“Adaptive software systems that enable individualization of learning content and pacing.”
I really wish I had thought of calling the school of the future that incorporates Dr. McLeod’s seven pillars MFS (McLeod Future School) right from the beginning of this blog series! 🙂
The sum of the strands of his futures thinking continues with a sophisticated thread. The thread appears to be to use technology to refine what good schools should be doing in the first place.
Among these are;
– elevate curricula and the instructional strategies that deliver them
– create and expect collaborative communities
– truly adjust to the needs of the individual learner
McLeod’s sixth pilar, individualization of learning content and pace clearly fits with the third point above.
A question, probably an age-old one might be, “Why hasn’t this already happened?” I’d offer that we educators have talked this talk since Fred Flintstone but have never really walked it.
The truth is that it is very hard to individualize content, skills’ levels, and pacing in classes and this is obviously compounded by the number of students in a teacher’s class. Efforts like packets of learning, learning contracts, computerized instruction. homogenous grouping, even a special education youngster’s individualized educational plan, generally in my experience anyway, fail to sustain themselves. And what we usually see, even when students are somehow ability grouped, is that the teacher aims his shotgun – instructional techniques at the middle of the class and hopes that the teaching pellets spray out wide enough to somehow “nick” everybody, at least most of the time.
While I’ve not the answer here, I certainly endorse Dr. McLeod’s sixth pillar. It just seems that we can do this in MFS. Maybe it will be a consequence of the other pillars he has offered and that we have parsed thus far. I suspect strongly, that technology will perhaps provide the future highly trained and skilled teacher to use data about children differently than how we now haphazardly use them. I also strongly hope that MFS will have leadership, both at the principal level and collectively, that will create new kinds of organizational structures, to drive a culture of expectation and of mutual accountability among educators to actually individualize and pace skills and content effectively and longitudinally.
Broken record that I am,( hmm, am I dating myself? There were things like records once that, when broken would continuously play back the same message 🙂 ,having said this several times already, MFS might be responsible for implementing the technological structure and capacity to do what we talk to above. It would even have responsibility for maintaining a culture of expectation for individualization of content and skills pacing. It would even have a responsibility for providing continuous professional development to MFS’ crack staff.
However, thinking systemically, the real responsibility for making sure that staff has the requisite skills and dispositions to manage this into their teaching should clearly fall to the schools of education who produce future’s teachers. Just recently Larry Cuban wondered aloud about the quality of schools of education, notwithstanding national collegiate accreditation agencies of schools of education’s prodigious efforts to produce excellent teachers.
The effective and systems – pervading practices for school district’s and higher education’s collaboration to do this have been more a matter of talking that walk than walking it.