fungible, i.e. cash).

Given this formula, it seems to me inevitable that information resources will eventually become cheap enough to replace teachers in a significant way. For example, let’s say I get together the ten most recognized scholars in composition. I interview them on video. We put together a series of online lectures, readings, and writing activities. Then I hire 20 folks with M.A.s to serve as graders and support staff for the website. Usually, I would pay these adjuncts $100 a student ($2200-$2500 a course here at Cortland). Of course, the College has a number of other expenses involved in offering classes.

So let’s say I can reduce these costs to $50 a student. If I hire someone for $30G, I would need them to deal with 600 students over three sessions (fall, spring, summer), or 200 students per session. Their job would include evaluating writing exercises and assignments on a holistic scale, making more extensive comments of 3 or 4 assignments per semester, serving a set number of hours per week as an online consultant, and participating in a final portfolio evaluation of the students.

I’m not saying creating such jobs would be ethical or desirable, but then again neither is the current adjunct system. My point instead is that if one could do this and create “results” that are equal to or better than the “results” of the current system, I imagine one could make some money doing this, especially since the operation would be scalable.

And this would probably be harder to do with composition, where the students do a lot of writing, than with other introductory courses were students basically listen to lectures and take tests.