My local public middle school is one of I think 100 pilot schools for this personalized learning curriculum. https://www.summitlearning.org/ Its still a bit new but Facebook lent the Summit program some programmers. My kid is not in the pilot (there was a lottery) so that is about all I know so far.

This brings up for me the following opinion. Gifted is (slowly but surely) "losing". At least in California. Or the USA. That's my impression from reading the tea leaves in articles. That, if we're so gifted, why are gifted programs decreasing (would love to find some statistics on this). (Maybe if we were smart we wouldn't have used a polarizing term like gifted.)

So its hard to advocate, or get results, for programs that (are perceived to) benefit only 1% of the population. So the idea is, personalized learning benefits 100% of the population. It may well be taking off. And the question is, how well do such programs benefit the gifted. Nominally, they would at least let our kids work ahead, find more material, and be less bored. Nominally, these programs teach to all 100 percentiles at once, as opposed to traditional day-one page-one schools that teach squarely to the 40th percentile.

That said, they don't treat the unique social and emotional needs of the gifted. They don't help gifted kids find gifted peers. They may emphasize covering more material, instead of covering material in greater depth. It could help in gifted identification. The latter issues could be addressed within personalized learning. SEN is harder, but at least these programs could help identify some of the gifted.

So what say ye? In terms of realpolitik, should we throw our weight behind personalized learning, as a movement for 100% of the students, and abandon the limited results we've had in promoting straight gifted programs that are perceived as polarizing or unfair, or having only 1% native constituency, in what is perceived as a zero-sum game of public education?

Last edited by thx1138; 10/01/16 08:53 AM.