Third Disruption

The third disruption in my series is “De-institutionalized Production”.  The official explanation in the report says that De-Institutionalized Production is where activities of all sorts will be increasingly independent of institutions as contributions become more ad-hoc, dynamic and networked.  In layman terms, for educators, De-Institutionalized Production recognizes that valuable learning and resources for people and institutions do not necessarily have to come from a school, university, or official training programs.  The ramification for people in the 21^st Century is profound.  

As people start to recognize that expertise and knowledge does not necessarily have to be found in a public or private institution, career opportunities will expand for people.  Experts recognized for their worth (not just where they work) will become their own bosses, working at many jobs open for them.  In other words, a “full time employee” that works for a single company will be increasingly scarce.  Instead they will be replaced by people who work in many different settings at different times as their work is recognized as “expert”.  This can be a liberating or terrifying “disruption” for people.  Our schools must prepare students for this new world of work by assuring that they graduate will critical thinking and problem solving skills that allow them to be a nimble player in this type of work environment.  Schools (like PT) can do this by assuring that classroom instruction encourages divergent, creative thinking where students create and solve problems.    

Another result of this disruption is the decreased importance of credentialing.  Currently, our society credentials people.  We get a credential for high school graduation; a credential for post-secondary success; to become a member in many professionals one must become “credentialed”.  I think we all know people that are knowledgeable in something and they have no “credential” to “prove” that they are experts.  My grandfather used to say that a bachelor’s degree stood for “B.S.” and a Master’s degree was just more of the same.  I am not claiming that advanced degrees are not important (or I would not have gone to school to get a Ph.D.), however, the workforce in the 21^st Century will start to recognize the importance of alternate ways of recognizing expertise.  There will always be a minimum threshold to be allowed in some professions (you will need to have a medical degree to be a doctor, or pass the teachers exam to become a teacher). However, the learning that goes on once you are in the profession or on your path to a degree will be more flexible. For example at PT, we are starting to discuss how we can recognize professional development experiences that teachers undergo.  In many cases the training that teachers undertake are more valuable than the classes they sit in to earn a Master’s degree.  Why shouldn’t we recognize those trainings as valuable?  In the future, all of us will have a digital portfolio that will list “badges” that we have earned through our experiences and education.  These badges will prove to prospective employers that we have the expertise necessary to do the job for them.  We might not have the degree or the official credential, but we will have proof of expertise.  Schools can start this process with students by having digital backpacks where students store artifacts of their mastery of a topic through project-based or experiential learning.  The digital backpacks are more important than grades because they hold proof that the student holds mastery on a specific topic.  This could change (for the better) how we prove that students have learned.