Clayton Christensen |

A report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education highlights the spiraling cost increases of traditional four-year universities compared to the rise in family incomes over the period from 1982 to 2007. The New York Times writes about the report in the article, “College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S.”

The authors of the report are understandably concerned that if the cost of college keeps rising at this pace even when accounting for financial aid, it will become unaffordable for most Americans, which will hurt them and the overall country severely.

“If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,” the reporter quotes Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education, as saying.

The natural implication is that we need more subsidies so people can afford these traditional schools and presumably pressure to get colleges to beat down these costs.

I’ve written about this on this blog before (see this post for example). History shows that trying to make a product or service affordable by beating down on high-cost competitors won’t do the trick. In essence, this was the philosophy the Department of Justice took when it broke up the IBM monopoly in the 1970s. It turns out though that costs for computing fell not when a high-cost organization was told to reduce costs and become more competitive, but instead when disruptive competitors—most notably in the form of personal computer companies—entered the market. Disruption brings affordability.

There is a much sounder strategy in trying to reduce costs of higher education. Rather than giving more subsidies to prop up traditional universities, allow students and families to make more rational tradeoffs in their education. Allow them to choose disruptive options for higher education—like teaching universities, community colleges, and online universities instead of the traditional research universities—that both meet their specific needs and are more affordable. If we allow for this process to occur, despite the continuing cost trajectories of our leading universities, education won’t be unaffordable in 25 years.

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) and its director for education technology, Bill Thomas, have issued three reports in the last couple of months that are must reads for those interested in the ongoing disruptive innovation of online learning.

The first one, titled “Making the Critical Transition to Stable Funding for Virtual Schools,” is a vital one for policymakers in particular to read. The report contains several insights about how state leaders can and should move beyond year-to-year appropriations for state schools that cap enrollments at arbitrary numbers to a sustainable and responsive funding model. Read it here.

The second one asks an audience that too few studies talk to in this field. Yes, that’s right, it <gasp> actually asks students what they think. Particularly as we think about the potential to use online learning to move toward a student-centric learning environment, the report “Do Online Courses Work for Middle Grades and High School Students? Online Students Have Their Say” is a good one to read.

For online courses to be effective, they need good, high-quality teachers. SREB addresses this question in the last of its three reports, titled “Online Teachers: What Can SREB States Do to Ensure Competence and Quality?” Again, for policymakers interested in making sure a pipeline exists for high quality teachers in this environment, this report is a must read.

And after having read them, we’d love to know what you think. Please write a response and give us your thoughts. It would be great to have a dialogue here about all of them.

One of the core findings from our studies of disruptive innovation is that in order for an incumbent to catch a disruption, an organization often must set up an autonomous unit complete with its own business model – its own resources, processes, priorities, and profit/revenue formula – with the mission to seize a nascent opportunity, grow, and be unencumbered by the parent organization. It’s not at all an easy thing to do; we don’t see it happen that often.

As disruption increasingly comes to higher education, on the surface anyway Tiffin University appears to be taking a page from the Innovator’s Solution as it sets up an autonomous online two-year degree program for an associate of arts degree in general studies. They’ve even branded it differently from the parent: Ivy Bridge College.

You can read about it on this Inside Higher Ed article. The online degree program will fill a gap in offerings in the space and target many who are overshot by existing offerings or are nonconsumers, including students who can’t afford a four-year college, those who would have to commute or leave a job to relocate or something to attend college, students who aren’t confident enough or ready to go to college yet, students with disabilities, and those who were home-schooled who might prefer to study at home initially.

They are partnering with some interesting players like InsideTrack, who provide student coaching services. The idea of the degree is to feed the students into bachelor programs at other institutions ultimately.

Are there other examples of this? This seems to be quite different from the MIT OpenCourseWare decision and Yale posting its lectures to iTunesU, for example.

Even as concerns mount that too many of our nation’s children are unprepared for and not attending college, thousands of students in California are clamoring each year for such a college experience in the state’s university system.

Unfortunately for them, the California State University system announced it will cut back its total enrollment by about 10,000 students next fall. That is 10,000 students to whom California is now saying in essence, “Maybe college isn’t that important for you after all.” Talk about a mixed message.

Increasingly, policymakers, foundations, academics, and educators are lining up behind the goal of students not just graduating from high school, but also graduating ready for a postsecondary education. The Gates Foundation places its muscle squarely behind this goal. Academics point out that now, more than ever before, a postsecondary education is necessary to command a reasonable wage in the workforce. And educators like Larry Rosenstock, CEO of High Tech High in San Diego, speak persuasively about the need for students to graduate well prepared for college.

Judging from attendance in the full-time and part-time programs at California State University campuses, many students are getting the message. Roughly 460,000 students are enrolled this year.  But if this number is capped at 450,000 for next year, realization of the college-ready goal will be an empty pledge.

Chancellor Charles Reed said the need to scale back enrollment was caused because of a strain on the university’s physical plant. Thanks to overcrowding and under-funding, he said, there are simply not enough classrooms and other resources available to provide students with a quality education that can promise them an on-time graduation (“CSU to turn away 10,000 students,” San Francisco Chronicle, 11/18/2008).

Although the State University’s predicament and actions are perhaps understandable given the economy and falling endowment, there is a better solution for California’s children: attend college online.  Embracing online education for many students addresses the challenges the system faces, both financially and in terms of physical space.

Online learning is an affordable option. Tuition at Capella University, an online, accredited university, for example, runs to $930 for a 3-credit Bachelor of Science course. That figure does not take into account any financial aid or scholarship grants. At UMassOnline, an online division of the University of Massachusetts, undergraduate courses range from $425 to $1,200 in cost regardless of a student’s residency. This often works out to be less costly than enrolling in and taking a full-time program at one of the University’s physical campuses.

North Carolina has come up with a different creative option. Its Learn and Earn Online program allows students to take college courses online when they are in high school and earn an associate degree or up to two years of college credits.

Online learning at the postsecondary level is booming as students find it to be a great option for their needs. The University of Phoenix is perhaps the best-known disruptor in the space. Its online enrollment has grown rapidly. According to the Babson Survey Research Group, the percentage of students at U.S. postsecondary institutions taking at least one online course doubled between 2002 and 2006. The rapid growth has continued as 3.9 million students took at least one online course during the fall 2007 term.

With California facing an increasingly gloomy fiscal future, it is time to figure out innovative ways to do more with less. The concerns of California’s children must be paramount as we consider different options. There are many opportunities that the introduction of online learning offers—not only for those being turned away from the system but also for those admitted currently to the CSU system. Online learning streamlines the delivery of learning, which can increase its quality and consistency. It is affordable. And it allows for customization for an individual’s needs.

Don’t slam the door in these would-be students’ faces. Open up a learning pathway for them that has no doors at all.

Michael Petrilli has a good article in the Fall 2008 Education Next titled “Arrested Development: Online training is the norm in other professions. Why not in K-12 education?”

He points out how online training has swept through professional development in other industries—almost 40 percent of professional development was online in 2006, according to the American Society for Training and Development—and asks why that percentage is considerably lower in preK-12 education.

Why indeed given that it seems like it might suit teachers far better and make for better training? (Take a look at the training that PBS’s TeacherLine or CaseNEX, a seemingly disruptive spin-off from the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, offers, Petrilli says.)

Petrilli gives some reasons for why this might be: Institutional resistance because district professional development staff might see their jobs disappear. Traditional professional development providers (including colleges of education) have a vested interest in stopping it. Many teachers receive a stipend in over half of the largest school districts for participating in professional development outside of the regular school day. And in the traditional model, teachers receive credit for merely showing up, whereas online they might have to demonstrate mastery to get credit.

How fast this is adopted, Petrilli suggests, will be a proxy for showing how calcified the education system is.

That makes sense, and therefore it seems the best way to implement online professional development is disruptively—allowing it to compete where the alternative, and therefore the resistance to change, is nothing at all. For example, implement it in rural districts perhaps that cannot afford traditional professional development. Or offer it for subjects the traditional professional development doesn’t cover.

Another line of thinking might say online training will gain currency as online learning for students grows, since much of the professional development for teachers there is offered online—and seems far more systematized and meaningful than the typical school district’s.

The other side of the argument is that online learning may only gain currency when more teachers themselves have been trained online—and therefore are comfortable with the medium and its ability to deliver meaningful results. This is an interesting question for future study—and something on which to keep a close eye. Disruptions in higher education from online universities for adult learners that offer more education training and certification may move this forward, too.

There was a series of articles recently in the New York Times about video games and computers in education. One about using video games to hook children into reading, “Using Video Games as Bait to Hook Readers,” created a stir.

It even prompted an email from one of the readers of our blog. She asked us to write a letter to the New York Times immediately—which, sadly, I didn’t do. But I thought I would post some of what she wrote and let it speak for itself.

She said: “Encourage the adoption of this technology. It may still have room to improve but for those kids who learn well through the stimulation of video games, it’s a more effective way of getting them to read than a teacher standing in front of the classroom.  The goal is not to find one way of teaching kids everything… This is one part of a multi-part solution. … Let the kids decide if it works for them. … It won’t be effective for all kids, but that’s not how its success should be measured. …

That line about Dostoyevsky vs. a video game ‘meaning something’ stuck with me. To bookworm kids, reading Dostoyevsky is more impactful, more dramatic, more ‘sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat’ worthy than the World of Warcraft equivalent. To other people, Warcraft is much more stimulating. Allow for both!”

What is she talking about when she starts talking about Dostoyevsky? Read the article and find out. And then let us know what you think.

Another article worth reading on the same theme in the New York Times was “Video Game Helps Math Students Vanquish an Archfiend: Algebra.” It is about a video game, Dimension M, made by Tabula Digita, that quizzes students on math—from algebra to fractions. It seems to be a big extrinsic motivator for students to tackle math and costs only $10 to $20 per student. A large handful of middle schools are trying it out, and the Games for Learning Institute, a $3 million research effort at New York University, will be studying it further.

It’s been an exciting week in the U.S. An historic presidential election concluded with a landmark result of which all of us can proud regardless of our political views. We look forward to seeing what an Obama presidency will mean for the future of education. In the President-elect’s past remarks, he has spoken eloquently about the potential for technology to play a game-changing role in education. We hope he continues to embrace this potential and helps open disruptive paths for such innovations as online learning that hold the potential for game-changing transformations.

An upcoming book helps show why this is important. Titled The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the Life Span, it has some interesting insights on the nature of giftedness—namely how academic talent can wax and wane over time and how it can be nurtured and taught, according to an Education Week article previewing the book.

One implication of this work is that the structure of schools doesn’t always support this fluidity. “Children might move in and out of ‘gifted’ programs more frequently, based on their individual needs,” says the article in paraphrasing the book’s co-editor, Frances Degen Horowitz.

There are obviously many problems in doing this in current schools. For example, I imagine moving children in and out of gifted classes might crush their confidence and hurt their feeling of self-efficacy. It goes to the problem of how social promotion and holding a child back both have inherent problems associated with them.

Online or computer-based learning introduced disruptively can help solve this tradeoff. By being individually paced but not taking a child out of his or her social environment in essence, it allows for children to take what is most relevant for their individual needs at any given time. In theory it can also allow children to match with others from around the world that are in similar places, but not create static environments that could have negative effects on development. And for those children who remain “advanced” compared to their social peers, it can allow them to continue to work through challenging material to grow and expand their horizons without becoming bored—an exciting proposition to allow all children to realize their fullest potential and promise.

*Note: I will be out of the country and on vacation starting tomorrow for the next two weeks. I will not be posting to the blog during this time. I will resume my regular weekly posts upon my return.