Mick Waters on personalisation: "unless pressed, I never use the word"

In previous posts I've been sceptical about personalisation (April 2006; October 2006; January 2007 ; March 2007).  On 17 November the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee took oral evidence from Mick Waters and Teresa Bergin (respectively Director of Curriculum and Director of the Diploma Programme at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority), Professor David Hargreaves (Associate Director for Development and Research, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, and a past chair of Becta), and Tim Oates (Director of Assessment Research and Development, at the major examining body Cambridge Assessment). The uncorrected record of evidence must make uncomfortable reading for those still wedded to use of the term. Here are some extracts.

Hargreaves: 'We have been struggling with this definition for four years, and I have concluded that it is a total waste of time trying to find a tight definition-it does not work; there are too many of them. In that sense, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Heppell. The current thing from the Department quotes the definition given in the Gilbert report on teaching well in 2020, of which I was a member: "It means strengthening the link between learning and teaching by engaging pupils-and their parents-as partners in learning." In my view, that is well-intentioned waffle. It is well intentioned, but it means nothing. In fact, many schools will say that that is what they do. There is no implication of action at all. '

Mick Waters: 'Unless pressed, I never use the word, because I think that it has become one of those things that everyone says but hardly anyone does.'

Professor Hargreaves: 'When you cannot define it, the best thing to do is to not use it. I agree with Mick. I think that it has outlived its usefulness. When Tony Blair made the original challenge back in 2004, it was a very real challenge. Today, our interest is in how to redesign the whole experience of schooling, so that our young people achieve more and find their education a good one. Personalisation was a useful way forward at a certain period, to draw attention to something. I am personally sorry that the Department has a thing called "personalised learning", as though it is a thing we can identify. It is not. "Personalised" was always the wrong word; it was always a process of personalising, as in the business world. It is past its usefulness. We would be much better looking for words on which we can find more agreement-such as curriculum, choice and entitlement-than having the debate strained. Frankly, I wish the Department would drop the concept.'

Comments

[Stephen Downes]

How about "personal learning"?

[Stephen Heppell]

Just in case anyone doubts it, when David Hargreaves says: "In that sense, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Heppell." he is talking about MP John Heppell.

The only doubts I have about personalisation are that we never got to the "final phase" which was when it should have all started to make proper sense - and should have been about setting schools and teachers free to do their own thing, providing they remained accountable to parents.

Without that trust, personalisation is stuck in the mire of quality control and dumb assessments.