-
Website
http://www.dkeats.com/index.php?module=blog -
Original page
http://www.dkeats.com/index.php?module=blog&action=viewsingle&postid=gen13Srv30Nme10_4469_1214123073&userid=1563080430 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"Opportunities for gambling and pornography have proliferated and are flush with capital because there are active, dynamic markets in these activities. It is, at present, easier to create a dynamic, innovative enterprise offering gambling or pornography than it is to devote oneself to humane education. The legal environment has very substantially contributed to this circumstance."
It is interesting how we create legal and policy frameworks that tie critical areas of endeavor up in tightly bound knots. The parallels with the patent system and how it has created patent trolls and software patent cold war that impedes innovation and reduces disclosure, the two things that patents were created for in the first place.
Think about how the best start-ups companies are formed. Some (e.g., Google) come out of research facilities. Others (e.g., Twitter, eBay, etc.) have no backing in traditional academia. So while a lot of the R & D that happens provides a great breeding ground for innovation it's certainly not a prerequisite.
Now look at teaching. There simply aren't the same rewards for innovation in teaching (not research) as there are for innovation in other areas of society. Virtually ever other area of society lavishes praises and rewards (financial and otherwise) on their most innovative individuals. With a few notable exception (e.g., take a look at Megastudy in Korea) that doesn't happen elsewhere or the rewards pale in comparison with what comparable rewards in the private sector.
That's the opportunity for change that we see. We see an opportunity to allow teachers to scale their expertise in ways that transcend the current system. We see an opportunity for the best teachers to become the "rock stars" of their industry and for that to be determines not by a bureaucracy but by the very people benefiting from their innovation.
Whether this happens within the walls of traditional education or outside it is not the point (e.g., we at eduFire have chosen the latter instead of the former to focus on). The point is that until education has the same intensity applied toward it that you see in other areas of society we'll simply never see the same levels of greatness.
Last week I had the opportunity to witness two amazing sporting events in the span of about 24 hours. First, Tiger Woods won the U.S. Open in an amazing come-from-behind playoff victory. Second, Kevin Garnett (my all-time favorite basketball player) led the Boston Celtics to an NBA title. These are two individuals who have approached their respective professions with an intensity and work ethic that is unparalleled. Figure out how to get teachers to approach their profession with the same intensity and work ethic and you'll fundamentally change the area of education and the planet as a result.
Not possible? In the jubilant post-game words of Mr. Garnett after he won the title, "Anything is possible."
And oh, by the way, the top teacher for Megastudy last year made $2 million, has fan clubs and teaches in front of sold-out sports stadiums. :)
For entrepreneurial education to work, especially in poorer countries, there needs to be a revenue model that puts value into the core of education, not as a hyper-competitive add on. Such a model must lift the quality of education overall. Otherwise, it would contribute to a lowering of social justice and a deepening of social divisions. After all, rock stars are not the norm for rock performers, even though they may represent an aspirant state for many. They also represent a model of generating aggregate demand that is perhaps on its way out.
Being in higher education, $2 million is about 10-14 times what a University President makes in this country. I could only imagine how many teachers must earn much less in order for that teacher to earn more. Certainly we need to value education more, and we need to enable passionate and competent teachers to do better than just survive, but I am not sure that in 2008 the rock star is the correct analogy. On the other hand, you might just be able to get the Dr Phil generation to line up with cash in hand. But what about Africa? Is it the thing for us?
The second option is fantastic in terms of scale. I firmly believe we'll be moving towards a model where rock star instructors will be recorded and the distribution of their content becomes more ubiquitous. Something along the lines of the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth" whereby Al is doing the "lecturing" and there is someone else who helps to facilitate the discussion, etc. It's a very different model from what we see today but I'm convinced we'll head in that direction.
I am beginning to get a sense that perhaps the Grokstar (apologies to Heinlein) could actually be a great teacher in the developing world who could sell her teaching ability in the developed world for $20, and undercut your $40 Grokstar in the US, thus creating a global market. This would be possible because you have separated teaching from learning, and both from the process of assessment. Am I right in that?
What do you think of the startup http://wwwstudentteacherexchange.com/ ? It IS free and offer some off site tools that I think edufire and myngle also use. It might shake up the market when people start noticing it and registering to it wouldn't you think? let me know your thoughts!