But the review I read in Education Week, "Online Education Cast as ‘Disruptive Innovation’", which so intrigued me, may have gotten the main idea of the book wrong.
The caveat I need to give is that I've only read the beginning and ending portions of the book (when I'm truly engaged in a book why read it in order?!). However, there's enough meat in what I did read to do a short overview here, and to try and explain where the authors are headed and why it the message has been unique to me.
From my reading, the disruptive innovation is not online education, but the increasing expectation that our children/students will have a customized educational experience. This makes a lot of sense to me, since having watched the ed tech world for some years now, it's hard to imagine a "technology" (even one as compelling as online education) motivating educators or parents to dramatic change. There are just too many practical daily concerns to make it believable that the unfulfilled promise of computing would "disrupt" our current system. On the other hand, a shift from the industrial model of schooling to one that is more responsive to our individual children does seem like an unstoppable force, since increasing parents' expectations for the education of their own children carries huge motivation and power (the authors' claim that in many school districts already over a third of their spending is on special education students [p. 34].)
Professor Christensen is the lead author, and he acknowledges that he is not an "expert" in education, although he has a lot of practice in it (he's a professor at Harvard Business School). However that may be, he was asked to look at the problems of education through the "lens" of his body of theory about how organizational cultures react to "disruptive" change--with the hope that this study might help to frame why schools have struggled and how to solve their problems (p. v).
In beginning to discuss disruptive innovation theory, the authors break with some expectations and praise public schooling: "[A]s we will show, contrary to widespread perception, on average, public schools have a steady record of improving on the metrics by which they are judged, just like other organizations we've studied" (p. 44). But even with this positive record, there is a specific kind of innovation which almost always "trips up well-managed, improving" organizations and which defies "the abilities of even the most capable executives in the world's best companies" (p. 44-45). They believe public schools are going to experience this, since:
...two significant disruptions of this sort have swept through the U.S. public schools, marked by the Nation at Risk report and the No Child Left Behind Act. Assigning schools new jobs for which they were not built--and therefore are not necessarily doing--has meant that schools don't look as good in light of the new requirements. But given how difficult it is to negotiate these disruptive currents, as we show in the pages that follow, the schools have done remarkably well--which provides some hope that they may be able to switch to a student-centric learning mode, too, through a disruptive implementation of computer-based learning. (p. 45)So, if I'm reading this correctly, the disruption is the switch to expectations for student-centric learning, and that online learning (or the computer) becomes the solution--not the original disruption. The use of the word "disruptive" for the implementation of the solution has me a little confused as to what the disruption is, but I'm going to leave that for now. Chapter 2 has more detail on the model of disruptive innovation, but for our purposes I want to go back to the introductory chapter.
The introduction to the book tries to define what the problems in the U.S. public school system really are, and it gave me a new framework for trying to understand the philosophical tension in my own mind (and the nation's?) between authoritative and constructivist education. The authors start with a summary of four commonly-held aspirations for our schools:
1. Maximize human potential.Acknowledging that we are not doing well in these areas, the authors then propose seven common theories for the lack of school improvement--and then refute each as the root cause. and even all as the main dynamic.
2. Facilitate a vibrant, participative democracy in which we have an informed electorate...
3. Hone the skills, capabilities, and attitudes that will help our economy...
4. Nurture the understanding that people can see things differently--and that those differences merit respect...
- "[S]chools are underfunded." However: "The U.S. public education system spends more per student than all but a few countries, and yet, on average, its student often perform at or below the level of those in other economically advanced countries" (p. 2).
- "[T]here aren't enough computers in the classroom." However: "If the addition of computers to classrooms were a cure, there would be evidence of it by now" (p. 3)
- Students and their parents are to blame. However: this is a serious factor (especially in the light of the increases in minority-background students, who have historically performed least well), but there are enough exceptions to believe "[t]here has to be a better answer" (p. 4).
- "The U.S. teaching model is simply broken." However: we often make mistakes when imagining how our teaching model is compared with other countries (see the fascinating exercise the reader goes through on p. 4 here).
- "[T]he teacher unions must be the problem." However: "Like all explanations, this may be true to a degree, but as the definitive explanation, it doesn't hold up."
- All of the above are "conspiring collectively to constrain" the U.S. However: Of course, they state. "[A]ll these issues are at work in other nations' schools as well--and yet the evidence is that many of them obtain better results than do those in the United States" (p. 5).
- Finally, the "way we measure schools' performance is fundamentally flawed." However: Of course, as well, but not the root cause. "Today a stunning proportion of the people in [the] offices and cubicles of [Silicon Valley] are Israeli, Indian, and Chinese. Those educated in the U.S. schools are losing share--and it's not because the United States is uniquely unable to measure true academic achievement. The United States has kept its technological edge in the world not because its public schools are sending the best potential technologists to U.S. colleges. The United States is clinging to its advantage because it has continued to be a magnet for the best talent in the world" (p. 6).
So, when there is high "extrinsic" motivation, as is the case in societies and families that are depending on education to raise themselves from poverty, the system of education is not as important as the end result. Standardized, factory-style learning works just fine in that setting because the end goal is more important than the journey to those folks. But without extrinsic motivation, as is arguably the case for the United States, the job of schools is much harder since educators must appeal to the "intrinsic" motivation of students--and intrinsic motivation clashes with standardized learning. A dependence on intrinsic motivation means that we can no longer ignore different learning needs and styles, and the customization in learning they bring is the disruptive force we are starting to feel, and that seems will be answered by the use of "student-centric technology."
There's obviously much more to this book than I have started to explore (and maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation of its message), but hopefully this gives you a starting point for considering to read it. I'm going to keep plowing away!