ATL

Personalisation

There is something politically correct and inherently redundant about the concept of 'personalised learning'. It falls under the 'man bites dog' rule in the sense that it would be strange to meet anyone who was opposed to personalised learning. Since it is politically correct to support personalised learning, it is redundant to include the 'personalised' - a superfluous label on education in modern society. Paludan (2006)

Personalised learning is a label given by the government to an initiative designed to tailor education to individual need, interest and aptitude in order to fulfil every young person's potential. The government claims that this can be achieved by schools and teachers establishing their own approaches to personalised learning, so that the learning needs and talents of young people locally are used to guide decision-making across the education system.

What does it all mean?

The principle of personalised learning was launched by the prime minister in his speech to the Labour Party Conference on 30 September 2003 where he stated, "At secondary school, there will be personalised learning for every child in new specialist schools and City Academies." A more developed explanation was offered by David Miliband, the Minister of State, in his speech to the National College for School Leadership in October 2003, "The goal is clear. It is what the prime minister described in his party conference speech as personalised learning; an education system where assessment, curriculum, teaching style, and out-of-hours provision are all designed to discover and nurture the unique talents of every single pupil".

The goal may have been clear, but the boundaries of the concept were not obvious, as indicated by Alan Steer, a headteacher at Seven Kings High School in his comment to The Guardian newspaper, "You see the carpets on the floor? That's personalised learning, too." (The Guardian, 18 November 2003).

However, further speeches repeated and refined the vision. David Miliband developed his view during his speech to the North of England Education Conference in January 2004, "This is what I mean by personalised learning. High expectation of every child, given practical form by high quality teaching based on a sound knowledge and understanding of each child's needs. It is not individualised learning where pupils sit alone at a computer. Nor is it pupils left to their own devices, which too often reinforces low aspirations. It can only be developed school by school. It cannot be imposed from above."

David Miliband identified five key processes that would make this possible:

• assessment for learning

• effective teaching and learning strategies

• curriculum entitlement and choice

• school organisation

• strong partnership beyond the school.

However, the term 'personalised learning' was introduced and developed by politicians. It does not arise from academic research, from grassroots practice, or from the larger education policy community. In response to murmurings that the concept lacked clarity, the then minister commissioned the respected educationist David Hargreaves and the thinktank Demos to produce the clarification. Hargreaves' conclusion is telling:

At the heart of the concept is an old idea that has always appealed to, and been taken seriously by, practitioners in education. So what's new? ...can more be done to meet the learning needs of all students?' Hargreaves (2004)

None of this work succeeded in overcoming the widespread criticism (Johnson [2004]; White [2006]) that the term 'personalised learning' is all things to all people. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed below, the government persists in using the term as a central plank of its policy. Earlier in 2006 the government established the '2020 Review' under the leadership of Christine Gilbert. Its objective was:

'To present to the Secretary of State a vision for personalised teaching and learning in 2020 that enables every child to achieve higher standards, and to make recommendations which would support the delivery of that vision.'

However, it appeared likely that this report, which was due to be published in January 2007, might avoid problems of definition and focused on short-term initiatives to improve the performance of a number of target groups of pupils.

Nevertheless, just because the term connects with what has always appealed to practitioners, many of them have adopted it and are seeking to base practice on it. This statement makes a contribution to the debate on personalisation and advises members on how to react to it.

Converting the slogan into practice

Just because the term is all things to all people, many adherents of particular strategies for raising attainment or achievement claim that their pet strategy is a form of personalised learning. The government has moved on from David Miliband's five processes to link a number of its policy interests to it. Some people, when struggling to define personalised learning, are actually describing inclusion: not in the narrow sense of supporting pupils with SEN, but more widely to give appropriate care and attention to all pupils, especially those who are less likely to be successful at school. For example, for some years the very low qualifications achieved by looked-after children has been a concern. Now it is said that this can be improved by personalisation. What is meant is that achievement can be improved by attention to their individual needs, just as can the achievement of gifted and talented pupils, working class pupils, pupils from underachieving ethnic groups, and so on. This could be described as uncontentious or perhaps as a statement of the obvious. However, performance data consistently show that the most important underachieving group in terms of size and persistence are working class pupils, and in resisting class analysis the government limits its ability to address the educational needs of this group. Doing this would enable the government to achieve its overarching aims to reduce the range of achievement, and to improve the 17+ participation rate.

The government seeks to identify specific strategies which schools can adopt for various target groups. ATL should evaluate such strategies on their merits, while bearing in mind the question of whether all schools will have the resources to implement them. If schools are to give relatively greater attention to looked-after children, for example, they need to be advised which groups are to receive relatively less attention. There are two developments which are widely held to be associated with the capacity of a school to personalise learning. These are discussed in turn.

Personalised learning and workforce reform

On the face of it, the National Agreements signed by the Social Partnership had relatively limited aims. However, some adherents of workforce reform have much larger visions. They foresee teaching and learning organised in very different ways from the class of 30 and the bell. They suggest that the school of the future will feature much more individual work by pupils on long-term cross curricular projects, with individual tutoring, coaching and mentoring becoming as important as group teaching. They see workforce reform as the process of preparing the workforce to move towards the adoption of such radical change. ATL has supported the principle that staff other than qualified teachers could be in charge of classes in certain circumstances, but this remains controversial and the permitted circumstances remain strictly limited. Such developments would question the role of teachers and support staff, the qualifications and training needed for each role and the demarcation between them.

It is important to accept the frequent statements from both Ministers and DfES officials that personalisation is not to be translated into a demand that teachers prepare lesson plans for every individual pupil. It is possible to conceive of the demand on teachers as being to bear in mind the needs of pupils from vulnerable social groups in the lesson plan, very much in the way that they are expected to consider the learning needs of both boys and girls. The vision described above is a long-term one which not only excludes lesson plans but also excludes lessons themselves in the normally accepted sense, but it is not one adopted by ministers. They envisage improvements in performance on the part of vulnerable groups being achieved by more of the same: initiatives and strategies implemented in conventional classrooms with conventional success criteria.

Personalised learning and IT

All versions of future models of teaching and learning assume a much larger place for IT as a learning tool. The assumption is shared in ATL's curriculum policy, in which knowledge is regarded as easily accessed. The ability of the software industry to design materials which cater for learners as individuals is increasing rapidly. There is growing evidence that IT-based learning can be very effective for certain kinds of learning, along with IT-based assessment.

Despite the protestation that personalised learning should not be seen as 'individualised learning where pupils sit alone at a computer' (see above) David Miliband might more accurately have stated that it was not only that. The question, already raised above, is what professional support will pupils need in order to work effectively at a computer.

England is the only country to have adopted the interactive whiteboard to the extent that it is fast becoming a standard tool in secondary schools and commonly used in primaries. It is clearly designed for a class teaching scenario. It could also be viewed as a doomed attempt to make lessons eye-catching and fast moving like TV programmes or computer games. It is difficult to envisage a version of personalised learning in which the whole class lesson predominates; the question for the IT industry is not whether it can continue to expand its presence in schools, but whether group or individual pedagogies will become the norm.

Barriers to the vision

The Government now perceives personalisation to be the processes by which relatively underachieving groups of pupils can be included and given specific support. In ATL's view, there are two significant barriers in schools to this more inclusive approach. The first is the target culture, including testing and league table systems. The principal distortion caused by targets and their associated tests is the concentration of resources on the small group of pupils that are on the borderline of the target achievement. Inclusion will remain problematic until the incentive to do this is removed.

The second most significant driver of school behaviour is Ofsted. It is a widely shared view that the new framework, as operated, has succumbed to an over-reliance on narrow data which is of doubtful validity. Ofsted's judgement of a school is largely based on its scores on just one measurement, the key targets mentioned above. Ofsted might claim that its use of contextually value added (CVA) data makes this measurement neutral with respect to encouraging schools to be inclusive, but ATL knows that the CVA scores show a high correspondence with raw scores (Gorard, 2006) which are strongly related to social background. What stronger disincentive could there be to schools to give due attention to those who will make little contribution to test scores?

The Government now seeks to turn these barriers into levers for personalisation. Ofsted pays ever increasing attention to individualised performance data in schools, and expects schools to have adopted individual strategies for highlighted pupils. For example, it closely scrutinises the provision for pupils with EAL. While ATL accepts the responsibility of the inspectors to challenge schools, they sometimes raise their level of expectation too far, in the context of staff and other resources available in those schools.

Personalisation, individualism and social purpose

We now return to the question of the larger political purpose for the government in supporting the personalisation of public services. The government believes that in order to retain its appeal it must go along with the mood of society, which it perceives to be an increasing individualism with an associated expectation of consumer choice. It is fair to say that this neo-liberal approach is shared by the three major parties.

In education, the standards agenda, introduced by the previous government and developed by the present one, has had the effect of reducing the purposes of school to one: the acquisition by individual pupils of qualifications. Regardless of political beliefs, teachers in Britain reject this individualism. They have always held that schools have much wider purposes. There are two dimensions in which British schools should be aiming higher and wider than the standards agenda. First, commitment to Every Child Matters should entail a focus on the development of their pupils in the widest sense. Second, education is not only about individuals; it is a social experience. Indeed, the evidence becomes ever stronger that collaborative learning is particularly effective (especially when linked to individual assessment); with learning through play a vital aspect of early years education.

Policy should reflect and support the social roles of education, such as secondary socialisation, community building and social cohesion, and cultural and ethical education for pupils. In Britain, teachers believe that part of their job is to teach pupils to get on together, to have respect for certain moral standards, and to understand the world around them.

Universally, pupils also see school as a social experience. Teachers are also committed to supporting the best possible outcomes for their pupils, and recognise the variability of their needs, while accepting that resources do not allow all needs to be met. This twin commitment, to education as a social experience and to individual pupils, is reflected in ATL's curriculum policy. The collective is represented in a national curriculum which lists essential skills equally required by all pupils - a comprehensive curriculum. The personal is represented in the knowledge aspects, which are to be locally determined and could result in personalised knowledge.

Conclusion

ATL concludes from the literature on personalised learning that the term has no utility for policymakers or practitioners. If it can be defined only at the level of generality used by Hargreaves, it is entirely incapable by itself of being turned into a concrete school policy; that school staff seek to meet the learning needs of all students is a statement of the obvious, but this does not suggest any particular policies or practices.

• ATL asserts that the language of the debate on personalisation is a dangerous assertion of the primacy of the individual, whereas schools above all are places committed to the understanding and development of the social.

• ATL advises the government that schools can be enabled to have more regard for the needs of all pupils only when the powerful levers of the standards agenda and the inspection system are removed in their present forms.

• If the instinct of teachers is to do the best for all their pupils, they must be trusted to make professional judgements.

• If the government wants a more inclusive approach, it must give staff the autonomy to determine priorities. School staff must be allowed to make decisions about the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment appropriate for all their pupils to be able to approach what some will call personalised learning. Of course, this autonomy must be subject to accountabilities, but these need to be reduced and rationalised.

• For this to be successful, we need a workforce that has access to, and can evaluate, innovation. We need a curriculum and assessment framework capable of meeting the needs of all, with the flexibility for local improvisation.

In refusing to countenance analysis of the needs of the more marginalised of our pupils, which goes beyond the current policy envelope, the government will be unable to deal with these realities. More of the same just will not do the job.

If you would like further information, or to comment, on this briefing paper please do so by contacting ATL.

References

Gorard S. (2006) 'How useful is value-added analysis of schools?' Research Intelligence, May 2006, Issue 95.

Johnson, M. (2004) 'Personalised Learning: An emperor's outfit?' London, Institute for Public Policy Research.

Paludan, J.P. (2006) 'Personalised Learning 2025 in Schooling for Tomorrow', Personalising Education, Paris, OECD Publishing.

White J. (2006) Individual Learning? Let's cut the confusion. Times Education Supplement, 7 July edition.