Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan are celebrating the birth of their daughter Max by promising to give away 99% of their shares in Facebook, about $45 billion. Their major beneficiaries will be public health and “personalized learning.”
No one knows for sure what personalized learning is. My guess is that they want to accelerate the trend to replace teachers with computers, which tech entrepreneurs usually call personalized learning. This is
You can bet that’s not the kind of education little Max will get. She will have small classes and loving, kind tutors. She will have parents who read to her, talk to her, encourage her, love her.
That’s personalized learning!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Anyone who thinks that Zuckerberg “gave away” anything needs to read this: http://says.com/my/news/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-mark-zuckerberg-donating-99-of-his-fortune-to-charity
And, yes, “personalized learning” means plugging kids into computers to learn identical content in identical format as every other kid, just at an “adaptive” pace. And, no, that’s not kind of “personalized” education little Max will be getting.
You clearly have no clue what personalized learning is. Go do some research please.
I’ve researched plenty. I know the original progressive meaning of the term and fully support it. But that’s not the definition that people like Zuckerberg and Gates support, at least not for other people’s children. Capturing and re-defining progressive terms is what the rephormers do.
Then take the term back by telling what it really is. By repeating their definition, you are helping them.
Right, because Gates and Zuckerberg call me all the time. I have such influence. And even if they won’t listen to me, I can use my multiple media platforms to get the message out and I can pick up the phone to Washington – my elected officials always answer my calls personally.
Love you Dienne…my Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, also pick up their phones for me poste haste…hohoho. I do get canned letters over their signatures however. Hang in, Dienne…always welcome your comments.
From what I see in the L.A. trenches, personalized learning used to mean differentiating instruction using group work and student centered instruction strategies (i.e. students do the question asking WITH the teacher), but has been usurped to mean that the students work on a computer at their own, possibly meandering, pace. It’s like charter schools that used to mean freeing teachers to determine the curriculum, but have been usurped to mean corporate chains that restrict the ability of teachers to determine the curriculum.
Here’s the takeaway from Dienne’s link: Mark Zuckerberg will transfer ownership of his Facebook stock without paying capital gains taxes. He will also benefit from the possibility that his foundation will live beyond him, with his heirs and their heirs at the helm, untouched
by estate taxes…
A Facebook PR, while confirming to BuzzFeed News, said that the initiative is structured as an LLC, and not as a charitable trust
Which means that unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including private, profit-generating investment.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
He hasn’t given a penny yet, nor has he articulated what exactly he means, but you are already trashing him. Geez, give him a break.
Zuckerberg has gotten plenty of “breaks”. And, yes, I’m trashing him because there’s nothing “charitable” about this. It’s just a redistribution of his stocks for better (tax-free) return.
Verify, then trust.
It seems like “Blended Learning” as a slogan is now unmarketable.
Onto “Personalized Learning”
Perhaps Rocketship is yesterday’s news as well: newest savior model is [San Jose-based] Summit Public Schools
Summit was Mark Zuckerberg’s big grant recipient – even before his massive announcement following birth of his first child
See: http://summitbasecamp.org/explore-basecamp/
Below are the Gates Fdn donations in last 2 years for districts & purchased “research”
see RAND/Gates study from last week that is most recent promotional/marketing material here:
http://collegeready.gatesfoundation.org/continued-progress-promising-evidence-on-personalized-learning/
DISTRICT/CHARTER GRANTS
LINDSAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date: October 2015
Purpose: to build the foundation for the California Consortium for Development and Dissemination of Personalized Education (C2D2) by identifying the key questions they plan to address together, build specific deliverables and a strategic plan for future work, and develop a strong operating model for an effective long-term partnership
Amount: $499,860
Term: 5
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Lindsay, California
Grantee Website: http://www.lindsay.k12.ca.us
FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
Date: November 2014
Purpose: to support districts in the implementation of personalized learning models
Amount: $200,000
Term: 2014
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Grantee Website: http://www.fultonschools.org
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
Date: December 2014
Purpose: to support districts in the implementation of personalized learning models
Amount: $50,000
Term: 13
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Denver, Colorado
Grantee Website: http://www.dpsfoundation.org
Date: May 2014
Purpose: to implement a strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $356,485
Term: 8
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Denver, Colorado
Grantee Website: http://www.dpsfoundation.org
PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Date: December 2014
Purpose: to support districts in the implementation of personalized learning models
Amount: $50,000
Term: 13
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Portland, Oregon
Grantee Website: http://www.pps.k12.or.us
SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY (FL)
Date: November 2014
Purpose: to support districts in the implementation of personalized learning models
Amount: $200,000
Term: 8
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Orlando, Florida
TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Date: September 2014
Purpose: to support organizations to develop innovative professional development systems to create personalized learning systems for teachers; experiment with innovative modes of delivery; and build the capacity at every level of the organization to design learning and direct resources efficiently and effectively.
Amount: $4,421,847
Term: 36
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Grantee Website: http://www.tulsaschools.org/
PARTNERSHIP FOR LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS
Date: June 2014
Purpose: to support the Partnership for L.A. Schools to pilot new personalized learning approaches in math
Amount: $100,000
Term: 19
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Los Angeles, California
Grantee Website: http://www.partnershipla.org
RHODE ISLAND MAYORAL ACADEMIES
Date: June 2014
Purpose: to support personalized learning strategy development
Amount: $200,114
Term: 12
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Providence, Rhode Island
Grantee Website: http://mayoralacademies.org/
SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY (FL)
Date: April 2014
Purpose: to implement a system-level strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $550,000
Term: 15
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Largo, Florida
Grantee Website: https://www.pcsb.org
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date: April 2014
Purpose: to implement a system-level strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $550,000
Term: 12
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Riverside, California
Grantee Website: http://www.rusdlink.org
HENRY COUNTY (GA) SCHOOLS
Date: April 2014
Purpose: to implement a system-level strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $363,000
Term: 9
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: McDonough, Georgia
Grantee Website: http://www.henry.k12.ga.us
LAKE COUNTY (FL) SCHOOLS
Date: April 2014
Purpose: to implement a system-level strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $450,000
Term: 12
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Tavares, Florida
Grantee Website: http://lake.k12.fl.us/lakeschools
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date: April 2014
Purpose: to implement a system-level strategic plan for personalized learning
Amount: $841,000
Term: 15
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Dallas, Texas
Grantee Website: http://www.dallasisd.org/
PURCHASED RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FOUNDAITION [CPRE]
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to support a research study focused on learning about the most effective methods to scale personalized learning in districts and regional eco-systems
Amount: $2,790,000
Term: 29
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Seattle, Washington
Grantee Website: http://www.washington.edu/foundation/
BELLWEATHER EDUCATION PARTNERS INC.
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to inform the public and education leaders on education policy opportunities related to teaching effectiveness, personalized learning, and new accountability models
Amount: $778,188
Term: 15
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Sudbury, Massachusetts
Grantee Website: http://bellwethereducation.org/
THE HIGHLANDER INSTITUTE (RI)
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to develop a statewide system for sharing, implementing, evaluating and scaling blended learning and instructional personalization across the state of Rhode Island
Amount: $349,185
Term: 5
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Providence, Rhode Island
Grantee Website: http://highlanderinstitute.org
“My guess is…”????? Really?? Slamming an idea before it’s even out of the gate? At least they are DOING something and funding something – which is more than I can say for Congress. It’s taken them years to rewrite a 1000+ page bill into ANOTHER 1000+ page bill. We’re more than FORTY years past the special education law and it STILL is not funded!!
What education needs is the access to ALL kinds of support – smaller classes, more resources, available technology, less red tape, less testing-for-no-purpose, and most of all – a society that VALUES teachers, their work, and its schools. And when someone steps up and says “I think I have a better way to do this,” could we at least give them the courtesy to hear them out?
Has the Gates’ experiment on children (but, not his own), received enough courtesy over the past two decades? Given the revolving door among Gates Foundation employees, the U.S. Dept. of Ed. and, for-profit education industries, the welcome wagon, hauled a_s to make Silicon Valley feel welcome. When Microsoft announced a deal with Pearson to develop curriculum for Common Core, and, when an executive, with Canada Microsoft, tells a national magazine that, “teachers should shift or, get off the pot”, in terms of adopting technology, it shows that the guest, owns the property.
Personalized Learning is not an unknown new concept, hence commenters jump on board negatively. We all understand it to be a computerized, go-at-your-own-pace program. So we immediately conjure images of large classes seated at screens, monitored by 1-50 or more cheap aides. And there’s lots & lots of data to support the position that public-ed-via-laptop program produces dismal results.
Should we give Zuckerberg the benefit of the doubt? Is he suggesting some new animal by the same name? Since he is in the business of making $ via digital programs– & because his chosen financial vehicle is not a charity & evades estate taxes… No.
Yes. I agree. Let’s see if his money replicates the schools to which Gates, Emanuel, et. al. send their own children. Or will he only fund ideas that increase his heirs’ wealth, but not their experiences.
Are you a betting person?
Honestly, you (Diane) and your NPE people need to get a sit-down with Zuckerberg. If your organization makes it a public campaign, maybe it will happen. I’ll certainly sign the letter or petition!
Unlike Gates and Microsoft, Facebook is known to be a very humane workplace. So on some level he “gets it” that the punitive approach is dysfunctional. I think there is hope with him, and “divide and conquer” with the billionaires is likely to be the best strategy.
Hopefully, Zuckerberg learned a huge lesson on wasted donations from his $100,000,000 into the toilet drop in Newark. He does use a legal charitable device which is generally the one used by endless wealthy people, to form his own charitable foundation where he can park and use his money as he sees fit.
Might be a good idea if we all write him often with our suggestions.
Also, yes, agree with you William, that Facebook has the reputation of having more heart in their employee dealings than others of their ilk.
Remember at the end of the day, this is just a tax strategy, not charity.
Noelle, I think cynicism is self-defeating. Give Zuckerberg the benefit of the doubt, and call him to account for really understanding what works in education.
Give me a break, are you (and some of the other posters) astroturfing or just naive? Facebook has consistently been one of the *least* ethical companies on earth since its inception. This absolutely smacks of more silicon valley profiteering. Do you really want our kids to face another 10-15 years of wasted time? We used to call people that manipulate others or circumstances through charity con artists, and they used to go to prison for it. Why we flat out REFUSE to regulate Silicon Valley in this country is an absolute mystery, they make Wall Street look like like amateurs, and with zero come uppance.
A Newark redux.
He’d be better off using the money to air condition schools that become unmercifully and unbearably hot, making teaching and learning nearly impossible. This would also provide the opportunity for year round schooling.
“Humanized learning environments” if Zuckerberg prefers.
THIS! It is unbearably hot in my child’s school at certain times. There are high schools where students have to take standardized tests or Regents exams in 90+ degree heat, and other schools where students have air conditioners.
Unless you teach or learn in one of these greenhouse schools, you could not comprehend just how inhumane the conditions can become. Teachers and children end up trying to work in oven-like environments, conditions in which NO other professional adult would ever agree to work in.
And the ventilation systems are turned off or not operating. The air is stale, used and germ-ridden. All in violation of unenforced building codes.
I so agree, & would add only that bricks-&-mortar school bldgs need new boilers, plumbing repairs, mold-&-asbestos abatement, & fixes to crumbling facades.
And new roofs!
I don’t know if you-all read this writer but she has a critical eye towards sales pitches that I think is desperately needed:
http://hackeducation.com/2015/12/01/trends/
One doesn’t have to believe the ed billionaires are bad people to believe they have too much power. It’s isn’t about them as individuals. I shouldn’t have to guess at “motive” or make subjective judgments on whether they are good or bad people.
It’s about whether they have an outsize influence on what happens to tens of millions of public school children.
Benevolent kings are still kings 🙂
Chiara, totally love this quote from your link, which applies to so many gov-supported ideas (in this day of bought-out corrupt gov) besides education: “2015 was another great year for “zombie ideas” in ed-tech. “Zombie ideas,” as economist Paul Krugman has described them, are those “policy ideas that keep being killed by evidence, but nonetheless shamble relentlessly forward, essentially because they suit a political agenda.”
Here’s one from Peter Greene on why, regardless of what you think of Zuckerberg personally, this cannot be considered “philanthropy”: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/12/is-educational-philanthropy-jumbo-shrimp.html
Amen to “regardless of what you think of Zuckerberg personally”
I’m not sure if we should be so quick to judge. As a former high school educator, I’m curious what Zuckerberg has in store. If it’s anything like the software Facebook is piloting with Summit Schools, it could be a good thing. Link: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/3/9252845/facebook-education-software-plp-summit
“My guess is that they want to accelerate the trend to replace teachers with computers, which tech entrepreneurs usually call personalized learning.”
This sounds a little dramatic, no? I understand your concern and the history with why we SHOULD be concerned about teachers being replaced with machines – I get it. Silicon Valley has a nasty history with this, and the Gates Foundation certainly hasn’t helped.
I urge us to approach Zuckerberg to get in on what he has in store, rather than shut our doors and put headphones on. I taught high school to at-risk kids in the South Bronx, and as all teachers who read this blog know – on top of “teaching,” I had to be a role model, disciplinarian, counselor, friend, advocate, and ultimately, a subordinate to my administrator(s). I had to be simultaneously “student-centered”, and “compliant” with incompetent administrators, who were often missing the bigger picture and instead docking me for failing to update my “bulletin board” or “data wall” but failing to note my class of 28 was completely engaged and absorbed. If there’s a software or technology out there that could’ve eased my burden even by a bit, I would strongly look into it. What if I actually had the time to make authentic, individual assessments for my students on a daily basis? That might’ve made me less jaded.
As former and current educators, we should set the example to choose our battles, and not be so reactionary with someone invading our turf. From what I’ve read, Facebook’s team works directly with school teachers to unburden them from the colossal demands they must satisfy in an archaic system.
Sometimes, it does take someone who is 10 feet away from a problem to propose a solution. We don’t know, yet.
Max will likely get the small classes and loving, kind tutors you mention. Every student deserves this. But I bet by the time Max is old enough to go to school, she will also be learning some content via video, submitting work online, and completing tasks remotely. I bet Max’s teacher will likely feel his/her job as a teacher is less Herculean and more manageable. Maybe because some aspects of the job are remedied with technology, this teacher will actually be incentivized to try new things in the classroom and shake things up. Nobody knows, but I’m willing to hold judgement.
And yes, most public school students don’t have small classes and loving tutors. But let’s be real: that’s not the private sector’s fault, that’s our own education system’s fault for (1) failing to remedy a crumbling system and (2) continuing to tack on more responsibilities without providing the added human capital. The private sector sees our outdated education system as an “opportunity” (as any company would in a capitalist society) and is stepping in due to the failure of our own education policies.
I would rather take help from a private company wiling to listen to my woes than from legislators, senators, and governors flip-flopping on whether teaching evaluations should be based on student test scores (depends on election season).
Full disclosure: I work for an educational technology company. I taught for six years before this. And I intend to return to the classroom after this project is completed.
Why do we still have pants? Why hasn’t that changed? And why do we still have bodies? What’s up with that?
@FLERP!
Non sequitur.
Based off your response, I assume you’ve never taught in a classroom. You wouldn’t want students to pose questions of our current systems? You wouldn’t want to pose questions of current established systems in order to extract something meaningful that could be changed?
Why do we still have pants?
We only started wearing pants within the last ~2,500 years. Give or take 100 yrs.
Why hasn’t that changed?
A combination of reasons: climate protection, collaboration of sexes, and of course pants provide social and cultural functions.
And why do we still have bodies? What’s up with that?
Dude, you should just watch COSMOS.
@flerp!
You’re knocking the dude for asking essential questions in order to dissect an issue and understand the problem? Thank goodness you’re not a teacher.
And if you are, I hope you at least get your students to ask the big questions even if you yourself refuse to be a life-long learner.
Also –
1) We didn’t start wearing pants till about ~2,500 yrs ago. Fairly recent in our history.
2) Protection, collaboration among the sexes, social and cultural norms.
3) Dude, just go watch COSMOS.
Yo Mista…welcome to this fray. I agree with most of what you suggest. Let’s see what Zuckerberg does next.
You are a voice of reason and taught in one of the most difficult areas in the US. I participated in a longitudinal study in the S. Bronx decades ago and had to have special training to be in your classrooms as an investigator. Was warned about the hard core kids and how to avoid injury. Thanks for your reasoned thoughts…and I agree about dealing with private companies rather than government, though found that BOTH were active in ‘double dealing’ (as a researcher, I generally reported to the Feds.).
addendum…enjoyed your website, Mo…suggest others visit it and watch Lewis Black describe teachers and their 14 hour days.
Computerized programs to help with all the nutty data-collection mandated by pols sounds like (a)a sell-out supporting the data collection, and (b)a far cry from Zuckerberg’s support of Personalized Education.
I don’t understand why tech is in some category apart from other products and services, where there’s an assumption it will all be high-minded and beneficial to children and no commercial concerns or incentives will come in at all.
Where does that assumption come from? It’s an industry. There can be perfectly “good” people involved in it but that doesn’t change the essential nature of the thing, which is to sell stuff and make a profit. It could be good stuff! It’s still a product or service. It should be evaluated like any other product or service schools purchase without all this mystical “belief” going on.
The tech difference is mostly due the massive amounts of extra profits they have already generated. There are only so many ways to hide such massive amount of money so they see an opportunity to exploit the neoliberal laws Clinton enacted. Through “personalized learning” they can generate lots more cash while getting tax breaks, credits and the ability to write off losses. It a big win for them both financially and a public relations coup. To the uncritical eye with input from the corporate media, they seem to be “philanthropists.”
“The tech difference is mostly due the massive amounts of extra profits they have already generated. ”
In our country it is assumed lots of money = high worth as a person = super smart and successful. These are the people we should supposedly respect the most. It also helps that tech people control social media, and their inventions permeate our lives so much in this relatively new tech culture.
If you’re a tech person and have lots of money, you check two of the biggest boxes. You are idolized by the american people. When people worship you, you can control them.
It’s part of the religion of capitalism.
Ed Detective: good points!
I just used a supermarket scanner replacing 10 human cashiers with one bored teen sprouting something electronic sticking out his ear.
I doubt Zuckerberg or any other billionaire understands the reality of most Americans. When I worked in tech, these guys would travel the globe in private jets to eat lunch in London then golf with some ex-pro in Florida. It is a plush, pampered, frat-boyish, insular existence. As the rich grow richer, the more they view normal people as expendables.
First he blows $100 million in Newark. Now he wants to blow $billions on so-called personalized learning programs. He should spend a week shadowing a 7th grade teacher in any one of thousands of challenging, high needs schools and then re-think his plan.
If the US wants to avoid rioting in the streets in the near future, it might want to think about imposing on corporations a walk-back on such things as tech replacing 10 cashiers w/a machine. Or alternatively, measures requiring profits from replacing humans w/machines to be fed back into an equivalent no of jobs for humans.
I found it rather disconcerting that when the politicians began talking about the world economy, no one really wanted to face what that gigantic, socially disruptive event this would be. That is where the techies come in. They have one solution. The masses on every continent must be trained precisely because the governments (in the U. S. that’s the voters) do not want to educate their populations. In the U. S. the voters refuse to support anything with the word tax, thanks to Reagan.
For all the flag waving and wearing, there is ultimately no concern for the country. Only fear for oneself. And money. Most do not enlist. Most do not even vote. Few express opinions. The country may not need an education. Just train them and give them their guns. They’ll be happy. Wall Street and Silicon whatever can continue making money for themselves.
The perfect fascist society.
Not all Americans think the same way when it comes to taxes.
63% of Americans say money and wealth distribution is unfair
These attitudes are substantially unchanged over past 30 years
Slight majority of 52% favor heavy taxes on rich as fix
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
“Adaptive courseware can be used in distance education, but the university association is focused on blended learning. Faculty members will learn to use new online tools but will continue working with students in a traditional classroom setting. The group wants universities to focus their efforts in lower-level, high-enrollment courses, or in courses with high failure and withdrawal rates.
Some of those courses can be barriers to student success, Ms. Duff said. “We believe — and the Gates Foundation believes — these technologies and approaches to learning can have the greatest effect in reducing those barriers.”
My concern, which I think is reasonable, is that NO MATTER what the motives or intent was or is that this will end up as “cheaper online learning for the bottom 90%” because the fact is people are much more expensive than programs or machines.
Good intentions are not enough and the hard sell on ed tech doesn’t comfort me. It makes me more wary. I think I SHOULD be wary of a hard sell.
“Personalized learning” is the latest fad from the billionaire boys’ club that will allow corporations to insert themselves into the education of our children and once again use them as guinea pigs. Corporations benefit from selling more products and services to public schools with the ultimate goal of taking the person out of the educational equation. This is more lockstep, reductionist edu-babble from programmers, not educators. They believe all learning can be distilled into discrete code that will force students to vegetate in front of computer screens while their grey matter withers and rots. My understanding is that cyber instruction is a poor choice for young students that learn through their senses and children of poverty that respond to the relationship that a human being can bring to the teaching learning process. If “personalized learning” were so successful, why are the cyber charters the worst performers of the charters? The goal of personalized learning is to provide a cheap factory approach to learning for students that society deems have a limited chance of success and are unworthy of an investment; more union busting is an added benefit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2014/05/15/stop-the-false-generalizations-about-personalized-learning/
I would hope that ‘personalized learning’ means that some of these billions will be spent insuring that every child in America will be educated with the same personalized approach that Max will get.
No tech savvy person, aka Zuckerberg, is using the term “personalized learning” to mean more attention from living, breathing, human beings.
If it means fewer teachers, shouldn’t it really be called “de-personalized learning”?
Diane, I really expect better of you than to reflexively attack ALL new ideas. Personalized learning is not some new catchword for programmed learning that Zuckerberg has dreamed up.
I’ve gotten a chance to observe several schools doing personalized learning. What I saw was students who were self-driven, happy, engaged and learning. TEACHERS were working together to assess students needs and then deliver individualized instruction based on those needs. There was a focus on student collaboration, and the work was not all on computer.
What that looked like was kids in various centers working on “playlists” of work for a unit or meeting in small groups with the teacher for mini-lessons. The teachers told me there was less stress because students don’t feel like the are falling behind or being held back waiting for others. In fact, things went more smoothly and that left time for several of the schools to do genius hour, where kids get to research and create on topics of their own choosing.
At every step, teachers were making the decisions, evaluating the students, and designing individualized instruction. I can see where technology can be useful in streamlining that process, but good teachers will always be the key.
Overall, it was the complete opposite of my nightmare 7th grade “traditional” math class where the teacher sat at the overhead working problems, and rolling her eyes at us if we asked her to slow down or repeat something. That can’t be the only way to teach.
Here’s some info from Charlotte Mecklenburg schools, where they have been trying this for several years and are expanding it. Try learning about a thing before you reflexively condemn it.
http://pl.cmslearns.org/
This is a program the US Dept of Education is plugging:
Village Green uses an online curriculum, called “Edgenuity,“ which allows students to move through assignments at their own pace. Every student has a workstation where they log into their own personal Edgenuity portal and choose what to work on. Students take frequent tests and quizzes, and complete practice assignments. A data dashboard displays skills they’ve already mastered in green, those they are on track to master in blue and those they are struggling with in red.
The main things the teachers are freed from at Village Green are quiz and test construction, grading, and designing core lessons. “However, they still have to plan the workshop and plan to re-teach Edgenuity in case a lesson is not grasped,” explained Pilkington.”
They’re “freeing” teachers from an awful lot. Their role is to “reteach Edgenuity if a lesson is not grasped”? Edgenuity is doing the teaching, then?
http://sites.ed.gov/progress/2015/11/rhode-island-school-makes-learning-personal-for-students/
That program sounds like garbage, Chiara. Frankly, it isn’t personalized learning. My point is that we can condemn programmed learning like this without trashing real innovative programs like what Charlotte Meck is trying. Did you follow that link I posted?
Mastery learning for college and career readiness. Not quite what we have in mind. They have a nice dashboard of websites/resources. Lots of good tools and techniques to use as part of an overall learning environment, but the definition of what education is leaves something to be desired. I also wonder how dependent it is on Gates money, not because Gates is some evil monster, but because the system needs to be sustainable with local resources. I am leery of Gates because of his need to control and his rather brutal history of dropping initiatives that leaves wreckage behind, for which he feels no responsibility. (Think: small schools, Hillsboro teacher evaluation,…)
Personalized learning. My definition is one-to-one teaching. Barring that a class with less than 10 students that focuses on experiential learning and projects. Sign me up Mark! From another Mark.
I guess I’m just slow, but doesn’t the phrase “personalized learning” have the word “person” in it? You know, like, “human being”?
Thanks for the heads up.
😳
They named their daughter Max?
What’s her middle name? Profits?
+1
That’s a good one! ;-D
And “Max” is just short for “Maxibillion”
To commenters wanting to give Zuckerberg “a chance”: what is the matter with you?! Have you learned nothing from the last 20 years? Even rats in a maze that get repeatedly zapped learn what causes the pain and select different choices.
“chgoodson
December 3, 2015 at 12:53 pm
That program sounds like garbage, Chiara. Frankly, it isn’t personalized learning. My point is that we can condemn programmed learning like this without trashing real innovative programs like what Charlotte Meck is trying. Did you follow that link I posted?”
Thank you, I did.
One of the pieces says “personalized learning is a way of thinking about education” and if that’s true (and I see how it could be true) then it shouldn’t require purchasing any product at all, right? The product would be optional.
There’s nothing wrong with companies that make processed food. However, when companies who make processed food direct certain products to children they serve up cheap garbage because it sells. No one assumes they’re in that business because of their deep devotion to the well-being of children. We even tell children that – “they want to sell you pop and they don’t care if too much pop is bad for you”.
That’s all I’m asking for- a recognition that these are products and they’re creating a market. Let the buyer beware. This industry is like any other. They may well believe in the product, but that’s true of all good salespeople.
“That’s all I’m asking for- a recognition that these are products and they’re creating a market.”
Agreed. And if you look carefully, Charlotte-Meck isn’t buying a particular product. At least they haven’t yet. They have looked into learning management systems as a way to help personalize and deliver content electronically, but that’s not the same as buying content.
Misanthropy disguised as philanthropy.
Maybe we should call it “maxanthropy”, since it was inspired by the birth of Zuckerberg’s daughter.
If this is true, educators, parents and students should demand this not happen. If we remain silent, it could happen.
All I see about personalized learning is that it is computer based. If so, we need to really think about how this will change our mindset. While reading Larry Cuban’s blog, I was recommended to read the book Distrusting Educational Technology: Critical Questions for Changing Times by Selwyn. It is a great read about how tech is not a neutral product. It affects how we see our lives, our values, our relationships.
I think teachers personalized education all the time in the questions we ask, the responses we give and how we strive for educative relationships with our students. Just giving students preprogrammed choices to click is not personalized.
And well done educational technology is NOT just giving students pre-programmed choices.
It does not appear the C-M is doing an all tech PL. Other schools, including my local one, are moving towards doing all tech personalized learning. All the instruction and assessment is doing via a screen. Students may occasionally meet with a human. And when it is all screen then by definition then there are limited choices.
Truthfully I have never seen well done ed tech unless it is being used by a competent teacher as one tool in their teaching toolbox. However, most ed tech advocates with which I have had contact are more about the screens being the entire toolbox, the entire school.
In math, at least, it will be a complete disaster, but no-one will find out for some years. If approached properly math does not lend itself to mastering competencies, forgetting them, and moving on. Just wait and see!
I think Zuckerberg must have said “Pearsonalized learning” and the stenographer just wrote it down wrong.
“Pearsonalized Learning Aids”
When teachers are all gone
The bots will teach the children
Shock them when they’re wrong
Like Dr. Stanley Milgram
“Pearsonal Software”
Pearson’s not a person
No matter what they do
Their latest software version
Can never comfort you
ProPublica ran a piece today on “How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself”
“Zuckerberg set up a limited liability company, which has reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup and will help minimize his tax bill.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself?utm_source=et&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter&utm_content=&utm_name=
Who do you think taught Mark this trick? One guess. His first name probably starts with B and his second name with G.
Here’s the first two short lead paragraphs:
“Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong.
“Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle.”
The red flag for me is that, whatever the problem, technology is always the solution. What problem has all-wise Mark Zuckerberg identified? Is the problem that legions of kids in good teachers’ classrooms starving for instruction that precisely meets their needs? Or is the problem that there aren’t enough seasoned, well-prepared teachers with a repertoire of excellent lessons? Our school is on the verge of spending tons of money on one-to-one laptops. Here’s what they could do instead: pay for every teacher to take a one year sabbatical to take a quantum leap forward in teaching ability. I know I would and could. I’d go to Europe and Asia (on my own funds) and study the content I teach (world history) much more deeply. I’d read and develop awesome lesson plans that would reach a broad array of learners. I have pretty good lessons now, but I can’t make great progress teaching seven periods a day. I need time to read and think and travel. Why not invest in humans? Instead we disinvest in humans and invest hugely in silicon.
Mark Zuckerberg (like Bill Gates) has no background in teaching.
He is very impressed with his own brilliance, but the reality is that if he did not have billions, no one would listen to a word he says.
People listen to his crackpot ideas on education like dogs waiting for table scraps — hoping that he might throw a bone their way.
Zuckerberg, backs the for-profit, Bridge International Academies,with Pearson and Gates, according to more than a 100 international organizations. The organizations’ letter criticized the World Bank for promoting BIA, to the exclusion of public education. The estimated cost of schools-in-a-box- “1/3 of a family’s income”.
Jessie Spector, of Resource Generation, has a very different take on the Zuckerberg largesse. Her article is in Huffpo, today.
“Personalized Learning” is a simple, fundamental and has been with us since the beginning of time. No modern techno-crat can claim to make it or provide it. Personalized learning occurs when the recipient of the instruction gets engaged with their learning with all their person, soul, mind and strength. Anything less than this (with no matter how many technological Band-Aid solutions proposed) is not learning, but only passivity.
So, Susy having trouble in Algebra or Chemistry? Does she pay attention to the lecture, take good notes, asks question to clarify, do all her homework? If the answer is NO, then she is not using whole person to learn, to participate and to have ownership of the mental-product (conceptual development) she needs. OHHH, but we will offer her redundant, remedial tutorial software, like Gizmos, Kahn Academy, and all the other plethora of misguided CAI (computer assisted instruction) applications. Will she apply herself 100% to these; are they some kind of miracle pill that now help her learn????
I’m not against remedial software; it has its place. Yet, individual and personal learning begins with the students mind and heart set, their self-efficacy, in the classroom when the material is being taught. If they put forth desire, concentration and effort there, they will learn. If not, then are we to assume school districts are indebted to buy and pay for more unnecessary CAI programs. I never had it so easy in the 1970s; either you paid attention and worked hard, or you failed. Bill G and Mark Z were not options, and were not needed, and their products are not really essential for most high school learning..
For the Zuckerberg defenders, here you go:
http://m.slashdot.org/story/303337
This actually impacts all of us far beyond the realm of education. It would be wise for all of us to pay attention and stay involved.
Are those people telling us to “wait and see” what Zuckerberg does with his money uncannily naive, or trapped in the same Silicon (emphasis on the “con”) Valley snake oil mindset we’re constantly being fed by the media?
Let’s see, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife
– used their daughter’s birth as a vehicle for having their publicity department release this, a pretty creepy thing to do.
– would have us believe that a for-profit, limited liability corporation that shields his money from taxes, allows him to retain complete control of it, provides further profit opportunities and allows him to lobby and devote money to the political implementation of those very same profit-seeking entities.
All of this from a man who has called his customers “dumb f—s” for being so foolish as to provide him with their personal information. And we’re the ones being lectured about our cynicism?
Please, spare us…
For those still following along, I highly recommend Tim Scott’s new piece “Education Technology, Surveillance, and America’s Authoritarian Democracy” in Dissident Voice. It offers many compelling insights into ed-tech and personalized learning and the implications widespread adoption of these platforms will have on children and society. It’s long, so be sure to set aside a chunk of time to go through it. Better yet read it more than once. It’s packed with excellent (and scary) information: http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/education-technology-surveillance-and-americas-authoritarian-democracy/
“While social control is often considered to be one of the primary purposes of schooling, in the age of neoliberal financialization, this purpose is being taken to new heights through the instruments of education technology (EdTech) as part of the Big Data infrastructure. Fundamentally, the primary function of EdTech within this landscape is intended to build and reinforce schooling as a structure of social control as part of the all encompassing Big Data/Internet of Things surveillance ecosystem. To do this, digital education software products on tablets, laptops, mobile devices, wearable technology and more enable deep learning analytics and artificial intelligence systems. Within this environment, teachers function as highly disciplined data technicians tasked to monitor student behavior and compliance.”