Flipping the classroom

A few nights ago I sat with the superintendent of a suburban school district in Massachusetts and discussed questions we would ask prospective candidates in a principal search with which I am helping.  Technology in the classroom and homework came up, which, along with student stress in high performing schools, are an educators’s topics du jour.  In a nod to both subjects, the superintendent brought up recent research surrounding the practice of “flipping the classroom” -- having students use out of school time to learn a topic or watch a lecture, and use in school time to teach and challenge students’ knowledge of that topic through Socratic means.  The research shows that such an approach dramatically increases the learning and retention for students in underperforming schools, and also increases performance and reduces student stress in higher performing schools.

We digressed from the topic of the principal search and role played what it would take for this particular suburban district to ‘flip the classroom’.  The response was somewhat obvious; aside from having to completely reteach teaching methodology to teachers, and get a highly critical parent population adverse to change on board, the main stumbling block was technology.  Specifically, the need for a technology platform that would allow and empower teachers to deliver their lectures on-line for consumption by students out of school.

That very next day, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced a truly groundbreaking $60 million joint partnership called edX, an open-source technology platform to deliver online courses. What is unique about edX is not only that it is sponsored jointly by the world’s two greatest research institutions, but that the technology is being offered to anyone.  Free and open-source.  Moreover, the platform is not a run-of-the-mill “click & watch” online learning service, but includes modules for self-paced learning, online discussion groups, wiki-based collaborative learning, assessment of learning as a student progresses through a course, and online laboratories.  All of this will be supported by a research team to assess how students learn and the effectiveness of the online learning model, which, to date, is the greatest weakness in the entire conversation about technology in the classroom.

Perhaps more so than Apple’s ‘walled garden’ approach to eBooks and its desire to reshape the delivery of classroom content, the potential ramifications of edX on education infrastructure are enormous.  At the university level, the impacts are clear - as a learner, you will gain access to MIT/Harvard level content from anywhere in the world with an internet connection.  This continues to flatten the world, lowering barriers to access to educational content such that the only thing standing between you and increasing your knowledge is your will and access to the internet.  

In the US, many people take for granted the public library system as a social institution providing for a community’s open and free access to books, periodicals, and general literacy services.  Today’s public library system is relatively new, taking stage little more that 100 years ago, under the leadership and philanthropic support of magnate Andrew Carnegie, who’s foundation built nearly 1,700 libraries in 20 years.  These, and subsequent, community libraries transformed the lives of generations through common access to content.  The weakness in the public library system has always been, however, facilities (location, cost to build & maintain, etc.) and equal access to content, both symptomatic of a socioeconomic divide.  The edX initiative, as designed, negates these infrastructure weaknesses, and in that regard can be even more impactful than the proliferation of the public libraries in further leveling the playing field for educational services of college level content.

And what of K-12 education?  School systems and leaders are now faced with one of the most exciting opportunities they have had in years.  If edX performs as billed, K-12 systems have at their disposal a platform around which they may radically reform the classroom experience and the in-school/out-of-school dynamic.  For an investment little more than what some systems budget for so-called SmartBoards, computers in the classroom, and “clickers”, the open source edX may be adapted for the flexible delivery of lessons to students away from school, the sharing of lectures and methodologies between districts, the normalization of home schooling efforts, and the leveraging of other technologies (like Skype) to cost effectively flatten variations in the educational experience across distances.

No matter what technology tools we have at our disposal, “good teaching is good teaching,” as one master teacher recently told me, and we should not lose sight of that.  However, with edX, the content revolution just got a whole lot more complicated and existing education infrastructure must prepare itself to respond.

Research University as Economic Developer?

Let there be no question about it - higher education, particularly research universities, are the captains of economic development in today’s economy.  In an era of shrinking government budgets, retrenched corporate profits, consolidated philanthropic investment in not-for-profits, and overstretched municipal budgets, colleges and universities are a consistent source of projects that stoke the economies of local communities.  Nary a “host community” (town gown lingo for a research university’s home town) in America is without some sort of “innovation” agenda pinned on the economic futures of its patron saint research universities.

Take for example the Greater Boston area, home to over 40 colleges and universities.  Here, innovation, like politics, has gained elevated status of not only serious business but almost professional sport.  The city of Boston has staked the economic future of the South Boston waterfront on the innovation economy (dubbing the area the “Innovation District”) and is actively courting research university anchor tenants to domicile beside Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ under-construction corporate campus and the fledgeling start-up sector.  Cambridge, home to both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ranked #1 and #2 research university in the world, respectively) is the area’s proverbial 800-pound gorilla with more technology and biotechnology companies per square mile in the world in its Kendall Square district.  Ask any Kendall Square company or property owner what drives their desire to be in Cambridge and the answer is flatly the same - proximity to MIT and Harvard. 

What’s different today than perhaps years past?  Today’s policy darling of economic development nationwide is the “idea economy”, and ideas are the research university’s stock in trade.  While, there will always be town gown kerfluffles between a research institute looking to expand and its host community, perhaps more so than in a generation is there a sense that a community stifles its research university’s growth at its own peril.

This sine qua non of development is leading to extraordinary public policy results.  Take, for example, New York City’s approach to the redevelopment of Roosevelt Island.  Long the forgotten, red-headed stepchild of New York districts, the city, in a brazen display of urban planning chutzpah, decided to transform the Island a la Kendall Square into a research university-hubbed innovation zone.  Through a lengthy and thorough RFP process, it selected the Cornell University-Technion Israel Institute of Technology collaborative to terraform the Island with research space, housing, commercial space...the whole works.  The city is backing the project not only with land but also $100 million in capital.  10-15 years ago, this would have been considered a university “land grab” (witness the Harvard University Allston-Brighton debacle in 2000).  Today, this is considered shrewd urban planning and economic development.

Another example is MIT’s public-private partnership” with the federal government to build a $450 million research facility at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, MA, adjacent to the Institute’s Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, MA.  MIT has long, deep relationships with the military and federal government - at one point, during World War II, nearly one-quarter of the country’s physicists were on MIT’s payroll.  Microwave radar, synthetic quinine, the gyroscope, the Internet, and other war time discoveries can all trace their roots to MIT and programs like DARPA.  In some respects, then, a deepening relationship through Hanscom Air Force Base is no surprise.  But a half-billion dollar research center is nothing to sneeze at.  Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown revealingly stated that the “public-private partnership could be a model for other Massachusetts installations and bases across the country to thrive and keep our national defense on the cutting edge amid limited federal resources.”  Translate: the government doesn’t have cash, so by partnering with MIT we can keep jobs and keep the base economically viable.

Research university as economic development agency - the new normal.  Expect the trend of university-led mega-projects and urban growth to continue unabated.  However, with economic policy winds in their sails, research universities must, more than ever, closely align with their host communities to reinforce the symbiotic bonds that lead to mutual prosperity.   A gambit that overplays the hand could lead to needless community level scuffles that would ultimately only serve to retard much needed economic progress.

The Four Pillars of "Urban Development": Part I

Last week I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel with elected officials, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, and civic activists in Greater Boston.  Part of the nascent Together Festival, the panel discussion was geared toward examining a simple concept:  How does the intersection of music, art, technology and culture help create industry and benefit the economy?  Throughout the panel discussion, there was a gentle but persistent beat of electronica and funk in the background at this unique (for Boston) civic space dedicated to arts and music culture.  No surprise, then, that the audience and online viewers self-selected; we were, without doubt, preaching to converted.  This was a crowd for whom urban culture is not an afterthought or a nice to have...it is a must have, their livelihood and their raison d'etre.  And yet, there they were, recounting Tales from the Darkside about their challenges effectively weaving urban arts, music and culture into the fabric of business and society, and getting a "seat" at the table discussing the City's social and economic future.

Sometimes a city's economic development and urban planning goes awry, and the best of intentions reduces policy and planning exercises to zoning, architecture, and initiatives designed to facilitate growth of the latest hot industry (advanced manufacturing, for example).  This "field of dreams" approach to improving the economic future of urban areas is as common today as it was during Urban Renewal and times gone past.  One need look no further than the prevalence of "innovation district" strategies being trumpeted by cities across America as a means of trying to attract Facebook or its ilk to their shores.  It is almost as if the suggestion is that a better designed building, better planned roadway infrastructure, or more favorably structured tax incentive alone will lead to a community's economic prosperity and well-being.

These economic development initiatives are certainly important.  However,  it is equally important to remember that, as the urban critic Lewis Mumford once wrote, "A city exists not for the constant passage of motorcars, but for the care and culture of [its citizens]."  Or, as I suggested to the audience at the Together Festival, culture is not just a byproduct of a city's economic activity; its what keeps economic activity relevant to us as a community.  

My intent is not to pit Culture against Economics in how we think about charting the long-term vitality of urban communities.  We have available to us a more holistic approach - to adopt an understanding that there are four highly interrelated characteristics of cities, four pillars, that require equal attention when thinking about the future of cities and communities.  These attributes are environmental, economic, social and cultural.  A community's ability to generate prosperity and vitality can be measured by these four pillars, and, as such, those planning or revitalizing urban areas must take them into account when making decisions and setting policy.  In future posts I will elaborate on each of these Four Pillars and strategies for helping ensure they are vital elements of the community.   

The "innovation economy" needs more cultural pasture

I recently read a comment someone in New Zealand wrote about the government's plan to develop infrastructure as a means to an end (economic activity).  He said that "we must never forget that cities exist for its people not for its infrastructure."  I took that to mean that oftentimes urban planning gets caught up in the physical as a means to an end, not fully seeing that the end will be achieved by non-physical, non-building initiatives and programs.  So, for example, notice the correlation between so-called "successful" urban innovation clusters and the proximity to diverse neighborhoods,  or proximity to well-established gay populations. That isn't to say that innovators & entrepreneurs are more likely to be gay than lawyers or laypeople, say.  Rather, as Professor Lance McCready postulated in his first book, if a community can tolerate discrimination or oppression against one group, any group, that community is built on a foundation of intolerance & stifling creativity.  As such, any urban planning for innovation in that community will be as sturdy and long-lasting as a poorly built house of cards. 

One need look no further than Greater Boston where this is illustrated on geographic lines, taking root in historical row between the cities of Cambridge and Boston, separated by the Charles River.  It is fair to say that Cambridge 'out-innovates' its neighbor across the river - home to world's greatest density of tech & biotech companies per square mile, Greater Boston's best restaurants and cultural amenities, location of the Massachusetts' first gay marriage...the list goes on.  For the most part, Cambridge has historically been a reliable source of political, social, and cultural mischief...and the city has reveled even cherished this nature, earning it the moniker "the People's Republic of Cambridge."  While messy, its form of governance and non-linear social strata actually reinforce the sense that the city is a place where freedom to innovate is cherished.  Boston is the antithesis - politics, socioeconomics, civic participation, and government are all strictly regulated either actively or through the reinforcement of social mores.  The result? Statistics an ongoing trend of Boston losing its young professional population for areas perceived to be "friendlier."  This exodus has a direct affect on the city's economic future, particularly as it seeks to rely more and more heavily on innovation & entrepreneurship as economic drivers. 

The silver lining... As the innovation economy in Cambridge continues to gain steam and innovators/entrepreneurs seek space on Boston's shores, I predict you will see Boston's old ways get challenged...and the establishment will react.  What remains to be seen is whether Boston's genetics will overwrite the innovation economy or vice versa.  I see evidence both ways - striving to make more money than the next bloke can create a fertile environment for both conditions.

A 14th century Chinese poet once wrote, "If you want to control your horse, give him a wider pasture."  Similarly, I think that if you want to grow and harness the innovation economy, you have to give it more "pasture", which in this case is social and cultural, not necessarily just economic and physical.