Personalized learning is a hot education buzzword that is thrown around in a variety of contexts, from preschool to higher education. The allure of meeting students specifically where they are at, during every step of their educational journey, is very appealing to teachers wanting to meet their students’ needs and to school districts wanting to further their school’s educational goals.

On the surface, personalized learning seems to cure many of the common American classroom ailments. Tech companies are able to offer a variety of solutions that provide 1:1 learning opportunities for students. These tools and applications can take the time to painstakingly assess students and then tailor a specific set of lessons directly to each child, with the aim of moving him/her to the next skill level. As stated by Larry Cuban in a recent article on MindShift technology companies “are searching for that holy grail of tailoring content and skills to the weaknesses of each kid”.

However, the backlash surrounding personalized learning is present on the side of both the student and the teacher. The way these tools learn about students is through use, and this inevitably requires more time on a computer, staring at a screen, which no one (teachers, parents, or administrators) wants. Additionally, many are concerned with the trustworthiness of these products:

“The phrase “personalized learning” is now emblazoned on a wide variety of programs and products. Some schools say they have trouble figuring out what to buy. Many programs and products produce reams of “research,” but they’re just sales materials masquerading as effectiveness studies.” MindShift

What concerns me is the further privatization of education that this shift in learning could bring to American classrooms. Private industry money is already omnipresent in our educational structure, from curriculum development, educational supplies, standardized tests, etc. As shown in this Huffington Post article, many in private industries see big dollar signs waiting for them after the tech revolution hits public education. I shudder to think about the profits that are made already on the backs of the test scores of our children, and would do absolutely nothing to propose that this reach into the classroom be extended further.

However, we can’t deny what is staring us in the face, and the fact is that teachers and students will use technology in the classroom. We see this happening already. My daughter’s kindergarten class has an HDMI enabled projector in her classroom and her teacher takes attendance on an iPad. Yes, these are minor tech intrusions, but I know it’s just a raindrop in the tech flood that’s coming her way.

Instead of ignoring the role that technology will play in our children’s classroom experiences, we need to recognize the powerful moment we are in. It is our duty to develop thoughtful technology guidelines and expectations around the variety of decisions that will be made, and ask for our schools and districts to provide technology-focused leadership to take the burden off teachers.

Another major issue is the place where personalized learning and district standards meet. At times, personalized learning can run counter to standards, where “the standards and accountability movement has focused on grade-level standards…and the idea that equity to some extent is based on getting everybody to master the same content at the same time.” MindShift.

While there currently appears to be very little correlation between personalized learning and national education standards, it’s easy to see how the growth of tech companies alongside education policy experts could provide a perfect union of developmentally appropriate instruction, engaging content, evidence based practices, and seamless alignment with standards.

While this might sound like a leap forward, I believe that a step in this direction is not too far off in the future. Just as teachers are not expected to select every textbook for their class, there is a process by which books are chosen and then agreed upon as the common texts. The same could very easily be true for technology tools. Individual districts should develop standards for technology tools, design curriculum around these recommended tools, maintain district wide accounts for the tools they support, and then provide autonomy for the teachers to weave these tools into the curriculum as they see fit.

This provides more structure to a fairly unregulated segment of the classroom environment and also brings autonomy to teachers, where they have freedom to examine these tools via trial and error under the supportive guidance of their district. In addition, just as we maintain high expectations of our students, we should also hold educational technology companies to rigorously high standards, and keep them accountable at every step of the way.