By LeiLani Cauthen
The Learning Counsel’s Digital Transition Survey 2020 explored how schools are approaching the move to digital learning. The survey results reveal a consistent pattern: most schools rate themselves as further along in the digital transition than objective measures suggest. Many leaders also lack a clear understanding of how far digital tools and modern instructional models can push transformation. This gap matters as districts continue to contend with quarantines and ongoing disruptions to traditional school operations.
In virtual meetings throughout 2020, numerous superintendents told The Learning Counsel that they do not expect a return to the old “normal.” Instead, they envision a new normal that includes increased remote learning, long-term hybrid models, and greater personalization. While those aspirations are common, few discussions have drilled down into how to implement these models without placing unsustainable burdens on teachers or disrupting learning continuity.
To better understand directionality, analysts asked respondents to self-evaluate their district’s progress on several paired dimensions—essentially rating where they stand between two opposite models of schooling. For each area we compare the average self-rated score with an analysts’ assessment derived from broader survey data. The gaps between perception and measured reality point to where districts may need the most support.
Impact and use of space: Respondents rated themselves at 49 on a scale moving from a building-centric model (where space defines learning) toward a model in which learning defines and flexibly uses space as needed. Analysts’ review of other survey data places the national average closer to 40. This 9-point gap suggests many institutions overestimate how effectively they have decoupled learning from traditional physical spaces.
Selection of subjects and topics: On the continuum from tightly prescribed curricula to student-driven or technology-enabled self-selection of topics, respondents rated their districts at 37. However, analysts’ synthesis of broader indicators places the average near 20—a 17-point difference. In short, options for student choice and adaptive, learner-directed pathways are still far less widespread than many schools believe.
Student evaluation: Respondents rated their progress at 57 on the move away from traditional testing and teacher- or school-based labeling (grades, marks, scores) toward personal achievement scales where students self-advance by demonstrated mastery. Analysts’ data, however, put the national average at about 35, a 22-point gap. Traditional testing and age-old grading systems remain much more entrenched than the self-assessments indicate.
Customer orientation and view of achievement: Being customer-oriented shifts the view of achievement from internal institutional measures to outcomes as seen and valued by students and families. Respondents rated themselves at 47 on this scale, while analysts’ data show a national average closer to 30—a 17-point discrepancy. Schools still have work to do to reframe achievement from a consumer-centered perspective.
Predominant instructional model: On the axis from an age/grade cohort, linear advancement model toward a personalized, network-based non-linear model where students advance by mastery, respondents averaged 42. Analysts placed the national average at 20, revealing a 22-point gap. Most systems remain organized around cohorts and seat-time rather than truly personalized, mastery-based progression.
Basic organizing principles: When asked whether their systems are organized around schedules, buildings, and people versus advanced routing and digital workflow, respondents scored themselves at 40. Analysts estimate the national average at only 15, a 25-point difference. This underscores how limited the adoption of digital workflows and intelligent routing remains compared to perceived progress.
Organizational structure: Finally, respondents rated their districts at 46 on the scale from a traditional pyramid structure—superintendents at the top, teachers and students at the bottom—to a workflow- and skills-centered design with a student-centric, independent-demand model. Analysts’ broader view places the national average at 15, producing the largest recorded gap of 31 points. Reorganizing around skills, workflow, and student-centered delivery is a profound shift that most districts have not yet achieved.
Taken together, the survey paints a clear picture: schools and districts frequently overestimate their progress toward modern, flexible, student-centered learning systems. The discrepancies are consistent across space utilization, curriculum flexibility, assessment practices, customer orientation, instructional models, organizing principles, and organizational design. Addressing these gaps requires honest assessment, professional support, and realistic planning that protects teachers while enabling scalable, technology-enabled transformation.
About the Author
LeiLani Cauthen is the CEO and Publisher of The Learning Counsel. She brings deep expertise in the digital content landscape, software development, adoption strategies, school coverage models, and strategies for meaningful change in teaching and learning. As an author and media personality, she has two decades of research, news publishing, and market leadership in high tech, education, and government sectors.