Paper
The Perils and Promise of Personalized Learning
Published 2012 · A. Fleming
0
Citations
0
Influential Citations
Abstract
In this article I explore the concept of personalized learning, a relatively new concept being promoted by the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Education as the “new” approach to effective learning through the lens of a practicing professional. I begin by tracing my own emerging understanding of personalized learning as a discourse in BC education and then follow this with a discussion about the dominance of neoliberalism as an ideological frame for thinking about education and schooling. In particular, I consider how the role of the teacher shifts from professional to functionary, and how this shift is reified through two distinct BC educational policy initiatives that promote technology as the great educational equalizer. I conclude by suggesting that rather than fixing schools, teachers and reformers should direct their efforts to taking up the potentiality inherent in these competing discourses. What is personalized learning, and how will it affect me as a teacher? This paper offers an analysis and critique of the newly proposed “Personalized learning” policy of the Ministry of Education in British Columbia (BC) and traces its neoliberal ideology as evidenced in two BC Policy documents. I begin by exploring how I became aware of the neoliberal discourses prevalent in education, including the catalyzing effect of a research presentation I attended in 2009 and through to my more recent analysis of the BC government’s personalized learning policy framework – including the changing role of technology in education. The article ends with a discussion about how to re-purpose educational discourses in ways that might effectively put children back at the center of our thinking as educational advocates, teachers and policy makers. A Need for Change in BC’s Schools As a high school teacher, I have been both heartened and skeptically leery of the changes proposed through the adoption of the British Columbia Ministry of Education plan for personalized learning. For years I have bemoaned the irrelevance of existing curricula and students’ growing lack of engagement with the materials, methods and structures that constitute high school education. From my observations and experience, there appears to have been a shift in student thinking about formal education – away from the ideas of schools as places of “learning” towards the notion that course work has no real bearing on their future beyond what its mastery can provide them in the way of acceptance to colleges or universities. In other words, for many students, high school is something to be “got through” in order to get “somewhere else”. Considering that students spend approximately 13 of their first 20 years of life in formal schooling, the idea that the last 5 or 6 years of their experience is for some, conceptualised, as an exercise in “hoop jumping” is quite depressing. Nowhere except for those incarcerated in prison, is this enforced, routinised, “putting in time” existence allowed, even sanctioned, by society. Upon reflection, this shift may not be solely in students’ thinking about education, but in 1 Fleming: The Perils and Promise of Personalized Learning Published by PDXScholar, 2012 100 NORTHWEST PASSAGE, 10(1) students’ and society’s willingness to question aloud the historically sacrosanct concept of formal education as the appropriate vehicle for serving the common good. It is this shift in perception that destabilizes the foundation upon which schools, and to a certain extent, the identity of educators has been built. No longer is formal schooling viewed as an inviolable institution – a “sacred cow” off limits for public scrutiny and critique. Governments and pundits worldwide have called for a shift in education as conceived and delivered to become more responsive to the needs of students and society and have advocated changes that move beyond the reform paradigms of the past to a revolutionary re-visioning of how we conceive of education and schooling (Innovation Unit UK, 2011; Robinson, 2006). Personalized learning as proposed by the BC government has the potential to transform both our understanding of and relationship to schooling and education, as well as to completely reconfigure our identity as educators. As this paper will discuss, this development is both welcomed and feared. The Hopes (and Fears) of Revolution A presentation at ICSEI (International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement) 2009 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, by Valerie Hannon from the Innovation Unit UK was the first I had heard of the ideas of “21 st century learning” – or, “personalized” learning. As we listened to the presentation, a colleague leaned over and whispered excitedly in my ear, “This is what we’ve been waiting for”. I nodded, but while my head was whirring with the possibilities, alarm bells were ringing as I quickly tried to assimilate how the adoption of these ideas might play out in a province where the relationship between the teachers’ union and government is fraught with distrust, acrimony, and bitter labour disputes. The hope and excitement for an educational revolution was tempered by a sobering analysis of what systemic change might mean for me as a teacher. What role would my colleagues and I play in this new system? What might our future as educators look like if the ideas proposed were adopted? How might this “revolution” impact our identities as education professionals? What were the details? Changes to the education system in BC were mere murmurs back in 2009; in 2011 with the advent of the BC Education Plan, those murmurs have been amplified and articulated. Changes are coming – a transformation of the education system is on the way. What remains to be seen is how the plan will play out and how significantly it will change our roles as educators. Neoliberalism – Education, Accountability and the De-professionalization of Teachers What is of utmost importance here is not to question whether changes to our education system were needed – that much is a given. Of utmost importance is an examination of the ideological framework informing this shift away from schooling and education as a communal activity towards personalized learning with its concomitant emphasis on tailoring education to meet students’ individual interests, resulting in individual student success – a concept firmly rooted in neoliberal ideology – or is it? Daniel (2007) posited that: The neo-liberal vision perceives a close relationship between education and the economy within a larger framework of global competition. This relationship influences the drive to higher educational standards and increased student testing as a preparation for entry into the marketplace. The neo-liberal perspective draws on the language of liberty, free 2 Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Iss. 1 [2012], Art. 10 https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/nwjte/vol10/iss1/10 DOI: 10.15760/nwjte.2012.10.1.10 SPRING 2012 101 choice, and individualism (p. 14). According to Hursh (2005), in neoliberal ideology the goals of the economy supersede the needs of individuals in society, and thus, “education becomes less concerned with developing the well-rounded liberally educated person and more concerned with developing the skills required for a person to become an economically productive member of society” (p. 5), and that as a result, “...neo-liberal...politicians have reshaped educational policy around the ideology that schools need to incorporate markets, competition, and choice in order to prepare students for the global economy” (p. 13). Burbules and Torres (2000) suggested that the economic effects of globalization tend to...promot[e] market approaches to school choice...; rational management of school organizations; performance assessment (testing); and deregulation in order to encourage new providers (including online providers) of educational services. (p. 13) Hursh (2005) postulated that neo-liberal governments’ desire to get out of the business of governing and their goal to reduce the size of government overall has resulted in “a system in which [they] can govern schools from afar through policies promoting testing, accountability, and choice” (p. 6). According to Codd (2005), this has resulted in an education system unlike any seen in past generations in that: New forms of control and accountability have emerged informed by theories of economic rationalism and based upon a culture of mistrust...educational accountability has shifted away from a focus on inputs and process and onto a focus on outcomes and products...Education is reduced to a commodity...one of preparing people for the job market. (pp. 194, 196) Codd (2005) averred that neoliberal educational reform has resulted in education being denigrated to the point where “knowledge, experience, understanding, and especially imagination, are recognized only if they can be reduced to something observable, or to some performance outcome that can be specified in advance of the educational moment” (p. 201). As a result, Codd (2005) determined that “[the] emphasis on efficiency and external accountability treats teachers as functionaries rather than professionals and thereby diminishes their autonomy and commitment to the values and principles of education” (p. 201). Teachers as Professionals or Functionaries? The neoliberal conception of teachers as “functionaries rather than professionals” places educators in a difficult position. As noted by Hargreaves and Lo (2000), Of all the jobs that are professions or aspire to be so, teaching is the only one that is...charged with the formidable task of creating the human skills and capacities that will enable societies to survive and succeed in the age of information...It is teachers, more than anybody, who are expected to build learning communities, create the knowledge society and develop the capacities for innovation, flexibility and commitment to change that are essential to econo
Personalized learning in British Columbia's schools may shift the role of teachers from professional to functionary, and should be re-purposed to put children back at the center of educational discourses.
Full text analysis coming soon...