Source: 

Technology can help democratize the process of learning.

What if your entire future depended on something about which you had little or no choice? Despite being presented with more choices and control in most other aspects of their lives, students today still largely have no say in their own education.

If they decide to pursue a college education, they will have more than 5,000 2-year or 4-year colleges from which to choose, but the quality and type of K–12 education they receive is largely tied to where they grow up. If it’s an urban area, they will attend schools run by districts where the average superintendent’s tenure is 3.2 years. School board members in these districts last only slightly longer—an average of three to six years. These districts exist within states that set their own academic standards and assessments and where per-pupil funding could be anywhere from $6,706 (if you live in Utah) to $18,000 (if you are a citizen of the District of Columbia). I think we can all agree that preparing and empowering our students is a national priority, but many of the factors that decide a student’s fate are governed by the whims of location and by a local leadership system defined by churn.

Students as Consumers

According the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education statistics, in the fall of 2015, about 50.1 million students attended public elementary and secondary schools. In 2011, the ad agency Digitas reported that this same demographic has $1.2 trillion in buying power a year—whether through their own direct purchases or the influence they have on their parents. Companies now spend about $17 billion annually marketing to children, as compared to the $100 million they spent in 1983. Companies bend over backwards to meet the needs and preferences of kids. In education, students are the only consumers and their learning is the only goal, so why don’t our school systems approach them the same way?

Washington Post reporter Ana Swanson’s 2015 article on waiting in lines speaks to a number of aspects of traditional education that cause students frustration. As she explains it, the factors that influence the experience of waiting in line are ideas of fairness, feeling out of control, and the perception of time. One of the article’s conclusions is that navigating one serpentine line is less stressful than waiting in a straight line or choosing between several parallel lines. Traditional education is one long, straight line in which grade levels and test performance serve as the mileage markers. Between those markers are a series of classes where students have to move at the same pace and in the same sequence as their classmates.

I have had the opportunity to speak to a lot of students in credit recovery, alternative, and blended learning programs. When I ask them when and in what manner they learn best, they often say, “It depends.” Some say they learn English language arts better in a classroom setting with other students, but that with math they work much better on their own online. For certain subjects and at certain times, a teacher is essential to assist their progress. Others times, they learn fine on their own. Time of day makes a difference for some but not for others. Across the board, they say that they are far more engaged and feel respected when they are given choice and alternatives.

Imagine being in a class—as many students who enter credit recovery are—where the teacher’s instructional style does not match the way you learn best. Or imagine you’re having difficulty with a certain concept that’s key to making further progress but there’s no time or capacity to provide you with the targeted support you need. Students in these situations end up feeling out of control, disrespected, and embarrassed—all of which leads to acute stress and a fight-or-flight mode that is death to long-term memory and learning. Biologically, their brains can’t learn while in that mode, yet they’re stigmatized for “not getting it.”

How Technology Can Help

If a doctor had 100 patients and 80 of them were in perfect health and didn’t need their assistance, five more had minor ailments and needed occasional checkups, and 15 were in acute trauma, would it make sense for that doctor to spend the majority of her time offering the same treatment to the entire group? Hardly. Yet that is how our traditional education model works. I believe technology can make it work better.

I don’t believe technology is a panacea for all things in education, but it does allow for options and access that were not possible or affordable in the past, and that exist beyond the confines of local budget realities, politics, and ideologies.

Hopefully we’ve all had the experience of learning a certain lesson or concept from a teacher who was a genius at presenting it. It is a transformative experience. There are thousands of teachers like that. Imagine if we could capture educators teaching those lessons and make them available nationally. With technology it’s not just feasible; it’s logical. Think flipped classrooms on a grand scale, where teachers could leverage the brilliant work of their colleagues and spend the majority of their time specializing or assisting the students who truly need it.

The good news is that many schools and districts are doing utilizing this model. The evolution of technology is demanding it. Losing students to accredited virtual schools because they aren’t satisfied with their local options is prompting districts to expand their services. These are but small steps in a wave of expanded choice that will only continue to build.

In most areas of their lives, children have more options than ever. It’s time for that to be true in their education as well.

John Kreick is the vice president of marketing at Odysseyware.