Done Well, Differentiation Works
Updated October 2, 2011, 07:00 PM
NY Times
Carol Ann Tomlinson, the author of many books on differentiation, is the William Clay Parrish Jr. Professor and Chair at the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia.
Differentiation is a tool for planning instruction. Like all tools, it can be applied elegantly or poorly. When used well, it benefits a very broad range of learners. When used less well, it is less effective. A key question, then, is how effective a school is in describing, monitoring and supporting quality implementation of differentiation. The question is as relevant to special services for advanced learners as it is for any other group. Is the primary goal a separate room for students with particular needs, or should our primary goal be high-quality learning experiences wherever a student is taught?
The range of students in schools indicates the need for a range of services. Since most students have always received most of their instruction in general education classrooms, it’s quite important that differentiation in that setting be robust. There are some very bright students whose academic needs are quite well addressed in some “regular” classrooms, some who require extended instruction in a specific subject, some whose need for challenge suggests specialized instruction in all content areas — perhaps even outside the student’s school. Effective differentiation would serve the student in each of those situations.
The critical variable in this debate, however, is not really differentiation vs. special classrooms for advanced learners. It’s the quality of content a nation is willing to support for all its students. In most classrooms across this country, teachers have spent the last decade — not by their own choice — trying to prepare students for an endless progression of tests that measure a student’s capacity to retain a staggering array of facts and to perform skills that have little meaning to them now or in the future.
There’s no doubt that our most advanced learners have lost ground during that time. I’d argue there’s ample evidence that most students have lost ground. The real question isn’t whether differentiation has a role in the education of highly able students. The real question is what kind of curriculum we believe as a nation will fuel the potential of all our young people.
Certainly our most advanced learners need better than the content they are now being served. An even larger issue for the nation is whether we are willing to assume that as long as we remove 3 percent or 5 percent or 15 percent of our students from low-level, factory-like classrooms, we’ve addressed the core problem that currently defines our national aspirations.
Certainly our most advanced learners need better than the content they are now being served. But is plucking them out of mainstream classrooms a solution?
The critical variable in this debate, however, is not really differentiation vs. special classrooms for advanced learners. It’s the quality of content a nation is willing to support for all its students. In most classrooms across this country, teachers have spent the last decade — not by their own choice — trying to prepare students for an endless progression of tests that measure a student’s capacity to retain a staggering array of facts and to perform skills that have little meaning to them now or in the future.
There’s no doubt that our most advanced learners have lost ground during that time. I’d argue there’s ample evidence that most students have lost ground. The real question isn’t whether differentiation has a role in the education of highly able students. The real question is what kind of curriculum we believe as a nation will fuel the potential of all our young people.
Certainly our most advanced learners need better than the content they are now being served. An even larger issue for the nation is whether we are willing to assume that as long as we remove 3 percent or 5 percent or 15 percent of our students from low-level, factory-like classrooms, we’ve addressed the core problem that currently defines our national aspirations.
I agree completely that most students have lost their ground. I don't think that it is as much fault of the curriculum itself, but how it is implemented in addition to the high demands placed on teachers. However, I do not agree with such a low percentage. It really should be quite the opposite, but unfortunately we have become a separating nation that would rather place blame than accept it, so until we become ready to accept the blame and figure out ways to change it, I suppose 3 to 15 percent is a good starting point.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic, for the last year maybe more I have asked the question, why is our top student not being pushed to move further that test mastery? What happens when they have out tested and outscored their peers? What do we teach them? Or better yet why don’t we graduate them and send them packing off to the next grade or college? The reality is, is that there is always something else for them to learn; a skill that although they have some mastery of, they could get better at with some more academic implementation. When we talk differentiation in today’s academic corridors and classrooms we are talking mostly of that student who has been labeled learning disabled or remedial. We all too often forget about that child at the top. The one who has passed the test but still needs to be taught; the one who is a good test taker even, but still has deficits in some areas that can surely be improved with instruction that speaks to outside the test?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, students need to be supported where they are. They need to go into the nation’s classrooms packing with whatever they have and come out of them with a new set of luggage prepared for whatever journey or challenge life will present. We can no longer negate that student who has tested four and say they need no more, for it is when they have tested four that teaching can begin.
Wow this is really interesting and i agree with Sharion. That student who preforms very well on tests and therefor we as teachers say wow they really understand the material, no they just understand the test. Me as an example i was really good in school, i got all A's in science, social studies, gym, music, art and so on and so on. However, in any of those classes ask me to spell a word and i would look at you with a blank stare. I am a terrible speller and it has always made me feel embarrassed. It is something that I work on constantly. However my point is those students who preform at the top still have stuff they can work on, so therefor I would have to agree with Sharion.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you asked students why they learn, if they would say to make me smarter, or so I can take the various tests, we as teachers are mandated to give. Student teaching in fourth grade last year I saw how hard it was for my cooperating teacher to give me control of the classroom before the ELA test. She told me what to teach and I taught it, most of the material and content revolved solely around the ELA test, and the math state tests. When the students took those tests everything got shifted to science because the kids had to take that in June. It is incredible to me how we as citizens have lost site of why kids learn, for the love of new information and seeking the next best invention. We need to remember to push not just the lower-level learners, but the higher-level learners too. We need to expose all students to the same material with scaffolding, and have the absolute highest expectations for each and every child in our classrooms. We need to show students what a love for learning is, and how to filter that passion in a positive and constructive way. Lastly, we need to help students engage in active learning, so that when they leave our classrooms they are always and forever learning new things.
ReplyDeleteAs an educator I am always trying to grasp the enormous tasks set in front of me/us, and the individual needs of the student who sits in my class. How can I reach him or her? How can I direct the instruction so that it is meaningful to them? How do I put them in charge of their learning? What is their currency? It comes down to relationships, planning and constantly assessing through a variety of ways. If something is working, let it be. If not, try something new Live for feedback. It's your friend.
ReplyDeleteThis is a frustrating topic on so many levels. Once again I’ll reference back to my own school experiences. Back then they had the gifted and talented program. I went to a Catholic school and there were only 8 kids in my graduating class. Of those 8, five of us were at an advanced learning level. However, funding only allowed for 1 student (or 12% of the class) to go through the gifted program. So they tested all five of us. The results were very close (within a fraction of a point) and they chose the student with the highest score. So this student had to be bussed to the public school where the gifted program was. The students who didn’t make it all of a sudden felt like failures. The student who did make it felt like an outcast and hated being separated from her friends and thrust into an unfamiliar class just for a few hours.
ReplyDeleteGranted this was an unusual situation but it does exist. And therein lies the problem. I agree that students who are advanced need a more challenging learning environment. But we cannot assume that in all classrooms only 3-15% of the students are in this advanced category. Nor can we assume that all classrooms will have students that are advanced enough for differentiation. Is there not a way we can reach the needs of all students without implementing more classifications and segregations?
I completely agree that our primary goal should be high-quality learning experiences wherever a student is taught. Ultimately, I feel that all students should be educated in the same setting, but of course this is not always possible. In certain cases of sever behavioral issues etc. students must be taught in separate classes because of the impact they may have on other students. Inclusion has been a widely discussed and implemented practice in the education setting in recent years. . Inclusion is designed to incorporate disabled students into the general education setting on a primary basis. Inclusion is similar to, but should not be confused with mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is an approach to education in which students with special needs are partially included in the general education setting. Inclusion has been widely accepted throughout the country and can be observed in classrooms across the globe. Not only does inclusion provide benefits for disabled students, but the inclusion model can also provide valuable benefits for teachers, families, and non-disabled students.
ReplyDeleteThinking back on my own education, I remember the days before the inclusion model was as widely implemented as it is today. I can recall walking by the special education classrooms and observing students that in many cases behaved, looked, and sounded very different compared to my classmates and I. I remember having many questions about these particular students. After all, I was rarely given the opportunity to interact or correspond with these students, so naturally my instincts told me they were different from my friends and I. For the most part the students placed in special education classrooms did not socialize with students in the general education classes. It is shocking to look back at this experience as a mature, educated adult and examine the disadvantages of students who are isolated in the nature in which I have described.
Blog #3: Tomlinson NY Times Article
ReplyDeleteI found the article about Carol Ann Tomlinson’s ideas about differentiation to be very interesting given the current climate in the educational world. As she mentions, with the new rigorous measures placed on teachers and students to perform well on standardized tests, it is very hard to implement differentiation effectively. I found in my student teaching experience as well as my other professional positions that differentiation was often very hard to implement and many of my peers and mentors were often reluctant to differentiate instruction within the classroom. It is tough to implement differentiated instruction effectively, and I feel most teachers may be hesitant to switch. An excellent point that Tomlinson makes is that the differentiated instruction should be implemented effectively on all levels. Meaning, as teachers, we should have access to resources that will enable us to learn and implement this stuff.
Because differentiation caters to all levels of academic and intellectual performance, it is ideal for an inclusive classroom. A singular method of approach to teaching may often exclude various groups. The differentiated classroom will keep the high level learners interested, while enabling the inclusive learners to draw on their preferred learning styles to suit their educational needs.
As many of my classmates stated, student perceptions of education are geared towards the rigorous testing they will experience. The tests are an industrial platform for a very, very dynamic industry. We need to take this same unilateral approach to education, but let the curriculum be derived by the very same people that will receive it. However, this would go against the industrial model, which looks to classify people, and place hierarchical importance on academic skills. This argument is similar to Sir Ken Robinson who believes a fundamental overhaul in the structure of our educational system is needed. With the tests in the way, there is little room for both growth, and more importantly, experimentation. We can’t just sit back on direct instruction and ram Barron’s review books down our kids throats while letting “low-achieving” students slip through the cracks as collateral damage of a myopic system.
Now, how do we implement this differentiating approach? As Susan tells us, it all comes down to relationships. You need to know your students and know them well. Figure out how they learn by differentiating assessments and instruction. Make sure to analyze how your students react to this varied material. You can even just flat out ask them. This makes your planning and implementing highly effective, while weaving the student’s personal connections or currencies into the content. The material is for THEM, so THEY will take ownership of it. Like Prensky talks about, make it REAL and the students will find their own motivation to succeed.