Clayton Christensen |

I had planned originally to blog again about higher education, but this has been a busy few days of activity around the book and its themes so I thought it would be worthwhile posting some links to the various events and presentations and offering a few brief reflections.

Clay and I gave a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute along with Jason Hwang on the 27th titled “Disruptive Innovation in Education and Health Care” (video and audio are online here). Checker Finn was on the education panel with us as well which made for a lively discussion.  Education Week’s Andrew Trotter wrote an article about the event as well.

The next day I was in Arizona where I had the opportunity to keynote NACOL’s Virtual School Symposium. This was an exciting and informative event with somewhere around 1,100 people in attendance. It’s a conference that, just like online learning, has grown by leaps and bounds in the last couple of years.

I’ve said this before, but NACOL, the International Association for K12 Online Learning, is doing some great work in this space. The organization is a great source of information and is helping sponsor useful research to further the field.

Among the worthwhile reports that I recommend highly and that you can find from NACOL’s site are the latest issue of Threshold magazine and the latest Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning report (just came out on October 23rd). These reports help show that online learning really is booming and will help any reader understand what it really is.

There has been lots of activity on the Web about these events—many praising and others with insightful criticisms. One of the most interesting things, however, that I observe is the difference in conversations taking place. When you are in the Beltway or talking with people who have been in the thick of education for years, although many do see the promise online learning holds, many also don’t believe it’s happening and growing in disruptive fashion. If you are in the actual space and seeing the number of entrepreneurs and districts diving in and having successes, however, you see a very different picture. This is not necessarily surprising given how disruptive innovation works, but it is interesting.

Lastly, Scott McLeod, an associate professor and coordinator of the Educational Administration Program at Iowa State University and the director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE), delivered a great presentation on the Web at the K12 Online Conference. His thesis in essence is that the coming disruptive changes necessitate new leadership models for schools. It’s a 20-minute presentation that summarizes some core concepts from our work and is well worth watching.

Our blog today brings us from D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein—two chancellors cut from a similar, if not the same, cloth. Klein has been a mover and shaker in turning the New York City schools upside down and pushing reform at every opportunity since he took the helm.

He has achieved a lot of change and sparked much controversy, too (and we’d certainly love to hear your viewpoints on him).

In the New York Sun on September 18, 2008, an article discussed education books that have proven meaningful and inspirational to him. And—yes, here’s some shameless self-promotion—he cited our book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. For such an influential education reform leader to mention our book is quite an honor for us. You can read about it here: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/when-it-comes-to-new-inspiration-chancellor-klein/86133/.

Some other books he cited were William Ouchi’s influential book, Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education They Need, as well as David Whitman’s new book, Sweating the Small Stuff. The article focuses mostly on Ouchi’s book, but Whitman’s new volume is also quite interesting. In a future white paper forthcoming from Innosight Institute, I will address some of Whitman’s points.

What other education books have inspired you? Why? And what common themes do you notice in Joel Klein’s choices?

There are a lot of features right now about Michelle Rhee, the D.C. school chancellor, as she enters her second year at the helm. Everyone from PBS to the Washington Post to CNN is writing about her. Her leadership is providing an interesting case study for Chapter 8 of Disrupting Class. Take a look at the Washington Post article, “Better or Worse, it’s Rhee’s School System Now” to see why.

In our book Disrupting Class, we describe how the only way for managers to create change in an environment where there is disagreement on both what their goals are and how the world works is to use the tools of power. And to do that, they have to accumulate enough power to wield them. In a democracy, that generally isn’t possible.

But Rhee seems to be doing her best to do just this so that she can create real and lasting change (for better or for worse, as the article headline reminds us – what do others think?). Just consider some of the lines from the article:

1) “Rhee was able to move so quickly because of the unilateral power granted her by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who has staked his political future on fixing the schools, which he won control over in June 2007. Fenty (D) has given her political cover by warning agency heads that they risk losing their jobs if they tell her no.

Under the new governance system, Rhee reports only to Fenty, not a school board.”

2) ““It’s like ushering in a scary era where we don’t have a say in what’s going on,” said Jones, who chaired the Burroughs restructuring team, a panel that advises the principal. “It just feels like the people are losing their voice . . . that we’re losing a grip on democracy.””

3) “Some critics say she operates the $1 billion system like the private nonprofit she founded before taking the chancellor job — with little accountability to the public.

As she has consolidated power, she has weakened the authority of principals and instructional superintendents, administrators who oversee clusters of schools, and diminished school-based decision-making.

Asked recently by a PBS reporter whether she considers herself a benevolent dictator, she said: “If by dictator, you mean somebody who, at the end of the day, is fully comfortable being held accountable for, you know, the results and is going to be incredibly decisive about the direction that we’re heading in, then, yes.””

Now that is power.

Maine has instituted a bold program in its schools that provides every middle-school student with a laptop. The program is now moving into high school. The question of course is, for all the money, is it effective?

Results seem mixed. The difference doesn’t show up on test scores necessarily, according to this MSNBC article, but students are more enthusiastic about school.

What do you think?

My reaction is that it’s not the technology per se that improves learning, but is instead how you use the technology. Simply cramming computers into existing classrooms–-even in one laptop per child fashion–-doesn’t necessarily change the classroom by itself or allow for customized learning.

This is one of the core reasons we advocate implementing computer-based learning disruptively. This way all it has to be at the outset is better than the alternative—nothing at all— but over time it has its own space to redefine the interactions of learning between students and teachers and improve. It’s a slower process and more organic than the Maine one, but my guess is that it would ultimately be more effective, too.

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.

One of the biggest questions I am often asked is, “Can online learning benefit minority students or those who struggle most to learn in school?”

It’s asked because one of the easy examples of non-consumption where online learning has taken root is for Advanced Placement (AP) and other advanced courses. The assumption that drives the question is that where we need to improve outcomes isn’t for those at the top; it’s for those who are dropping out, not learning how to read, and so on.

An article in eSchool News titled “Panelists: Online learning can help minority students” begins to answer the question quite well.

Sharnell Jackson, the chief eLearning officer for the Chicago Public Schools, and Themy Sparangis, the chief technology officer for the Los Angeles Unified School District, along with Ray Rose, director of programs at MentorNet, were the panelists in a Webinar that the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) hosted on the topic. Their conclusion? Online learning can be a big benefit to underrepresented student populations.

And it’s a benefit in precisely the places we’d predict: areas of non-consumption, including for dropout recovery, for kids in juvenile detention centers, where school courses don’t have enough enrollment, and for schools that don’t have enough educators to teach a specific subject. Online courses help in the latter two cases to ensure equitable access for all students, Sparangis said.

As Jackson said, “Online can be an alternative to school if either you physically cannot attend school or if a traditional classroom setting does not fit your specific needs. With online learning, a student can finish their high school degree, make up credits, and enrich traditional curriculum.”

Interestingly enough, out of all the high schools in Illinois that use online learning, a predominantly Hispanic high school has the highest online learning pass rate.

The panelists went on to explain how online learning is often more rigorous than regular classroom learning and, in their experience, how students often have the same if not better learning outcomes, as measured by state tests. Classes can be more individualized, have increased assessment and monitoring, have interactive options, and provide a host of online resources for students.

In our view, this is just the beginning of a truly student-centric learning experience for our children. The disruptive innovation of online learning is planting itself in these footholds for students who otherwise would have no other course option and are not well served, and as it increasingly does so, it will also gradually improve. As it does so, it will benefit students who have struggled traditionally in schools far more than anyone else.

According to eSchool News, a June 10th report released by the two teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), show that after a decade of investment in technology, teachers still don’t feel comfortable incorporating it into their lesson plans.

Although educators have plenty of access to computers and the Internet and teachers use it quite a bit for administrative tasks, they don’t believe they have the proper training and support to use it for instructional purposes. There are also some complaints, particularly in urban areas, that the computers are outdated or there are not enough of them.

The fact that technology is not widely used in instruction of course is not news. Larry Cuban has documented this. The NEA/AFT study confirms what our book says as well.

We are certainly on the same page as the NEA and AFT presidents when they say that technology must play a much bigger role in our schools. Computer-based learning has the potential to provide students with a student-centric learning experience that is customized for the ways in which they learn and would be far more intrinsically motivating as a result.

Although lack of training or insufficient technology may be problems, the real problem is in the mindset over where technology should be used and how.

The lessons from our studies of innovation are that if you want an innovation to transform a market, you can’t implement it by cramming it into the mainstream of an organization. That organization will always co-opt the technology into its existing processes to just do what it does better.

Hence, teachers use technology to improve their ability to do administrative tasks. Implementing technology to carry out instruction, however, doesn’t fit the mold so easily. After all, we couldn’t expect a teacher to say, “Children, today is a great day because have this computer that will deliver the instruction, and you don’t need me for my lesson plans anymore.” It’s simply implausible.

On the other hand, if you look at places where there aren’t course offerings—such as for credit recovery programs and in alternative schools—technology is making a big impact and transforming schooling. Just keep your eye outside the mainstream, and you’ll see something very different—and very exciting—happening.

I recently visited the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in Dorchester, Mass. It’s a fascinating place—and not at all what one would expect to see in the middle of Dorchester.

It’s one of these schools that provides a laptop for every child; there are no textbooks. But how the students use the laptops is what makes the school so interesting.

They don’t use the laptops just to do research or type up a report. Students actually receive instruction and learn from the computers. And the school takes advantage of this to differentiate instruction for each student in every class.

For example, in one class where students were learning about tornadoes, all the students read at different levels. In the traditional classroom with one teacher for many students and the same textbook or handout for everyone, this would be a big problem.

Not so at this school. Here, the faculty has selected software that can offer the content in multiple ways to target students with dramatically different reading levels—from a student who reads at a third-grade level to one who reads at an 11th-grade level. After students learn about tornadoes on the computer, the teacher facilitates a discussion among the students about what they learned. Sure, they didn’t learn it in the same way, but nonetheless, they all know something about the content now and can have an engaging and informative discussion that reinforces and deepens the learning.

In a school where one-third of the children are special education students, one-third don’t use English as their primary language, 87.5 percent are on reduced lunch programs, and 50 students can’t read at all, it’s striking to see how focused and engaged the students are in their classes. Walking around, you see students engrossed in their learning and proud of what they are accomplishing.

This isn’t an example of computer-based learning being introduced disruptively, but as we think about what needs to change as computer-based learning makes bigger inroads into the traditional system through a disruptive path, we could learn a lot of lessons from Lilla G. Frederick. As a Boston pilot school, Principal Debra Socia has established a heavyweight team to redefine the process of schooling and provide us with lessons for how students and teachers should interact in the classroom of the future.

The school had many other striking elements, so I’ll blog about my visit a few more times over the next few weeks.