Disruptive Innovation Theory....Say What?

Reading about disruptive innovation theory in Disrupting Class, written by Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson, I couldn't help but be a little confused. I am not a math or science major, we memorize dates in the history department--those graphs were a little much for me:)

The authors define the disruptive innovation theory as a reason, "why organizations struggle with certain kinds of innovation and how organizations can predictably succeed in innovations." When I read this the first time it was kind of like explain the definition of "run" as: to run--they needed to give me more! I broke it down after reading it a few times. The first aspect describes the reasons why some companies thrive with innovations and why some fail, the theories behind those two sides. The second part basically theorizes how organizations can predict these innovations to succeed. I also watched a video where Clayton Christensen actually explains the theory, and it helped to hear him talk and look at that pesky graph.

Tying this into education seemed a little tricky to me, but the book did a wonderful job. As the America has evolved as a country, so has the education system in general. Interestingly enough, this reading sort of relates to a lot of the discussions that I have in my Schools and American Society course at UNI. I won't lie, I strongly dislike that class; but it has provided me with some insightful topics that we debate (friendly of course). One of the first topics was the purpose of education. I established (as a social studies teacher) that the purpose of American education was to produce little Americans for the job sector. The first three jobs that the authors describe touch on this. At first (and still to this day even if they don't want to admit it) schools served one purpose, to create law abiding, functional, and active citizens. The goal was for students to be educated enough to be citizens of the country, and potentially run for political offices.

When the next job came along in the early 1900's, creating an active citizen didn't go away instead schools were expected to do that and also prepare kids for jobs. Interestingly enough, we were competing with Germany in this race (close to the start of WWI). In the 1960's we were competing with the Soviet Union (Russia and the Cold War). These competitions sparked a new interest in different things. AKA disruptive innovation. In the 1960's math and science became such important subjects because the SU could not beat us again (they launched the first space machine before us). So basically, the demands of our country determined what needed to be done in school. We needed math and science to excel, so reading and writing took a back seat to the demand of the "market." Flash forward to the Bush years (the younger), and we get No Child Left Behind (also a popular debate in my Schools class). The demand for math and reading has become a high priority. In the article "Side effects of NCLB," schools are often making tough decisions on time spent in other classes to increase the time spent on math and science. This can be compared to Apple's take over of the computer world that the book described. Apple met the requirements that people put forth, therefore more people bought them. Administrators are making tough choices to please the national government, the choice is either loose funding or be proficient in math and reading--the schools made the choice to be "user-friendly." In this case, disruptive innovation isn't necessarily a good thing like in the case of Apple, what are some good ways disruption has helped public schools?