Disrupting class

 Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson got together and published Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns based on the concept of disruption in business. Their 2008 (and subsequent 2011 edition) book, presented the idea that education will become personalized and computer based. They predicted that "by 2019, about 50 percent of high school courses will be delivered online" (p. 98-99). While they did not imagine the pandemic, I am sure they would have predicted that leveraging that world event would have led to even more online programming today. This thesis clearly has not come into being. True there are more online courses available to students. Some small districts are leveraging online platforms to offer classes they cannot do so in house. Some districts are utilizing online college classes for advanced students. Many homeschooled children are using online classes to access material. In general, however, these classes are simply a different setting for the same education rather than a different arrangement of education for students.

Early on in their book they describe the purposes of education.

Purpose for education	details
Preserve democracy and inculcate democratic values	Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, and Horace Mann Basic universal education to prepare citizens to participate in democracy and instill morals Melting pot for children from different backgrounds to teach social norms and American culture Elite education for the meritorious and upper class to lead the country wisely as elected officials
Prepare everyone for vocations	Late 1800’s emerges: 1905 1/3 children made it to high school; 1930 75% went to high school; 1960 69% graduate from high school Continue to prepare for democracy Wide offerings to suit a wide variety of interests and skills Add social services (school lunches, medical care), recreational activities and extracurricular activities “Complex and expensive as they offer a historically unmatched array of offerings” (p. 57)
Keep America competitive	Sputnik; growth of Japanese companies Standardized test use rises- look at improvement in average test scores Students have TOO many choices and are not completing the important classes
Eliminate poverty	Johnson’s Great Society; Head Start; NCLB Every child in every demographic must improve so that proficiency will lead to an elimination of poverty Even more standardized testing to promote growth
Fun and socialization	What children and adolescents want out of schools

The first three fully embrace the idea that society expected access to education. When it came to eliminating poverty, however, the goal became ensuring achievement. While they mention the student motivation throughout the book, they fail to include it as a purpose. This perhaps is the biggest reason why many students are not seeing different education. Although the sage on the stage teaching style is slowly eroding and still present, we have entered more of an upside-down clown stage where teachers are expected to engage students with entertainment so that kids have fun. Unfortunately, the fun and socializing bit is often at odds with other purposes of education. In fact the authors point out that "students languish unmotivated... [because] education is not a job they are trying to do" (p. 169). In spite of this acknowledgement, they argue that personalized instruction can solve this problem.

Over the pandemic many students checked out of learning. Millions did not have reliable internet access with a device other than a phone. They might log in, turn the camera off and wander off. Many checked out completely. Estimates vary, but perhaps 3 million students are unaccounted for (out of a roughly 77 million in total). Students grasped their idea of what education should be and flew with it- using their phones more than ever. Seeking learning or play pods. While parents did their best, competing interests, like jobs and health concerns, allowed supervision of children to decline. 

Instead of leveraging the opportunity for flipped classes, an idea that originated in 2007 by Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sams, teachers often doubled down on strategies they knew- presentations, readings and videos followed by worksheets, aka Google forms. In some districts personalized programs like iReady and IXL were used to reinforce learning, but to truly leverage these programs, expensive subscriptions needed to be obtained. Many personalized platforms require huge teacher investments in selecting modules for students, providing corrective instruction and recording results. Personalized has most often meant that the teacher is designing pathways for each student or group- a very labor intensive activity.

The authors point out that "companies typically improve their products at a much faster pace than customers need, so that products, which at one point were not good enough, ultimately pack in more features and functions than customers can use" (p. 45). So many platforms are slowly starting to overcome some of these shortcomings, but certainly not at a rate that was able to leverage the disruption of the pandemic.

Do I believe that personalized education is the future? Sort of. We need to first overcome the ennui of students toward education. Project based learning will not encourage students who would rather be watching cat videos or playing online games. Constant communication with friends through texting is hard competition. Students in America are competing in a global marketplace where being the best enables you to have indoor plumbing. People in other nations are hungrier. That makes for tough competition. Is allowing students to have more choice in instruction important- yes- but the choice cannot be study English or text with friends. Is allowing students to adjust the pace of their instruction important? Yes, but what do we do with kids who finish a year's worth of instruction in 3 months or with kids who need 3 years to master the material? These questions have bogged the contracts of the 70's and mastery learning of the 90's. Without reenivisioning education, many of the authors' concepts are dandelion fluff- cozy to look at, reemerging with different names over time but amounting to little. Until we get over the graduation rate is students spending 4 years in high school and learning to read should take three years our education cannot leverage individualized learning.