I love 19th century history. In fact, stories by Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Turgenev, Lermontov and Tolstoy which evoke Russia in that period are my absolute favourite; I can’t get enough of them. At that time, Russia was one vast bureaucracy with a strictly deliniated table of ranks. Being a ‘titular councillor’ in one of Gogol’s stories, for example, is to be virtually a nobody – somebody who works within a vast bureacracy churning out meaningless statistics.

I see my life as a teacher as being a million miles away from this. If I’ve done my job properly, my students should be engaged, informed and leave my classroom with a desire to learn more. To do this, learning has to be ‘personalised’. There are a number of ways in which this can be the case (I’m sure you can think of more):

1. Understand the ins and outs of every single individual in the classroom – emotionally, academically, etc.
2. Know the different types of students you have within your classroom – how they learn best, their ability, level/grade towards which they’re working, and social standings.
3. Be aware of the CAT scores and previous academic performances of the young people in front of you.

In a primary school classroom a teacher can begin to personalise learning in the first way. Howver, although they may understand each individual, they need to have the resources at their disposal to be able act upon this. I would argue that dealing with 30 simultaneously means that the teacher is, in all but the most dedicated of cases, unable to translate their understanding into meaningful action.

This leaves the majority of primary school teachers – those who have pupils every lesson, every day for at least a year – at the second level of personalising learning. This is one step removed from where they should be. The problem is not intention or understanding, but time and money. I heard of one pupil today who has entered Year 7 at our school without being able to read or write. How can this happen when we’re supposed to be personalising learning?

Given that secondary school teachers interact with probably at least ten times as many pupils as their primary counterparts, the second level of personalisation of learning is an acceptable target. Given, you may get to know your form class a lot better, or individuals within certain classes you teach but, on the whole, my getting to know the 375+ pupils I teach in the first way is unrealistic.

But we certainly shouldn’t be happy with the third way of ‘personalising learning’. That’s just Personalisation by Bureaucracy. 19th-century Russians would be proud of us, as would Frederick Taylor. That complex ball of human emotions, aspirations and thoughts is reduced to numbers on a page. Whilst these are necessary for target setting for ‘Type 2′ personalisation, they should not be the be-all and end-all. They should inform rather than direct. How often do we just manipulate data for reports and target-setting rather than actually use it to personalise learning in a meaningful way?

Type 1 personalisation is unrealistic at the moment given the staff/pupil ratio in secondary schools, although I wish it were different (like this model, perhaps?). To ensure at least Type 2 personalisation starts with getting to know every pupil’s name as early on as possible, but ends with finding out as much as possible what makes them ‘tick’ – what fires their imagination, how they learn best, and with whom they learn best.

Perhaps I should add that as a second short-term goal! :D