(Not trying to be adversarial, just interested.)
The goal was interdisciplinary because that's how teachers have to teach these days. They don't have enough time to teach each subject separately so they mix things together.
But it would be relatively straight-forward (not easy) to build weekly story-based content that contained geography, history, science, politics, and more. Textfyre was going to align our stories to Common Core Standards. This would have allowed for stable content delivered to all fifty states. The platform also would have had embedded testing. When you complete a story, you've passed the test!
Despite what many people have claimed, Common Core Standards are just measurements http://www.corestandards.org/, NOT content itself - don't get me started on the confusion people have brought to the education world by attributing content publishing to Common Core. The funky math is just a different way of doing math. It has nothing to do with Common Core itself. The real argument is that some states/parents don't want their kids measured nationally. "My Timmy in Texas can't possibly be compared to your Joey in California! They're different worlds!"
We potentially could have replaced several textbooks between 3rd and 8th grade, significantly reducing educational costs and improving outcomes. The crux of the plan is that it needs millions of dollars to prove the model. We needed to develop a proven and approved 36 week set of stories that aligned with existing teaching methodologies, train teachers, develop the platform, security, etc. No small thing.
One reservation I've had about Khan Academy, is a "gather college textbooks and distill them" story doesn't work well when textbooks so poorly describe domains. When MIT did a VR intro to cell biology, they reached out to people with direct research expertise. And found them very intrinsically motivated to contribute. But it's still no small effort.
Creating excellent stories, especially interdisciplinary ones, requires far more intensive domain expertise than is usually appreciated. And seems more at the scale of (neglected) societal infrastructure, than something that can be MVPed in passing.
But perhaps excellence in stories is more than is needed. At least to develop and prove the delivery mechanism. But coming from science ed, I think of misconceptions as toxins that can severely diminish outcomes.
So as I read the Boston Harbor story slide, I thought... The big heavy canvas fluttered away?!? Is there a hurricane? Was anyone killed? Did they launch a boat to recover it? Why was the label sun-weathered if it was under a canvas? Did they really use printed labels on sea cargo? I'd have naively thought branding the wood more likely. And so on.
An issue with science education graphics, is they often mix aspects done with great care for correctness, with aspects that are artistic license with little connection to reality. And students lack the background to identify which aspects are which. Creating rich ecosystems of misconceptions that compromise understanding.
But students' understanding of history is and will remain so poor, that perhaps there's little there to damage. Content might be pure upside, regardless of shortcuts taken to keep creation costs plausible. At least until we do better.
Re Gates Foundation... perhaps a useful model is that they think of patents and established companies as keys to impact at scale... and thus do things which can seem less than ethical if one doesn't share that perspective.
Domain knowledge is exactly the part that needs to change. The current "publishing" domain experts are very likely long-term employees of the existing publishers and they "see" content in a textbook fashion. They probably know they have X words, Y images, and have to convey Z elements in each chapter. I doubt publishers ever reach out to actual domain experts.
In my vision, I would have had experienced interactive authors work with actual domain experts and educators to develop stories that included XYZ, but also the additional depth that a story can provide.
One of my education advisers was an established history teacher in Illinois and he basically said he stacked the textbooks at the front of the class and never used them. Every day he would tell a story and provide his own materials. He considered the textbooks a huge waste of time and provided very little in the way of usable knowledge.
I could pull together a half dozen interactive writers for under a million a year. Engaging with domain experts would be challenging, but not without funding to trade. Add education staff, programmers, testers, and a group of parents and students for outreach and you have a solid group to develop something profoundly different and likely significantly better than what the average 3rd through 8th grade student endures.
Textfyre was way ahead of its time. Many people told me that and I still don't know how to fund it. It would require someone or some entity that thought it was a valuable effort.
I'm on my third startup and I've often told people, if I ever hit it big with one of my ideas, I am likely to swing back to Textfyre and bootstrap it.
