Could Connecticut high school students one day graduate in as few as three years or as many as six, depending on how individual students learn and the time it takes them to master required subject matter?

Might the traditional six-hour school day and 180-day school year give way to a system in which students learn throughout the day and year, utilizing methods of learning that complement each student's aptitudes? In such a reformed education system for the 21st century, students would spend as much or more time out of school as in it, in apprenticeships, doing community service, undertaking independent study and working through online courses.

These are just some of the concepts envisioned by a new educational movement, which if fully realized would lead to a revolutionary change away from the factory-model education system that prevailed throughout most of the 20th century.

Recently, a committee consisting of representatives of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Regional Education Service Centers developed a white paper on what this brave new educational world would look like.

Called "A Look to the Future: Personalized Learning in Connecticut," it turns traditional education on its head.

All of us grew up learning in a system that was built to standardize, not personalize. In this new approach, learning would not come from teacher dictates, but from the "instructional needs, interests and learning preferences" of the student.

The new approach would make much greater use of modern technology, with students encouraged to experiment and learn from trial and error. It emphasizes not only mastering subjects, but understanding their real-world applicability. The white paper envisions students "owning" digital collections of how and what they have learned through multiple years of schooling.

Frankly, as someone educated in the traditional school model and who saw his own children pass through it as well, it is hard to get my head around such dramatic change. But intuitively, don't we all feel that something has to change?

A standardized learning system designed for a very different time seems ill suited for a new age when individuals have so much information literally at the fingertips and can expect to experience constant and rapid change, in technology, in their careers and in the skills they must acquire.

The committee that drafted the white paper notes its concern that "some of our students have become passive learners in elementary school; that many see school merely as a series of hurdles to jump over before receiving a diploma."

That certainly rings true.

Encouraging students to take a personal approach in how they learn, "will enable students to better manage obstacles and opportunities, as well as comprehend compelling issues affecting their lives, communities, and their potential in a global economy."

Nationally, discussion about a "personalized learning" approach has included concerns that it would widen the achievement gap between rich and poor, with affluent communities able to afford and provide the support necessary to undertake this innovative approach. Yet the current approach passes along students whether they are ready or not, allowing them to fall hopelessly behind peers in academic proficiency - a problem more acute in poor communities.

A personalized approach would be more flexible in allowing the time necessary to master particular subjects.

The concept raises many questions, including the cost of a personal, student-oriented approach, the practicality of students moving through the school system at different rates and the challenge of changing an educational approach that is so deeply ingrained culturally.

In a recent meeting I had with representatives of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, they made it clear the discussion is only beginning. Change is more likely to come incrementally, with new approaches woven into the traditional system, perhaps leading in time to dramatic change.

At the very least, it is a worthwhile discussion to have, because "that's the way we've always done it" is not a good reason to leave our public education system unchanged.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.

Twitter: @Paul_Choiniere