How New Funding Models Can Unlock Innovations in Pedagogy

By 01/27/2015 0 Comments

Earlier this month, the Louisiana Department of Education announced that the state’s Course Choice program, originally created back in 2012, has seen a major boost in enrollments. This eight-fold enrollment expansion is due to the state’s increased funding that brokered a $7.5 million enhancement to the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP). In a macro sense, it’s also due to the forces that underlie disruptive innovation in online learning. And this particular disruption stands to pave the way for more student-centered approaches to school as we know it.

Course Access policies across various states are altering school funding formulas so that education dollars follow students down to the course level. This in turn gives students the chance to enroll in online, blended, or dual enrollment college courses that are otherwise not offered at their brick-and-mortar schools. As I’ve written about before, this policy is a key lever to expanding students’ horizons by offering students access to courses that they otherwise would not be able to take and leveling access to courses regardless of students’ zip codes.

As such, in disruptive innovation terms, Course Access policies directly target nonconsumption in U.S. education. Pockets of nonconsumption serve as footholds for new-market disruptive innovations: these are pockets of a market or system where new entrants don’t have to compete with existing providers and where consumers’ alternative is nothing at all. For example, when Sony introduced its first transistor pocket radios, it sold them to teenagers who had nothing at all, rather than adults who already owned RCA’s tabletop radios. And when Apple introduced its early personal computer, the device was not good enough to compete against the mainframes and minicomputers of the time, so Apple didn’t try to compete head–on: it sold the personal computer as a toy for children and hobbyists. Ultimately, of course, the personal computer disrupted the market for larger computers.

One of Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn’s key insights in Disrupting Class was that the U.S. schools’ factory-based model resists disruption in part because there is very little nonconsumption in our K–12 education system, which has by and large successfully enforced compulsory education policies. Rather, pockets of nonconsumption exist one-level down from the school building at the course or class level (hence the book’s title). Be it access to advanced courses or electives like foreign languages or personal finance, it’s virtually impossible for all schools to offer all courses, particularly when funding is scarce. Students, then, may find themselves “consuming” school, but may indeed be nonconsumers of courses that could potentially support their needs, interests, and ambitions. Course Access, then, goes at these pockets of nonconumpstion by ensuring that all students can take high-quality courses both within and beyond their brick-and-mortar school.

In addition to expanding access, by targeting areas of nonconsumption, Course Access policies may be paving the way to wholly new learning experiences for students. Just as the transistor radio and personal computer supported entirely new circumstances for using communications and computing technologies, some online- and blended-learning options can expose students to innovations in pedagogy and new paradigms in schooling. First and foremost, such courses often allow students to move at their own pace, rather than being based on seat time or a cohort-wide average pace. Some online and blended courses are also reimagining how to combine online content and face-to-face adult supports. For example, Amplify’s AP Computer Science MOOC plus Coach course offers a fully online MOOC, but pairs this with an in-person coach (who is often not a computer science expert) to help motivate and support students in the course. Other online courses actually expand the chance for students to do projects in their communities in ways that brick-and-mortar schools sometimes struggle to offer at scale. For example, in New Hampshire, the Virtual Learning Academy Charter School’s (VLACS) program, Aspire, plans to include experiential service learning opportunities in their communities as part of their competency-based online course offerings.

Of course, altering funding inputs doesn’t necessarily generate these innovative, student-centered outputs—to get there, Course Access funding formulas should incentivize online and blended providers to create courses that are not simply digitizing our factory-based system. These formulas should also include performance-based funding that funds providers in the Course Access system based on student outcomes and growth, rather than merely on enrollment. Getting these incentives right can make Course Access policies an R&D engine for new educational paradigms, while radically expanding Course Access for students whose current alternative is nothing at all.

- Julia Freeland

Julia Freeland is a research fellow in education at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. This blog entry first appeared on the blog of the Christensen Institute.

Good Reads for National School Choice Week

By 01/26/2015 0 Comments

These articles illuminate some elements of the world of school choice that don’t always get the most attention.

Behind the Headline: What the New Senate Education Chair Thinks About No Child Left Behind

By 01/26/2015 0 Comments

Sen. Lamar Alexander spoke with Time about his views on fixing NCLB. Alexander is still struggling to make a decision on whether a revised NCLB should include annual tests required by the federal government.

On Designing K-12 Education Savings Accounts

Education savings accounts operate like the “partial voucher” that Milton Friedman envisioned more than a decade ago.

Don’t Confuse Jargon with Rigor

Elementary school English language arts classrooms have long been in the thrall of nonsensical jargon.

Stump Speech Contest: What Members of Congress Should Say About Testing

Here are some “talking points” that members of Congress might use when the testing issue comes up at town hall meetings and the like.

Will the Common Core Lead to More Schools Labeled Failing? Not Really.

By 01/22/2015 0 Comments

Since the Obama Administration has quietly transitioned to a normative accountability system, where schools are compared to each other rather than to some pre-determined “proficiency” benchmark, it doesn’t matter if all students appear to perform worse this year.

Fixing No Child Left Behind: Oral Testimony of Martin West

By 01/21/2015 0 Comments

Congress should maintain the law’s current annual testing requirements while restoring to states virtually all decisions about the design of their accountability systems.

Views from Private Schools

Policymakers seeking to improve the quantity and quality of educational options for families through private school choice programs should consider the opinions of the school leaders poised to serve those customers.

2015: The Year of Curriculum- Based Reform?

By 01/20/2015 1 Comment

Curriculum and content matter—and for no one more than poor kids who get too little of that knowledge and vocabulary at home.

Posts by Authors

  • Mark Bauerlein
  • John Chubb
  • Martha Derthick
  • A. Graham Down
  • Joshua Dunn
  • Education Next
  • Williamson Evers
  • Chester E. Finn, Jr.
  • Jay P. Greene
  • James Guthrie
  • Eric Hanushek
  • Bryan Hassel
  • Emily Ayscue Hassel
  • Frederick Hess
  • Paul Hill
  • Michael Horn
  • William Howell
  • Marci Kanstoroom
  • Peter Meyer
  • George Mitchell
  • Paul E. Peterson
  • Michael Petrilli
  • Michael Podgursky
  • Andy Smarick
  • Bill Tucker
  • Herbert Walberg
  • Martin West
  • Blogs

  • Organizations

    Sponsored Results
    About the Blog

    The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.

    Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.


    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors