Our industry’s ongoing experimentation with personalized learning has seen some interesting (even troubling ) twists and turns as educators, industry leaders, and policy-makers try to sort out a common definition of what we mean by it and a set of best practices that captures what it looks like in action. As with many things in education, it is fair to say that we might be making this simple concept into something much more complicated (even controversial) than is necessary.
In fact, maybe our parameters around personalized learning should remain fluid as long as our actions begin and end with valuing each child as a person, and providing each one a learning path that is unique unto themselves. In fact, with the lives of so many children at stake, it might be prudent for all of us to stash away the educational snobbery for a moment and pass on the same-old, tired political and policy rhetoric. No matter what research definitions we choose to quote, tapping into student interests and passions and (in turn) increasing learning is the only definition that really matters.
In the end, who really cares if our students are reading books or solving equations at home, in the classroom, or on a computer? In fact, there is some fascinating irony at play when we attempt to characterize one thing as “personalized learning” and another thing as not, especially since the promising practices around this type of pedagogy are designed to be unique to each student’s learning style. It seems equally ironic for any of us to demand that personalized learning is not actually personalized if it doesn’t capture each and every aspect of a certain program, experience, or approach.
Knowing our students means more than knowing their names
No matter the paths we take in individualizing our curriculum, materials and assessments, there is something else at play here that may be far more important to student success: dignity and respect. In the simplest of terms, this means getting to know each student personally and valuing their contributions to school and life. While we all make fair attempts to get to know the kids in our schools (learning each child’s name, assigning each child a mentor) this is a far cry from actually knowing the subtleties that make them unique, grasping the nuances of their family situations, and understanding what their strengths and passions might be. Even if we go that far, we are still far removed from seeing and appreciating their worth as individuals no matter their backgrounds.
Of course, none of this is easy in schools when there are so many of them and so few of us. In getting us closer to some answers, let us wrestle with two related terms that we all know but do not always put into action in our day-to-day work with children.
Dignity
This is a term we rarely use in our schools and communities. In fact, it is probably one that most of us would struggle to define. It’s not that we don’t know the word itself. It’s just that deep, meaningful concepts like dignity, honor and even chivalry are not ones that we toss around much anymore. That’s too bad. You see, dignity is much more complex and profound than behaviors we discuss more commonly in schools like kindness or even empathy (which we also lack). In its simplest form, dignity is defined as valuing other human beings. It describes what we do when we actively seek to recognize and celebrate each person’s worth as unique and special beings.
Harvard prof and author Donna Hicks is one such researcher whose articles and books on dignity are good reads for those who are interested in learning more. She describes dignity as something we are born with, while respect is something we earn. If she’s right, then we must recognize that each child has value and something meaningful to contribute to our schools and communities. Yes, this includes the kids who don’t come to school very often, those who act out in class, and those with dirty clothes, bad manners, or blue hair (you can insert your own stereotype here).
If we had a better understanding of dignity, we would view our children not as a cohort of kids progressing through the system each year, but as individual human beings who are unlike any other we have ever seen or known. We cannot seriously think that we are personalizing the learning experiences for our kids if we don’t know and value our kids as people. At our core as human beings, we do not seek to learn first and then find value in our lives. We seek first to be valued and then to learn. Knowing our kids’ names and greeting them at the door are great starting points, but we must find ways to humanize each of us through planned experiences and interactions between students and adults that are rich and respectful.
Respect
This is term that is more common to us as educators, mostly because students have been telling us for years that we are not showing them enough respect. They are right, by the way. Unlike dignity, we are not born knowing how to respect others. It is a learned value. It is an action that shows others that we appreciate them and their opinions. It is the exact opposite of actions that we know to be destructive like belittling, isolating, bullying, and discriminating. In fact, this discussion around dignity and respect is highly connected to the work we are engaged in around culturally relevant pedagogy. Our instruction cannot really be culturally responsive in the absence of authentic relationships or if created from a pretext of prejudice.
In fact, imagine what our schools would look like if we began our work from a curriculum built from a foundation of things like dignity and respect and then layered with subject content and skill-building on top of that, a curriculum designed from the inside out. You see, putting kids on an adaptive computer program or giving them choices of books to read is fine and dandy, though not nearly as rich and engaging as designing the actual curriculum around the kids themselves. The good news is that there are already some great educators around the country at work on this type of change.
True Engagement
In the end, it would be wise for us to know that our children are not just “sort-of” like us. They are us, only a little smaller. They are not inherently different, nor are they lesser. As human beings, we all seek the same things, to be heard, to be recognized, to be valued, and to feel safe. As educators, we know that each of these things precedes cognition.
Of course, none of this is easy so let us give ourselves some room to figure it out. While we decide what we want our schools to be, what personalized, individualized spaces for learning will look like, and how students might grow via their own paths and pace, let us not lose sight of the children in designing curricula that speaks to their individual worth and values. Otherwise, we might end up with more engaging activities and less engaged learners.
