It’s no secret that education in the United States has a performance challenge. Society continues to demand more and more of schools…external pressures are rising and along with that comes increased performance requirements for our students, who must be prepared to successfully compete in a global world for jobs that don’t yet exist. There is an abundance of strategies for education reform. Conservatives typically advocate breaking up teacher unions and privatization, while liberals want more money, greater teacher autonomy and less testing. But so far, nothing has netted great success.
It’s a well-known fact that public education faces an escalating financial challenge. 48 of the 50 U.S. states faced financial shortfalls as they struggled to adopt FY2010 budgets, but these budgets are already out of balance as revenues decline more than projected. Nationally, the 2010 state budget gap is estimated to be $190 billion, representing 28% of state budgets, and the largest shortfall on record. Michigan is the proverbial poster child, with budget cuts in many categories, including a SAF $165 per student cut already executed, another $127 on the legislative chopping block...and the state is only two months into its fiscal year. On November 19, 2009 The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported, “The budgetary pressures that have led states to implement cuts are intensifying and are unlikely to recede anytime soon.”
And while there is no question that education has a responsibility to partner with our government, our businesses and our communities to address both the performance and the financial challenges facing our industry, the real issue is whether we have the “response ability” to do so in timely and innovative ways. If we cannot, then consider that each year, the United States invests over $800 billion in education, and the private sector wants a piece of it. The Montgomery Securities group, in presenting a major market analysis to corporations across the country, claims that “the education industry represents the largest market opportunity” since health-care services were privatized during the 1970’s…”the K-12 market is the Big Enchilada”.
So who or what, exactly, poses this threat to the educational bureaucracy? We can point to out-sourcing trends in the non-instructional side of our business and conclude that it is these for-profit companies that threaten our market share, and we would not be wrong. However these services represent only about 15% of the typical K-12 operating budget. What about the other 85%, a.k.a. the instructional side of our business? Are we creating educational delivery models that most benefit our students’ learning abilities? Do they embrace technology where it makes sense, and allow for the teacher to lead in new and innovative ways? Are we considering technological innovations as a way to reduce cost while improving instructional models simultaneously? Is this the “big enchilada” being eyed by the open market?
Consider these findings…
- Project Tomorrow, a national education non-profit group that supports innovative uses of science, math and technology resources in K-12 schools, recently published a report providing data in support of computer-based learning as a growing trend. The report indicates that, “students from elementary through high school are increasingly interested in online learning. Over 29% of middle school students and 36% of high school students have had some interaction with online learning – either through a class that is taught 100% online, a class with online components or through their own personal pursuit of learning via non-school related online courses. This explosion in familiarity with online learning represents an 80% increase in high school student experience over 2006 data findings. An additional cohort of 24% of middle school students and 33% of high school students who have not had direct experience with online courses say that they would be interested in taking an online class if available to them.”
- The National Center for Educational Statistics survey suggests that while expanding offerings to courses that would otherwise be unavailable is the primary reason that online learning programs are designed; the second most commonly cited reason for offering online learning is “to meet individual student needs”.
- In 2009, a U.S. Department of Education study reported that on average, online students out performed those receiving face-to-face instruction.
In his book, “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns”, Harvard Business School professor, Clayton Christensen, explores the shift from the industrial model of education to one that is designed to be more responsive to individual student needs and learning styles. Christensen lays out a compelling argument that there is an educational disruption occurring as student-centric learning becomes the societal expectation, and computer-based learning (CBL) becomes the disruptive innovative solution. He believes that disruptive innovation can’t happen within a system, because the system’s ultimate goal is to sustain itself. Therefore, the innovation gains a foothold by developing outside of the system, reaching out to current non-consumers. Christensen argues that on-line courses for enrichment classes, and on-line software tools targeting at-risk (credit recovery) students are the innovative technologies gaining momentum “outside” of the traditional educational system. He believes that within four years, critical mass will be attained, at which point the movement towards modular online learning courses that teach to students’ learning styles will commence and force needed change upon the current outdated educational system at a rapid pace. Kind of thought provoking, huh?
The educational performance challenges brought on by a global world, along with the new economic realities of that world (can you say BRIC?) dictate that educational leaders begin to build consensus around the changes that need to occur. Together with our government, businesses and communities, we must begin to define and agree upon the foundational pieces of the current system that need to be re-engineered. Both business models and educational delivery models should be examined and re-designed to ensure a financially sustainable and student-centric model. Technological advancements that improve our students learning potential, introduce flexibility for those students, and reduce cost in the system should be embraced, not feared.
Whether the education industry will significantly change in the next decade is not the question. The real question is who will take responsibility for the changes ahead? And do those who accept responsibility have the “response-ability” to do so in timely and innovative ways? If not, we may soon find ourselves in the ever-growing obsolete pile of the students we serve…along with corded phones, record players and eight-track tapes.