MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
CORE COMPONENTS
Our Evidence From Improving the System we
Have
Learner Profiles:
Little is known about or applied to leverage each student’s strengths, readiness, and learning modalities.
To Creating the
System we Need
Learner Profiles:
Comprehensive, data-rich learner profiles convey a deep understanding of the learner and are used to plan a customized learning environment and instructional strategies. They are dynamic, real-time, and learnerowned and managed.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Customized Learning Paths:
All students follow virtually the same prescribed learning path.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Proficiency-based Progress:
Students advance through grade levels based on seat time and credits.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Customized Learning Paths:
Each learner follows a unique path based on their individual readiness, strengths, needs, and interests.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Proficiency-based Progress:
Learner progress is based on demonstrated proficiency in compelling, agreed-upon standards.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
1
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 1

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
Overall Self-Rating for 3 Core
Components Above:
☐
TEACHING AND LEARNING
From Improving the System we
Have
Personal Learning Goals:
Whole-class, teacher identified expectations of what students should be able to know and do.
Our Evidence To Innovating the
System we Need
Personal Learning Goals:
Learner and educator co-develop purposeful personalized goals to provide benchmarks and add focus, clarity, and commitment to learning.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Learner Voice Infused:
Students have limited input into decisions affecting their educational experience.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Learner Choice Incorporated:
Students have limited choice about their educational experience.
Learner Voice Infused:
Learners have significant and meaningful input into their learning experience.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Learner Choice Incorporated:
Learners have significant and meaningful choice regarding their learning experience.
2
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 2

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Multiple Instructional Methods/Modes:
Largely face-to-face instruction in large groups regardless of varying readiness, strengths, needs, and interests.
Multiple Instructional Methods/Modes:
Instruction is offered using a variety of methods (e.g., demonstration, discussion, simulation) and models (e.g., face-to-face, blended, virtual) in response to learner readiness, strengths, needs, and interests.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Cultural Responsiveness:
Content is typically presented with a narrow, predefined cultural context.
Cultural Responsiveness:
Learners are provided opportunities to engage with content through various cultural lenses and perspectives and draw from their cultural background to build their learning.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Rapid Cycle Feedback:
Feedback is infrequent, delayed, and static.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Rapid Cycle Feedback:
Feedback is frequent, timely, and “moving picture” based.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
3
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 3

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
Customized Responsive Instruction:
Instruction and pacing are standardized and predetermined. Differentiation occurs primarily at the lower and upper margins of performance.
Customized Responsive Instruction:
Instruction and pacing are driven by individual learner needs and growing capacity for independent learning.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Assessment of Learning:
Formal testing is high stakes, single measure, and not aligned to real-world experiences.
Assessment of Learning:
Assessment of learning through multiple means such as performance, application, demonstration, and student interaction with challenging content.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Assessment for Learning:
Indirect measures of learning such as multiple choice and standardized tests used to target whole group instruction.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Assessment for Learning:
Multiple means of direct measures of learning
(demonstration, conversation, dialogue, mini quiz) used to plan next steps for individual students.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Assessment as Learning:
Learning is assumed to be a by-product of content and skill development.
Assessment as Learning:
Data indicating the level of mastery is obtained while the learner is engaged in varied assessment activities (peerto-peer, game-based learning).
4
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 4

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Progressions toward Deeper Learning:
Learning is driven by the scope and sequence of curriculum.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Progressions toward Deeper Learning:
Movement over time toward more expert understanding and sophisticated ways of thinking about a concept or idea.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
. .
Standards guided learning:
Teachers use standards to drive instruction.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Standards guided learning:
Learners understand and can articulate standards, utilizing them to guide their learning experiences.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Overall Self-Rating for 12 Teaching and Learning Components Above:
☐
5
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 5

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
RELATIONSHIPS AND ROLES
From Improving the System we
Have
Learner Independence:
Students depend on the teacher to tell them what to do, and when and how to do it.
Our Evidence
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
To Innovating the
System we Need
Learner Independence:
Learners have the capacity to learn and work independently, without heavy dependence on external structures and supports.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
. .
Learner as Resource:
Students are seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge by the teacher. Instruction is outside/in.
Learner as Resource:
Learners are seen as partners and as a resource for their own learning and others’. Learning is inside/out, beginning where the learner is currently, based on their readiness, strengths, needs, and interests.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
. .
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Community Engagement:
Involvement by the community in the education system is limited with few connections between concepts learned in the classroom and life outside of school.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Engagement:
Learners, schools, and the community work together to fully leverage resources and expertise to maximize the learning experience.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1
6
6

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
Self-Rating:
☐
Co-designers of Learning:
Teachers are responsible for managing all aspects of their students’ learning experience.
Co-designers of Learning:
Learners and educators work together to design learning experiences and determine how proficiency is demonstrated.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Educator Collaboration:
Teachers work largely in isolation with assigned groups of students.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Educator Collaboration:
Educators practice together, coach each other, and work as an interdependent team to craft personalized learning experiences.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Family Engagement:
Family relationships generally focus on home support for a standardized curriculum, report cards, and school events.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Family Engagement:
Family perspective, input, and experience serve as crucial sources of data to understand and support learner success.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Shared Commitment to Success:
School and classroom culture are organized so that
Shared Commitment to Success:
Learner and educator are interdependent, sharing a
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1
7
7

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
the student’s job is to comply. Responsibility rests with the teacher. commitment to success. Self-efficacy and high expectations are intentionally nurtured and reinforced.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Overall Self-Rating for 7
Relationships and Roles
Components Above:
☐
STRUCTURES AND POLICIES
From Improving the System we
Have
Recognition of Anytime/Anywhere Learning:
Credit is confined to learning that is associated with formal instruction.
Our Evidence
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Learning Aligned Technology:
Technology is used primarily as a substitute for or augmentation of existing tasks.
To Innovating the
System we Need
Recognition of Anytime/Anywhere Learning:
Standards-based proficiency is recognized no matter where learning occurs.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Learning Aligned Technology:
Technology is used as a tool to modify or redesign learning tasks. It enhances, deepens, or accelerates understanding and mastery of content.
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1
8
8

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Learner-centered Staffing:
Highly structured traditional staffing model with one teacher to a cohort of 20 to 30 students.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Learner-centered Staffing:
Flexible staffing responds to the needs of individual learners or groups of various sizes.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Flexible Learning Spaces:
Traditional classrooms and furniture limit flexible grouping and inhibit interaction.
Flexible Learning Spaces:
Comfortable physical spaces are conducive to collaborative learning, responsive to the needs of learners, and support individual, small-group, and largegroup instruction.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Flexible Time and Pace:
Students are expected to progress at the same rate within a prescribed amount of time. (Time is the constant; learning is the variable.)
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Flexible Time and Pace:
Learners have the flexibility to progress at their own pace and to adjust time allocations based on their learning objectives. (Learning is the constant; time is the variable.)
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1
9
9

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
Integrated Data Management System: Data repositories and sources are fragmented and difficult to access and use.
Integrated Data Management System:
Sophisticated data management systems are real-time, integrated, and easily accessible by learners, educators, and parents. Systems include progress data and suggest next steps along a learner’s path.
10
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Learning Aligned Grouping Options:
Students are arranged into static groups based on characteristics such as age, gender, or perceived ability or disability.
. . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Rating:
☐
Overall Self-Rating for 7 Structures and Policies Components Above:
☐
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Learning Aligned Grouping Options:
Learners are grouped flexibly based on readiness, needs, and interests.
. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .
Overall Self-Rating
1 – 5 by Component
Specific Areas/Examples of
Strengths by Component
Specific Areas/Examples of Challenges by
Component
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 10

MOVING FROM IMPROVING THE SYSTEM WE HAVE TO CREATING THE SYSTEM WE NEED :
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS JOURNEY?
Core Components
11
NOTE: Adapted from the Honeycomb Alignment with Continuum of Legacy to Personalized Learning Practices from The Institute @ CESA #1 11