By LeiLani Cauthen

The Learning Counsel’s Digital Transition Survey 2020 posed many questions aimed at discovering the transition tactics of schools.  What was found indicates that most schools consider they are further along in digital transition than they actually are, and that they are missing basic understanding of just how far technology could take them in transformation.   This is critical today because quarantines continue and there is talk of keeping shutdowns going for as long as several more years. 

Numerous superintendents have mentioned in Learning Counsel virtual meetings in 2020 that they do not think “normal” is coming back.  In attempting to describe what might be the new normal, many mention more remote learning for a larger percentage of the students, permanent hybrid models, and personalization.  None have delved into how all of that will really work without overburdening teachers. 

Analysts reviewing the directionality of school transition asked respondents to self-evaluate their progression on a scale of opposites. 

With regards to the impact/use of space, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 49 on the progression away from buildings and space defining learning towards 100 where learning defines the space used as needed.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 40, a 9-point difference between what respondents think they have achieved in shifting how space impacts and is used in learning. 

With regards to the selection of subjects and topics, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 37 on the progression away from prescriptiveness for subjects and topics or requirements towards 100 where students pick their own and/or tech makes even their requirements self-selected options (sometimes in the way these requirements are delivered).  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 20, a 17-point difference between what respondents think they are doing in providing options versus what they are actually doing. 

With regards to the student evaluation, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 57 on the progression away from testing, school or teacher-based evaluation and labeling (with grades, marks, or scores) versus personal achievement scales where a student essentially is self-competing towards a next level of learning.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 35, a 22-point difference between what respondents think they are doing to deliver learning measures that are personal scales of achievement versus age-old traditional testing, evaluation, and labeling with A-F or 0-100, etc. 

Different than the evaluation question, being customer-oriented means being driven not by internal rules but by satisfied customers.  With regards to the view of achievement in use, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 47 on the progression from a view based on the teacher or school measurements with 100 being a shifted view to achievement from the view of the student or parent.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 30, a 17-point difference between what respondents think they have achieved in shifting to a customer-oriented perception versus what they have actually achieved. 

With regards to the predominant model, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 42 on the progression from being structured with the majority of students on the age/grade cohort model with linear advancement versus 100 being the attainment of the majority of students on a personalized network-based model that was built to be non-linear and students advance by mastery.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 20, a 22-point difference between what respondents think they have achieved versus what they have actually achieved. 

With regards to the basic organizing principles in use, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 40 on the progression from a principle centered on a proffered schedule, buildings and people versus advanced routing and digital workflow.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 15, a 25-point difference between what respondents think they have achieved versus what they have actually achieved. 

With regards to the organizational charts of schools, survey respondents rated their schools and districts at 46 on the progression from being pyramidically organized with Superintendents at the top, mid-level management and teachers and students at the bottom and a teacher-centric dependent-demand orientation.  At 100 would be a reorganization of the organizational chart around workflow and skills with a student-centric, independent demand model that delivers exactly personalized paths.  Based on all other data in the survey, analysts gave the nation’s average at only 15, a 31-point difference between what respondents think they have achieved versus what they have actually achieved. 

About the Author

LeiLani Cauthen is the CEO and Publisher of The Learning Counsel. She is well versed in the digital content universe, software development, the adoption process, school coverage models, and helping define this century’s real change to teaching and learning.  She is an author and media personality with twenty years of research, news media publishing and market leadership in the high tech, education and government industries.