|
Albert Einstein once remarked that, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” That idea is the premise behind Clayton Christensen’s concept of “disruptive innovations,” an idea with profound implications for reforming America’s K-12 public education system.
Education, argues Christensen, is a $500+ billion industry that operates in a cyberspace world with horse-and-buggy technology. It consumes enormous amounts of labor. It is becoming less and less productive (as in the move to smaller class size). And it has long provided a thoroughly mediocre product.
Moreover, the industry is now being asked to do something it has never done before: educate every child. Implicit in that demand is the need to tailor education for each individual student in a way that best fits his or her learning style. The problem, however, is that schools are structured interdependently, with standardized procedures for teaching and testing. But customized education is incompatible with standardized school systems. Schools, as they are currently structured, are simply incapable of delivering what is being required of them.
Further complicating the problem is the fact that 21st century children will be unlike any other generation in the history of humankind. From birth, almost, they are plugged into an incredible array of electronic devices, devices which did not exist a decade ago. They are destined to live as natives in a world where previous generations are mere visitors. Think about what that means about their receptivity, their ability to multi-task, and the way they will handle the immense amount of information that is available and growing exponentially.
The existing system was not built to meet these challenges. Rather than insisting on tweaking it, we need to harness the potential of computer-based learning, using powerful new technologies, to deliver personalized education in a way our children instinctively understand.
But wait, some people say, don’t we already have computers in the classroom? Christensen argues that, until now, computer technology has been “crammed” into the existing school model. Computers are off to the side, while teachers are still front and center. But the computer is an inherently modular instructional tool, which can deliver a personalized learning experience to every single child. Once computer-based learning takes root, it will offer a new model that can grow and supplant how schools currently operate. Only then will the full power of the computer be realized.
What does this mean for philanthropists who have already made considerable investments trying to “reform” a system that is incapable of meeting the needs of the 21st century? It means it is time to change their approach. Note that the MacArthur Foundation recently funded a five-year, $50 million digital media and learning initiative. That should mark the beginning of efforts to revolutionize learning in the United States to make us as competitive as possible in the digital age.
The entrepreneurs involved in the creation of new products and curricula do not operate in a free market. Rather, their efforts are frustrated by a hostile monopoly. To circumvent this monopoly, Christensen recommends targeting areas of “non-consumption,” offering computer-based instruction to schools where the alternatives for certain subjects are computer-based instruction or nothing at all. If a marketing campaign were to introduce these new technologies to underserved rural, inner-city, or gifted children, it would go a long way towards normalizing computer-based learning. It’s an effort that foundations, working collaboratively, are well placed to underwrite.
If there ever was a time to think outside the box, the time is now. The future of our country depends on it.
|
