3 ms·

I completely agree that Pearson sells itself as innovative but it is anything but that! Their "mylab" type products aren't innovative. It is just the same old s

I completely agree that Pearson sells itself as innovative but it is anything but that! Their "mylab" type products aren't innovative. It is just the same old same old. I would even argue that it has been counterproductive because they're now moving to FORCE students to buy new expensive textbooks to get the homework grading code. Pearson has absolutely zero interest in disrupting anything. They only care about building their monopoly on textbooks. However, I am an optimist and believe that even with well entrenched interest groups (big textbook publishers, school districts, unions etc.) there is still paths to disruption. At a fundamental level, education is simply teaching someone something new. That's it! If you are providing something quality then people will naturally flock to it or share it. I think the future education startup simply needs to focus on building high quality learning materials. Then either give those products away for free or innovative monetization models (ie. watch 5 video ads to unlock the content etc.). Don't focus on trying to sell to school districts. Focus on going straight to the consumer: students or parents. Every student I know is already going online to get extra homework help, resources, youtube videos etc.

ChicagoDave 9y ago
The only way we'll change education is to disrupt the classroom from a systemic point of view. We have to prove there is a better way. That can only be done with high quality content newly constructed for interactivity. This is where Pearson, Britannica, et al fail. They have a library of content created over decades with a guaranteed state-driven pipeline into classrooms. This content is specifically created by old school experts specifically for printed chapters in a bound book. Creating real interactive content would require content experts work within an interactive digital agency framework, which would require a sizable R&D budget with a lot of trial and error. We're talking millions of dollars spent before a completed product was available. But here's the upside. Textbooks cost each state roughly $100 per student per year. An online system might charge a fraction of that (Textfyre targeted $1/student/year). Imagine the state of Illinois saving $99 per student per year over several years. The investment is risky to a degree, but I view it no differently than Kennedy choosing to go to the moon. You decide to do it. You find the best and the brightest to enable the vision. You enact the vision. There is an upfront cost, but the vision and results would alter the course of history in the world. Interactive, adaptable education systems are the future. They would be able to reach everyone on the planet regardless of age, gender, politics, class, or any other identity labels. I have a second start-up (Wizely). I'll probably keep swinging if it doesn't hit a nerve. If I ever have one succeed and make (a lot of) money, I will re-invest my profits into education and what I call positive social engagement. My advice to ed-tech startups. Find a way to make money, but immediately redirect all profits to attacking the classroom. That's where we need the R&D to go. As the OP said, consumer-based ed-tech has its limits. The classroom is where we need to drive innovation.
- anonymous5133 9y ago
  I completely agree with you and I agree with disrupting the classroom. A good approach is to simply make an online classroom that has all the bells and whistles of innovative technology - on-demand, free or low-cost, high-quality materials, community interaction and so on. For traditional subjects the existing textbooks are good from a content point of view. They've been peer reviewed hundreds of times. The problem is that it is difficult to just self-study these books and understand the subject completely.

ChicagoDave 9y ago

The only way we'll change education is to disrupt the classroom from a systemic point of view. We have to prove there is a better way. That can only be done with high quality content newly constructed for interactivity. This is where Pearson, Britannica, et al fail. They have a library of content created over decades with a guaranteed state-driven pipeline into classrooms. This content is specifically created by old school experts specifically for printed chapters in a bound book. Creating real interactive content would require content experts work within an interactive digital agency framework, which would require a sizable R&D budget with a lot of trial and error. We're talking millions of dollars spent before a completed product was available. But here's the upside. Textbooks cost each state roughly $100 per student per year. An online system might charge a fraction of that (Textfyre targeted $1/student/year). Imagine the state of Illinois saving $99 per student per year over several years. The investment is risky to a degree, but I view it no differently than Kennedy choosing to go to the moon. You decide to do it. You find the best and the brightest to enable the vision. You enact the vision. There is an upfront cost, but the vision and results would alter the course of history in the world. Interactive, adaptable education systems are the future. They would be able to reach everyone on the planet regardless of age, gender, politics, class, or any other identity labels. I have a second start-up (Wizely). I'll probably keep swinging if it doesn't hit a nerve. If I ever have one succeed and make (a lot of) money, I will re-invest my profits into education and what I call positive social engagement. My advice to ed-tech startups. Find a way to make money, but immediately redirect all profits to attacking the classroom. That's where we need the R&D to go. As the OP said, consumer-based ed-tech has its limits. The classroom is where we need to drive innovation.

anonymous5133 9y ago
I completely agree with you and I agree with disrupting the classroom. A good approach is to simply make an online classroom that has all the bells and whistles of innovative technology - on-demand, free or low-cost, high-quality materials, community interaction and so on. For traditional subjects the existing textbooks are good from a content point of view. They've been peer reviewed hundreds of times. The problem is that it is difficult to just self-study these books and understand the subject completely.