Education's New Radicals

A few years ago, Fast Company magazine co-founder Bill Taylor wrote a most intriguing book about “the hard work of making big change.” In Practically Radical, he argued that nonstop ambition to rock the world can sometimes be its own worst enemy.

Things get done faster and more durably, Taylor argued, if big ambition is tempered with a bit of humility. The most effective leaders do a lot of listening, he pointed out. That’s especially true in tricky realms with a lot of stakeholders, all of whom see the central issues slightly differently. If everyone feels that his or her voice is being heard, it’s a lot easier to find common ground and move forward. Taylor’s heroes don’t sprint. But they win a lot of relay races?—?and marathons.

I thought a lot about Taylor’s insights this week, when I attended an education conference at Stanford. The topic: how colleges and universities can find “the radical middle” in dealing with all the strange, wonderful and dismaying new educational technology that’s on their doorstep. The current state of affairs: incredibly turbulent.

As one participant observed, “a single narrative can’t suffice.” Ed-tech innovators see the world one way; university administrators focus on a different set of issues; front-line instructors have a third set of priorities, and students don’t fit neatly into anyone else’s basket. One person’s idea of irksome bureaucracy turns out to be someone else’s version of necessary safeguards in a world where privacy abuses, cheating scandals, discrimination issues and other worries constantly demand attention.

What’s everyone trying to accomplish? Ah, that may be the trickiest question of all. The very nature of education is in flux. Labor markets are demanding fewer people who are good at tightly defined routines?—?and more people who can thrive in highly interactive, unpredictable settings. College-level education may happen intermittently throughout people’s lives, rather than in a concentrated burst that ends around age 22. Missions may take the place of majors.

In both big discussions and informal chit-chats during breaks, it became clear that lots of different parties have influence over education’s future; no one has complete control. That underscores the importance of keeping a dialogue open and looking for ways to define common interests, instead of waiting to see if the most belligerent crusaders can conquer the infidels.

In Practically Radical, Bill Taylor called for “humbition,” a combination of humility and ambition. There’s room for a more graceful term, but the concept makes sense. Not every disruptive idea wants to be championed with the ferocity of Uber redefining urban transportation.

That’s especially true in mission-driven fields, such as education, where the general public?—?and the public sector?—?are quite keenly involved. Once resistance mounts, it doesn’t melt away. Just look at the venture-capital scorecard in education, which is pocked with lots of wipe-outs. The most common failing: big ideas that no one wanted to implement.

Coalitions take time to form. The Stanford event finished without a clear call to action. But the conference organizers, the ed-tech information specialists at EdSurge, may have accomplished their goal anyway. If people with different vantage points on education’s future are talking with one another, they’re one step closer to figuring out what needs to occur, and how multiple groups can work together to make it happen.