CNN had a blurb today about a new federal study that reveals no benefit to deploying computer-assisted learning programs for students. It's a malnourished blurb written by the Associated Press but to me it illustrates one of the things wrong with education in America -- namely that people believe there is some silver atom bomb that will solve our problems.

I say "atom bomb" because it seems people aren't looking for something as accurate as a bullet. No, they'd much rather come up with some sort of uniform answer that will work for every child. Now I'm not a professional educator, but in my experience (with my own kids, with my teacher dad, with Boy Scouts, with 4-H) is that every kid learns differently.

The biggest failing of our education system is its monolithic approach to teaching that treats kids at cogs rather than, well, kids. There is some variation from school district to school district and state to state ... but should I have to sell my house and move to find a school that fits my kids' learning styles?

Back to the study, the headline screams "No benefit going high-tech for math and reading", but I find that hard to believe. I'm willing to bet that for some kids, there are huge benefits to using computers, just as I'm sure that others find it a terrible liability. What I'd want to know from a study like this is who does it help ... and who does it hurt?

Those are the important questions ... it's too bad that CNN and AP don't ask them.