Small Change (Part 1)

I am currently about half way through John Holt's (1982) revised edition of How Children Learn and have been reflecting on why he seemed to have given up on traditional education and focused on homeschool families later in his career. Evidently he grew frustrated with trying to get through to schools and educators regarding issues like questions vs quizzes, drawing upon a student's interests, trust, etc. and decided that he would focus his efforts with a group that was willing to listen. He became a champion of the unschooling movement (a movement whose name I now think is misleading as it seems most unschoolers are really just creating Montessori learning environments for their children at home) and with the exception of a now growing number of progressive educators has not left a substantial mark on "the system."

I began to think about this as well as some contemporary voices in education who seem to be up against the same wall (people like Alfie Kohn, Joe Bower, and Doug Thomas just to name a few). Kohn has largely focused his energies on alternative schools and parenting issues much in the same way Holt did, Thomas has focused his energies the past twenty years mostly on creating small teacher-run charter schools, and Bower seems to run up against massive resistance every time he writes about tests, grades, or anything else that challenges conventional wisdom. Why is it that whenever someone tries to push the envelope in public education their efforts always seem to land within a more narrow focus and rarely have the broad systemic effect they deserve? I think there are possibly five major forces at play here: Cognitive Dissonance, Zone of Proximal Development, Connectivism, Curricular Efficiency, and Disruptive Innovation.

George Seimens & Stephen Downes, in their theory of Connectivism, re-envision the learner not so much as an individual learner but rather a group or organization as the learner. Essentially, the theory of Connectivism describes the learning of a group and not of the individual. Once we start applying some of the other more established and accepted learning theories to this new idea of group as learner instead of individual some of this selective effectiveness of progressive ideas in education start to make sense.


Lev Vygotsky's theory of the zone of proximal development tells us that of what is possible to do and understand: 1. a small portion a person has mastered; 2. a small portion beyond that is within the learner's reach with help (zone of proximal development); and 3. a much more vast area is beyond the reach of the learner until they have mastered more of their zone of proximal development (see illustration above). But this applied to a group or organization of people probably looks more like this:

Now if we strip this down to common areas that fall either within group shared knowledge or zone of proximal development you are left with:

So, you can see that there is very little that falls within a group's zone of proximal development that someone in the group doesn't already have mastered. In fact, in this example that area of growth can be illustrated like this:

And, of course this is a broad generalization. Some groups will have a larger area of shared knowledge than others and for each topic this illustration would look different for each organization. The larger the organization, the smaller the area of shared zone of proximal development, the smaller the organization the greater the area of the shared zone of proximal development. There is in organizations a very thin area in which sustained innovation and change can really occur. Anything which pushes us too far outside of that zone will quickly cause mass cognitive dissonance. And as L. Festinger, who first introduced the concept of cognitive dissonance, tells us, when we are pushed to the point of cognitive dissonance, the dissonant beliefs tend to be the stronger force.

According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.

Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1) reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.

Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two alternatives are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the direction of less incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect, dissonance theory is contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).
[from http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html]

Once a belief like "we need grades" or "school must be comprised of classes" is in conflict with a new idea (a technology) the old belief, no matter how unfounded it is, usually wins. Therefore, if you want to make change quickly it is easier to do with a small organization than a large one. This is probably one reason why charter schools have proliferated in recent years, and one reason why we see such a growing trend in homeschooling, online education, and unschooling.

This brings me to the idea of curricular efficiency. I was first introduced to this idea by Bernie Dodge when I was working on my master's capstone on Virtual World WebQuests. The topic came up that while virtual worlds potentially possess great potential as a learning tool, they pose a problem of curricular efficiency. In other words, the leap from what one knows to what one needs to know to be able to make use of the tool was too high to fall within that zone of proximal development for most educators. And, when you apply that concept to a group of educators that zone is even more narrow.

If we see schooling as a technology deployed for the purpose of educating people, and ideas are the innovations within that technology, only those ideas which fall within the group zone of proximal development will affect any movement on the plane of sustaining innovation. Anything that pushes that envelope too far can only stand ground as a disruptive innovation, and as we know from Clayton Christensen's theory of Disruptive Innovation, usually a mainstream organization will not see any value or advantage in adopting or accepting a disruptive innovation. But, as time goes on, and those disruptive technologies get better and better through their own incremental changes they eventually "eat the parent." In other words, ideas that cause systemic cognitive dissonance eventually, though applied outside the system, will take over. Which is why so many progressive educators and others working on the cutting edge of innovation in education seem to end up focusing their attention on smaller groups, many on the fringes, and rarely in the mainstream. It is also the source of great frustration and anxiety. It is also why, "Change we can believe in," seems to many like no change at all.

Go on to Part 2 ---->

The Real Disruptive Innovation - Presentation Slidedeck & Questions

I'll be presenting two sessions later this month (February 18th) at the Minnesota Online Educator's Association (MNOLA) conference. One of them is a session I call "The Real Disruptive Innovation" which questions whether Clayton Christensen, Mike Horn, and Curtis Johnson are right in their assessment that the disruptive innovation in education is individualized instruction. Or rather, whether it is the individualization done by the teacher or that done by the student through choice that is innovative and disruptive. I hope in this presentation to raise questions and spark discussion weaving in ideas of the theory of disruptive innovation in schools, the purpose of school, and how to build community and capitalize on student interests.

Here is my slide deck for this talk:



So, if families and students are not choosing online schooling for individualized learning, what are they choosing online schools for?

If the purpose a family or student chooses your school is something other than individualized instruction, should the school work to address this/these reasons?

If a student is choosing online schooling so they can let other interests take priority over school, how do you as a teacher draw upon those other priorities to improve the quality of that student's schooling?

What do you think? I would love to share your input at my presentation.

The Real Disruptive Innovation

This morning I listened to Kim Ross, principal of Minnesota's first online high school, give a keynote speech to a group of educators in Southeast Minnesota. I can't say that he said anything that we have not heard before. It was a good talk about how the world is changing and about how online education allows for teachers to individualize instruction and focus more on relationships with their students. He gave a general overview of the theory of disruptive innovation in education and drew special attention to how this individualization of instruction made possible by online learning was the disruptive force, not the technology.

In the past few years schools have been looking at online education as a major disruptive force. We have seen exponential growth in enrollment in online schools and as a result a lot of our traditional brick and mortars have seen a decline. It has been widely thought, and I must confess that for a long time I have counted myself among those holding this belief, that schools need to modify their programs to draw upon what is happening in online education to improve what they do and make instruction more individualized. In answer to this we have seen a slew of measures taken by traditional school systems in an attempt to capitalize on this theory and retain students. Many schools have tried offering their own online courses, others have invested heavily in technologies like interactive whiteboards with the thought that if only they made the presentation of class theatrics more visually appealing students would be more engaged, and other schools have experimented with hybrid courses which are primarily online courses augmented with periodic face to face meetings.

None of these solutions ever really felt right to me but I have only recently been able to make enough sense of what I have been thinking to articulate it. Perhaps the rise in enrollment in online schools has very little to do with the quality of education they offer and more to do with declining relevance of schools in general. I have noticed and I have spoken with many teachers who have observed that in the past few years student motivation to meet deadlines, to attain a good grade, and to complete all of their work has been on the decline. What worked to motivate students to "achieve" five years ago isn't working today for a large percentage of our students. "Its like they don't care if they pass my class."

What has changed in the past five years? What are kids doing today that they were not doing, or able to do before? What they are doing is learning. They are learning on their own in ways that were not really possible before. Through highly engaging Montessori-like online learning environments like YouTube, Flickr, fansite forums, Myspace, Facebook, etc. they are learning deeply about the things that interest them and are relevant to them. The scale has shifted to a point where the technologies available to learn deeply about anything online on your own has in large part outperformed what our school pedagogies and our school systems can compete with.

To illustrate this, take the following video as an example. What is this kid doing in this video? How is he using the technology to aid in his learning? Does he need school to help him learn? What is the broad implication of this? It is worth seeing this video on the YouTube page and reading through the comments he has received (click here).



Do online schools do this? No, not really, but what they do is offer a credential just like students can get at a traditional brick and mortar, only online allows a student to endure the arduous and tedious task of schooling at their own pace and in their own time. Online schools allow students the ability to let their own interest-driven learning to take a front seat and take top priority. The asynchronous nature of the majority of online instruction means that it is not getting in the way of the learning activities that are really meaningful to kids. It is not that online learning or individualized instruction in an online school are so much better than that which students receive face to face in a traditional brick and mortar, it is that online schools don't get in the way.

Does technology integration necessarily mean more technology in the classroom?

Lately when I work with teachers I have been hearing a lot of them say that they would integrate technology in their classes more if they had access to it. These same teachers admit that it is difficult for them to invest too much time and energy in learning how to integrate technology in their classrooms when access is limited. Whether this is true or not (often on random walk-throughs I see only 2 out of 5 labs in use) it has had me thinking today. What is the ultimate goal a district hopes to achieve by hiring a technology integration specialist?

When I started working as a tech integration specialist three years ago I largely got the job because I needed work and I had an unusually high interest in technology. At that time I did not really think much about this question and I know the district I worked for didn't either. In later conversations it was clear that they knew they had to do something with technology and teacher professional development but were unsure what that was or what it should look like. I think a lot of school districts adding a technology integration specialist position to their schools have been in the same boat. In part this is a "chicken or egg" and a "forest from the trees" type of issue. I was told, "We don't know enough about what we don't know to know what we need you to do for us." I have had three years working with all kinds of teachers, studying policy, interacting with a network of great minds, and integrating technology in all kinds of educational settings to reflect on this question.

What I have currently come to believe is that technology integration is not about using technology in your classroom, it is about adjusting to the world shaped by technological changes. You don't have to use a lot of technology in your classroom to be a great teacher but what you do absolutely has to be relevant. If this calls for using more or different technology in your classroom then so be it. Part of that relevance is knowing enough about the social and economic impact new technologies are having on both your own profession and the world you want to teach your students about. From a curricular perspective this means keeping abreast of how social media is influencing the news, how the read/write/web and remix culture are changing the nature of communication, and knowing how to access and assess information wherever you find it. From a pedagogical perspective this means no longer doing things in your classroom that students could do with a simple internet search. Ultimately this leads us to more constructivist classrooms where students are engaged in meaningful projects and where a great deal of a teacher's job is assessment, feedback, and environment design.

I fear that the reason a lot of school districts decide to hire a technology integration specialist is in response to declining enrollment. They see the exponential rise in online learning and think, "We need to do something to combat this." I fear they look at online schools and see technology as the disruptive force. I have this concern because I often hear people from different school districts I meet across the state make statements like, "We are getting into the online learning business to try to retain students," or "We are investing more in technology so we don't loose more students to online schools." This is an apple and oranges issue. The fact is, just as moving the newspaper online won't save the newspaper industry, just moving what we do online or just placing more technology in the classroom won't solve this problem. The answer to this problem is not always more technology but a re-purposing of our schools, a shift from a delivery model to a support model of learning. If you need to integrate more technology in your classroom to help support student learning then I am here to help you but I am also here to help you understand what impact technologies you don't use have on your classroom too.

Chris Dede on School Change #edtech #edchat

Here is another clip from the 1995 House Committee Hearing on Technology in Education. In this clip Chris Dede adds fuel to the fire Seymour Papert started by indicating systemic barriers to school change, specifically school change in response to technological innovations, including parent & community concept of school, and the general belief that learning happens in a top-down approach with teachers delivering content to students in classrooms while ignoring the fact that most people learn best by doing. Enjoy!

Should we be worried about this?

The founders of this new online company claim their goal is to bring down the traditional education systems with their new product Supercool School (unfortunate name, potentially promising product) that lets anyone start their own online school. I can see this having huge implications for cooperate training and DIY training, it will likely disrupt some community education programming, but will it replace school? Doubtful but then how many products actually find a niche in the populations they envision their product serving?



Allison Leithner has a nice post on Change.org today about this company. Go read it.

Scott McLeod's Address to NEA

http://www.3dwriting.com/mcleod/

I might as well rename my blog the "Disruptive Innovationist." It seems since its inception three years ago this blog has been dominated by this topic. Anyway, Dr. McLeod recently gave a great presentation to the NEA about Disruptive Innovation in Education. It is definitely worth a watch. He uses up-to-date statistics and synthesizes ideas put forth by both Clayton Christensen and Daniel Pink seamlessly.

Click Image To Watch

Essential Questions:

How are you going to be relevant when:

1. Some teaching functions will be replaced by offshoring and software
2. Dispersion of teaching functions erode membership base (and thus financial/political power)

21st Century is a decade old - Why are we still talking about giving students 21st Century Schools?

Clayton Christensen presents Disrupting Class to Education Commission of the States, 2009

Education|Evolving posted a video of Clayton Christensen speaking about Disrupting Class today:

Manditory Summer School?

In this week's Time magazine there is an article about an idea that is gaining steam in many states that involves mandating summer school. The article points out that research shows that in the summer students suffer a 2 month loss in reading progress. It also points out that this is a big initiative of Arne Duncan and the Obama Department of Ed. The article also point out some interesting statistics. They take Massachusetts as an example to show that it costs the state $1300 per pupil to run summer school programs. To me this seems a bit high. The dilemma is that with districts already having to cut back across the country, how can we afford this? The counter dilemma is, with the research findings on the effect of summers off vs summer school, how can we afford not to?

When I read this article an idea synthesized in my head that I just have to get out there. I am sure it has been thought of before but it is an idea that seems to make sense to me and I believe is worth further discussion. The idea is to make mandatory summer school online. Many states are beginning to require students to have taken an online class to graduate and this for one would be one place this requirement could be met without overburdening or complicating normal school year operations. I also believe it will be substantially cheaper.

This summer I have been teaching summer school courses for National Connections Academy. Tuition for a class was $125/course and students could take up to two courses either concurrently or simultaneously. At $125/course I believe this summer program was still profitable for the school. That is roughly $1175 less per pupil than Massachusetts is reportedly spending.

Now, I know the first thing many people will say is, "What about students who don't have computers or access to the internet?" Well, such students most likely would also fall into an economic category that would qualify them for free or reduced lunch. We could use that litmus test to gauge who would be in need and provide those families with the necessary technology. A netbook costs around $350 and a stipend for bradband internet service could be issued for $100/month or less. Combined, for our most needy students that is a cost of $575 instead of $1300 (a $725 savings).

Coincidentally, doing this would also solve some other problems. Many schools would like to go to a 1:1 setting but that model has not yet proven to be financially sustainable. If we mandate students take online courses in the summer we essentially mandate that they have the tools to do so. If through a combination of providing these tools for poor families and requiring them as a school supply for everyone else we create a 1:1 potential for all students. There would be no reason why a teacher couldn't just decide theire classroom is a 1:1. Schools would then have to decide whether to mandate all teachers apply 1:1 pedagogies in their classrooms or leave it up to teacher discression. Schools would need to shift their technology priorities toward that of being a service provider and open WIFI networks to all students. I belive having this 1:1 potential for all schools would also prompt much needed innovation in our field in places where before it was hindered by lack of resources. Also, solving the digital equity problem for students will also solve it for parents. A whole new host of community education and parent outreach will be made possible. I am sure there are other problems this would solve as well.

The biggest problem I see, and the number one reason such an idea is likely to get some resistence from teacher unions and local school boards, is that many students who would never have taken an online class otherwise might find that method of delivery preferable and more suited to their needs than already have found their way there. The fear would be that these students would leave the traditional brick and mortar institutions for their online counterparts further propelling the momentious shift of pupil units to these schools. The result always means more cuts to the traditional model and with more cuts means fewer program offerings which could potentially spark another round of students leaving or force consolidation. This idea is bad for the status quo which for many of us is actually a positive.

The Case for Charters, Part 4: Disruptive Innovation: Why Traditional Ed Is Ill-Suited For Change

This post is cross-posted at Change.org.

<---Go To Part Three

In 2003, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen published a book called The Innovator's Dilema that eloquently explains how many good companies that produce good products fail. Christensen outlines two different types of innovation that have an effect on any industry: sustaining innovations and disruptive innovations.

Sustaining innovations are improvements in technology that enhance the quality of the product being offered. Disruptive innovations are innovations that result in alternative products that at first are inferior to the mainstream product but that, over time, and with the application of their own sustaining innovations, can develop into a better choice for the majority of customers.

Christensen gives the example of how discount retail stores such as Target, K-Mart, and Wal-Mart grew to overtake the department store. Before discount retail stores, most Americans shopped at such stores as Bloomingdales, Macy's, Marshal Fields, Yonkers, Dayton's. Today we see these companies dwindle, while we see the discount retailers thrive. The only company mentioned here that has survived in any appreciable way is Dayton's. Dayton's, at the early onset of discount retail, started Target as a subsidiary company. Target was allowed to run as its own separate company and in time grew to "eat the parent." In 2005 Dayton's was sold to Marshal Fields as a shell of a business leaving the Target Corporation effectively having "eaten the parent."

We see this scenario play out throughout nearly all industries. Today's newspapers are going through the same problem as they are losing subscribers to online news sources. The cell phone is making a significant dent in the telephone business as more and more customers find they don't really need their land lines. This saga goes on and on. In this vicious cycle, the only companies that survive are those who embrace change and allow the disruptive force to take over the company. Those who fight against it always fail or are marginalized. Christensen goes on to explain how large organizations are incapable of monumental change. That is why the only department store company to survive was Dayton's. Dayton's did not actually survive; its subsidiary did.

.

.

In 2007 Christensen applied this theory to education in his book, Disrupting Class. In that book, he identifies individualized learning plans and student-centered learning as the disruptive force on our horizon. He also speculates that online learning is one of the major vehicles that allow this to happen. However, there are other vehicles that carry this innovation. Homeschooling is by nature individualized and has always captured a small percentage of our population. Some private schools, such as the Sudbury schools, can be included in this category. Unschooling captures a fair share of this market. Finally, charter schools by nature are disruptive innovations (at least those that take a student-centered and customized approach to curriculum).

The question is, "Do we want our traditional school systems to be more like Macy's, Dayton's, or Wal-Mart?" If we don't embrace school choice options (including district-sponsored charter schools), we will see our traditional public schools dwindle the same way Macy's and company have seen systematic closures of their department stores. In their place will likely be "big box" charters like KIPP and Green Dot that have a similar effect in public education as Wal-Mart has in business. If our public school districts sponsor their own charter schools and allow them enough autonomy to be independent, we have a much better chance of weathering this storm and coming out relatively unscathed.

The changes that a charter school can make cannot be practically implemented in a traditional school system. These changes are systemic and massive. Large systems are designed to resist change. In many ways this is good, it prevents wild bad ideas from wreaking havoc on the system; but it also breeds complacency and reinforces the status quo. Yes, unions are part of this problem but so are school boards, taxpayers, and administrators. At a certain point we need to start building a new house. That doesn't mean we have to move into it right away.

Animated Explanation of Disruptive Innovation in Education

No matter how much I drum the same warning signals there still seem to be people who have not heard them regarding school change and disruptive innovation. Therefore, I took the liberty of making the following video presentation (sort of inspired by Lee Lefever's "In Plain English" video series) illustrating the impact of school choice on school districts.


An Illustrated Explanation of Disruptive Innovation in Education from Carl Anderson on Vimeo.

Impact of Online Schools

• 8 students 5 years ago ----> more than 800 today and growing
• flexible for those who travel a lot
• at least 20 online schools in Minnesota

At this rate, what impact does/will online schools have on traditional public schools in the near future?

Film Idea about Disruptive Innovation - Part 1

Scene One:

The film opens with a first person shot of me walking my dogs. The audio is a speech from Ken Robinson's TED Talk. This goes on for about 5 minutes until I take my iPod out of my pocket and reveal that the audio is from the downloaded video I have been listening to on my walk)






(Scene cuts seamlessly to a small segment of the video synced with no cut in the audio.)

Dog footage to be shot with my Flip camera.
TED footage to be ripped from YouTube.

(This video of me walking my dogs will get recycled throughout the film whenever I use my voice as narration. This image will be symbolic of progress and change as the dogs, while I encourage them to go where I want, pull me forward in a not entirely controlled path.)


(Scene cuts to me putting away my coat, walking downstairs and plugging my iPod into my computer.)


Scene in my entry way to be shot with my Flip Camera
Scene at my desk to be shot with a webcam

(Audio fades over the webcam image of myself sitting down to my laptop then cuts to a screencast of myself checking my RSS reader, commenting on blogs, checking Twitter updates, and reviewing the feed from my del.icio.us network.)

Screencast to be shot with Camstudio

(voice over screencast)

Me: This is part of my daily routine. Each night, after I put my daughters to bed (insert clips of putting my 3year old and infant to bed) and my wife goes to sleep I walk my dogs and listen to podcasts. This is my daily zen moment. It is a time I feel like I can think more clearly. I never set out on my walks with any particular agenda in mind. I often let the voices on the iPod set that for me. This is when I take a step back and try to look at things from an outside or big picture perspective. Then, when I get home and plug my iPod back into the computer I slip into my PLN of education bloggers, teachers who find their voice online and connect with ideas and people. Many of these people are average employees at the schools where they work but online their ideas and thoughts make some celebrities. (slowly fade in the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane) This place is the fertile garden that is growing the ideas and momentum for the next wave of change in education. It is a sophisticated flash mob that when unleashed will disrupt everything we have come to understand about schools, learning, teaching, and education. Alice is coming back from the looking glass and is bringing Wonderland with her.

Switch to an Animoto video similar to this one showcasing seminal blog posts about 21st century learning.



Scene Two:
(Scene two cuts to me coming home from work. My wife is watching the news and my daughter is playing in the living room.)

Sheri: Did you hear? Macy's is closing 11 stores.
Me: Wow! First Daytons sells their stores to Marshal Fields, then Marshal fields goes under and Macy's takes over, now Macy's is in trouble.
Sheri: People just can't afford to shop at those fancy stores anymore.
Me: Yeah, when was the last time we bought anything there? We go to Walmart and Target every week but I can't recall the last time I shopped at one of those stores.
Sheri: Too expensive. They don't sell what we need either.



...Stay Tuned for more

What is 21st Century Education?

We often hear of school districts heralding an initiative as promoting 21st Century Learning and we often hear people talk about needing to have 21st Century Classrooms or adopting a 21st Century pedagogy. However, as near as I can tell most of the time "21st Century _____" is used it lacks a concrete definition or consensual understanding of what it means. Instead, it becomes a handy buzz word or phrase that can be used to beef up public relations. While everyone talks about it, no one ever defines it. On close inspection, most of the times it is used one can discern that the party using it to describe or promote something doesn't have a firm grasp of what it means either. I propose that this has reached a point where the nebulous nature of this idea is potentially harmful and potentially corrupting of the major decisions our teachers, school administrators, schools, districts, and universities make. If we are going to continue making important and expensive decisions based on the notion of 21st Century Learning we need to have no more than two or three possible definitions of what it means (preferably one definition).

Back in August Wesley Fryer posted an article to his blog that set off a lively debate about electronic whiteboard use. That topic was recently brought up again on the Learning in Maine blog but put into the context of whether electronic whiteboards support 21st Century Education. I highly recommend both of these articles and the comment streams that follow them as they begin to seriously address this question of defining 21st Century Education.

So, what is 21st Century Education and how does it differ from 20th Century Education? How far from the trees do we need to look to see this forest? In August of 2007 I put together a video called Why We Need to Teach Technology in School which attempts to make people think about how technology might be changing education. The video offers no solution, nor does it offer any definition of what 21st Century Education looks like. In many ways I was not sure I could answer those questions at that time. This blog post is an attempt of mine to take this discussion to the next step and try and work out these big ideas.



21st Century Education is defined by what technologies available to us today make possible and what they render obsolete. The technology that effects education the most is networked digital electronics such as computers, the internet, cell phones, portable media players, digital cameras, digital camcorders, etc. and the software developed to use with them. Daniel Pink says that in our new economy everything that can either be outsourced or automated will be. I don't think this is anything new. We have seen this story again and again throughout history. When photography was invented in the 1800s much of the work previously done by painters was automated by the camera. Nearly every time an invention comes along that can get something done more efficiently an industry suffers. This idea has been well explained and detailed by Clayton Christensen and his theory of disruptive innovation.



When the camera was invented it set the art world into a century long identity crisis known as Modernism. Since painting could not primarily be about creating images it had to be about something else. Modernism was all about defining what art is minus the prior dominant attribute of image rendering. This time was marked by many artistic movements, all with their own philosophies, definitions, and manifestos. Examples of this include Impressionism, Expressionsim, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, and Pop Art. All radically different but share the same absence of image rendering being their primary attribute. This is where I think we are with 21st Century Schools.

21st Century Schools are in the middle of an identity crisis. New technologies render unnecessary some major elements of pedagogy that have, since the inception of the industrial revolution, become indoctrinated and so ingrained into what we think of as school that the absence of such pedagogical constructs throws into question whether what we are talking about is school at all. For example, with online digital video and open courseware there is no longer a need for teachers to lecture. In fact, we can take the very best lecturers on a subject, record their presentations, and upload them to YouTube where students can view them at any time. In many ways this is better because if they miss something they can rewind or if they are not ready to watch and listen now they can wait until they are ready. Also, through digital quiz or survey tools students can be pretested to identify what their learning needs are before they take a course. These same digital tools can be used to automate some forms of assessment. So, essentially we can outsource lectures and automate objective assessment. With these learning resources available anytime anywhere there eliminates a need to move all students along at the same pace. There also eliminates the need for all students to learn in the same way or even be physically present with the teacher and other students in the same classroom at the same time.



Online schools have been described by many as being "21st Century." While this is in part true because the school would not be possible without 21st Century technology there are as many learning theories applied to online schools as are applied in traditional classrooms. Many online schools simply take what would have been done in a traditional classroom and put it online so students can attend remotely. I would not use online schools as being the single exemplar of "21st Century Schools." Rather the terms "Online Learning" and "Online Schools" refer to a medium, not a pedagogy. If we use the medium to define 21st Century ______ as most of us have been then that definition will keep changing at a rate that we will not be able to keep up with. An online school can be "21st Century" but not all are.


One thing our pre-digital schools were not very good at was differentiated instruction. Another thing they did not have the proper resources to fully implement was authentic assessment. Research studies done by Caine and Caine (1991), Brooks and Brooks (1993), and many others exploring the effect of constructivist teaching strategies have overwhelmingly illustrated the power constructivist approaches like project-based learning have to promote both achievement and incite intrinsic motivation to learning objectives. Outsourcing and automating things that in the traditional classroom take a lot of time and energy frees the teacher up to be able to facilitate a true project-based, authentic learning, constructivist classroom. It is the pedagogy made possible by 21st century technology that is what defines a 21st Century School or 21st Century Learning. Right now the EdVisions schools like New Country School and Avalon are more pure examples of 21st Century schools.



So, this changes the question to whether 21 Century Education necessitates a replacement of prior models of schooling. I argue no. While Dan Willingham might disagree, I believe there is a kernel of truth behind learning style theories. Most specifically I believe the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner is important and valid. I believe that students have different learning needs depending upon what subject they are studying. These needs are different for each student. One student may benefit more from a traditional class in Math while learning more in Social Studies by a constructivist approach. Another student may learn Social Studies better in a traditional class and math with project-based learning. It really depends for each individual on what kind of motivation they need and what kind of social environment the individual needs to study a subject.

What I advocate for is blend of the traditional and the 21st Century. I would like to see schools opperate in dual fashion. Think of it as two schools in one (not necessarily a school within a school). Students learning needs and interests can be identified and students can be placed either in a traditional classroom or work indepenedently with the help of an advisor based on whichever learning modality is optimal for each student in each subject.

Embracing Disruption

Lets face it, the disruptive forces described by Clayton Christensen in "Disrupting Class," this post on Fluid Learning, and the subsequent conversations that have emerged today on Dean Shareski's blog and Will Richardson's blog are going to have an effect on our schools. These forces include the internet, personalized learning, and school choice. So far what we have seen play out is as technology and the internet improve the choice to either home school a child or enroll them in an online school has gotten easier; as more charter and magnet schools open they pull students from the enrollment of our traditional schools; and the inflexibility of our schools has led to an increased dropout rate and a growing number of students who see more value in teaching themselves what they think they need to know than seeking a diploma or degree. The result has been lots of either/or scenarios. You are either enrolled in an online class or you are enrolled in a traditional classroom...you either are home schooled or you attend a public or private school...you either are mainstreamed or you are in some kind of alternative program. This approach has spread us thin. All of these approaches either ignore altogether or place bets on the disruptive forces and such a polar choice leaves few good choices in the long run.

What is it, or what was it, about the schools we grew up with that our communities loved? What programs did those schools offer that added identity and built community? I would suspect that for most of us those things were the arts programs, athletic programs, extra curricular activities, clubs, and organizations. These were the things we celebrated and these are the first to go when disruptive innovation is dealt with in a polar fashion. How can we retain what we hold dear about our community schools in the face of disruptive innovation?

Before we can answer that question we need to look at what the disruption really is. The disruption is the internet. The internet is what is behind the flat world that Thomas Friedman talks about and it is the tool that makes the kind of grass-roots social action and semantic restructuring that Clay Shirky describes. The internet is the largest collection of data and information our world has ever seen and it makes information cheap. It also allows for the outsourcing of or automation of tasks that are routine. However, the internet is more than the sum of it's parts because behind each window that looks into this great big machine sits an individual with thoughts, knowledge, and wisdom. It allows for us to connect in ways we never could before not only with data but with each other.

Daniel Pink also addresses this issue by observing that what this disruption is going to call for in the economic world are people who can exercise the right sides of their brains, see the whole picture, and be creative. The polar approach we have been taking in response to this disruption has forced schools to cut back on programs that typically best nurture this ability in students.

Now, there are other disruptions that are effecting our schools besides just the internet and the rise of school choice. First, there is the health care crisis. When you look at projections for the cost of Medicare and Medicaid in the future, especially as more and more baby boomers retire, there will be less and less funds available for public education. This means either schools will loose funding or an already poor health care system will get even worse. Also, the recent downturn in the economy will have an immediate short-term effect that we won't be able to ignore. Two reasons schools will loose funding added to the loss of funds due to declining enrollment caused by school choice.

Why does this have to be so? As Christensen eloquently explains, large systems are ill equipped to implement sweeping changes. He gives examples in business of how disruptive innovations literally kill certain industries and examples of companies like IBM and Dayton-Hudson who weathered the storm by embracing the disruption and allowing it to flourish. Why can't we do this in our public schools?

I suspect one problem has to do with our miscategorization of different modalities of teaching as modalities of learning. Cognitively, is online learning any different than any other type of formal learning? Certainly online teaching is different than teaching face-to-face but is learning any different? One benefit to online schooling is the students have to be active learners, in an online learning environment passive learning is equivalent to absenteeism. In that way there might be a difference but active learning is active learning and the same level of engagement can be achieved in a traditional classroom as well. Online teaching strategies can be applied in a traditional classroom to support and extend learning just as films can be shown in classes to support the curriculum. Why do we have to think of online learning as one form of learning separate from others?

While there may not be a significant difference in how we learn online as opposed to face-to-face there is a difference in how we learn with different types of assessments and teaching strategies. From a funding standpoint we really have two different models: seat time vs. project-based. One involves a talking head and the other authentic assessments and both can be employed in either an online setting or face-to-face.

So, here is the solution I propose to deal with all of this:

1. Schools need to start by embracing disruption and support it.
2. They can do this by starting charter schools within their own walls, a school within a school concept.
3. One charter school could be created that leased space in each of the host schools.
   
4. This charter school would serve students who are dual enrolled in their school and the independent school district the charter is leasing a room from.
5. These classrooms could be connected through digital tools and/or ITV
6. This charter school would be based on a project-based model instead of seat time but employ online teaching strategies to enhance and facilitate instruction and inquiry.
7. Students would meet one day a week with their teacher in the charter but have access to daily classes in the traditional school. The other days the students could work from home.
8. The days students are present the teacher could meet with 10-15 students thereby keeping the perceived class size down to ideal numbers but meet everyday with a different group thereby increasing their enrollment for one instructional class hour to 50-75 students. This will reduce the cost of education.
9. The independent school districts could then pass these savings on to retaining and growing programs that are done better face-to-face on a daily basis.
10. This charter need not be a diploma granting institution and could exist only to support and enhance education in the ISD.
11. This model could be franchised and opened in other schools. The more schools that allow a classroom for this charter in their district the better both schools become because more teachers in the network mean more course offerings and more funds directed toward arts, athletics, and extra curricular programs.

Many of our smaller schools already have a program that sets a precedent for this since most smaller rural schools have some kind of ITV setup and collaboration with neighboring districts.

I am serious about making this work and have been thinking about it for close to 3 years now. I have a potential sponsor for the charter and three districts with administrators interested in trying this out as well as 7-10 teachers who are interested in piloting this program so it is very possible this idea might fly. What are your thoughts? I would love any and all feedback.