Disrupting Class, Expanded Edition

1. Schools struggle to customize learning despite individual differences

Schools need a new system.

Interdependent architecture. Schools currently have a highly interdependent architecture, with temporal, lateral, physical, and hierarchical interdependencies. This structure makes it difficult and expensive to customize learning for individual students.

Standardization vs. customization. The current system is designed for standardization, not customization. This approach conflicts with the reality that students have different types of intelligence, learning styles, and paces. The system's interdependence forces schools to standardize teaching and testing methods, even though this doesn't serve all students well.

Need for modularity. To achieve customization, schools need to move towards a modular architecture. This would allow for student-centric learning, where education can be tailored to each student's unique needs and learning style. Modularity would enable schools to customize economically, breaking away from the current "factory model" of education.

2. Disruptive innovation theory explains education's resistance to change

Disruption is a positive force.

Disruption defined. Disruptive innovation is a process by which a product or service initially takes root in simple applications at the bottom of a market, then relentlessly moves upmarket, eventually displacing established competitors. In education, this theory explains why schools have struggled to improve despite significant efforts.

Jobs assigned to schools. Society has assigned schools four distinct jobs over time:

1. Preserve democracy and inculcate democratic values
2. Provide something for every student
3. Keep America competitive
4. Eliminate poverty

Shifting goalposts. As society has changed these jobs, it has effectively moved the goalposts for schools. Each new job has required schools to adapt and improve in different ways, often conflicting with their existing structures and methods. Despite these challenges, schools have shown remarkable resilience in adapting to new demands.

3. Computer-based learning can revolutionize education through disruption

Disruption is often a two-stage process.

Nonconsumption opportunities. Computer-based learning is taking root in areas of nonconsumption, where the alternative is nothing at all. These include:

• Advanced Placement courses
• Small, rural, and urban schools with limited course offerings
• Credit recovery for students who must retake courses
• Home-schooled students
• High school dropouts
• Students needing special tutoring
• Prekindergartners

Disruptive implementation. To successfully implement computer-based learning, schools should:

1. Target areas of nonconsumption
2. Allow it to compete against nonconsumption
3. Implement it in places where there are no teachers to teach

Predictable pace of substitution. Data suggests that by 2019, about 50% of high school courses will be delivered online. This transition will be driven by:

1. Continuous improvement of online learning
2. Ability to select learning pathways that fit individual needs
3. Looming teacher shortage
4. Decreasing costs as the market scales up

4. Student-centric technology will emerge as the next phase of disruption

Facilitated networks, not VAP businesses, will be the business models of distribution.

Two-stage disruption. The first stage is computer-based or online learning, which is already underway. The second stage will be student-centric technology, which will make learning affordable, convenient, and simple for many more students to learn in ways that are customized for them.

Technological platform. Platforms like Intuit's QuickBase will enable nonprogrammers to build sophisticated software for specific learning purposes. This will allow students, parents, and teachers to create tools that help different types of learners master topics they would otherwise struggle with.

User-generated content. The best of these tools will spread quickly through facilitated networks, where participants worldwide can instruct and learn from one another. This approach will harness the innovative energies of a much larger group of insightful people than is possible in today's value-adding process (VAP) business models.

5. Early childhood development profoundly impacts future learning potential

The first three years are unique in the lives of humans because infants are so utterly dependent on adults for all their nurture and language.

Critical early years. A significant portion of a person's intellectual capacity is determined in the first 36 months of life. Research shows a strong correlation between the number of words spoken to children in their early years and their cognitive achievements later in life.

Language dancing. The most impactful conversations with infants are those involving "language dancing" - sophisticated, face-to-face, adult conversations. This type of interaction helps develop auditory processing skills, which are crucial for future reading abilities.

Neuroscience connection. These early interactions create and strengthen synaptic pathways in the brain, making subsequent patterns of thought easier, faster, and more automatic. Children who experience more "language dancing" have a significant cognitive advantage compared to those who don't.

6. Students are motivated by feeling successful and having fun with friends

Motivation operates through a different causal mechanism from the one most of us have assumed traditionally.

Core student jobs. Most students try to do two core jobs every day:

1. Feel successful and make progress
2. Have fun with friends

School as a competitor. Schools compete with other activities (e.g., gang membership, video games, dropping out) as something students can hire to do these jobs. Often, schools fare poorly in this competition.

Integrating success and education. To improve motivation, schools need to integrate experiences that help students feel successful every day with the delivery of curriculum. Examples include:

• Project-based learning strategies
• Computer-based learning with built-in achievement milestones
• Customizing content delivery to each student's "just above" level

7. Education research must shift to prescriptive, circumstance-based models

The value of a theory is assessed by its predictive power.

Current research limitations. Most education research is trapped in the descriptive stage, providing correlations but not causality. This leads to statements about what works on average, but doesn't help predict outcomes in specific situations.

Prescriptive understanding. To improve, education research needs to move towards prescriptive bodies of understanding. This involves:

1. Identifying causal mechanisms
2. Categorizing different circumstances students, teachers, or administrators might face
3. Developing circumstance-contingent "if-then" statements

Improved predictability. This approach would allow educators to predict what actions will lead to desired results in specific situations, rather than relying on average tendencies that may not apply in all cases.

8. Organizational structure determines a school's ability to innovate

The structure of the organization now determined the architecture of its products.

Types of innovation problems. Schools face four categories of innovation problems, each requiring a different organizational structure:

1. Functional (departmental) problems
2. Lightweight team problems
3. Heavyweight team problems
4. Autonomous unit problems

Heavyweight teams for architectural change. When significant or breakthrough improvement is required, schools need to create heavyweight teams. These teams can transcend departmental boundaries and interact in new ways to rethink the basic architecture of education.

Chartered and pilot schools. These can serve as heavyweight teams, allowing for experimentation with new educational architectures. Examples include:

• Academic architectural innovations (e.g., project-based learning schools like High Tech High)
• Behavioral architectural innovations (e.g., KIPP schools)

District role. School districts should view chartered schools as R&D laboratories, helping to match school typologies with students in different circumstances. This approach can lead to a more diverse and effective educational ecosystem.

Last updated: September 20, 2024