Report – From State Commitment to District Implementation: Approaches and Strategies for Personalized, Competency-Based Learning

This report came across my electronic desk in the past couple of days.  Haven’t had time to dig into it, but I figured that it was likely of interest to some readers.

From State Commitment to District Implementation: Approaches and Strategies for Personalized, Competency-Based Learning

Mark Duffy, Mary Eddins

Date: June 2022

K-12, Personalized & Competency-Based Learning

From State Commitment to District Implementation: Approaches and Strategies for Personalized, Competency-Based Learning was informed by an array of qualitative sources from four study states (Arizona, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina). Partnering with KnowledgeWorks, each of these states has a commitment to personalized, competency-based learning transformation statewide, with the goal of scaling the work from an initial cohort of sites to a broader set of districts. Research for Action partnered with KnowledgeWorks to document and analyze how personalized, competency-based learning is taking hold in these states and the initial cohort of school districts implementing the work to develop cross-state lessons learned to inform the study states as well as the wider field.

The report provides analyses based on state and district level data, and is divided into six sections:

1. Study States and their Partnerships with KnowledgeWorks: A brief overview of the personalized, competency-based learning efforts in each of the study states and equity considerations across the states.
2. Creating State Level Conditions that Support Personalized, Competency-Based Learning: A roadmap of decision points and state strategies to create state level conditions to support personalized, competency-based learning.
3. State Supports for Local Implementation: A Cross-State Analysis: A comparative analysis of state strategies to support district implementation of personalized, competency-based learning.
4. Cross-District Analysis of Implementation: A district level analysis exploring implementation across six districts in three of the study states.
5. Lessons Learned for the Field on Implementation at the District Level: Based on district level analysis, we provide lessons learned for study sites and the larger field.
6. Recommendations for State and District Leaders and Next Steps: Recommendations from both the state and district level analyses and potential next steps for the research.

OLDaily ~ Apr 22, 2022 / Reading Audrey Watters: A reflection on personalised learning via education technology through a decolonial lens

This scrolled through my inbox last week.

Reading Audrey Watters: A reflection on personalised learning via education technology through a decolonial lens
Moizza Binat Sarwar, EdTech Hub, 2022/04/22

---

In this post “we are reflecting on elements of Watters’ historical take on personalised learning —  one specific aspect of EdTech —  and sharing five decolonial reflections on the current form and landscape of EdTech.” The reflections are (quoted): technology as the saviour to a broken education system; behaviourism as the underpinning learning theory of personalised learning; lack of user-led development of digital personalised learning; proprietary algorithms inaccessible to users; and conditions and inherent coercion within EdTech products. These are all worthy topics of discussion, and can certainly be viewed from a decolonizing perspective, but I wonder whether it would be more productive to think of them under the wider heading of power and control generally.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

The full article that Stephen is commenting on is available at:

https://edtechhub.org/2022/04/21/personalised-learning/

And I’d like to pull out some of the salient points that Stephen references above.

1. Technology as the saviour to a broken education system”While digital personalised learning focuses on individual learning paths, it overlooks the systemic issues that — more often than not — play a bigger role in limiting effective learning.”
2. Behaviourism as the underpinning learning theory of personalised learning”The absence of critical thinking, analytical and comprehension skills in students’ pathways to learning has been embedded in the role of teaching machines even before learning was taken online both in the curriculum and the method.”
3. Lack of user-led development of digital personalised learning”Personnel who create the algorithms in digital personalised learning and those who create and/or curate the content of learning material are often a homogenous group of experts trained in the same worldviews (often regardless of their country of origin), belonging, and working out of, institutions wedded to niche bits of knowledge that are Western-centric.”
4. Proprietary algorithms inaccessible to users”tech companies often make the software and/or algorithm they use proprietary, so key stakeholders who deliver and experience these products do not get to see how the software ‘learns,’ how its decisions are made around which pathway a student will learn best, or the way feedback is given to students.”
5. Conditions and inherent coercion within EdTech products”If EdTech is indeed to provide education to marginalised groups such as refugees, to be a short-term replacement for in-school education in the aftermath of a disaster or to provide learning in remote areas where school infrastructure is weak, then, the choice to opt-out of data collection at the cost of losing access to the product, is a false choice.”

When I think about the vendor-promoted products that often underpin the personalized learning and competency-based education movement in the United States (as pushed by the Aurora Institute, as well as other neo-liberal and corporate backers), all five of these reflections ring true.

EdSurge: 4 Steps for Humanizing Personalized Learning

So this came across my electronic desk in the past few days.

Opinion: Personalized learning is about students, not tech

(Pixabay)

Personalized learning is more than tailoring technology to each student’s needs, but it is about tailoring each student’s learning, writes author Paul Emerich France. In this commentary, France writes that this involves redefining success based on student assessments instead of test scores as well as making time for small-group instruction and individualized conferences.

Full Story: EdSurge (5/17)

.

This was interesting to me because it is kind of ironic. While I know little to nothing about the author of this piece, it was published in an outlet that has been a haven for neo-liberals, school choice, the application of free market principles in education, and the absolute need for educational technology in the K-12 system (often from edupreneurs).

So you’ll excuse me if I’m not a bit jaded by the message that the author claims to be making, particularly given the source…

REL Report: How High School Students Use Flexible Time To Personalize Their Education

The first of three REL items.

To personalize education, Legacy High School in Bismarck Public Schools, North Dakota, has implemented a schedule that allows students to choose how they use a portion of the school day outside of their regularly scheduled classes. Teachers may also determine how students use some of their flexible time, called “flex-time.” Leaders at Legacy High School and Bismarck Public Schools partnered with REL Central to examine how students used their flex-time and whether students with different demographic characteristics and academic achievement levels used their flex-time differently. Findings include: Students had an average of 80 minutes of flex-time per day and chose to use 19 percent of it for academic activities. The percentage of flex-time that students chose to spend on academics did not vary by academic achievement level. Students who were struggling academically had more teacher-determined flex-time than other students but spent less time on coursework outside of the school’s learning centers. The results of the study illustrate the importance of assessing how students actually engage with a given education innovation. Educators implementing school schedules that provide students with choice in how they use some of their time might consider the results of this study when evaluating student choice in their own schools. Read the report at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=4615 ***** The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) build the capacity of educators to use data and research to improve student outcomes. Each REL responds to needs identified in its region and makes learning opportunities and other resources available to educators throughout the United States. The REL program is a part of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education. To receive regular updates on REL work, including events and reports, follow IES on Facebook and Twitter. To provide feedback on this or other REL work, email Contact.IES@ed.gov. The Institute of Education Sciences, a part of the U.S. Department of Education, is the nation’s leading source for rigorous, independent education research, evaluation and statistics.

By visiting Newsflash you may also sign up to receive information from IES and its four Centers NCES, NCER, NCEE, & NCSER to stay abreast of all activities within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

[Quiz] Personalized Learning: New Quiz From Education Week

This item may be of interest to some readers.

Education Week Quiz

Quiz Yourself: How Much Do You Know About Personalized Learning? Take our quiz and then see your results, detailed answer explanations, and additional readings on the topic. According to a nationally representative survey of American principals, what percentage reported that their schools were using digital technologies to personalize learning?  18 percent  41 percent  74 percent  97 percent Next >>

SHARE:

This message was intended for mkbarbour@gmail.com. You are currently registered with Education Week and have opted into email communications. If you do not wish to receive future emails from Education Week or affiliated organizations, click here to change your email preferences. Editorial Projects in Education, Inc., 6935 Arlington Road, Suite 100, Bethesda, MD 20814. EPE is the publisher of Education Week and other high-quality print and online products on K-12 education. Copyright ©2020 Editorial Projects in Education.