Introduction

This blog is a discussion forum for the students of ADMS 706 Advanced Supervision of Instruction in the School of Education at Virginia Commonwealth University. We are using

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, McGraw-Hill

as the text for this class. I will use this blog to reflect my way through Christensen et al., in the hope that you, my targeted readers, will be prompted to respond with your own insights.

The first thing that struck me in the introduction was that none of the four "high hopes" for our schools which Christensen lists (please forgive me henceforth for not continually adding the "et al.") directly refers to any subject matter. Of course, "maximizing human potential" is a pretty tall order. But, to borrow an earthy image from some forgotten source, this list is a little like your grandmother's night gown: it covers an awful lot. Is Christensen like those who are in favor of "critical thinking" without adverting to the fact that you have to have something in your head to think critically about?

Why do schools struggle to improve?

Christensen suggests several straw man answers to this question, which he then refutes.

1. Schools are underfunded

• Real spending per student has doubled over the last 30 years with no commensurate gain in achievement. (Verify this statement. )


• Comparing two schools in Kentucky (both with over 50% of students on free/reduced lunch) shows one doing 26% better than the other. (How impressed are you by this example?)

Christensen's Conclusion: It is not that money is irrelevant, but it is not in itself the deciding factor.
While this might be a "common sense" conclusion, demonstrating it is far from simple. A good place to start is with Wenglinsky (1997) who found that "expenditures on instruction and central office administration affect teacher-student ratios, which, in turn affect student achievement. On the other hand, capital outlays, school-level administration and teacher education levels were found not to be associated with student achievement" (Results, para. 6).

2. There aren't enough computers in the classroom

Spending on computers has increased dramatically. By 2003, the average number of computers available to support instruction (136) had doubled the 1995 average. Test scores have barely budged. (Verify this statement. )

Christensen's Conclusion: There must be a better explanation for why schools struggle.

3. The students and parents aren't engaged in education

This explanation resonates with many folk. They see baggy pants, caps on backwards, shovelfuls of bling, and kids hanging out on street corners. In addition, minority and English-language learners have increased from 20% of school students to 35% since the 1970s.

Christensen's Conclusion: Don't blame the kids (parents). The perceived estrangement from the educational process is spurious. Innovative approaches (e.g. Montgomery County, MD) have resulted in positive outcomes. (What are the curriculum implications of increasing diversity?)

4. The U.S. teaching model is broken

Ahhh. Perhaps here we approach the heart of the matter. Christensen contrasts the "lecture only" style with the "some lecture, some other" style. He links the first to "much of Asia," and the second to the U.S. (An interesting comparison, but before you "buy" this link, consider the TIMSS video study material, and the Japanese Lesson Study approach.) (What is the best teaching style?)

Christensen's Conclusion: The broken model explanation isn't sustainable.

5. Teachers unions are the problem

Unions force school districts to adopt practices which do not focus on students' needs.

Christensen's Conclusion: This may be true to a degree, but it is not a sustainable reason. For example, one school district with a strong teachers union is innovative and has students that outperform another school district with no teachers union. Charter schools do no better than public schools. (Do you think there is a link between the poor performance of children in school and teachers unions?)

6. All of the above are linked and thus constrain the system

Christensen's Conclusion: Not a viable explanation. All these issues are also true for other nation's schools.

7. The way we measure schools' performance is fundamentally flawed

True--but any measure is only an approximation of reality. (Discuss the philosohpy underlying this statement.)

Christensen Conclusion: He decides to go beyond just test score validity debates, and uses his own observation of Silicon Valley to launch an hypothesis that the U.S. is "clinging to its (technological) advantage because it has continued to be a magnet for the best talent in the world" (p. 6). But, he warned in the following sentence, "this too has begun to change." (Click here to read the complete The Economist article to which he refers.) (Compare and contrast this this current conversation with A Nation at Risk?)

The causes of educational malaise

Christensen's plan is to deliberately stand outside the "public education industry" (p. 6) and view it through a set of lenses that have been useful in a wide range of contexts. (Uh-oh...I sense a potential credibility gap...is this another set of solutions to educational challenges from the perspective of someone who has never taught for a day of his life?)

The fundamental problem is motivation.


Learning is a rigorous activity, and unless students (and teachers) are motivated, they will not remain focused on it. Extrinsic motivation (which is shown by the graphic to the left) makes students attend to learning even if it is boring and difficult. (What is the evidence relating to this claim?)

Christensen asserts that a prosperous economy inversely correlates with the proportion of students studying math and engineering. (Are you convinced of his assertion?)

Christensen re-asserts his belief that "prosperity can be an enemy to motivation to study topics tha are not taught in intrinsically motivating ways" (p. 9) by declaring that few children of world-class engineers etc. study engineering. (Why would one suppose that the children of engineers should be engineers?)

Prosperity isn't the only factor. There are "complicated cultural and familial influences at work as well" (p. 9). (What did Coleman actually say about the effect of schooling?)

Christensen concludes his introduction by providing helpful thumbnail sketches of the following chapters. His parting thought is "if we embark upon the promising path (outlined) in this book, we can make schooling intrinsically motivating and help our children maximise their individual potential to realize their most daring dreams." (p. 14).