Has the Gates Foundation moved on past the disappointment of creating national standards and national tests to the Next Big Thing: putting all students online?
This is from a reader:
It seems like “Blended Learning” as a slogan is now unmarketable.
On to “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:
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 FOUNDATION [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
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“deliverables”, nuf ced.
Agreed, and we are rearing a society of people who can’t think for themselves, nor think outside the box. All they can manage is test taking, and using computer skills, but people skills are not being taught. Developmental activities within a classroom are not being used, so students are growing up from K not knowing coping skills, nor how to get along with others.
All the new slogans, acronyms and ad-campaigns to convince us to by more software or ed-tech can be nauseating. “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..
There’s a big difference in using a computer as a tool to supplement instruction, and using a computer to supplant instruction. Stand alone CAI instruction has failed to deliver the cheap “magic bullet” the reform crowd would love to see, but they will be happy to keep experimenting on our children until they can figure out a way to optimize their profits. The students are just collateral damage.
And the irony in their rhetoric is that if you really want “individualized or personalized instruction” then leave it to a human teacher, which can NEVER be replaced with a computer. Teachers can understand, interpret, diagnose, remediate and apply what each student needs; software will never be able to do that. Yes, give me a class of 30 students in high school chemistry and I probably will not to meet the unique needs of each “individual” learner, but nor should I feel compelled to do so. I’m getting them ready for the real-world; where one’s future boss could care less what is your “preferred learning style”, and if you cannot do a spreadsheet there is no “visual mode” alternative strategy.
I’m not for “one method works for all”, but efficacious teachers (with experience, knowledge, wisdom and a sound curriculum [best practices]) can teach and meet the needs of most students MUCH MORE effectively than any software.
One problem with offering students too many “tech-alternatives” to class instruction is that it teaches them that if they don’t want to pay attention and learn in a classroom they can get “pandered to” by remedial software (which costs districts lots of money).
So, as a science teacher of the year in Miami-Dade County Public Schools I’ve seen my salary steps frozen and my pay increased by “crumbs”. While the district throws millions of dollars at misguided, unsubstantiated/unproven, ed-tech and software. I’m not getting paid more (and there is proof I have impact on learning), while the district pays more for “tech-bullets”, so that it can boast of its “cutting edge strategies”. “Strategies” which don’t reward good teachers, but unproven companies. Which will only lead to less interests in future students to become efficacious teachers (that teach the content and skills they’ve mastered with passion).
The final ironic “nail in the coffin, bad karma” that will be reaped is when schools are void of knowledgeable, passionate, persevering, committed and efficacious teachers, being replaced by machines and software, which will only alienate students, make them hate learning and turn them into dependent-clones (but good consumers of Bill G and Mark Z “snake-oil”).
While the districts play keep up with the Jones,’ the hardware ages, and the software is no longer “cutting edge,” so the companies can continuously sell more products. But……the impact of a great teacher can last a lifetime!
By way, Scott is pushing for the $10,000 four year degree. I am sure the way to offer the degree is to offer an assortment of cyber courses.
most of these appear large urban districts. I suspect that most have a larger percentage of poverty kids
Rural districts cannot get the internet access to do these programs:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/projects/2015/rural-schools-broadband/they-rake-us-over-coals-affordable-internet.html
Thank you….I hadn’t considered that as part of the equation…I just thought they wanted to treat the poor kids like lab rats and continue to experiment on them.
Do you gays also visualize the Gates foundation shelling out millions to fix the internet access for these kids?
My eyes certainly are tearing up just from imagining such altruistic generosity: the Rural Access And Achieve Project, R-triple A-P.
I hope you meant guys not gays.
Yes. It will begin on the second Tuesday next week.
Uh, thanks for the correction, drext727.
I’m in one of those large urban districts. We have everything from abject poverty to neighborhoods with million $ homes. All are expected to use the same “personalizing” approach.
Every square peg must fit into the same round hole….no matter what.
There is a mountain of reasearch from highly reputable sources on the effects of too much “screen time”. Everything from neurological damage, to emotional disorders, to cognitive effects to damage from lack of REM sleep.
Unlike Common Core, which blindsided the public and was impossible to head off, perhaps an organized effort to gather medical reasearch could halt this? Perhaps even in court.
Is there a possibility that Billy will recognize one day that if he attaches his name to a project, people will automatically say “it’s probably BS” ?
As the commenter who posted the other day as “YoMista” would attest, there are big opportunities out there for companies who are able to bring slick “personalized learning” applications to market.
Yup. We’ve now jumped all the way through Hoop of Absurd. This Gates guy thinks he can relabel all sort of educational junk and folks will just nod until their noggins fall off.
For me, he’s become a real disappoint on the jargon front. I mean, can’t he rummage his wizard-brain and at least come up with a stunner re-labwling? “Personalized learning”? How dry.
My close reading indicates that they’ve just about run out of slop language … and they seem a bit weary with their energetic effort to disguise their nonsense.
This is bound to get very bad before it all implodes.
PERSONALIZED Learning New York Times Version 12/5/2015
Among the principles the letter cites as vital to achieving these goals is “personalized learning,” an educational philosophy and practice to which Mr. Zuckerberg is already committed through his investment in AltSchool, a network of for-profit experimental schools that began in San Francisco and recently arrived in New York.
AltSchool is a product of the capitalist utopianism that drives Silicon Valley: the notion that smart people, or at any rate those supremely confident in newly held convictions, can make money making the world a better place.
AltSchool, which opened two years ago, has four branches in San Francisco, one in Palo Alto and a sixth on Hicks Street in Brooklyn, which enrolled its first students in September. An East Village location is scheduled to open next fall. Eventually all the schools will extend through eighth grade.
The Brooklyn branch has only 30 students spanning prekindergarten through the third grade; for those spots the school received 1,200 applications. “Personalized learning” involves the customization of lesson plans to address the needs of individual students, in classrooms where rates of progress and areas of interest vary; technology enhances the process through the use of software and applications that can present various exercises, assessment tools, lines of inquiry and so forth for students.
But even given that, meeting every child in his or her own developmental place requires a culture and atmosphere of intimacy, a level of attention from teachers that makes it challenging to imagine the model taking hold across large urban public school systems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/nyregion/in-the-spirit-of-mark-zuckerberg-an-experimental-school-in-brooklyn.html?hpw&rref=education&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
It’s not just the expense of the hardware, which by law must be updated every five years in my state, but the expense of the licenses to use the programs. We are using a program that costs $500 per child. Our district pays this fee for every first grader and ELL student in the district. I don’t know how many ELL’s there are at my school, but we have 91 first graders. This doesn’t address the cost of programs used in other grades.