Expert Q&A
DISRUPTING CLASS co-authors discuss how disruptive innovation will transform the nation’s educational system.
Q: DISRUPTING CLASS examines the educational system through the famous theory of disruptive innovation. Can you describe the basic concept behind the theory?
A: A disruptive innovation is an innovation that transforms an existing market or creates a new one by introducing simplicity, convenience, accessibility and affordability, where before the product or service was complicated, expensive, and inaccessible. It is initially formed in a narrow foothold market that appears unattractive or inconsequential to industry incumbents.
Q: Disruptive innovation usually applies to business. How does it apply to education?
A: Disruptive innovation can occur where there are people who want to do something but cannot access the available offering. Looking inside of schools reveals many opportunities for disruptive solutions, like computer-based learning, to take root. There are many classes that individual schools cannot offer because of lack of demand or resources, but there are nevertheless many students who would love to take those classes. Offering students the course on the computer is welcomed, certainly by the students, but also by the schools who otherwise simply could not offer the course.
Q: What do you see as the major problems in the current education system and how will disruptive innovation help correct them?
A: The biggest problem in the current education system is that not every student learns in the same, standard way, and yet schools standardize the way they teach and test. Using the computer as the delivery platform for learning has the potential to break the trade-offs between customization and affordability, which could ultimately allow students to learn in their preferred styles and at their preferred pace.
But another problem is that the huge investment in computers in schools over the past couple decades has delivered so little. The theory of disruption explains how computers can make the meaningful impact we describe above. They must be implemented disruptively by targeting at the outset areas where the alternative to computer-based instruction is nothing at all. Additionally, software makers will need to customize their offerings for different kinds of learners, because right now the programs that come out tend to be similar to the mainstream teaching methods.
And for all this to happen, there is another problem that must be addressed. The current business system is aligned to push down standardized textbooks and curricula; it’s not well suited to bringing in customized software solutions. A new business system must emerge to replace the current one so that students, parents, and teachers can all pull computer-based learning into the mainstream classrooms.
Q: Once disruptive innovation occurs in education, what will the new system look like?
A: Here’s one possibility. Students will still go to school, but instead of entering a classroom with a teacher at the front of a room and all eyes on her, students will settle into their seats with computers in front of them. They will slip on headphones and immerse themselves in the virtual world in front of them and do virtual work. Some might be working individually at times; others could be collaborating with other students in the room or, just as easily, with students in Japan and India. A live teacher with instant access to how each student is progressing will roam around the room. She will be a counselor, motivator, and mentor, by helping each student develop, adhere to, and enjoy a customized learning plan. This arrangement would better serve the hardest-to-educate students, but it also would better serve the most motivated students as students could tailor each class to their particular needs. They could, in modular fashion, take classes and materials from a variety of sources in a way a school system by itself could never assemble with any speed. Teachers, meanwhile, could spend more of their time working hands-on with individual students.
Q: Are there any examples of schools or educational programs that have already implemented this disrupted model?
A: There are many schools and educational programs that are in the early stages of developing and implementing disruption. Many small, rural schools are implementing disruptive, computer-based solutions since they tend to lack the resources to offer a large breadth of traditional classroom courses. Students who fail courses and need to make up credits, plus home-schooled and homebound students, are another huge pocket of learners for whom disruptive, computer-based learning solutions have taken root. Some of the more popular computer-based solutions for these areas so far include Florida Virtual School, Utah’s Electronic High School, and Apex Learning. There are many others emerging.
Q: What will likely be the overall consequences to Americans at large, corporate CEOs and other C-level executives, and education personnel if the current education system is not disrupted? How will a disrupted education system benefit these populations?
A: If disruption takes root in America’s education system, it could have a profound impact on the broader society. For example, right now policymakers decry a lack of qualified engineers and scientists coming out of U.S. schools. If a disruption occurs that allows schools to begin educating in the way students learn best, subjects like math and science could become fun and motivating, not boring
The next group - corporate CEOs and other C-level executives - are frequently heard bemoaning the fact that America’s schools do not produce the talent they need and that they often must spend lots of money to train new employees as a result. Disruption in America’s education system has a chance to change that state of affairs and produce many qualified employees.
Finally, education personnel stand to benefit greatly in a disrupted world. Teachers’ jobs will change dramatically, but they should become far more rewarding. Teachers will no longer have to deliver one-size-fits-all lectures; they can instead focus on helping individual students and see quicker, more measurable improvement. Also, computer-based learning will allow for a higher student-to-teacher ratio, so teachers will be paid better. Superintendents and administrators stand to benefit also because under the current system, they don’t have much of a chance for success. As the disruption takes root and we are able to target students’ individual learning styles to make learning fun and more predictable, administrators’ chances for success as leaders should improve quite a bit, which should improve their job satisfaction.
Q: Do you believe disruptive innovation of the education system should be a topic of discussion in the 2008 presidential election?
A: The biggest levers of control in the U.S. education system tend to be at the local level since most of the funding for schools is from the local level and direct control is at the local level. However, presidential candidates can do their part by painting a broad vision for the future of education and highlighting the gap between today’s schools and the rest of society. They can point out, for example, that while computers and technology pervade every part of life today, today’s schools look pretty much the same as yesterday’s schools. Computers and technology haven’t changed how schools operate at all, so every day we’re missing out on an opportunity to educate our children with the most dynamic and exciting tools available.
Q: What research or case studies went into developing the major theories presented in Disrupting Class?
A: The theories presented in DISRUPTING CLASS are general innovation theories that were developed inductively and tested and proved deductively in multiple contexts - for-profit, non-profit, and governmental - over the last 20 years. We began applying these theories to education eight years ago. Multiple researchers have interviewed people from all across the education community, worked in close partnerships with some districts, and studied many other reports and trends from other researchers and news sources. Evidence from actual patterns that have developed in the education world over the past eight years have both validated and further revised many of the hypotheses.