Education for All: Why “Personalized Learning” Misses the Point

By Dr. Joseph Schroer • Cognitive Science in the Classroom, November 19th, 2025

Walk into almost any education conference today and you’ll hear the phrase “personalized learning” spoken with near-magical reverence. It’s become one of the most attractive ideas in modern schooling: the belief that if we could somehow tailor instruction to each student’s unique profile, then motivation would rise, achievement would follow, and every learner would finally get the education they deserve.

It sounds warm. It sounds compassionate. It sounds futuristic.
But there’s one big problem: the cognitive science doesn’t support it.

In reality, human beings learn in remarkably similar ways. The structure of our memory systems—working memory, long-term memory, attention, and prior knowledge—doesn’t change from student to student. The differences we notice in learners are real, of course. Students come with different experiences, interests, and levels of readiness. But beneath that surface-level variability is a universal cognitive architecture. Whether you’re a fifth grader in Wyoming or a college student in Tokyo, the basic mechanisms that allow the brain to encode, store, and retrieve information operate the same way.

And when we ignore that fact, we don’t actually help students.
More often, we handicap our teachers.

The promise of personalized learning often ends up placing teachers in an impossible position. Instead of designing one coherent, research-informed lesson, they’re expected to build 25–150 individualized pathways, all supposedly tailored to how different students “learn.” The classroom becomes a collection of disconnected activities: one student watching a video, one student clicking through a software module, another doing an independent project, another struggling quietly through a task they weren’t actually taught.

It looks personalized. But it’s not learning.

What gets lost in this fragmentation is the power of shared instruction—of a community of learners thinking together, discussing ideas together, building knowledge together. When instruction splinters into a dozen different routes, we unintentionally reduce rigor, weaken classroom culture, and spread the teacher so thin that no one gets the consistent guidance they need.

This is why I argue for something much simpler, and far more effective: Education for All.

Education for All is not a “one size fits all” model. It’s a recognition that strong, coherent instruction grounded in cognitive science gives every student access to the same high-quality learning. When a teacher anchors lessons in how the human mind actually learns—through clear explanations, modeling, guided practice, multiple representations, retrieval, and re-engagement over time—all students benefit. And within that structure, teachers can absolutely personalize. They can adjust scaffolding, provide targeted feedback, offer choice in how students show what they know, or vary the pace while keeping expectations high for everyone.

This kind of personalization is grounded in reality, not in myth.

It respects the fact that yes—students do learn differently. But the solution isn’t to create thirty different lessons. The solution is to teach in ways that honor the shared cognitive principles that make learning possible, while also supporting students’ individual needs within that structure.

Think about how athletes train. They don’t say, “Because every athlete is different, every athlete needs a completely different sport, a different set of drills, and a different rulebook.” Instead, they all work through structured, repeated practice with increasing complexity, and they fine-tune their technique with feedback from a coach. That structure is what allows individual strengths to emerge.

Learning works the same way.

If our goal is equity, achievement, and meaningful opportunity, then personalized learning is not the hero we imagine it to be. What students need most is great teaching—teaching that is rooted in cognitive science, strengthened by shared knowledge, and delivered in a way that ensures every learner has access to the same powerful ideas.

Education for All is not a step backward.
It’s a step toward coherence, reality, and true opportunity.

If we want students to thrive, we don’t need 30 different lesson plans. We need one great lesson delivered with care, clarity, and a deep understanding of how the human brain actually learns.

Education for All is not old-fashioned.
It is the most scientifically grounded approach we have.

Personalized learning is not the hero of modern education.
Great teaching is.

APA References for Further Reading

Barnum, M. (2019). Personalized learning and the promise of education technology. Chalkbeat. https://www.chalkbeat.org
(Evidence-based journalism examining whether personalized learning improves achievement.)

Hirsch, E. D. (2016). Why knowledge matters: Rescuing our children from failed educational theories. Harvard Education Press.
(Argues that shared knowledge—not individualized paths—is central to equity and learning.)

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
(Synthesizes research on cognitive architecture; critiques fads that ignore universal learning principles.)

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
(Foundational article on why unguided, individualized approaches often fail.)

RAND Corporation. (2017). Promising but uncertain: What we know about personalized learning. RAND Education. https://www.rand.org
(Major evaluation showing limited evidence for personalized learning initiatives.)

Sherrington, T. (2019). Rosenshine’s principles in action. John Catt Educational.
(Highlights the power of coherent, whole-class instruction; implicitly critiques fragmented personalization.)

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
(Overview of universal cognitive principles essential for all learners.)

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
(Emphasizes formative assessment within whole-class instruction rather than individualized learning paths.)

Wiliam, D. (2018). Creating the schools our children need: Why what we are doing now won’t help much (and what we can do instead). Learning Sciences International.
(Critiques personalization and argues for system-wide instructional coherence.)

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
(Argues that cognitive architecture is universal; debunks individualized learning myths.)

Willingham, D. T. (2018). Learning styles: What does the science actually say? Learning & the Brain Conference. https://www.danielwillingham.com
(Summarizes why tailoring instruction to individual “styles” lacks evidence—relevant to personalization debates.)

Watters, A. (2021). Teaching machines: The history of personalized learning. MIT Press.
(Historical critique showing the longstanding problems with mechanized individualized instruction.)