Education Week - November 6, 2019 - 3

PRESIDENT & CEO

Michele J. Givens

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER

Scott Montgomery

EXECUTIVE PROJECT EDITOR

Kevin Bushweller

MANAGING EDITOR

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo

DEPUTY MANAGING EDITORS

Mark Bomster
Stacey Decker

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, VISUALS

Emma Patti Harris

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Catherine Gewertz
Benjamin Herold
Alyson Klein
Sarah Schwartz
Madeline Will

PRODUCTION EDITOR/CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Michelle R. Davis

DIRECTOR, EDUCATION WEEK RESEARCH CENTER

Holly Kurtz

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EDUCATION WEEK RESEARCH CENTER

Sterling C. Lloyd

RESEARCH ANALYST

Alex Harwin

CREATIVE DIRECTOR

Laura Baker

ART DIRECTOR

Gina Tomko
ASSISTANT ART DIRECTOR/LEAD PROJECT DESIGNER

Vanessa Solis

PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR

Kaitlyn Dolan

SENIOR ONLINE NEWS PRODUCER

Michael Bock

DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS

Jo Arnone

ASSOCIATE ADVERTISING PRODUCTION COORDINATOR

Joslyn Nedeau

INTERIM ASSOCIATE ADVERTISING
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR

Christopher Logan

ADVERTISING: For information about Education Week's print/
online advertising, content marketing services, lead generation,
and/or custom live events, please contact Managing Director of
Advertising Ben Delaney-Winn at bdelaneywinn@epe.org.

ONLINE ACCESS: To claim your full online access,
go to edweek.org/go/claim, or call (800) 445-8250 for help.
If you don't have your own Education Week subscription,
go online to edweek.org/offer.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT: Education Week is supported in part
by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Charles
Stewart Mott Foundation, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, the
Joyce Foundation, NoVo Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, the

Hard Work Ahead

ersonalized learning is hard work. And when poorly planned and executed, it
does not work well at all.
But that should not stop schools from pursuing the goal of tailoring instruction
to individual students' academic strengths and weaknesses as well as their personal
interests. That appears to be one of the big takeaways from our nationally representative
survey of nearly 600 teachers on personalized-learning topics, featured extensively in
this report.
The survey-conducted this past summer-examines a host of issues around this often
ill-defined but increasingly popular approach for meeting students' individual learning
needs. Half the educators surveyed, for instance, describe personalized learning as one
tool in the school improvement toolbox or a "promising idea," and more than 20 percent
view it as a "transformational way" to improve K-12 education.
But that largely optimistic take on the promise of personalized learning does not match
up well with what is actually happening in classrooms, the survey suggests. It found that
nearly 3 of every 4 educators say they "never" or "rarely" use digital software to construct
"learner profiles" of students, and 60 percent say they "never" or "rarely" use adaptive
software to let students learn at their own pace. And those are both key tenets of digitally
driven personalized learning.
Complicating matters is the fact that schools often make big mistakes before and while
embarking on personalized-learning efforts, including failing to define what it means and
why they are doing it, assuming it's all about simply putting digital devices in students'
hands, and failing to recognize that effective personalized-learning strategies demand
major shifts in teacher practice. What is especially problematic is that schools too often
overlook the importance of measuring impact-and that is a recipe for disappointment
and frustration down the road.
"Everybody absolutely needs an understanding of why-'We're doing this because we
want students to be able to do X, Y, and Z,' " said Betheny Gross, an associate director
for the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington and a
co-author of a 2018 report that examines the struggles of making personalized learning
work. "What happens when that strategic vision is not in place is you end up with a lot of
haphazard stuff that is not valuable to students or teachers."
Even with these challenges in front of them, schools around the country are learning
important lessons by testing new approaches. One middle school in Minnesota, for
example, built its own "Flex Scheduler" software, with the goal of creating more flexible
class schedules to empower students to tackle courses at their own pace. The program
started small and is expanding.
Of course, many educators emphasize that effective personalized learning is not just
about the technology. New personalized-learning approaches that have nothing to do
with technology are emerging, too. More teachers are using so-called "genius hours"
to make time for students to produce projects driven by their personal interests; and
multiage grouping is challenging the traditional organization of students by age, rather
than skills or ability. Some schools are also integrating social, emotional, and physical
learning needs, building what some are calling "whole child" personalized-learning
strategies.
The ultimate goal of personalized-learning supporters is to measure the impact of
these various approaches and expand what works to more schools.
But that remains a daunting challenge.
Sincerely,

Kevin Bushweller
Executive Project Editor

Walton Family Foundation, the William E Simon Foundation, and the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Education Week retains sole
editorial control over the content underwritten by foundations.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING: What Educators Really Think and Do | 3

http://www.edweek.org/go/claim http://www.edweek.org/offer

Education Week - November 6, 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - November 6, 2019