Issues with Standards-based Accountability
A global education today is considered one of the most essential advantages of the millennium era to ensure that individuals could compete in the contemporary world (College Board, 2012). Schools today focus on measuring student performance by assessing them on skills they are expected to acquire at specific grade levels and later assess them at the end of each year to measure their progress towards achieving a certain level of those skills. This is an example of how schools today over test their students, deeming little results, which is one of the many issues that are considered divisive among school board officials. Other causes of the U.S. education frenzy include the inaccuracy of the Common Core curriculum and the latest version of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) revised as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESS). Lawmakers, advocates, and analysts may have cleared the issue of NCLB with ESS, passed on December 10, 2015, but students still deem the same impractical results of the fringed U.S. education system that in which essentially lacks ambition and innovation for the future. Personalized, or individualized, learning would serve as a more practical, and modern idea to provide a greater benefit of a U.S. education (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). The current U.S. education system, standards based accountability, is inaccurate and must be changed so that students actually benefit from their education personally rather than suffering from bucket loads of information and study material that do not fit their needs nor their overall life aspirations.
Meaning and Purpose of Individualized Learning
Individualized learning is one of the most essential means of enriching student’s ability to pursue their study area interest. A growing number of schools are incorporating this kind of learning so that students can progress at their own rate. Individualized learning has four purposes to serve students’ education: (1) to track their strengths, needs, motivations, and goals, (2) to harness their customized plans that are held to a high standard, (3) to continually assess their clear goals as they advance at their own pace, and (4) to provide learning environments that support their needs (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). This way, students will have the choice to follow a curriculum that they will benefit from in the long term, meaning that they can take classes that will supplement their skills in engineering and design if they seek to be an architectural engineer, for example.
There are four specific functions of an individualized learning system; however, there are currently a variety of strategies and models that are currently being used to support their implementation in public schools. One of the first approaches to a personalized learning system was the pilot in New Hampshire in which students could enrich themselves with more educational resources while ignoring the limitation of the credit hour, the factor that determines when a student can graduate high school. Teachers in participating schools in New Hampshire currently assess students based on the appliance of students’ knowledge and skills; the U.S. Department of Education has permitted a total of four districts in 2015 to replace summative assessments with this test (Hyslop and Mead, 2015).
Quality of Individualized Learning vs Traditional Learning Systems
There have been several studies that have shown the success of individualized learning systems as opposed to the traditional system of common core. They include reports from educational organizations like the United States Department of Education. Some results include the increase in student performance especially in math (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). This is perhaps the cause because of the differentiated learning cycle that individualized learning brings to shift away from standard-base accountability. There are a few examples that can be used from their studies that prove that this personalized learning is the best option for students aiming to have the most high quality education to set them up for success whether they attend college or not. Moreover, the Third International Science and Mathematics Study (TIMSS) reported that there is an essence of providing students with time-sensitive tests that accompany guaranteed, rigorous courses, summative and formative assessments that test individuals’ progress related to the accountability standards, provision of supported curriculum that fit students’ schedule and interests, and a more modern means of teaching that gets students engaged in their interests while exposing them to differentiated processes and products (McTighe and Brown, 2005).
Early Investment in High School Education
Students would be more successful if they didn’t have to wait until they attend college before they have the opportunity to start investing in their lives after their secondary education. The issues of the U.S. education system may be the primary culprit of the nation’s economic and professional setback. For example, in 2005, the U.S. took 17th place globally in regards to the average high school graduation rate (NYTimes, 2005). Just to be clear, individualized learning concepts have been investigated for a while now - even since that plummet in national high school graduation rate. As noted in Differentiated Instruction for Middle and High School Students, there is a similar concept to individualized learning that is currently being investigated in replacement of the standard-based curriculum in some middle and high schools. A main function of differentiated instruction is to fit the diverse needs of students, without being tedious, while deeming rewards as a result. According to the instruction introduced in the guidebook, it is evident that students’ learning ability type(s) plays a huge role in their ability to learn which include the following: “visual, auditory, kinesthetic/haptic” (Northey, 2005). With that in mind, students have the opportunity maximize what they learn by focusing on the kinds of learning techniques that come with their style of learning; not only will students earn better grades, but they will retain more lessons and information from their studies to take with them all throughout their life - even beyond college. Today, if school districts even want to consider implementing individualized learning accountability in schools they require the use of state models to recognize well performing school in order to get a waiver from the new ESSA, as was done with the NCLB due to the certain requirements they have. All of this implies that models of accountability must be innovative and actionable that include assessing students on critical thinking, problem solving, and persistence rather than using state standardized tests. A more essential focus on the models would be to consider the undeserved schools (NGA, 2012) While students are picking up some of their last habits from high school, they can benefit from the implementation of rigorous, and personalized courses that ensure the success of each student as individuals.
The Potential of Individualized Learning Accountability
As a summary of this research, it is evident that the American school system would be better off if it shifted into the direction of individualized learning curriculum. As investigated, students showed that this attention to great detail within the needs of the individual regarding intended passion and determination areas, students will benefit more from enriching themselves in independent studies focusing on their careers and educational goals. It is for this reason that students find success in a world functioned on desperate labor just to suite the price of living. More students who are brought up with certain career areas that they find passion in will help to contribute to a new, more vibrant nation that advances to new levels of innovation and scientific discovery. If school implemented individualized learning in the current world to replace the common core curriculum, society would have the potential to produce a new generation of creative minds that have the skills they need to make a utopia for all American citizens and may even inspire other nations to deeply emulate the individualized learning system as well.
-- Stephanie Booker
We appreciate all suggestions and all comments that are related to global innovation and improvement through STEM and research. Brainstorm, Invest, and Discover a Future!
Bibliography
College Board. “Researchinreview-2012-4-Global-Education-Connections-Concepts-and-Careers.
pdf.” Accessed December 16, 2015. http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/6/researchinreview-2012-4-global-education-connections-concepts-and-careers.pdf.
Hyslop, Anne, and Sara Mead. A Path to the Future: Creating Accountability for Personalized Learning. Bellwether Education Partners, 2015. http://eric.ed.gov/?q=personalized+learning&id=ED557085.
McTighe, Jay, and John L. Brown. “Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Detente Possible?” Theory Into Practice 44, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 234–44. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8.
Redden, Molly. “‘Self Taught’ Lawmaker Says College Isn’t for Everyone.” Chronicle of Higher Education 57, no. 39 (June 17, 2011): A6–A6.
Northey, Sheryn Spencer. Handbook on Differentiated Instruction for Middle and High Schools. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye On Education, 2005.
Warger, T, EduServe, Dobbin, G, and EDUCAUSE. “Reinventing High School.” The New York Times, February 1, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/reinventing-high-school.html.
Whitaker, Judy. “Career Pathways: What They Are and Why We Need Them.” Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J3) 83, no. 6 (September 2008): 22–23.
National Governors Association. Creating a College and Career Readiness Accountability Model for High Schools. Issue Brief. NGA Center for Best Practices, 2012. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532522.
DOE. “Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education.” Accessed January 27, 2016. http://www.ed.gov/ESSA.
Unger, Harlow G. But What If I Don’t Want to Go to College?: A Guide to Success Through Alternative Education. Infobase Publishing, 2006.
A global education today is considered one of the most essential advantages of the millennium era to ensure that individuals could compete in the contemporary world (College Board, 2012). Schools today focus on measuring student performance by assessing them on skills they are expected to acquire at specific grade levels and later assess them at the end of each year to measure their progress towards achieving a certain level of those skills. This is an example of how schools today over test their students, deeming little results, which is one of the many issues that are considered divisive among school board officials. Other causes of the U.S. education frenzy include the inaccuracy of the Common Core curriculum and the latest version of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) revised as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESS). Lawmakers, advocates, and analysts may have cleared the issue of NCLB with ESS, passed on December 10, 2015, but students still deem the same impractical results of the fringed U.S. education system that in which essentially lacks ambition and innovation for the future. Personalized, or individualized, learning would serve as a more practical, and modern idea to provide a greater benefit of a U.S. education (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). The current U.S. education system, standards based accountability, is inaccurate and must be changed so that students actually benefit from their education personally rather than suffering from bucket loads of information and study material that do not fit their needs nor their overall life aspirations.
Meaning and Purpose of Individualized Learning
Individualized learning is one of the most essential means of enriching student’s ability to pursue their study area interest. A growing number of schools are incorporating this kind of learning so that students can progress at their own rate. Individualized learning has four purposes to serve students’ education: (1) to track their strengths, needs, motivations, and goals, (2) to harness their customized plans that are held to a high standard, (3) to continually assess their clear goals as they advance at their own pace, and (4) to provide learning environments that support their needs (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). This way, students will have the choice to follow a curriculum that they will benefit from in the long term, meaning that they can take classes that will supplement their skills in engineering and design if they seek to be an architectural engineer, for example.
There are four specific functions of an individualized learning system; however, there are currently a variety of strategies and models that are currently being used to support their implementation in public schools. One of the first approaches to a personalized learning system was the pilot in New Hampshire in which students could enrich themselves with more educational resources while ignoring the limitation of the credit hour, the factor that determines when a student can graduate high school. Teachers in participating schools in New Hampshire currently assess students based on the appliance of students’ knowledge and skills; the U.S. Department of Education has permitted a total of four districts in 2015 to replace summative assessments with this test (Hyslop and Mead, 2015).
Quality of Individualized Learning vs Traditional Learning Systems
There have been several studies that have shown the success of individualized learning systems as opposed to the traditional system of common core. They include reports from educational organizations like the United States Department of Education. Some results include the increase in student performance especially in math (Hyslop and Mead, 2015). This is perhaps the cause because of the differentiated learning cycle that individualized learning brings to shift away from standard-base accountability. There are a few examples that can be used from their studies that prove that this personalized learning is the best option for students aiming to have the most high quality education to set them up for success whether they attend college or not. Moreover, the Third International Science and Mathematics Study (TIMSS) reported that there is an essence of providing students with time-sensitive tests that accompany guaranteed, rigorous courses, summative and formative assessments that test individuals’ progress related to the accountability standards, provision of supported curriculum that fit students’ schedule and interests, and a more modern means of teaching that gets students engaged in their interests while exposing them to differentiated processes and products (McTighe and Brown, 2005).
Early Investment in High School Education
Students would be more successful if they didn’t have to wait until they attend college before they have the opportunity to start investing in their lives after their secondary education. The issues of the U.S. education system may be the primary culprit of the nation’s economic and professional setback. For example, in 2005, the U.S. took 17th place globally in regards to the average high school graduation rate (NYTimes, 2005). Just to be clear, individualized learning concepts have been investigated for a while now - even since that plummet in national high school graduation rate. As noted in Differentiated Instruction for Middle and High School Students, there is a similar concept to individualized learning that is currently being investigated in replacement of the standard-based curriculum in some middle and high schools. A main function of differentiated instruction is to fit the diverse needs of students, without being tedious, while deeming rewards as a result. According to the instruction introduced in the guidebook, it is evident that students’ learning ability type(s) plays a huge role in their ability to learn which include the following: “visual, auditory, kinesthetic/haptic” (Northey, 2005). With that in mind, students have the opportunity maximize what they learn by focusing on the kinds of learning techniques that come with their style of learning; not only will students earn better grades, but they will retain more lessons and information from their studies to take with them all throughout their life - even beyond college. Today, if school districts even want to consider implementing individualized learning accountability in schools they require the use of state models to recognize well performing school in order to get a waiver from the new ESSA, as was done with the NCLB due to the certain requirements they have. All of this implies that models of accountability must be innovative and actionable that include assessing students on critical thinking, problem solving, and persistence rather than using state standardized tests. A more essential focus on the models would be to consider the undeserved schools (NGA, 2012) While students are picking up some of their last habits from high school, they can benefit from the implementation of rigorous, and personalized courses that ensure the success of each student as individuals.
The Potential of Individualized Learning Accountability
As a summary of this research, it is evident that the American school system would be better off if it shifted into the direction of individualized learning curriculum. As investigated, students showed that this attention to great detail within the needs of the individual regarding intended passion and determination areas, students will benefit more from enriching themselves in independent studies focusing on their careers and educational goals. It is for this reason that students find success in a world functioned on desperate labor just to suite the price of living. More students who are brought up with certain career areas that they find passion in will help to contribute to a new, more vibrant nation that advances to new levels of innovation and scientific discovery. If school implemented individualized learning in the current world to replace the common core curriculum, society would have the potential to produce a new generation of creative minds that have the skills they need to make a utopia for all American citizens and may even inspire other nations to deeply emulate the individualized learning system as well.
-- Stephanie Booker
We appreciate all suggestions and all comments that are related to global innovation and improvement through STEM and research. Brainstorm, Invest, and Discover a Future!
Bibliography
College Board. “Researchinreview-2012-4-Global-Education-Connections-Concepts-and-Careers.
pdf.” Accessed December 16, 2015. http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/6/researchinreview-2012-4-global-education-connections-concepts-and-careers.pdf.
Hyslop, Anne, and Sara Mead. A Path to the Future: Creating Accountability for Personalized Learning. Bellwether Education Partners, 2015. http://eric.ed.gov/?q=personalized+learning&id=ED557085.
McTighe, Jay, and John L. Brown. “Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Detente Possible?” Theory Into Practice 44, no. 3 (Summer 2005): 234–44. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8.
Redden, Molly. “‘Self Taught’ Lawmaker Says College Isn’t for Everyone.” Chronicle of Higher Education 57, no. 39 (June 17, 2011): A6–A6.
Northey, Sheryn Spencer. Handbook on Differentiated Instruction for Middle and High Schools. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye On Education, 2005.
Warger, T, EduServe, Dobbin, G, and EDUCAUSE. “Reinventing High School.” The New York Times, February 1, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/reinventing-high-school.html.
Whitaker, Judy. “Career Pathways: What They Are and Why We Need Them.” Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J3) 83, no. 6 (September 2008): 22–23.
National Governors Association. Creating a College and Career Readiness Accountability Model for High Schools. Issue Brief. NGA Center for Best Practices, 2012. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532522.
DOE. “Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education.” Accessed January 27, 2016. http://www.ed.gov/ESSA.
Unger, Harlow G. But What If I Don’t Want to Go to College?: A Guide to Success Through Alternative Education. Infobase Publishing, 2006.