First and foremost, CL recognizes that students learn at different time frames and in different ways. So in a CL environment, students are no longer held accountable in a time-based system like most schools have used for a hundred years. It used to be that, starting at 5 years old, if you showed up, did your work, and didn't cause too much trouble, 13 years later you'd be handed a high school diploma. In our new system, students are held accountable to a set of learning goals aligned with state and national curriculums. Students finish their education when they have mastered all of their required goals, be it at 16 years of age or 19.
Every great teacher knows that you need to differentiate education in order to best meet your students' needs, and a customized learning environment helps accomplish that goal. We've always known this, but we now believe the technology has finally caught up enough to make everything feasible.
A visionary view of what CL could look like
A classroom in a CL school also recognizes that when students are given a voice in how their education is run and choices throughout the process they tend achieve more because they are more engaged. You will often see students at the beginning of the year helping craft class visions and codes of cooperation, because as every good teacher knows a simple investment in class culture early on pays dividends for the rest of the year.
With these changes in structure of the school and the classroom also comes changes in how students are evaluated. Most schools recognized that this new style of learning based on goals does not lend itself well to a traditional A-F grade, and have adopted what is called "standards-based grading." This is a good thing, and I'll send you to consult Alfie Kohn if you disagree. A CL school may no longer recognize grade levels, and have students working together who before may have been separated. Will Kindergartners be thrown in with eighth-graders? No. But students who are within a year or two of each other and who are working on the same goal may be able to collaborate and learn from each other now.
How all of this is implemented in each school is going to look different, and that's OK. Every school, and every teacher, needs to look at the guiding principles of customized learning and then figure out the best possible way for it to work in their community. What I do know is that teachers will have to collaborate in order to make this work, and they will have to make sure they are constantly holding students accountable to high standards. There also needs to be a constant flow of communication with parents and community members in order to avoid friction.
Looking back on what I've written, a few words/phrases stand out: Learning, Mastery, Voice & Choice, Differentiation, Goals, Collaboration, Teachers, Parent Communication. Things we've always known to be good for education. We don't lose these things when we move towards customized learning, we give them even greater emphasis! And that is why I think this is real, positive change that we should all be pursuing.
The minute I read "It will look different in each school", I think back to the early 90's and the beginning of the Learning Results. In theory, having the LR was supposed to make sure that every school knew exactly what should be taught by grade groupings, so therefore every student should be on the same page. That didn't work out as planned and I am willing to bet that competency-based, customized learning won't work either unless the same systems, protocols and procedures are used in all Maine (and U.S.) schools.
ReplyDeleteI think the MLRs were a disaster for three reasons: 1) They weren't very specific, to the point that almost anything I did in a Social Studies classroom would fit under their umbrella, 2) there was never any real follow-through with them (stop me if you've heard that one before) and 3) They were a top-down mandate. Our new curriculum, which is shared among the MCCL schools, is more specific. Additionally, with this being a bottom-up initiative (at least to start) I hope there is more staying power than past reforms. We just can't expect a small school like Jackman to deliver customized learning in the same model as a Hall-Dale or Messalonskee. The difference in size and resources will make it impossible.
DeleteHi, Ryan...forgive me, I have been rereading blogs and info on customized Learning and I read this response again, and have some issues (when don't I have issues? :))
DeleteYou say the MLRs were problematic because they weren't specific, and anything you did in class could come under that umbrella. To me this isn't a problem; the problem is when you get so specific that teachers have no options to incorporate the interests of their students. Why should a standard dictate content, rather than the students and teacher determining class direction together?
2. No follow-through. Again, this actually gives more flexibility to those actually in classrooms with students.
3. Top-down mandate? And what is the Common Core? Turnips? Bottom-up initiative -- I suppose you're joking about that one. This entire trend in education comes from the top, the top being corporate education reformers. As for bottom-up...our "visioning" process in our district was completely directed and steered, and most parents were left with a sense of dissatisfaction with the process. This has been completely glossed over by the admins in this district, but the fact remains, this is NOT bottom-up.
Ryan, I know I always give you a hard time, but I did appreciate your posts about this process, and I hope you'll keep up this blog!
I think Alfie Kohn would be horrified if he knew that you were claiming his endorsement of CL. Kohn has repeatedly spoken out against systems like this. The standards-based system you are espousing is something that he would pick apart until there was nothing left but bones and gristle.
ReplyDeleteI think Customized Learning is a huge problem. It seems like the last gasp of a system that is failing and is desperate to save itself without having to watch the dismantling of everything it stands for. "Let's pretend the only problem in education is the how and the when of learning what we impose on kids."
The problem in public education is high-stakes testing, the imposition of standards, and the State's mistrust of the work of the teacher. Before we approach any further solutions, we need to deal with that as a nation.
What CL is doing is creating a better shoehorn to get kids' feet into shoes too small for them.
Getting past the HST problem, we get to the issue of top-down, traditional education. We know that kids learn best when they are deeply interested in learning that is meaningful TO THEM. This does NOT mean giving them a choice of novels about the Depression (the example given in the MCCL grant proposal to the Feds)!
Voice and Choice are the biggest lies of the CL system. What true student-driven learning means is that students drive the learning; student's interests, passions, enjoyments are the focus of the system. Don't understand how that can work? Take a look at http://www.bigpicture.org. There's simply no excuse any longer for anyone to say they don't understand the logistics of truly individualized education. The MET in Providence has been doing it successfully for over 10 years. They have a 98% college acceptance rate!
I think it's important to note that I don't think Kohn endorses MCL, but just that he makes a better argument for the elimination of traditional grades than I could.
DeleteContinued from previous comment:
ReplyDeleteStandards are the enemy of children. We need to oppose them, early, often, and as loud as we can.
If these seem to you like extreme positions, that is because the system itself is created in direct opposition to how children learn. It has always been that way -- but we simply had a society in which it didn't really matter if kids were well educated or not. Those who didn't thrive could get a job. The ones who did well rose to the top and went on to run things.
We know -- or we should -- that changing the public education system to one that puts students in the center is only a matter of simple fairness.
When schools base their teaching on the interests and passions of children, both the schools and the children are more successful.
When schools encourage kids to pursue real-world, meaningful goals, when their accomplishments are “worthy of the world,” they work harder and better and they have a sense of accomplishment and self-respect that they could never achieve under an imposed curriculum...aka, the Common Core.
When kids are motivated by their own goals and their own passions, they go through the necessary process of practice and improvement on their own steam.
When they feel respected by the adults in a system, they return that respect.
When they pursue the learning that is meaningful to them, a funny thing happens...they wind up learning some of the stuff that adults were trying unsuccessfully to impose. Not ALL the stuff...this kind of education goes deep, not broad. Kids may not graduate high school having taken Chemistry, but they graduate knowing they can learn Chemistry the moment they need to know it.
"It is not personalized learning when all the kids in a classroom are learning the same thing," says Chris Lehmann, principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia. It's almost Orwellian in its messing about with the truth. I once had a laser printer called the SilentWriter. It was the noisiest danged printer I've ever heard. You think you're getting personalized learning in the CL world, but you are not. You are simply getting a shoehorn. But the shoes are still too tight.
We need to fight against the juggernaut of "Customized Learning" and the first thing we need to do is say loud and clear that there is NOTHING customized about it.
I think you're a real visionary in the world of education Lisa, and I enjoy reading your thoughts. I would agree, that calling it "customized" when in reality at the end of the day we are still requiring certain things of students is ironic. And yes, I think the circumstances you describe are an ideal to strive for, but I just don't think it's realistic for them to happen over night. I also believe that CL is a step in the right direction in making our schools better than the status quo. The purpose of this blog will be to help me reflect on my practices and make my classroom a better place.
DeleteThanks, that's a really nice thing to say!
DeleteMy question is: are we REALLY getting closer to student-driven, passion-driven learning, by going for CL?
I had to ask myself that question when we were deciding as a board whether to sign on to the RTTT grant with the rest of the Cohort.
Most people think it's the next logical step. I'm not at all sure that it is.
Isn't really what you're talking about customized teaching?
ReplyDeleteLearning is always customized by the learner.
I think the idea of calling it "customized learning" may be a misnomer, it's really more just a standards-based or proficiency-based model. However, since this is what the cohort is calling it I'm rolling with it.
Delete