EVERY GOVERNMENT wants to put its stamp on education, and in launching the BC Education Plan in 2012, the term “personalized learning” was resurrected, even though it was ambiguously defined then and has stayed that way since.
Personalized learning BACK TO THE FUTURE?
By Glen Hansman, BCTF 1st Vice-President
WHAT DOES THE 2012 version of personalized learning really mean? Will every child have an Individualized Education Plan? Will students choose their own learning pathways at each grade level? Will they all be connected to digital devices? Will grade levels and subject areas disappear? Based on the Ministry of Education’s PowerPoint presentations, briefs, and website content—nailing down the answers to any of these questions proves difficult. A quick scan of education change in BC shows many educational initiatives arriving with great fanfare, but then falling flat, or ending up partially implemented. Teachers have witnessed the pendulum swing in education before, so it is no surprise that ideas once in favour are re-emerging. While the BCTF supports some of these initiatives, it will be interesting to see what actually sticks a decade from now.
Personalized learning What’s new this time? BC teachers have always been vocal and active in shaping the direction and future of public education. In 1968, the BCTF conducted its own large-scale commission. Four teachers and BCTF staff travelled the province, gathering hundreds of oral and written submissions, publishing its findings in a document titled, Involvement: The Key to Better Schools.
6 TEACHER January/February 2016
This influential document included 189 recommendations including calling for the integration of students with special needs, meaningful provincial assessment practices, improved working and learning conditions, and greater opportunities for lifelong learning. The commission also made a number of recommendations related to “personalized learning.” In fact, one of the commission’s top recommendations states, “Education should be humanized and personalized,” and that “students, even in their youngest years, should be assisted in developing techniques for learning on their own, and given opportunities to evaluate their own progress.” Furthermore, the commission recommended that emotional maturity and social responsibility should parallel the development of the intellect, and “[t]hat active involvement of students, under guidance, in self-selected
The images in this article are from the 1968 BCTF publication Involvement: The Key to Better Schools.
areas of study, will result in voluntary sustained effort and the development of real scholarship.” The commission’s overarching idea called for the design of educational programs for each child, under the responsibility of the professional teacher, supported by the working and learning conditions necessary to do so. John Church, a well known BCTF staff person and activist, also wrote an extensive study about school libraries called Personalized Learning in the late 1960s. His work led to the establishment of demonstration school library projects in Vernon and Vancouver from 1970 to 1975. Other teachers were also exploring practices connected to personalized learning. The June 1971 issue of Teacher features a story about an award given by the BCTF to teachers Susan Close and Janice Micklethwaite for their work investigating personalized forms of teaching. The February 1972 issue of Teacher featured an article by Gyan Nath about personalized learning in a secondary school bookkeeping and accounting program.