This is ignored not just because it threatens vested interests, which it does, but also because there is n clear alternative model. There is a lot of claim of education disruption, but one has to accept that if something does not really violate 'conventional wisdom', it is not really disruptive. And, given that the current wave of 'disruption' is being led by private equity money, i.e., with financial backing of some of the most privileged and conservative people in the planet, it is almost impossible for them to be disruptive. What is happening instead is a simple land grab - the public educators are losing out because of the public to private shift in education and new, more 'business efficient' models of education are emerging - but none of these models are truly disruptive because they are not creating new 'uses' of education. Rather, the claims of disruption were primarily based on pulling non-consumers to consumers of education, which is, as we have seen in the US, really the expansion of consumer debt, but not much about education.
This mechanics - which makes education even more static and conservative - along with the fundamental change of jobs and work create what I shall call, borrowing from Clayton Christensen's work, the 'Educators' Dilemma'. Indeed, Clayton Christensen Institute is at the forefront of the discussion about change in education, though, as I observed above, within a limited context of land grab rather than innovation. What's needed is an honest global conversation about how education is going to look like, and find new 'uses' of education.