Khan Academy has so much potential to be disruptive yet it feels squandered. Why's it taking so long? What's the money being used for?
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/npr-story-on-ka-los-altos-p...
I'm gunning to compete with my own platform, but he's in as a non-profit which means a for-profit doesn't stand a chance, especially with the timescales the sector operates on.
The only way to create something to compete and light that fire under their ass would be a "generous donation". I think I could do it though, within a year tops, but unfortunately, I need to eat...
http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks
...but I'm not sure. The Khan Academy exercise framework is also open-source, so presumably you can contribute that way.
Try this link: http://www.carnegielearning.com/higher-ed-solutions/cognitiv...
As yet, there isn't a way to replicate that in software. One day it will be, but until then, khan academy and those like it can't even come close to having a good teacher.
That said, I can easily see how it could take the place of a bad teacher.
EDIT: I do see now that the CM software you linked to does have a human component. That's an interesting aspect and I'm going to have to take a careful look at this.
Not sure what you're using to judge "too long to roll out fully," but we're running pilots in tons of classrooms right now where students are using Khan Academy to move at their own pace. We have 1.75MM interactive problems done per school day. We're using our own data more and more (http://bjk5.com/post/10171483254/a-bingo-split-testing-now-o...) to make the process more adaptive and engaging to individual students, and we've added hundreds of interactive math exercises (along w/ tons of new features: http://bjk5.com/post/8826207372/khan-academy-internship-summ...) in way less than a year.
We're nowhere close to where we need to be, and the possibilities for adaptive learning with all of our data make us all salivate for more time. Regardless, I can definitively tell you that every day around here is energized like crazy. We don't lack the fire.
Second, "he's in as a non-profit which means a for-profit doesn't stand a chance" is completely nonsensical. If that were true there would be no such thing as a for-profit. For one thing, at any sort of scale, the difference between a "non-profit" and "profit" can be as little as 10%, which is approximately the average profit made by Fortune 500 companies, within a percent or two.
Besides, I think that in the future of distributed, decoupled learning, there's room for many successful curricula. It will eventually be normal to get your history from X and math/physics from Y and English from Z, or even mix and match math modules. If you think you can compete, go for it.