Ed Schüssler (Red.) (2006). Weg van de middenschool. Dertig jaar na de start van het middenschoolexperiment. Garant.
- o.a. Jos van Kemenade: Karikaturen van de middenschool 55-66
- Tineke Netelenbos: Er is nog een lange weg te gaan 71-76
- Jos van Kemenade en Wim Meijnen: Ook het onderwijs kan zoveel beter 103-124
- Teije van der Bij en Frederik Riemersma: Naar meer flexibiliteit in het voortgezet onderwijs 141-144
- Heim Meijerink: Wie gaat over vernieuwing? 145-148
Rauno Parrila, Kaisa Aunola, Esko Leskinen, Jari-Erik Nurmi & John R. Kirby (2005). Development of Individual Differences in Reading: Results From Longitudinal Studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299-319. abstract
Amanda Keddie & Richard Niesche (2012). Productive engagements with student difference: supporting equity through cultural recognition. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 333-348. abstract
Mikael Alexandersson (2011): Equivalence and choice in combination: the Swedish dilemma, Oxford Review of Education, 37:2, 195-214. abstract
H. G. van de Werfhorst (2011). Selectie en differentiatie in het Nederlandse onderwijsbestel. Gelijkheid, burgerschap en onderwijsexpansie in vergelijkend perspectief. Pedagogische Studiën, 88, 283-297. pdf op website auteur
H. G. van de Werfhorst & J. J. B. Mijs (2007). Onderwijsdifferentiatie en ongelijkheid: Nederland in vergelijkend perspectief. Instituut voor Arbeidsstudies. pdf
- Linda Welther (2008). Vroege selectie heeft ook voordelen. Didaktief, nr 10, 3031. Interview met Van de Werfhorst. Van de Werfhorst is zeker een briljant onderzoeker, maar moet nog wel leren de puntjes op de i t e zetten, zie dit citaat: “Er is geen selectie op universiteiten: al haal je als vwo’er alleen zesjes op je eindexamen, je kunt nog steeds alles gaan studeren. Wat dat betreft is Nederland een buitenbeentje.” Dat een onderzoeker op et terrein van sociale ongelijkheid in relatie tot onderwijs, deze onzin verkondigt, is toch ongelooflijk. Kennelijk is hij bezorgd over het almaar dalende niveau van presteren in alle lagen van ons onderwijs, en daar geef ik hem dan weer groot gelijk in. Maar dat zijn twee verschillende zaken, die natuurlijk wel enige relatie tot elkaar hebben.
H. G. van de Werfhorst (2008). Leren of ontberen? Over onderwijsinstituties en ongelijkheid. inaugurele rede
Ulrich Trautwein and Oliver Lüdtke, Herbert W. Marsh, Olaf Köller, Jürgen Baumert (2006). Tracking, Grading, and Student Motivation: Using Group Composition and Status to Predict Self-Concept and Interest in Ninth-Grade Mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 788-806. abstract
Philip C. Abrami, Yiping Lou, Bette Chambers, Catherine Poulsen & John C. Spence (2000): Why Should We Group Students Within-Class for Learning?, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 6:2, 158-179 <--pdf--> abstract: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F158 Een altijd weer enorm omstreden onderwerp, zeker in Nederland, is dat van meer heterogene klassen. Dat leverrt onmiddellijk de associatie 'middenschool' op, en dat is niet bevorderlijk voor een rustige uitwisseling van inhoudelijke argumenten. Toch kan niemand om het onderwerp heen, want het gaat niet om een absolute tegenstelling tussen homogeen of heterogeen samengestelde klassen: het gaat om gradaties van heterogeniteit. Om een simpel voorbeeld te geven: het is een gevestigd maar niet empirisch ondersteund idee dat zittenblijven goed is voor alle betrokkenen, en dat zittenblijven resulteert in minder heterogeen samengestelde klassen dan anders het geval zou zijn. De zittenblijver maakt de klas waarin hij terechtkomt echter weer heterogener dan anders het geval zou zijn.
Er is erg veel onderzoek beschikbaar, zowel Nederlands en ander nationaal onderzoek, als internationaal onderzoek, dat licht kan werpen op de vraag of minder heterogeen in bepaalde opzichten 'beter' uitwerkt, etcetera. In deze webpagina wil ik een begin maken van een overzicht. Het probleem hierbij is dat het telkens raakt aan andere onderwerpen die een belang op zichzelf hebben, zoals zittenblijven, individuele verschillen, toetsen en examineren, kwaliteiten van leraren, kenmerken van onderwijsstelsels. Daar zij dan telkens naar verwezen. Hier gaat het om de grootste gemene delers te vinden.
Pat Rubio Goldsmith (2011). Coleman revisited: School segregation, peers, and frog ponds. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 508. abstract
Jesse Levin (2002). Essays in the economics of education. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam. Geen pdf beschikbaar (zoek de artikelen zelf, daar is dit proefschrift immers uit samengesteld). samenvatting
- Klassenverkleining lijkt een heel ander onderwerp dan heterogeniteit van groepen. Maar is dat wel zo? De Nederlandse politiek is zo achterlijk geweest om een enorm bedrag te investeren in kleindere klassen in het basisonderwijs (waarvoor dus ook heel wat extra personeel aangenomen en extra klaslokalen gebouwd moesten worden, in plaats van geld gericht in te ztten voor die kleine groep leerlingen voor wie kleinere groepen echt positief verschil maken. Maar daar gaat het onderzoek van Levin niet over. Ik neem uit zijn samenvatting een belangrijk deel over, dat op heterogeniteit betrekking heeft. Oorspronkelijke publicatie, neem ik aan:
- Jesse Levin (2001). For whom the reductions count: A quantile regression analysis of class size and peer effects on scholastic achievement. Empirical Economics, 26, 221-246. abstract
- “Een vaak bepleite onderwijshervorming is klassenverkleining. Klassenverkleining is waarschijnlijkk populair omdat het achterliggende idee erg intuïtief is. Klassenverkleining betekentt dat er per leerling meer tijd besteed kan worden, wat ervoor zou moeten zorgen dat dee schoolprestaties verbeteren. In 1997 besloot de Nederlandse regering een groot bedrag te bestedenn aan klassenverkleining in het basisonderwijs.
Hoofdstuk 1 onderzoekt de effectiviteit van klassenverkleining in de context van het Nederlandsee basisonderwijs. Onderzocht wordt of kleinere klassen leiden tot betere leerprestaties. De eerste bevindingen van het effect van klassengrootte op taal- en rekenscoress wijzen daar niet op. Na correctie voor een groot aantal individuele kenmerken, klaskenmerkenn en schoolkenmerken en gebruikmakend van een schattingstechniek die corrigeertt voor verschillen in niet waargenomen variabelen, blijkt dat leerlingen in grote klassenn niet slechter — en soms zelfs beter — presteren dan leerlingen in kleine klassen.
Als mogelijke verklaring voor deze positieve relatie tussen prestatie en klassengrootte iss onderzocht of het hebben van klasgenoten met een vergelijkbaar IQ van invloed is. Het verwachtee aantal klasgenoten met een vergelijkbaar IQ neemt toe met de grootte van de klas. Het blijkt dat het aantal medeleerlingen in de klas met een vergelijkbaar IQ een positieve invloedd heeft op de prestaties van een leerling. Dit verklaart waarom klassenverkleining niet helpt. Bij klassenverkleining neemt niet alleen het aantal leerlingen per leerkracht af, hetgeen gunstigg is, maar daalt ook het aantal medeleerlingen met een vergelijkbaar IQ, en dat is ongunstig. In het Nederlandse basisonderwijs doet kennelijk gemiddeld genomen het tweede effect het eerste effect teniet.
Het eerste hoofdstuk onderzoekt de gemiddelde effecten van klassenverkleining en vann het aantal medeleerlingen met een vergelijkbaar IQ. Dit zegt echter weinig over de verschillendee effecten die deze variabelen kunnen hebben op leerlingen van verschillende prestatieniveaus. Zo is denkbaar dat het plaatsen van leerlingen in kleine groepen en/of bij klasgenoten met een vergelijkbaar IQ, een andere uitwerking heeft op leerlingen die matig presterenn dan op leerlingen die goed presteren. In Hoofdstuk 2 is een methode toegepast waarmeee het effect van deze variabelen bij verschillende prestatieniveaus kan worden gemeten.
De eerste bevindingen van het effect van de klassengrootte op scores van reken- en taaltoetsen bieden opnieuw weinig steun voor klassenverkleining, ongeacht of een persoon laag of hoog presteert. Het opnemen van het aantal medeleerlingen met vergelijkbaar IQ levertt echter interessante uitkomsten op. Het positieve effect van deze variabele is namelijk het grootst voor degenen met de laagste prestaties en is verwaarloosbaar voor leerlingen met hogere prestatieniveaus. Dit suggereert dat klassenverkleining van invloed kan zijn op de verdelingg van prestaties binnen klassen. Terwijl er geen bewijs is van een direct voordeel van klassenverkleining laten de resultaten zien dat leerlingen die laag presteren zeer ongunstig beïnvloedd worden door het verlies van soortgelijke klasgenoten. Daarom kan klassenverkleining die ermee gepaard gaat dat matige leerlingen minder medeleerlingen overhouden met een vergelijkbaar IQ, gezien worden als regressief beleid. Het weghalen van soortgelijkee leerlingen, die een goede invloed hebben op matig presterende leerlingen, maakt dat deze leerlingen (nog) minder gaan presteren.”
Yiping Lou, Philip C. Abrami, John C. Spence, Catherine Poulsen, Bette Chambers & Sylvia d’Apollonia (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.
Margaret C. Wang & C. Mauritz Lindvall (1984). Individual differences and school learning environments. In E. W. Gordon: Review of Research in Education Volume 10—1984 (161-226). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
- Dit is een goed overzicht van ontwikkelingen in de VS, waarvan ook het nodige naar Europa is overgewaaid: individueel-voorgeschreven onderwijs, Bloom's mastery learning, Cronbach & Snow's aptitude treatment interacties, Cronbach & Suppes' evaluatie van onderwijs, criterium-gerefereerd toetsen.
- Toch is er een belangrijk verschil tussen het Amerikaanse en het Europese denken over heterogeniteit in de klas, al stippen de auteurs dat zelf niet aan. In Amerika is het een gegeven dat er in iedere klas grote individuele verschillen tussen leerlingen zijn, en dat het de opgave van de school en de leraar is om daar goed mee om te gaan. In Europa is de houding een wezenlijk andere: daar wordt liever eerst geprobeerd de klassen een meer homogene samenstelling te geven door bijvoorbeeld het secundair onderwijs in kolommen op te delen. Houd dat onderscheid goed voor ogen, anders komen de Amerikaanse ontwikkelingen een tikje 'Europavreemd' over.
- Het gaat vooral over individuele verschillen. In het begin van de 20e eeuw zijn dat vooral verschillen in intellectuele capaciteiten, later komen daar meer variabelen bij zoals al verworven kennis en motivatie. In de tweede helft van de eeuw verbreedt de belangstelling zich naar wat leerlingen met hun capaciteiten doen (leerstijlen!), en hoe zowel leraren als leerlingen hun tijd besteden (en hoeveel: voor adaptief onderwijs hebben leraren al gauw een tekort aan beschikbare tijd, en hebben leerlingen mogelijk ernstige verliestijden)
- p. 161: “In this chapter, adaptive instruction refers to educational interventions that are aimed at effectively accommodating individual differences in students while helping each student develop the knowledge and skills required to master learning tasks.”
- p. 164: “Perhaps the most famous of the individualized instruction programs was the Winnetka Plan (Washburne, 1925 [Adapting the schools to individual differences. In NSSE 24th yearbook]). (. . .) Under the Plan, each child spent half the school day studying the basic skills, working, for the most part, independently and at an individualized pace that was determined by the amount of time needed to master a particular unit of study. The other half of the child's day was spent on creative activities typically carried out through group work that was organized and directed by students. Wshburne (1925) explained why these two types of activities wereincluded in the school day: ‘It is fundamental, in any plan of individualizing work, to provide not only for individual mastery of the common essentials, but also for activities in which individuals may express their differences and in which they may learn to cooperate socially with other individuals’ (p. 258).”
Dit lijkt allemaal net iets mooier dan het werkelijk was, zie hier. De beschrijving op de gerefereerde webpagina komt overeen met een door Genovese (2002) gesignaleerde trend in het onderwijs, van het leren van declaratieve kennis (dus ook 'opdreunen') naar het leren leggen van verbanden tussen onderwerpen etc. - Parkhurst (1925)
- p. 166: “Thus, fundamental to Bloom’s and Glaser’ theses of individual differences and education is the recognition that differences in student learning outcomes are largely a function of the learning environment and, therefore, the resposibility of the schools, rather than the result of differences in students’ basic capabilities.” Dit doet sterk denk aan het onderscheid dat Co van Calcar en Sibe Soutendijk in de zestiger jaren (klopt dat? Ja, zie hier) maakten tussen schoolzwakke kinderen (de opvatting van het onderwijsveld) en kindzwakke scholen (zoals je er eigenlijk tegenaan moet kijken, en daarop moet handelen). Of was dat onderscheid gemaakt door Van Heek?
Sarah Warshauer Freedman, Verda Delp & Suzanne Mills Crawford (2005). Teaching English in untracked classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 62-126. pdf
- " It is a research-based study that looks at what is involved in teaching and learning English in untracked classrooms."
- We ask the following intertwined set of research questions:
- In Delp’s untracked classroom, what theories and curricular strategies does she use to provide her varied students with opportunities to learn to analyze and write about literature?
- How does she think about and respond to the needs of different students at a range of levels, and how do varied students participate in her class- room?
- See also the later reflection on this 2005 article, and the Alan C. Purves Award: Sarah Warshauer Freedman, Verda Delp (2007). Conceptualizing a whole-class learning space: A Grand Dialogic Zone (GDZ). Research in the teaching of English, 41, 259-268. pdf
- Announcing the Alan C. Purves Award Winner pdf
Duru-Bellat, Marie and Mingat, Alain(1998). Importance of Ability Grouping in French ‘Collèges’ and its Impact upon Pupils’ Academic Achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4: 4, 348 - 368. abstract
- references Gamoran, A., & Mare, R.D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183.
Pallas, A.M., Entwistle, D.R., Alexander, K.L., & Stluka, M.F. (1994). Ability-group effects: Instructional, social or institutional? Sociology of Education, 67, 27-46.
Slavin, R. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 471-499.
Wells, K.G., & Oakes, J. (1996). Ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (3), 451-470. abstract
Frederick Mosteller, Richard J. Light & Jason A. Sachs (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Eduucational Review, 66, 797-842. abstract
Jo Boaler (2008): Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach, British Educational Research Journal, 34:2, 167-194 abstract
Omar S. López (2007). Classroom Diversification: A Strategic View of Educational Productivity. Review of Educational Research, 77, 28-80. free pdf
- abstract This article advances a theory of educational productivity based on a paradigm of classroom diversification that defines a strategic view of the education production process. The paradigm’s underlying premise is that classroom student performance, and the instructional interactions that produce such outcomes, depend on economies derived from the learning relationships that exist across and among students in a classroom and on the technological fit between students’ learning needs and a teacher’s capacity. In addition to the conceptual classroom diversification framework, measures of classroom student diversity and teacher capacity are presented, followed by a discussion of the implications of the proposed classroom diversification paradigm for educational research, policy, and practice.
Inez van Eijk (1975). De middenschool. Aula 547.
APS (1973). Gesamtschule Conferentie 1973. Het Algemeen Pedagogisch Studiecentrum. isbn 90231709 ???? [8 cijfers??? De weggelaten aanvangs-nul kan ik begrijpen. Maar waar is het 10e cijfer?]
- J. A. van Kemenade: Openingsrede.
- H. G. Rolff: De ambivalentie van de Gesamtschule.
- L. van Gelder: De middenschool in zicht?
- K. Hurrelman: Illusies omtrent differentiatie.
- U. Schmidt: Differentiatie in de praktijk.
- E. Warries: Het onderwijsleerproces in de middenschool.
- H. Freudenthal: De niveaus in het leerproces en de heterogene leergroep, met het oog op de middenschool.
- E. Mittelberg: Flexibele differentiatie en maatschappelijke integratie.
- S. Horn en H. Kopka: Rapport over het tweefasenpatroon voor wiskunde.
- Bibliografie
- Schematische weergave van het Duitse schoolwezen.
Koning, P. de Koning (1973). Interne differentiatie. APS / RITP (Muusses).
- Werkend vanuit het RITP wekt het geen verbazing dat Pieter de Koning komt tot de stelling dat interne differentiatie alleen een reële kans heeft binnen selectievrij onderwijs zoals dat door A.D. de Groot (1972) is omschreven [Selectie voor en in het hoger onderwijs].
- Dan is dus het probleem dat de huidige onderwijscultuur is doordrenkt van de gedachte van permanente selectie. Dan staan er dus twee onverenigbare opvattingen tegenover elkaar.
- Eigenlijk voorspelt De Koning hier dus al het mislukken van het middenschoolexperiment.
- In de slotbeschouwing op p. 108 een reeks problemen en waarschuwingen voor wie het pad van interen differentiatie wil betreden. Opnieuw dus een voorspelling dat een groots opgezet plan voor interne differentiatie (middenscholen) in de huidige situatie tot mislukken is gedoemd. Stapje voor stapje werken.
- Han van Gessel (1-12-1973). Middenschool moet breken met selectie in onderwijs. De Volkskrant [nog niet beschikbaar bij De Volkskrant, evenmin bij de KB; ik heb een krantenknipsel, in het boekje van Pieter]
- “Die Langzeitstudie LIFE (Lebensverläufe von der späten Kindheit bis ins frühe Erwachsenenalter) von Helmut Fend kam zu dem Schluss, dass Gesamtschulen die soziale Selektivität reduzieren können. Jedoch hätten Arbeiterkinder, die eine hessische Gesamtschule besucht haben, keine besseren Berufschancen als Arbeiterkinder im gegliederten Schulsystem, weil der spätere familiale Einfluss Wirkung entfalten kann: “Solange die Schule intern agieren kann, also die Kinder und Jugendlichen beisammen hat und sie nach Leistungen gruppiert, kann sie die soziale Selektivität durchaus reduzieren. Wenn es um die weiteren Bildungsstufen geht, um die risikobehafteten Entscheidungen beim Schulabschluss, bei der Ausbildung und bei den Berufslaufbahnen, dann verliert sich dieser schulische Einfluss, und die familiären Ressourcen in der Gestaltung der Entscheidungen treten in den Vordergrund.” Diese Erkenntnisse sind aber nicht neu, weil die soziologische Elitenforschung dies bereits zeigte. Die damit verbundene Frage ist allerdings, ob der Staat soziale Selektivität im Schulsystem zulassen darf.”
- Helmut Fend (4 jan 2008). Schwerer Weg nach oben. Das Elternhaus entscheidet über den Bildiungserfolg - unabhänhig von der Schulform. Zeit Online Studium html
- Jochen Leffers (3 jan 2008). Gesamtschule folgenlos, Bildung wird vererbt. Der Spiegel online html
Literaturliste zum Thema Gesamtschule
- Meest recente overzicht: Herrlitz u.a.
H.G. Herrlitz et al (Hrsg.) (2003). Die Gesamtschule, Geschichte, internationale Vergleiche, pädagogische Konzepte und politische Perspektiven. Juventa [nog niet op de kop getikt]
J. Terwel (2002). Curriculumdifferentiatie en leren denken: een onderwijspedagogisch perspectief. Pedagogische Studiën, 79, 192- . samenvatting
Jan Terwel (2005). Curriculum differentiation: multiple perspectives and developments in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 37, Issue 6 November 2005 , pages 653 - 670
- abstract This paper examines curriculum differentiation (i.e. streaming or ability-grouping). After placing curriculum differentiation in an international perspective, it outlines the main conclusions from empirical research on differentiation over several decades. Against this empirical background, it describes and considers the three specific orientations towards curriculum differentiation: a genetic perspective, a cultural perspective, and a sociological perspective. The insights from the various perspectives are integrated and expanded in a framework of curriculum theory, research, and practice.
Carol Corbett Burris, Jay P. Heubert & Henry M. Levin (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105-136. abstract
Herbert W. Marsh & Kit-Tai Hau (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364-376. abstract
Herbert W. Marsh, Ulrich Trautwein, Oliver Lüdtke, Jürgen Baumert and Olaf Köller (2007). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect: Persistent Negative Effects of Selective High Schools on Self-Concept After Graduation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 631-669. abstract doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306728
Gregory Arief D. Liem, Herbert W. Marsh, Andrew J. Martin, Dennis M. McInerney, Alexander S. Yeung (2012 online preview). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect and a National Policy of Within-School Ability Streaming: Alternative Frames of Reference. American Educational Research Journal abstract
Marjorie Seaton, Herbert W. Marsh, and Rhonda G. Craven (2010). Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect: Generalizability and Moderation—Two Sides of the Same Coin. American Educational Research Journal 47, 390-433 abstract
- “Research evidence for the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE) has demonstrated that attending high-ability schools has a negative effect on academic self-concept.” etc.
Rianne Kloosterman & Paul M. de Graaf (2009). Zittenblijven of afstromen? De relatie tussen sociaal milieu en keuzes in het voortgezet onderwijs voor drie cohorten leerlingen. Mens en Maatschappij, 4-28.
- zittenblijven, afstromen, sociale reproductie, gedifferentieerd onderwijsstelsel, beoepskolom, onderwijsongelijkheid
Bram Spruyt, Ilse Laurijsesen & Yoris van Dorsselaer (). Kiezen en verliezen. Een analyse van de keuze na het krijgen van een B-attest in het Vlaams secundair onderwijs als een replicatie van Kloosterman en De Graaf (2009). Mens en Maatschappij, 279-299. pdf
- zittenblijven, afstromen, sociale reproductie, gedifferentieerd onderwijsstelsel, beoepskolom, onderwijsongelijkheid
Jeremy E. C. Genovese (2005). Why educational innovations fail: An individual differences perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 569-578 [ook beschikbaar op questia.com, voor wie daar toegang toe heeft]
Hannu Simola (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455-470.
John Mighton (2003). The myth of ability. Nurturing mathematical talent in every child. Anansi. isbn 0887846939, 211 pp. paperback,
- Een boek uit 2007: The End of Ignorance: Multiplying Our Human Potential. Toront. Reviewed bij Davif Kirshner (2010). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 81-87
Stevens, Peter A. J. and Vermeersch, Hans(2010) 'Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: exploring teachers' perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams', Oxford Review of Education, 36: 3, 267 — 284 pdf
Franzis Preckel & Matthias Brüll (2010). The benefit of being a big fish in a big pond: Contrast and assimilation effects on academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 522-531.
Joyce VanTassel-Baska & Susannah Wood (2010). The integrated curriculum model (ICM). Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 345-357. [in themanummer over giftedness, en speciale programma's voor begaafde leerlingen)
R. Dekker (1991). Wiskunde leren in kleine heterogene groepen. [nog niet gezien] (Zie promotieonderzoek.htm#Dekker
Karl Heinz Gruber: Unlearnt European lessons: Why Austria abandoned the comprehensive school experiments and respored the Gymnasium. In David Phillips (Ed.) (1992). Lessons of cross-national comparison in education 147-154. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Volume 1. Wallingford: Triangle Books.
Noreen M. Webb, Kariane Mari Nemer and Stephen Zuniga (2002). Short Circuits or Superconductors? Effects of Group Composition on High-Achieving Students' Science Assessment Performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943-989. abstract
Zemira R. Mevarech & Bracha Kramarski (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365-394. abstract
Judith Ireson, Susan Hallam & Clare Hurley (2005): What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment?, British Educational Research Journal, 31:4, 443-458 abstract
James E. Rosenbaum (1980). Social implications of educational grouping. Review of Research in Education, 8, 361-401.
Christopher Wheadon & Anton Béguin (2010): Fears for tiers: are candidates being appropriately rewarded for their performance in tiered examinations?, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17:3, 287-300. abstract
Tina Isaacs (2010): Educational assessment in England, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17:3, 315-334. abstract
Carol Ann Tomlinson heeft een aantal populaire boeken over gedifferentiëerd onderwijs op haar naam staan. Ik heb daar nog geen kennis van genomen. Haar werkterrein is de UK. Zie bijv. deze website, of deze lijst artikelen in Scholar.
Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom
The Differentiated School
Carol Ann Tomlinson (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61 #2, 6-11. pdf
Hugh Mehan, Irene Villanueva, Lea Hubbard= & Angela Lintz (1996). Constructing school success. The consequences of untracking low achieving students. Cambridge University Press. p. 77: Our discussion of the social processes of untracking rests on two interrelated ideas: One, academic life has implict or hidden dimensions that students must master in order to be successful in school; and two, a system of institutional supports or 'scaffolds' supports AVID students as they traverse this implicit cultural system. (...) AVID attempts to maintain a rigorous curriculum for all students while adding increased support for low-achieving students.
Joke Wagenaar, Nico van Kessel & Annemieke de Vries (1979). Een oonderzoek naar de beginsituatie van scholen die als tweede generatie begonnen zijn aan het middenschoolexperiment. RION. isbn 9063701764
Pieter Licht (1982). Differentiatie binnen klasseverband voor natuurkunde. Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit. Rodopi. — 411 blz. ingenaaid, stellingen, ex-lib
A. V. Kelly (1975). Case studies in mixed ability teaching. Harper & Row.
Elizabeth G. Cohen & Rachel A. Lotan (1995). Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom. American Educational Research Journal abstract Razend interessant. Een sleutelpublicatie op het thema heterogene groepen, ook al is een enkel onderzoek natuurlijk niet beslissend. Het gaat meer om de theoretische insteek, om het gevoelig worden/,aken voor wat er spelt in klassen en in groepen binnen klassen, vanuit het heterogenitets-perspectief. The goal of this article is to apply expectation states theory to this problem of unequal status interaction in heterogeneous classrooms. Expectation states theory explicates stratifying processes that arise in classrooms and produce status orders associated with academic and social characteristics of students. We report on a controlled observational study of instructional interventions derived from this theory. We will focus on variation in the frequency of the use of these interventions among a set of classrooms, all using the same curriculum and method of classroom management. Both expectation states theory and source theory (Webster & Sobieszek, 1974) provide the basis for another status treatment: assigning competence to low-status students. As a high-status person, the teacher's evaluations have a strong influence on students' evaluations of themselves (Webster & Sobieszek, 1974). The higher the status of an individual, the greater is the likelihood of that individual becoming a source of important evaluations and thus influencing one person's self-evaluations relative to another. If the teacher, as a high-status source, positively evaluates a series of classroom tasks by a student, that student will come to believe that his or her ability is consistent with the teacher's evaluation.
Pieter de Koning (1987). Programmadifferentiatie in het voortgezet onderwijs. Een studie naar de achtergronden, ontwikkelingen en problemen van programmadifferentiatie in de eerste fase van het voortgezet onderwijs. Proefschrift RU Utrecht. Swets & Zeitlinger. [Ik heb het boek weggegevn: ik vind het onleesbaar door de enorme lappen tekst. Pieter had niet echt greep op de differentiële psychologie van een en ander, is mijn indruk.]
A. A. Beekman (1897). Denkbeelden omtrent eene reorganisatie van middelbaar en gymnasiaal onderwijs. [Pleidooi voor een middenschool] [nog niet gevonden]
Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. L., & Argys, L. M. (1995). Detracking America’s schools. The reform without cost? Phi Delta Kappan november, 210-217 preview . Jaeger, R. M., & Hattie, J. A. (1995). Detracking America’s schools; Should we really care? 218-219. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Detracking and its detractors. Flawed evidence, flawed values. 220-221. Smith-Maddox, R., & Wheelock, A. (1995). Untracking and students’ futures. Closing the gap between aspirations and expectations. 222-228. Dominic J. Brewer, Daniel I. Rees and Laura M. Argys (1996). The Reform without Cost? A Reply to Our Critics. he Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77, No. 6 (Feb., 1996), pp. 442-444
Wheelock, A. (1992). The case for untracking. Thema ‘Untracking for equity' in Educational Leadership, october 1992, 50, 8-25. html Negen scholen die het toepassen. Themanummer
Richard Daugherty (1995). National curriculum assessment. A review of policy 1987-1994. The Falmer Press.
Nancy A. Madden & Robert E. Slavin (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569.
abstract
Henry Rouanet (1996). For Better or Worse:
The Impact of Upward Social Comparison on Self-Evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51-69. abstract
Susanne Wiborg (2010): Why is there no comprehensive education in Germany?
A historical explanation. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 39,
539-556. abstract
Evertson, C.M., Sanford, J.P., & Emmer, E.T. (1981). Effects of class heterogeneity in junior high school. American Educational Resarch Journal, 18, 219-232.
Bert Zwaneveld (1974). Rapport over een vorm van wiskundeonderwijs waarbij differentiatie naar tempo centraal staat. Didactiek Commissie van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Wiskundeleraren NVvW.
Francis Meester, George Schoemaker & Jaap Vedder (1980). Rekening houden met individuele verschillen. NVvW
J. Lavrijsen & I. Nicaise (2014). Comprehensief onderwijs: een bedreiging voor kwaliteit? Een heranalyse van Rindermann en Ceci (2009). Pedagogische Studiën, 91, 270-279.
abstract
Harry Webb (january 25, 2015). Seriously, differentiation really doesn't work. Blog 'websofsubstance'
no longr available
Frederick Mosteller, Richard J. Light and Jason A. Sachs (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797-842. Indrukwekkend artikel. Skill grouping: research ontbreekt voornamelijk, en wat er is levert geen eenduidige resultaten.
Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Matthew C. Makel, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius (first published December 1, 2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students' Academic Achievement. Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses RER
abstract
What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students' Academic Achievement Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Matthew C. Makel, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius RER
download
Philip D. Parker, John Jerrim, Ingrid Schoon, Herbert W. Marsh (2016). A Multination Study of Socioeconomic Inequality in Expectations for Progression to Higher Education: The Role of Between School Tracking and Ability Stratification. AERJ, 53, 6-32. pdf
RELATIO N OF SECTIO N VARIANCE TO ACHIEVEMEN T GAINS I N ENGLIS H AND MATHEMATICS I N GRADES 7 AND 8 JASON MILLMAN and MAURITZ JOHNSON, JR. 1964 AERJ, 1,
preview
Mieke Van Houtte (2016). Lower-track students' sense of academic futility: Selection or effect? Journal of Sociology, 52, 874-889
abstract
Hans Kuyper (2007). Saliency of social comparison dimensions. International eview of Social Psychology, vol 20, 145-163. open access
Eddie Denessen (2017). Verantwoord omgaan met verschillen: sociaal-culturele achtergronden en differentiatie in het onderwijs.
oratie
Ida Gran Andersen & Simon Calmar Andersen (2015). Student-centered instruction and academic achievement: linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools' instructional strategy British Journal of Sociology of Education abstract
Benjamin S. Bloom (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley. lccc 64-17133 abstract
Emilie J. Prast, Eva Van de Weijer-Bergsma, Evelyn H. Kroesbergen & Johannes E.H. Van Luit (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 90-116. pdf 'Expert consensus': Okay, but: who are the experts, and are they experts?
Faber, Glas & Visscher (2017). Differentiated instruction in a data-based decision-making context
School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. open access Individualised instruction, has it added value? . via @stevebissonnett tweet
Dominick Esposito (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: principal findings and implications for evaluating and designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43, 163-179. abstract & references & read online free
Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis RE Slavin - Review of educational research, 1987 - journals.sagepub.com This article reviews research on the effects of between-and within-class ability grouping on the achievement of elementary school students. The review technique—best-evidence synthesis—combines features of meta-analytic and narrative reviews. Overall, evidence Geciteerd door 1314 Verwante artikelen Alle 7 versies Citeren Opslaan Meer
[PDF] ed.gov
Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis RE Slavin - Review of educational research, 1990 - journals.sagepub.com This article reviews research on the effects of ability grouping on the achievement of secondary students. Six randomized experiments, 9 matched experiments, and 14 correlational studies compared ability grouping to heterogeneous plans over periods of from Geciteerd door 1082 Verwante artikelen Alle 8 versies Citeren Opslaan Meer
Matt Barnum (Jan 2018). Why ‘personalized learning’ advocates like Mark Zuckerberg keep citing a 1984 study — and why it might not say much about schools today
blog
How to scale personalized learning | McKinsey & Company 24-08-16 12:47
Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional development on student achievement. Emilie J. Prast, , Eva Van de Weijer-Bergsma , Evelyn H. Kroesbergen , Johannes E.H. Van Luit (2018). Learning and Instruction, 54, 22-34. [nog geen pdf tot mijn beschikking]
abstract
Lee J. Cronbach & Richard E. Snow (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. Irvington. isbn 0470150661
Larry Cuban (21 Feb 2018). Spilling the Beans on “Personalized Learning” blog
Louise Archer, Becky Francis, Sarah Miller, Becky Taylor, Antonina Tereshchenko, Anna Mazenod, David Pepper, Mary-Claire Travers (2018). The symbolic violence of setting: A Bourdieusian analysis of mixed methods data on secondary students’ views about setting. First published: 15 January 2018Full publication history DOI: 10.1002/berj.3321 British Educational Research Journal open
Inspectie van het Onderwijs - Onderwijssectoren Voortgezet onderwijs - Acht succesfactoren bij differentiëren en professionaliseren in het voortgezet onderwijs. page
Differentiëren en differentiatievaardigheden in het primair onderwijs. Onderzoek in opdracht van Ministerie van Onderwijs
Wouter van Casteren
Joyce Bendig-Jacobs
Froukje Wartenbergh-Cras
Marije van Essen
Bas Kurver
ResearchNed
(november 2017). pdffffff
Bloom, B. S. (1984a). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
Bloom, B. S. (1984b). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41 (8), 4-17.
Robert E. Slavin (1987). Mastery Learning Reconsidered. Review of Educational Research. Summer 1987, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 175-213
pdf
Matt Barnum (January 29, 2018). Why 'personalized learning' advocates like Mark Zuckerberg keep citing a 1984 study - and why it might not say much about schools today.
BY MATT BARNUM - JANUARY 29, 2018
blog
Deunk, M.I., Smale-Jacobse, A.E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., Bosker, R.J., Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review (2018), doi: sci-hub.tw10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002. [notopen access,try sci-hub]
abstract
Daniel Willingham (June11, 2018). If This Is the End of Average, What Comes Next? EdSurge
blog
Ben Williamson (June 18, 2018). Scientists Seek Genetic Data to Personalize Education blog
Elma M. Dijkstra, Amber Walraven, Ton Mooij & Paul A. Kirschner (2015). Improving kindergarten teachers’ differentiation practices to better anticipate student differences. Pages 357-377 | Received 27 May 2015, Accepted 22 May 2016, Published online: 13 Jun 2016 Educational Studies open
Greg Ashman (Sept 2018). Is it time to ditch 'differentiaion'?
blog
Stimuleren van toptalent in het onderwijs: effect op negatieve gevoelens bij uitblinken. A.A.M. Zuiker, M. Ph. Born, J.W. van Strien.Pedagogische Studiën 2018, 95, 227-253. Vrije toegang: http://pedagogischestudien.nl/search?identifier=681250
Onderwijsraad (2019). Doorgeschoten differentiatie in het onderwijsstelsel pagina
Paul Connolly, Becky Taylor, Becky Francis, Louise Archer, Jeremy Hodgen, Anna Mazenod, Antonina Tereshchenko (2019). The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England. British Educational Research Journal, 45, Issue 4 open
How to scale personalized learning
A systemwide approach offers the best chance of reaching the most students.
The US public education system is struggling to meet the needs of its students.1
Even among those who graduate from high school, only 42 percent are properly prepared for college.2 22.2015 College Board program results, collegeboard.org. And success depends on more than just traditional academic performance: more than 60 percent of all positions in the economy involve knowledge work by people who rely heavily on critical thinking, creativity, and interpersonal skills.333.Michael Horn and Heather Staker, Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools, first edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.
One promising way to improve outcomes is to offer personalized learning, a teaching approach aimed at addressing the individual educational needs of students. Research into personalized learning first emerged in 1984 when the educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom challenged the academic community to replicate, at scale, the effectiveness of one-to-one or small-group tutoring. Bloom found that students who received personalized instruction outperformed 98 percent of those who did not.4 44.Benjamin S. Bloom, “The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring,” Educational Researcher, June–July 1984, Volume 13, Number 6, pp. 4–16. [Op voorhand: flagrante nonsens. Maar ik ga het nog even checken. Die 2-sigma kwam ik onlangs tegen in een tweet of email, van jou denk ik ;-) ]
As technology has become more effective and less costly, Bloom’s ideal seems, for the first time, attainable for all students. [Dat is een non-sequitur. De twee hebben niets met elkaar te maken] In the past several years, classrooms around the country have been experimenting with ways to transform teaching and learning under the label of blended, or personalized, learning. While the terms mean different things to different people, the most successful models create individual-learning profiles that help students follow their own paths through a competency-based progression, in flexible environments that deploy space, time, and personnel creatively. What these models have in common is the use of technology to better meet the needs of individual students.555.“Personalized learning: A working definition,” Education Week, October 20, 2014, edweek.org. [bla bla] The results have been impressive. For example, a 2014–15 study by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and RAND Corporation found that students attending public schools implementing blended learning improved their performance on Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments by an average of 11 percentage points in math and 8 percentage points in reading.6 66.Early progress: Interim report on personalized learning, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and RAND Corporation, November 2015, k12education.gatesfoundation.org. [Vertrouw nooit Gates-funded research. Ik zal deze bron nog checken]
These personalized learning efforts at the school level, though laudable, are only the first step in improving educational achievement for students across the country. The next challenge for educators is to replicate these results on a large scale. Some school systems have managed to introduce personalized learning across most or all of their schools, and, while still early days, they are seeing promising results:
A midsize suburban district [anecdote] has redesigned its secondary schools to give students three hours in the morning to work independently with an online, adaptive learning curriculum. Teachers offer personalized support as needed. The afternoon is dedicated to electives and to work in small groups with teachers. Students are reporting greater engagement at school, and teachers appreciate the time and flexibility to spend more one-on-one time with them.
A network of charter schools [anecdote, no reference given, no way to check on what is claimed here] has moved to a competency-based approach777.In a competency-based approach, students advance only after demonstrating mastery. in which all students use a software platform that guides their learning by identifying and addressing gaps in their mastery. Instructional time is devoted exclusively to multiweek, cross-disciplinary projects undertaken by groups. Students also take a few weeks a year to participate in enrichment activities outside of school. Students in these schools have achieved growth above the national average on the Northwest Evaluation Association’s MAP math and reading assessments.
A large urban district [anecdote] focused on improving results for math and English language arts in the early grades has introduced a station-rotation model888.In a rotation model, students move through a fixed schedule (or at their teachers’ discretion) between learning modalities, at least one of which involves online learning. in elementary- school classrooms. This approach facilitates personalized, independent learning while allowing teachers to offer small-group instruction on specific issues. The district has equipped these classrooms with devices (for example, Chromebook computers) and software to support the model. Assessments in the first year of implementation suggest the approach is accelerating students’ academic growth.
While it is too early to declare victory, we think these examples provide guidance for other districts on how to scale personalized learning pilots. In this article, we discuss the three major components of a viable approach: defining a vision for the innovative design of instruction and schools; establishing a process for pilots, rapid iteration, and scaling; and creating an environment where innovation can thrive, including redesigned adult learning for educators and a strategic reallocation of resources.
A systemwide approach to innovation
The adoption of personalized learning at scale requires major changes in how teachers and others in the system operate. Accomplishing this goal will require supportive systemic change grounded in a clear instructional vision. Below are a set of principles we believe are critical to making this happen.
Define a vision for innovative design of instruction and schools
We routinely observe school districts that invest in hardware, software curricula, or specialized blended learning professional development tools yet lack a vision of how instruction and schools should be designed. As a result, those investments often don’t relate to the day-to-day work in schools. To reverse this trend, districts must articulate a clear vision for teaching and learning that links to their system’s aspirations.
The first step must be a sharp definition of desired student outcomes. What are the biggest gaps a school system aspires to close? What are their causes, and what is the theory about why personalized learning can help? Once a school district has prioritized the gaps, it should define what instructional and school design can best eliminate them. What are students doing during the day? Where does this happen? At what pace? Which adults are involved, and what role do they play? Once these questions (among others) get answered, a district, in partnership with its schools, should develop the design that best supports the instructional vision. During this work, it is important not only to reference the range of models in use but also to understand that one size does not fit all. There must be a willingness to experiment and innovate to create new models. [bla bla]
One large suburban school [anecdote] district articulated a vision for using technology [foutje; bedoeld is geanaceerde software die nog niet op de markt is] to personalize learning for students in its five-year strategic plan. The vision clearly described the core elements of what the district hoped technology could do to advance learning: provide better information on each student’s strengths and needs, offer flexible access to engaging content directly addressing them, and allow the student to progress at his or her own pace, based on mastery of specific competencies. These guidelines gave the necessary direction to schools developing their own models but were flexible enough to permit experimentation.
Establish a process for pilots, rapid iteration, and scaling
The rapid iteration of prototypes and pilots to test and refine models requires capabilities that school districts typically don’t have. There are several ways to manage the process of innovation, including the development of clearly defined metrics and processes to evaluate and refine pilots as needed. Districts often wait too long after the launch of a pilot to evaluate and refine it. Rapidly assessing its progress and making small changes throughout its life promote innovation. A solid strategic plan— with clear activities, milestones, and owners, and an approach that lets the leadership maintain momentum and monitor progress—can help to guide the process. [bla bla]
A large urban district [anecdote] has been launching, improving, and scaling up school models for more than five years. Almost a third of its students are now in schools using new approaches to instruction. The district began by selecting a handful of schools with leaders who had both the will and the skills to develop models and gave those leaders internal and external support. Over several years, these schools refined their models, supported by a team from the central office, which worked with them to solve problems and evaluated the pilots. This first wave of pilots turned into a second and then into a menu of proven models that other schools in the district could use. The central office still works with schools to improve their models, but now it can also provide targeted support to schools that want to scale up proven approaches.
Create an environment in which innovation can thrive
To ensure that pilots succeed and to create the right environment for scaling them up, districts should adjust their operations to reflect the new design for instruction. [words words words] Without such changes, leaders of pilots may find themselves swimming against the current: while schools are embarking on innovative paths, for example, their teachers may receive forms of professional development that aren’t related to the new model. Data systems are another roadblock. If schools embrace a model that lets students advance, at their own pace, when they achieve mastery of specific competencies, critical real-time data must be made available to teachers—but most districts are ill equipped to do so. To facilitate innovation, districts should consider redesigning adult learning for educators, reorganizing central-office support, identifying needed technology and data systems, aligning policy with resources, and enlisting external partners. [eigen verdienmodel]
Redesigning adult learning to align it with innovative models. Transitioning to new models requires shifts in adult roles: teachers must change the way they facilitate the learning of students and empower them to chart their own paths. School leaders must learn how to better support educators playing a variety of new roles and how to manage redesigned budgets and master schedules. And district leaders need to redefine the support functions they offer. These role shifts require new knowledge, skills, and mind-sets. [sic] Districts must define the shifts, understand which of them will be the hardest to make, and then offer appropriate professional development opportunities. They can take advantage of rapidly increasing content for adult learning, but even the most innovative districts are grappling with how to make it reflect their vision.
Recently, a group of districts and a charter management organization, [anecdote] both leaders in personalized learning, reflected on how they could improve their models. These school systems recognized that adults were struggling to adopt practices aligned with the instructional vision—a problem attributed to a lack of clarity about which competencies were most important for the personalized learning models of teachers, school leaders, and district leaders. Creating an adult learning approach that authentically reflects a system’s vision for personalized learning is critical to ensuring that adults feel supported during the implementation process.
Reorganizing central-office support. Any innovation in models will require the central offices of most school districts to evolve, perhaps by redesigning support functions or creating new ones. For example, more specialized support may be required to introduce novel technologies in schools, more budget decisions may end up in the hands of school leaders, and purchasing departments might need to become nimbler and more tech savvy so they can better choose from the vast, rapidly changing market for software products. Districts planning to open schools must address cross- functional issues about facilities, budgeting, and accountability. In addition, districts will need to build a project management capacity to sustain the cross-departmental work supporting schools as they transition to personalized learning. [bla bla]
A few large urban districts [anecdote] have begun creating cross-functional departments focused on implementing this new approach. Such an office is responsible for helping to set a vision for the district and to launch pilots. To ensure that they succeed, the office is responsible for working with other departments across the district to remove the barriers pilots face and to begin building systems at scale.
Identifying needed technology and data systems. New technology should be seen as a way to facilitate the innovative vision of instruction, not as an end in itself. If technology underpins a district’s chosen innovation, there may be several prerequisites, including more Internet connectivity for each school, interoperable system platforms and ecosystems with federated identity management, instructional software, and devices. Systems must not only understand how these technology components work together but also navigate the complex market of providers to procure suites of products that operate seamlessly. The further personalization of learning also requires a solid data infrastructure that gives teachers timely access to information on students so they can be placed in new groups when appropriate and the instructional model can be adjusted in other ways as well.
Aligning policy and allocating resources. For most districts, achieving the potential of personalized learning will require changes in key policies and funding sources. Seat time, scheduling, and limits on competency-based learning, for example, may inhibit or constrain a district’s ability to innovate. Similarly, funding policies that constrain how a system purchases technology or instructional materials can limit the pace of investment, and an unclear cost-benefit analysis of technology can further slow change. However, districts can make a financial case for such investments and craft creative solutions (such as raising money for infrastructure in the bond market) to get started while broader policies are addressed.
Enlisting external partners to help develop and sustain the work. Sustaining change requires deep sets of partnerships with organizations that can provide ongoing support, which may vary with the instructional model. The supporters could include local funding partners during the innovation period, businesses and community groups that provide enrichment opportunities outside of schools, and higher education institutions that ease access to college-level courses, taken either in person or online.
A large urban school district, [anecdote] for example, has built a partnership with a local graduate school of education to add expertise in innovation and teacher development. These ties have proved to be an important element of the overall program of personalized learning. As a result, the district is constantly connected to new research, to leading practitioners from other school systems, and to entrepreneurs pushing the boundaries of traditional models.
Innovative education products and approaches are proliferating. But long-term success depends on defining a truly systemwide approach to innovation, ensuring that pilots are successful, and putting in place the conditions for an eventual scaling up. Any systemwide effort must be supported by a deliberate approach to change management that engages the right leaders across the organization and supports individuals as they change their behavior and mind-sets to align with the new models. [bla bla]
When school districts successfully implement the elements described above, the students who most need improved—and sustained—support will be able to receive it. Innovation will be designed as a core piece of the ongoing strategy, not a stand-alone initiative, and districts will be ready for constant improvement rather than one-time trials. Adults across the system will feel that they own the innovations and will be supported to develop the knowledge, skills, and mind-sets necessary to realize and sustain change. Finally, the work will gain community-wide buy-in, providing significant external resources and support. [‘When’ . . . . ] [dream on]
About the author(s)
Greg Rawson is an alumnus of McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office. Jimmy Sarakatsannis is a partner in the Washington, DC, office. Doug Scott is an alumnus of the Chicago office. 
http://www.benwilbrink.nl/literature/heterogeniteit.htm