Creating Smart Demand in the Hybrid Space

We believe in the power of a hybrid school model to revolutionize how we educate students. Specifically, we know that by properly leveraging technology and tutors, the education sector can deliver a highly individualized set of learning experiences that will maximize student academic growth by building basic skills more efficiently and by enabling classroom teachers to focus on higher order conceptual thinking. Given what we know technology can already offer in terms of adaptivity, integration, and personalization in so many other sectors (and increasingly in the education space) building this functionality is not a matter of “if we can do it…” but rather, “when will we get it done?”

Disruption to any sector depends, largely, on the “demand” created by consumers (e.g. think of how Napster forced the music industry to quickly shift how music is delivered to the listener). In education, the consumers who will have the greatest influence on the supply of high-quality innovations are schools, CMOs, and school districts. The call for bringing technological innovations into the school is not new. Computers have been distributed to schools since the 1980s, a laptop has been given to every child in some districts around the country, “smartboards” are increasingly seen in classrooms and, yet very few of these potential enhancements have translated into revolutionary models of how we educate our children. So, yes, we’ve had some demand for technology in schools but in order to truly break new ground on how we educate students in transformative ways, we need to consider carefully what we wish for. The “demand” needs to be well-articulated and explicitly aligned to a vision of how we educate students more effectively; furthermore, the demand needs to help vendors, foundations, and policy-makers focus on critical foundations for building the next generation platforms.

As we pursue a hybrid-school model at Rocketship and in discussing these issues with our friends doing similar work, we have learned that the following foundations are critical for our work:

• Alignment: Instructional delivery methods (e.g. online curricula, scripted tutoring curricula, student practice tools, classroom interventions) need to be aligned and mapped to common core standards. Through the “Race to the top” and common core consortia it’s clear that common core will be the standard in the coming decades and alignment to one standard allows schools a tremendous amount of flexibility in choosing instructional delivery methods that best meet the needs of students throughout the year. Example from other sectors: no matter how you place a call – cell phone, land line, VoIP—the 10 digits are always the same

• Assessment: In order to compare the success of different instructional delivery methods and to refine which methods to use with particular students or groups of students, we need a gold standard of evaluation. If the sector had an assessment bank verified, vetted assessment questions at the level of each micro-objective of common core (i.e. a hundred for each micro-objective), we would be able to determine which interventions/innovations are most effective and proliferate those more widely. Example from other sectors: a consumer can compare fuel efficiency of different vehicles because every manufacturer has the same definition of gallons and miles

• Adaptivity: Instructional delivery methods (especially online curricula) must learn about the student and adapt to his/her needs and level to target mis-understandings and pre-requisite skills unique to that student in order to deliver a highly personalized learning path Example from other sectors: Amazon or Netflix learn about the consumer based on purchasing choices in order to present products that are customized to the consumers’ taste

• Assignability: Instructional delivery methods must be able to take direction from a teacher or administrator even as the method adapts to each student. In order to truly integrate delivery methods (e.g. classroom instruction with online curricula) the different methods need to be working towards similar ends. For example, a teacher working on a unit covering fractions can only get “lift” from an online curriculum if that curriculum can be working towards the same objectives while personalizing learning paths towards that end. Example from other sectors: prescription medication offers the doctor much “lift” in healing a patient; medication and combinations of medication/lifestyle choices/etc. are “assignable” to particular ailments even as each individual is unique.

• API: As we proliferate the number of online curricula, we need technological integration in the form of a common platform that becomes industry standard. Single sign-on, integrated reporting, and the ability to build customized applications are just some of the benefits that come with a common API. When integrated new methods, we cannot be held back by the question of technological integration; everything needs to “work” together. Example from other sectors: electric plugs and outlets all conform to industry standards…when buying an iron a consumer does not need to ask “will this work with my outlet at home”?

Taken together, the 5 A’s will allow schools to innovate on the school model with modular building blocks that can be configured in increasingly effective and efficient ways to personalize instruction for students. If we are to disrupt the market, our collective “demand” needs to be loud and clear.