How Startl Is Hacking Education From the Outside In

Startl

What would happen if you took the principles of a startup incubator like Y Combinator and applied it to improving education? A new philanthropic venture called Startl aims to find out. The non-profit startup accelerator is being backed by some of the world's best-known foundations (Gates, Hewlett, MacArthur), and has for-profit partners including IDEO, DreamIT Ventures, and investment bankers Berkeley & Noyes. Startl is entirely focused on educational entrepreneurs. Co-founder and Managing director Phoenix Wang, formerly of Accenture Consulting, iVillage, and then the Hewlett Foundation, is holding the organization's first five-day "bootcamp" for ideas in mobile learning from March 15-19. Fast Company caught up with Wang to learn more and find out what's coming next.

Startl Anya Kamenetz: How did Startl get started?

Phoenix Wang: Startl is a group of foundations that got together 18 months ago to start thinking about the failures of a lot of interesting learning products that have had great potential but never make it to scale.

Traditional foundations like the National Science Foundation give away millions every year to support lots of innovative ideas in education, but there isn't an infrastructure that takes these ideas across the entrepreneur's "valley of death." If you look at the Internet industry there are incubation hubs, university labs, public/private partnerships--a fertile ground that supports different people at different stages for different purposes.

In education that layer doesn't exist. There's an emerging set of young players who really want to change education in fundamental ways and they have nowhere to go. It's about money, but it's also about the networks, expertise, cultivation, and insights to figure out how to be a good entrepreneur. So that's how STARTL was born.

AK: What are the most important forces for change in the education world that you see right now?

Startl PW: Technology is one set of forces. Decreasing cost is another. There's another around participatory learning, open content, OER [open educational resources]. And it's not just these new enablers, it's that people's expectations are changing. There's a whole new generation of kids who expect I should be able to have control over how I learn, what I learn, and where I learn. I'm not just a consumer, I'm a co-creator and collaborator. I can share/mashup/remix knowledge.

AK: Where do you see the biggest market gaps in educational technology?

PW: If you look at so-called educational products, the majority are high in entertainment value and so really fall into children's media. Another category is what we call Brussels sprouts: very learning-rich, lots of drill and kill and flashcards. It's like taking your medication. And a third category is more like "edutainment" or what I call the chocolate-covered broccoli. They try to make learning fun by wrapping games or interactive activities around it, to sugarcoat things that are still pretty boring. That's the market, those are the product categories, up until a few years ago.

Today, the Internet, mobile devices, digital media, and virtual world simulations have matured to a point where there are interesting emerging markets and product categories that are not your traditional edutainment or Brussels sprouts. Those emerging markets include referenceware, simulations and virtual worlds, and mobile learning.

AK: How are the approaches taken by these new technologies different?

PW: It's not about distribution or force-feeding of content, but rather placing the learner at the center of the experience and paying close attention to the learner's needs, aspirations, and behaviors. You're leading them through a set of experiences that make it learning--rich.

For example, you might begin with building rockets in a simulation. From rockets you figure out about physics, math, coordinates, etc. It's a whole different approach enabled by technology and digital media that makes these interesting. But unfortunately the market dynamics are in a period of transition.

AK: When I was at the first Venture Capital in Education summit sponsored by Berkery Noyes last summer, a lot of these private equity firms and VCs were saying the same thing: it's a huge market, it's a real opportunity, but so much of the investment is locked down by the fact that governments are the biggest buyers. (See: How Web-Savvy Edupunks Are Transforming American Higher Education, from September 2009.)

PW: Exactly. There are $600 billion in public dollar investments in education around schools. But there's a disconnect between the school districts who make the purchases and the students who are supposed to use it. So oftentimes what gets pushed down to students is not really aligned with their interests.

At the same time, private and institutional investors are really interested in emerging products, but they're constrained by institutional purchasing. VCs need big exits, so they end up taking less risk. The center is so constrained it's hindering the development of the edges as well.

AK: The Obama administration is devoting $6 billion to "Race to the Top" funding in educational innovation. How can a "venture philanthropy" outfit avoid duplication of effort with that kind of spending?

PW: I think a lot of times government money is about the codification of innovations--that is, institutionalizing things that already work--and they're concerned about making the existing system better. We're interested in leveraging what's coming from the outside: how technology can improve people's lives and how it can play a role in shifting the culture of education to a more learner-centric model as opposed to institutional efficiency. For example, we're less concerned about things that directly improve literacy, but more interested in saying, how do you engage kids to want to learn about literature?

And for that reason, our whole focus is operating on the edge between school and non-school, formal and non-formal; placing the learner in the middle. Our Web site's not school specific. We're broad in terms of age range: from 5 to 25. We're really interested in engaging adult learners; relighting the fire for young adults who dropped out or never went and figuring out a way to connect them back.

AK: At the "hacking education" summit at Union Square Ventures last spring, one of the most frequently re-tweeted lines was about classroom teachers today being like bank tellers of the 1970s. Do you think that's true?

PW: I was a management consultant with Accenture in the mid-90s when the Internet first came out. Every financial services client we had was panicking about disintermediation: that banks, travel agents, brokers would all go away. You know what? It's not so much they're all gone today but their roles have changed. They have to be better at what they do, redefine roles or add different kinds of value. I think likely that some level of that is going to happen to what we call schooling. It will be part of a whole ecology of institutions or modalities of access available to learners to enable them to develop an interest, engage, deepen and extend their learning.

Add New Comment

8 Comments

  • Kaoru Wang

    Ultimately today's system is educating students for a world that no longer exists. The 19th century factory worker has been outsourced for cheaper or replaced by technology. Still we're educating students for the assembly line. The system we have now is monopolized and the victims are our students and teachers. Technology will not fix education but innovation will. But technology is a tool so bravo to Wang for taking a step towards a 21st century education system.

    http://www.facebook.com/TheKil...

  • Norm Matthews

    The primary solution is parent involvement, or else mentoring. But technology (and particularly the relative ubiquity and low cost of the Internet) plays a role in giving less privileged kids unprecedented exposure to learning in the same way that children of the elite once had exclusively.

  • Chris Reich

    Count me in. We are not promoting the value of education properly. The general message is vague and only partially true: Go to college, get a good job, make more money. How many kids go to college just to take a couple classes? How many just take a math class to improve their math skills? No enough. Why?

    I think it's time for traditional education to change in radical ways. Colleges, especially community colleges, are rackets. They offer nonsense classes to put "butts in the seats" to keep the money flowing in. Tied to welfare, it's a gold mine. We'll keep sending you checks if you go to school. So schools offer minimal, wasteful classes to get their piece of the subsidy. I talked with a woman last week who got a "degree" in women's studies and can't understand why she can't find a job. Get real.

    Also, there is far too much focus on "degree". Why not teach HOW to do things? Why aren't there more trade classes at local schools? Why can't I learn to solve problems or conduct discussions or write instructions? In others words, we focus too much on programs. If a school is on a semester system, why must ALL classes last a semester? I say it's great to get away from chocolate covered broccoli and get to some meat. If we reduce the serving size, we don't have to chocolate coat it. we worry too much about being boring. And we worry too much about catering to the learners instead of the societal need. It reminds me of the quick weight loss pills that don't actually work. But people don't want to exercise! So we offer an easier solution that really doesn't work?

    There is a LOT to be done in the field of education and I'm thrilled to see this happening. In fact, I have developed a class for people on the autistic spectrum. So, as stated in the article above, how do I survive the valley of death? It costs money to produce materials, promote the program, conduct the program and still pay my own bills. But, once you get past that initial bump, if there is value, it should self-support. So, if my ASD class improves lives as I believe it will, there is value in it.

    Chris Reich
    www.TeachU.com

  • Geoff Butterfield

    Frankly speaking, these people make me nervous. Granted, this interview is superficial, but my take away is "we're going to use technology to fix education and make a profit at the same time." The educational landscape is littered with carpet baggers with similar sounding plans. The problem is that there is no band-aid solutions fixing our outdated, industrialized model of education. Technology is a tool, not a solution. Better teacher preparation and support don't sound like sexy solutions, but I feel offer better ROI in the long run.

  • Bruno Bensaid

    interesting topic, but we have not learned much from the article. would be good to take a few examples of what you want to do and explain it