For several years, vendors of Education technology have promoted the bizarre idea that learning on a computer is “personalized,” as compared to human interaction with a teacher. Tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates believed that technology would make it possible to accelerate learning and raise test scores by standardizing teaching.
Matt Barnum reports in Chalkbeat that Zuckerberg’s efforts failed. He and his wife Priscilla Chan via their CZI Initiative realize that their support of Summit Learning failed. However they are now betting on artificial intelligence.
What’s clear is that they do not trust teachers.
Barnum begins:
Several years ago, Mark Zuckerberg had grand designs for American schools.
The Facebook founder and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, poured well over $100 million into an online platform known as Summit Learning that initially aspired to be in half of the nation’s schools. In 2017, Zuckerberg suggested that technology-based “personalized learning” could vault the average student to the 98th percentile of performance.
Fast forward to this summer: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple’s philanthropic arm, laid off dozens of staff on its education team and announced a shift in strategy. “Our understanding of what’s possible in the world of education — and in our world more generally — has changed,” Sandra Liu Huang, CZI’s head of education, wrote in an August blog post. “And so, at CZI, our education efforts must change too. Navigating these changes is humbling and challenging, but ultimately, necessary.”
It was an acknowledgement that the company’s prior education strategy had fallen short of its hopes. Through a spokesperson, Huang declined an interview request, but noted in her blog post that the company is continuing its work in education, albeit with a different strategy. “This moment demands not just investment but innovation — and that’s why we are building a team of experts and partners to identify opportunities where technology and grantmaking can drive coherence,” she wrote.
CZI’s shift in approach marks something of a coda to an era when various advocates and funders believed that computer-based “personalized learning” could dramatically improve education. Summit, CZI’s pet project, has not spread as far as once hoped, and there’s little evidence that it or similar efforts have led to the large learning gains that Zuckerberg envisioned. This gap between ambitions and results underscores the difficulty of using technology to dramatically improve America’s vast system of decentralized schools.
“People keep hoping that our technologies are the Swiss Army knives or steamrollers that they can do everything,” said Justin Reich, a professor at MIT and author of a book on the limits of technology in education. “Instead, our best technologies are very particularly shaped ratchet heads and the landscape of education is millions of bolts.”
Please open the link and read the rest of this fascinating article. CZI has not given up on technology. Imagine if they had spent those millions on health clinics in schools. Or anything else human-based.

Imagine having spent all that freaking money on classroom libraries, on personal books for poor kids, on eye glasses and warm coats and breakfast for those kids. Imagine.
LikeLike
Let’s be clear about what the “personalized” is spozed to mean in “personalized learning.” (I write spozed in honored memory of Herndon, author of The Way It Spozed to Be). Back in the 1920s, a guy named Prosser, a Behaviorist, invented something he called “Programmed Learning.” It involved breaking down a learning task into discrete bits, having kids do a bit, then having them do a test for mastery, and then having them other go ahead or do remediation. And, to begin the whole process, there would be a placement test to decide where to drop the kid on the predetermined track.
THAT is what these morons mean by “personalized learning.” Taking the person, the teacher, out of the equation and using a mastery test to drop the kid down in a particular place on a predetermined learning track.
So, the whole Behaviorist thing had its way with American education for most of a century. As late as the 1970s, schools were still requiring that teachers submit Behavioral Objectives as part of their lesson plans.
But Behaviorism in Education, generally, and Programmed Learning in particular WERE FAILURES. Utter failures. A nation was experimented on, and the experiments did not work.
But that did not satisfy the wonks–the Billy Gateses and Mark Bloodsuckerbergs of the world, those self-appointed Masters of the Universe. They resurrected the old, failed Programmed Learning model (remember Language Labs and how badly those failed? Programmed Learning), gave it online instantiations, renamed it Personalized Learning, foisted the Common [sic] Core [sic] on us so that we would have one set of “standards” to key the online programmed learning to, and then ran with this. Now, schools all across the country are using these ghastly, boring, failed software programs DESPITE A CENTURY OF FAILURE OF THE APPROACH.
Why does it faile? Well, since time immemorial, teaching and learning have been about A PERSON who knows something passing what he or she knows to A PERSON who doesn’t know it yet in a PERSONAL interaction that we call education.
Fool with the tried and true at your peril.
Personalized Learning is just old, failed Programmed Learning with a new name. Old vinegar in new wine bottles. Same stinky poison.
LikeLike
I was teaching during in the 1970s during first wave of mastery learning. I can remember students pulling color coded cards that contained a story with multiple choice questions attached. After items were corrected, students either moved up a level or continued reading stories on the same one. This program was held in the school’s reading lab. I used to pull out the ELLs for ESL during this time. I had American students begging me to take them to ESL because they hated this deadly, dull, disconnected reading experience. I could see the restless, tedium on their faces. I think the publisher of the materials at that time was Curriculum Associates. Personalized learning is simply the cyber version of this same experience.
LikeLike
Exactly. That’s ALWAYS been the case with this stuff. Thanks for sharing this example, RT!!!
Always, one gets the hype. Eventually all the kids get onboarded and all the computer problems are solved. Then, for a day, it’s kinda novel and interesting. And after that the kids would all rather have every hair on the bodies pulled out with tweezers than have to work in the stupid educational software again.
Over and over and over again. Same story. Bill and Zuck are slow learners.
LikeLike
I have been out of the classroom for over ten years now, but, believe me, programmed learning was alive and well in the way we were required to write goals for IEPs. Direct, scripted instruction began to eat away of the idea that special ed students needed a program designed to meet their individual needs. It allowed anyone with an administrative certificate to think they were qualified to evaluate our instruction.
LikeLike
t allowed anyone with an administrative certificate to think they were qualified to evaluate our instruction.
Well said, Speduktr. I spent an entire career planning, writing, and editing textbooks in English language arts for various major publishing houses. In the last three years of my career, I returned to teaching high-school English to apply the learnings of a lifetime. I had an AP with almost no experience (she had taught History for a year or two) who would come into my room and act like she was there to tell me how to teach my subject. It was ridiculous. It was like having Tom Cruise telling Ed Witten how to do physics.
LikeLike
This same person was constantly finding stuff to nitpick about. She seemed to find my extensive qualifications for the job threatening. To some people, everything is a zero sum game. She also held up for approval truly idiotic sample lesson plans and championed tech in the classroom. And she was my boss. Aie yie yie. It’s not easy reporting to someone who hasn’t a clue what he or she is doing.
LikeLike
I had a principal reporting back that I was not moving around the room to different stations the way they thought I should. He would stand outside my room every once in awhile to see if I was “sage on a stage.” Of course, the room was too small to set up individual stations per the “ideal” plan, so I moved the kids around and worked with small groups as well as the whole group from the front of the room. I could see the whole room and what was going on and work with individuals and/or small groups at the same time. I also had an associate who was training to be a teacher who was an invaluable part of the teaching. I liked to have her lead the class when I had to have a sub (IEP meetings). She knew the routines and could run the room better than any sub even though some of them tried despite my advice to rely on her. None of that mattered to the “powers that be” because it didn’t follow their canned understanding of the program. None of them had any training in it but they knew how it should be done!
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol, ofc
LikeLike
I bit my tongue, but it was difficult to do so, I can tell you!!!!
And yeah, the scripted standards-competency-based goons went after Special Ed, ELA, and Math first.
LikeLike
I think the majority of billionaires are living in denial. They don’t want to acknowledge the fact that there is clear link between poverty and bad educational outcomes because the obvious answer would be to raise their taxes and put some anti-poverty programs in place.
LikeLike
Exactly the case. We need a wealth tax. But Clarence Thomas and the supermajority on the Extreme Court seem to like having a few rich guys to give them freebies and a nation of people living on the margins.
LikeLike
Barnum’s article says Summit students spent 16 hours/week on the computerized program. That’s a big portion of a school day.
I’m guessing that the teacher would circulate & interact w students during that time.
LikeLike
Like so many things in education (or rather what I refer to as the “Ed Biz,”), “personalized learning” is an attractive sounding concept which is, at best, misguided. The thinking goes: you are unique, so you need special treatment. But this places the burden of making something personalized upon the wrong person(s). The student is who should be responsible for this and needs to be trained to act accordingly. If they ask a question and don’t get a satisfactory answer, they need to learn to ask follow-up questions. They need to learn how to phrase questions to get the answers they need, etc.
But the sellers of “educational technology” want us to believe that they have some special juju that can make things work for the student, as a passive recipient of “knowledge,” instead of the student learning how to learn.
LikeLike
After having known several of the teachers who joined Summit at its inception, before the tech platforms, their goal at the beginning was utopian and truly personalized. I continue to struggle daily with the huge numbers of students, large class sizes, and the college only curriculum offered to high school students. It’s sink, swim, or lowered standards, and many teachers who just become skeptical and apathetic. Or wonderful depending on the day, the month, and the year. Those original teachers, and many more later Summit teachers all left as the tech platform took up more and more space and sidelined actual personalized lessons. They became a TFA hire and fire or burn out organization. Now I look at all platforms with suspicion, and follow Roxana Marachi’s work on the giants that own our students’ data. I just found out about another “personalization” platform called the Modern Classroom. Has anyone investigated this yet?
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing your experience!
LikeLike
You would think that Harvard educated pediatrician, Dr. Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg, would be familiar with all the literature from pediatricians with concerns about the impact of cyber instruction on developing eyes and brains. She should also be be concerned about widespread depression among adolescents that spend too much time online, but I suppose her mind is on something else, $$$.
LikeLike
Silicon Valley tyrants are continuing the game plan of Gates/Eric Schmidt by using their playbook. The offices of Senate leaders, most notably, Chuck Schumer, are filling up with tech “fellows” who receive salaries from the Horizon Institute for Public Service.
The tyrants’ critics say they are angling to get short term wins for their profit making ventures while operating under the guise of controlling AI in the future.
Democratic voters deserve someone in leadership who isn’t in bed with tech tyrants.
LikeLike
Democratic voters deserve someone in leadership who isn’t in bed with tech tyrants.
YES!!
LikeLike
The alleged Democratic couple (the elite side) who is funding Horizon is Facebook co-founder Dustin Moscowitz and his wife Cari Tuna. Moscowitz went to Harvard and Tuna went to Yale. Tuna went to Indiana’s first charter school, Signature School. She was a reporter for the right wing Wall Street Journal.
LikeLike
Horizon’s funder, Cari Tuna, graduated from Indiana’s first charter school, Signature School. Public School Review
describes the school as 36% minority enrollment (majority Asian). The Indiana public school average is 35% minority enrollment (majority Hispanic and Black).
She attended Yale and worked for the Wall Street Journal, in other words, a rarefied existence especially after marrying a Facebook co-founder. No doubt, she’s very proud of signing Gates’ giving pledge. We should all view the billionaires signing, like Gates himself, in terms of how much money they still have and the rate at which they are accumulating. But, if the goal was good publicity for them, there’s that.
LikeLike
Remember Zuckerberg’s $100 million challenge grant to Newark Public Schools? I just read NBC News 2-year progress report, which noted that $500K of $16 million spent so far had gone to Teach for America. A lot went to “consultants.” Then-mayor Cory Booker sought to make Newark a charter capital.
LikeLike
I shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages hence: online tech is only “skills” test prep, and content knowledge is the only thing of significance.
LikeLike
I was taught in college that the first education technology was the chalkboard. I ask myself, and I think it’s relevant, did the chalkboard really improve education? Did Socrates have something we today lack?
LikeLike