Clayton Christensen |

New school models are appearing that attempt to personalize learning and push education in a more student-centric direction. Some target drop-out students—a classic group of non-consumers—and therefore appear to have some disruptive elements potentially, whereas others are more conventional, but either way, all are something to pay attention to as we rethink what “schooling” should actually look like.

As Clayton Christensen and Jason Hwang write in The Innovator’s Prescription, when there is no non-consumption in a field, the only way for disruption to occur is for something to come in that is both significantly less expensive and better so that the decision to switch over makes consummate sense. Most chartered schools to this point haven’t hit on one or both of these, which has stymied their ability to scale and have broader impact. The below models may give us some clues as to how that could change.

One model is a new chartered school called the Redmond Proficiency Academy. Operated by Personalized Learning, Inc., the school plans to combine the best from “college-, online- and project-based class learning” to formulate a personalized learning experience for students. The school is also moving away from seat-time metrics and time spent in the conventional classroom and instead focuses on demonstration of “proficiency” or mastery inside and outside the classroom to satisfy state and federal requirements.

Westwood’s Cyber High School is another model to follow. It has two models that it lets students choose between. One is “My School,” which has a virtual and a physical component to it where students come into a school lab a couple times a week. The second is called “Not School” where the experience is entirely online. The concept comes from the “Not School” Program in the United Kingdom, and Westwood’s founders have studied the model to learn from its mistakes and successes. The schools target disaffected or drop-out students by allowing them to work in a proficiency-based model of online project-based learning. And it seems to have hit a niche, as many students are gobbling up the offering from all over Michigan.

One other school model that has some exciting potential is Mavericks in Education. It, too, targets drop-out students, with a model that turns the traditional school day on its head as it offers online learning with on-site mentors in its physical buildings during different times of the day for fewer hours to match each student’s unique circumstances—and all students have 24/7 access to learning from anywhere as well. It also has some neat perks that it has built in to motivate students to learn and accelerate their progress.

Learning from these models could go a long way in helping us transform education into a student-centric experience.

Note: The original post contained an error as it referred to the Redmond Proficiency Academy as the Richmond Proficiency Academy. I have corrected it above and regret the error.

Attendees at the Milken Institute Global Conference this past week were privileged on Tuesday to hear from three Nobel Laureates—Gary Becker, Roger Myerson, and Myron Scholes—over a fascinating lunchtime discussion.

At some point, Michael Milken, who was playing the role of moderator, brought up the topic of K-12 education. Becker in particular made some interesting points, including some pontificating on how vouchers would improve our schools.

Regardless of your viewpoint on that, it’s an interesting thought experiment to consider reasons why vouchers and many other reforms have not pervaded and transformed public education, and why we have instead only been “tinkering toward utopia.”

One explanation could have come from Becker’s right in Myerson, an expert in game theory. Game theory helps us to predict what others’ corresponding actions will be if we take a certain action. We can use it to predict whether certain paths of reform are likely to be successful or instead to meet with such fierce resistance that they stand little to no chance of succeeding.

Game theory accounts for the power of entrants to beat incumbents through a disruptive strategy—where they use asymmetric motivation to their advantage. By offering a product or service that does not make sense for the incumbent to offer, the entrant creates a situation where the incumbent’s motivation is not to do what the entrant is motivated to do; rather the incumbent is motivated to flee “up market” and cede more and more ground to the disruptive entrant.

This helps to understand why vouchers and charters themselves are not disruptive and have not swept in to transform U.S. education. We write about this in the current issue of the School Choice Advocate in our article, “The Transformative Properties of School Choice.” By attacking players in the established public-school system head on, vouchers and charters do not create asymmetric motivation, as many established players are highly motivated to fight them (although these attempted reforms may pressure the system to improve itself and help pave the way for true disruptions, even if they themselves don’t ultimately win the day).

A few lessons from economics could have helped predict that.

In a telling sign of the growth of and the potential for online learning, for-profit Edison Schools Inc. has jumped on the bandwagon with the acquisition of Provost Systems Inc., a company that offers online courses and online learning management tools for schools, according to a July 1, 2008 article in Education Week.

Edison will also change its name to EdisonLearning to reflect its expansion beyond its controversial management of public schools. It will be able to offer online courses to students directly, as well as through existing schools and districts. According to the article and Edison’s CEO, Terry Stecz, Edison wants to become “the preferred partner for large urban systems, states, or cities.”

The article quotes Trace A. Urdan, the managing director of Baltimore-based investment bank Signal Hill Capital Group LLC, and a longtime analyst of the for-profit education industry, as saying that although “Edison’s new direction might not be motivated by a desire to minimize controversy, it could very well have that effect.”

“They started at the much more difficult end of the spectrum, and now they’re moving into the less controversial, arguably easier end,” Urdan said in the article. “It’s getting away from the idea of, ‘We’re here to do what you do better than you do’ and into, ‘We’re selling you something you need and don’t have.’”

This insight is a classic hallmark of disruption—and stands in sharp contrast to Edison’s initial approach, which was not disruptive. As Disrupting Class chronicles, disruption takes a simple product that is “good enough” and offers it in a place where the incumbent in a market place, in this case public school districts, are relieved that they don’t have to offer the product or service themselves.

Generally this happens as entrants target “non-consumption,” places where consumers have literally no other option, so the incumbents weren’t planning on offering them something anyway. As we argue in this book, this is precisely how and where online learning has gotten its start.

And there’s evidence that school districts are thrilled to be offering the options and moving more courses online. Just look at my previous post that quotes representatives from the LA and Chicago school districts if you want evidence. These are among the biggest and most troubled school districts in the country, and clearly they enjoy the disruptive approach of online learning.

Are people seeing other organizations make a similar pivot in the learning space?

Here is a link to information about Senator John McCain’s education plan. 

For the part about virtual learning, see in particular the last three paragraphs. I’ve copied them in below from his press release. I am curious to get people’s feedback and thoughts per my last post.

Senator McCain’s support of this online learning medium and recognition of the potential here is very encouraging. The last bullet point below is something he didn’t mention in his speech but is particularly intriguing given Senator McCain’s stated desire in his speech to make sure struggling students are no longer stymied from getting the funding for tutoring that they need by the established system in which they are currently stuck.

• John McCain Supports Expanding Virtual Learning By Reforming The “Enhancing Education Through Technology Program.” John McCain will target $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and support the development of online course offerings for students. These courses may be for regular coursework, for enhancement, or for dual enrollment into college.

• John McCain Will Allocate $250 Million Through A Competitive Grant Program To Support States That Commit To Expanding Online Education Opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.

• John McCain Will Offer $250 Million For Digital Passport Scholarships To Help Students Pay For Online Tutors Or Enroll In Virtual Schools. Low-income students will be eligible to receive up to $4,000 to enroll in an online course, SAT/ACT prep course, credit recovery or tutoring services offered by a virtual provider. Providers could range from other public schools, virtual charter schools, home school parents utilizing virtual schooling resources or district or state sponsored virtual schools. The Department of Education would competitively award the funds to a national scholarship administrator who would manage the student applications, monitoring, and evaluation of providers.

Senator John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for President, just finished delivering a speech at the NAACP convention. He spent a good part of the speech talking about the need to reform and improve public education.

One paragraph in particular caught my attention, as it’s all about virtual and online education. According to his Web site, he said:

“We can also help more children and young adults to study outside of school by expanding support for virtual learning. So I propose to direct 500 million dollars in current federal funds to build new virtual schools, and to support the development of online courses for students. Through competitive grants, we will allocate another 250 million dollars to support state programs expanding online education opportunities, including the creation of new public virtual charter schools. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of Advanced Placement math, science, and computer science courses, online tutoring, and foreign language courses.”

I haven’t dug through the details of this yet as it just caught my eye, but this isn’t the first time Senator McCain has talked about computer-based learning. Clearly he has caught on to the disruptive innovation that is beginning to enter so many of our nation’s school districts and that we chronicle in our book, Disrupting Class.

I’m not sure yet what the proper role for the federal government should be in online learning, but talking about it and making everyone aware of it is a big step forward in bringing this innovation to the market at large so all students can benefit from its exciting potential.

I’d love to hear from people about what they know about the proposal, whether they think it’s a good idea, what they would have the federal government do for online learning in an ideal world, and so on.