- It must be cheaper than traditional school.
- It must appeal to non consumers who will build a sustainable foundation.
- It must at first be sub par to traditional education for students already succeeding in that model.
It will likely:
- Be simpler than a traditional school model.
- Not appeal to "successful" traditional school students AND teachers AND administrators.
I believe that some of the "non consumers" would include many kids in low-income schools and any kids, anywhere that are failing in traditional schools. I believe this because the alternative to the disruptive model (Whatever that is) is almost the same as no class at all. Why? They are failing anyway. Then for a disruptive model of education to thrive, it must appeal to said groups and meet their needs.
The blended learning schools I am seeing, reading about, and the one I work at are trying to appeal to students with whom many would consider successful at "playing school". I believe this is the wrong direction. We need to appeal to these non consumers that I am talking about and we need to succeed with them. All we have to do is provide a better alternative than the one that they currently have and we will disrupt traditional schooling. Innovations will come if we can do that. In time, we will be able to provide a better product than what traditional schools already have.
Blended learning schools are very expensive. I don't think it's sustainable. It needs to be cheaper. Part of the reason why it's so expensive is because these schools are purchasing learning software and hardware for every student. It's very costly. This is not a better alternative to traditional schooling. This is worse! It must be cheaper than traditional schooling.
I believe that what we really need is innovative teaching and learning, not more technology. The technology will come with the disruption. It always does. We are too worried about that. We want it to be there, but it just isn't there. What we really need is to innovate how we teach and how we learn. Innovating how we teach is simple, it will appeal to non consumers, it will be cheaper, and it will be sub par to traditionally educated students at first. As we innovate, we will find ways in which technology can better serve us. The technology that has been developed and is currently being developed is not innovative, nor is it disruptive. It is a replica of the traditional model. It will not survive if it doesn't change.
Whatever ways in which we decide to innovate need to be simpler and cheaper than traditional models. I think this can easily be done by focusing on curriculum and content. Many traditional schools purchase computers and textbooks. The blended learning schools I am speaking about are purchasing computers and digital curriculum. It's the same thing! In fact, I think it's more expensive because teacher to student ratios are far below traditional schools.
We need to provide a cheaper option. If we purchase computers and provide our own curriculum, we can still afford to lower teacher to student ratios.
Computers are not a necessity at this point. Computers will eventually provide much needed innovation in teaching and learning. What I am saying is that the innovations need to mostly come without computers at first. As the innovations in how we teach materialize, the computer will then be used to make the innovations more efficient, effective, and desirable than traditional schooling. Use of the computer can't be forced. It will happen because it's needed, but we haven't developed the need yet.
How will innovating how we teach in simple ways be sub par to traditionally educated students at first? Because they have learned how to play the traditional game. They won't want to try anything innovative because they don't need it. They don't want it. In their eyes, they are already succeeding. So what does this mean for innovative education models, or those who so seek? If we are drawing kids who normally succeed or excel in traditional schools, we are doing something wrong! It must mean that we are offering or trying to offer a traditional education. Why else would they take the risk? They wouldn't. That means they aren't taking a risk.
When we opened our doors last year, we attracted many students whom I am describing as non consumers. Many of them have left by now and are being replaced by students who very likely succeeded in traditional settings. It worries me. It must mean that we are in competition with traditional schools. If so, we must be offering a sustaining innovation not a disruptive innovation. Besides, we can't compete with traditional schools. We are too expensive. And if we are competing with traditional schools, what's the point?