1:1 classroom instruction removes a number of teachers from the labor pool equal to the number of students. Apprenticeships remove only a small fraction of that from the labor pool (because the practitioner spends only part of their time teaching/supervising the apprentice and then makes the apprentice go practice the skill) and partially makes up the lost labor with the labor from the apprentices- apprentices are expected to do actual productive work, not just learn.
> 1:1 classroom instruction removes a number of teachers from the labor pool equal to the number of students.
It does require more teachers, but not 1:1. Students being taught 1:1 learn a lot faster, and can be set work to do unsupervised. From my experience I think less than an hour a seek (sometimes a lot less) of tuition time (plus a bit more for marking, and another few hours of study by the student) is sufficient to cover a subject 1:1 (and it can often me a lot less) for teenagers (specifically for GCSEs - British exams sat in schools at 16).
it does require a significantly higher ratio than classroom teaching usually does, but its a long way from needing 1:1.
In music you usually have a small amount of one-on-one instruction and then you practice. In tennis you usually have a small number of one-one-lessons and then you practice and play matches.
You could probably do the same for maths. You're given some problems to try to solve and given two hours, then once you've made a serious attempt you get individual tutoring for an hour, then you go back to solving problems and there's a short one-on-one question session at the end, let's say 30 minutes. Then you have a 5 hour study session with 1.5 hours of teacher time, so he can have around three students.
