Comments on: Personalized learning and accelerated student outcomes

By: Scott Benson

Scott Benson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:48:22 +0000

Reblogged this on Maximize Potential by Scott Benson and commented: Reblogging Stacey Childress' post on student outcomes in personalized learning. Join the discussion - what do you think the goals should be?

By: Ann S. Michaelsen

Ann S. Michaelsen — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:55:08 +0000

Interesting debate! I wish more schools were aiming for self-pacing & mastery-based credit” and “student ownership. It is certainly doable and most countries are aiming for a higher student achievment and more students graduating. I agree that starting in high school is often too late. The gaps in student achievement start in the early years. I recently visited Highland Tech Charter school and I believe they are planning to start enrolling younger kids as well. Seems to me that the RISC model fits nicely with your wish that “As soon as students learn something and can demonstrate it, they should get credit for it and move on. Move on to the next set of concepts and skills on their learning path, and move on to deeper engagement in topics they’re interested in. ” I wrote more about that on my blog, link below, and Norway is certainly interested in learning more about the RISC model. Regarding your 1,5 year growth goal I’m not sure how that fits in with self-pacing. Is it not a contradiction in terms?

http://annmic.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/my-visit-to-highland-tech-charter-school/

By: Mike G

Mike G — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:08:23 +0000

I think the “year’s growth” language is imprecise but helpful nonetheless.

1. Depending on size of gap, points to the “double-layer” of challenge. I.e., Ach Gap for Grade 9 probably more typically 4 grade levels. So growth rate has been, say, 0.6 per year.

Job 1: Get kid to learn at 1.0 per year, no small feat
Job 2: Get that kid to then accelerate to 1.5 to 2.0 per year

There are a decent number of schools, traditional and charter, which achieve Job 1 but not 2.

2. Enter imprecision. Math different from English.

Middle school math is typically 3 years of fractions, decimals, percentages, negatives. Kids can make up “3 years growth” in a single calendar year with optimal instruction. See Kane/Angrist.

Less true of English, though. Harder to recover.

By: Vlad Gutkovich (@itsvladg)

Vlad Gutkovich (@itsvladg) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 05:06:16 +0000

Thanks for the post, Stacey. The goal of 1+ year’s worth of academic growth per year for struggling students is a noble one, and I am all about it. That said, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this: isn’t the idea, more or less, that the later an intervention comes in a student’s life, the more costly and difficult it will be, with lower success rates ultimately?

In other words, wouldn’t the best “bang for the buck,” in the big picture, be to provide early childhood interventions at the family and pre-K level? If we can get the kids to start school on the same footing as their “middle of the bell curve” counterparts, wouldn’t we resolve the need for 1.5 years of growth per year, before it even hits them?

I know you guys have done significant work in early childhood and community interventions. Are personalized learning initiatives, if their goal is to “boost” academic growth for students that are behind, a temporary band-aid of sorts, while we figure out how to deal with the conditions that put those students in a lagging position to start with?

Thanks for what you do.

By: Mr. Harris

Mr. Harris — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:52:11 +0000

I felt so sorry for those poor children in the PBS story about Rocketship Schools. They sat there at there computers being neglected by the very young adults tasked with looking out for them. Where were the actual adults with children of their own or at least years of experience working closely with children? I also felt bad for those parents who want only what’s best for their children yet are forced to send them to these warehouses dressed up as schools. Is this dystopian future that underprivileged children have to look forward to?

By: nextgenstacey

nextgenstacey — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:24:04 +0000

there’s a link to descriptions of some of the schools we support in the blog post. here is rocketship’s comment on the merrow story you refer to: https://www.edsurge.com/n/2013-01-08-are-rocketship-s-learning-labs-not-really-working

By: Mr. Harris

Mr. Harris — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:08:34 +0000

Who over at the B&MGF is working on the long-term effects of exposure to technology, LCD screens, etc.? There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that the millennial generation is already showing signs of lacking the same social and problem-solving skills as their counterparts who graduated college only 15 years ago. With all your zeal to push these algorithm-based learning systems into inner-city classroom, is anybody in your organization considering what the long-term effects will be of less and less human-to-human contact?

By: leoniehaimson

leoniehaimson — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:45:17 +0000

What schools are you supporting w/ online learning? Are you aware that the administrators at Rocketship admitted that their computer labs aren’t working? Why is it okay to put Kindergarten students on computers 2 hours a day,without any art or music? Is that the kind of education that you would want for your kids or Bill Gates for his?

By: nextgenstacey

nextgenstacey — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:13:36 +0000

hi nancy — good to hear from you! The question of whether to hold expectations constant and do everything possible to help all students reach them, or to shift expectations for students who have been under-served for a long time is a really complicated one. The school teams we support in k-12 generally strive for the former — doing whatever it takes to help every student meet performance thresholds that give them the widest opportunity set possible at graduation. It’s interesting to hear you frame it as punative to the students. will have to do some more thinking about it….
again, good to hear from you.

By: nextgenstacey

nextgenstacey — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:06:48 +0000

Good to see you here, Leonie. I understand you disagree with the approach to personalization outlined here, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. A growing number of schools are moving in this direction and we are supporting and learning from them.The growing dialogue about the wisdom of using summative tests as the only way to evaluate student learning is important in my view and I’m following it with great interest.