The New Paradigm: Education 3.0
1. Two kinds of change: Sustaining & Distruptive
There is a crucial distinction between piecemeal change and paradigm change. Clayton Christensen and colleagues have helped to raise greater awareness of this distinction in their book, Disrupting Class, in which their “disruptive innovation theory” distinguishes between “disruptive innovation” (paradigm change) and “sustaining innovation” (piecemeal change).
Earlier, Peter Drucker distinguished between “continuous” (piecemeal) and “discontinuous” (paradigm) change in his book, The Age of Discontinuity. Others have used such terms as “restructuring” and “systemic change” as distinct from piecemeal reforms in education, but some people have persistently adopted those terms as new buzzwords for piecemeal change, corrupting their meaning.
Table of Contents
2. Three paradigms in education
Paradigm change is not new to education. We know of three fundamentally different paradigms of education, all of which currently exist. These three paradigms correspond to different stages of societal evolution and progressively increase in complexity.
3. Why paradigm change is needed in education
There are two considerations that help to understand why paradigm change is needed in education today instead of piecemeal reforms: societal considerations and personal considerations.
We know that students learn at different rates, yet our schools teach a fixed amount of content in a fixed amount of time.
By holding time constant, we force achievement to vary.
The current paradigm is designed to leave some children behind.
Only fundamental, paradigm change can fix this problem.
- Charles M. Reigeluth
Why Paradigm Change in Education?
This page offers information and insights about why paradigm change is the only way to significantly improve student learning in schools.
This page addresses:
The difference between sustaining change (piecemeal change) and disruptive change (paradigm change)
Three paradigms in education
Why disruptive, paradigm change is needed at this point in history
The sage on the stage
The guide on the side
Partners in their children's learning
Tools for the teacher
Tools for the learner
Sorting the students
Branson, R.K. (1987)
Why the schools can't improve: The upper limit hypothesis.
Covington, M. V. (1996)
The myth of intensification.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994)
Prisoners of time: What we know and what we need to know.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013)
Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold.
When new systems are developed, piecemeal change is highly beneficial. The railroad has improved much since the first steam engine. But when the larger environment within which a system exists undergoes dramatic change, piecemeal change is seldom enough for the system to thrive. Only paradigm change can do that. For more information about this, see Why paradigm change is needed in education – The societal perspective.
The reason for these paradigm changes is that each wave of change creates different ends and means – different purposes for education and different tools for education. During the industrial age, manual labor was the predominant form of work. We did not need to educate many people to high levels; rather we needed to separate the future laborers from the future managers and professionals by flunking them out. We needed a system that could sort the students – that would leave the slower students behind. So we invented time-based student progress, norm-referenced testing, and letter (or number) grades.
The one-room schoolhouse was the predominant paradigm in the agrarian age; the current “factory model of schools” in the industrial age; and the learner-centered paradigm (which only exists in about 1% of schools in the U.S. so far) in the information age. Bela Banathy wrote about the “evolutionary imbalance” that has resulted from society evolving into the information age while our educational systems are still in the industrial age. This evolutionary imbalance poses a severe threat to our country, our society, and our individuals.
But in the information age, knowledge work is becoming predominant, so we need a system that is focused on maximizing every student's learning – one in which no child is left behind – one in which student progress is based on learning, not time. The hidden curriculum in the industrial-age paradigm includes compliance and tolerance for boring tasks, which were important preparation for the assembly line but are counter-productive for knowledge work. Now we need a hidden curriculum of initiative, problem solving, and collaboration
One of the few things all people agree on is that students learn at different rates, yet our current paradigm of education tries to teach a fixed amount of content in a fixed amount of time. So the current structure, by basing student progress on time rather than learning, is designed to leave children behind:
It forces slower students on before they have mastered the material (so they accumulate deficits that virtually condemn them to flunking out), and
It holds faster learners back, demotivating them and squandering their sorely needed talents.
For personal considerations we must transform education so that each student moves on only when s/he has learned the current material, and as soon as s/he has learned the current material. Until we do this, all changes we make will be inconsequential, and we will continue to leave many children behind, especially those who are disadvantaged.
Of course, customizing student progress like this requires fundamental changes throughout the entire system: the instructional, assessment, and record-keeping subsystems; the roles of teachers (from sage on the stage to guide on the side), roles of students (from passive, teacher-directed to active, self-directed), roles of parents (from cookie bakers to partners in their children’s learning), and roles of technology (from tool for the teacher to tool for the learner); and much more. It requires paradigm change. The nature of the changes needed is described in The New Paradigm.
Wagner, T., & Dintersmith, T. (2015)
Most likely to succeed: Preparing our kids for the innovation era.
New York: Scribner.
For a review, click here.