Differentiation is a Joke by Dr. James R. Delisle

Differentiation is a Joke
James R. Delisle

            Let's review the educational cure-alls of past decades: Back to Basics, the Open Classroom, Whole Language, constructivism, and E.D. Hirsch's excruciatingly detailed accounts of what every first or third grader should know, to name a few.  It seems America's teachers and students are guinea pigs in the perennial quest for universal excellence. Sadly, though, that elusive panacea that will solve all of education's woes has remained, well, elusive.
            But wait!  The solution has arrived, and it's been around long enough to prove its worth!  What is this magical elixir?  Differentiation!  Starting with the gifted education community in the late 1960s, differentiation didn't get its mojo going until regular educators jumped onto the bandwagon in the 1980s.  To date, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) has released more than 675 publications on differentiation, and countless publishers have followed suit with manuals and software that will turn every classroom into a differentiated one.
            There's only one problem: differentiation is a failure, a farce and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students.
            Actually, in theory, differentiation sounds great, as it takes several important factors of student learning into account:
            * it seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn
            * it allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods
            * it encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process
            Sounds wonderful!  The problem is this: although fine in theory, differentiation, in practice, is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back.  Case in point: in a study reported by Joanne Jacobs, Holly Hertberg-Davis examined for three years the impact of differentiation in classrooms where teachers had had extensive training and coaching on implementation strategies.  However, Hertberg-Davis was unable to determine the success of differentiation because none of the study's teachers were actually doing it.  Too, Mike Schmoker, in his article, "When pedagogical fads trump priorities", relates that his experiences observing educators trying to differentiate caused him to draw this conclusion: "in every case, differentiated instruction seemed to complicate teachers' work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials…and it dumbed down instruction."  As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 study by the Fordham Institute, 84% of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was "somewhat" or "very" difficult to implement.  It seems that when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they're supposed to be doing it.  Either way, the verdict is clear: differentiation is a promise unfulfilled; a boondoggle of massive proportion.
            The biggest reason why differentiation doesn't work, and never will, is due to the way students are deployed in most of our nation's classrooms.  Toss together several students who struggle to learn, along with a smattering of gifted kids, while adding a few English language learners and a bunch of academically-average students and expect a single teacher to differentiate for each of them.  That is a recipe for academic disaster if ever I saw one.  Such an admixture of students with varying abilities in one classroom causes even the most experienced and conscientious teachers to flinch, as they know the task of reaching each child is an impossible one.  It seems to me the only educators who assert that differentiation is doable are those who have never tried to implement it themselves: university professors, curriculum coordinators, school principals.  It's the in-the-trenches educators who know the stark reality: differentiation is a cheap way out for school districts to pay lip service to those who demand that each child be educated to his or her fullest potential.
            Do we expect an oncologist to be able to treat glaucoma?  Do we expect a criminal prosecutor to be able to decipher patent law?  Do we expect a concert pianist to be able to play the clarinet equally as well?  No, no, no.  However, when the only thing at stake is the education of our nation's youth, we toss together into one classroom every possible learning strength and disability and expect a single teacher to be able to work academic miracles with every kid…as long as said teacher is willing to differentiate, of course. The sad truth is this: by having dismantled many of the provisions we used to offer to kids on the edges of learning--classes for gifted kids, classes for kids who struggle to learn, and classes for those whose behaviors are disruptive to the learning process of others--we have sacrificed the learning of virtually every student.  In the same Fordham Institute study cited earlier, 71% of teachers reported that they would like to see our nation rely more heavily on homogeneous grouping of advanced students, while a resounding 77% of teachers say that when advanced students are paired with lower-achieving students for group assignments, it's the smart kids who do the bulk of the work. 
            A second reason that differentiation has been a failure is that we're not exactly sure what it is we are differentiating: is it the curriculum or the instructional methods used to deliver it?  Or both?  The terms "differentiated instruction" and "differentiated curriculum" are used interchangeably, yet they are not synonyms.  Teachers want and need clear guidance on what it is they are supposed to do to reach differentiated Nirvana, yet the messages they receive from the "experts" are far from consistent.  No wonder confusion reigns and teachers feel defeated in trying to implement the grand goals of differentiation.
            Differentiation might have a chance to work if we are willing, as a nation, to do one thing differently in schools: return to the days when students of similar abilities were placed in classes with other students whose learning needs paralleled their own.  Until that time, differentiation will continue to be what it has become: a losing proposition for both students and teachers and yet one more panacea that did not pan out.

James R. Delisle is the author of Dumbing Down America: The War on our Nation's Brightest Young Minds (and what we can ado to Fight Back), as well as 18 other books. Specializing in the education of gifted children, Jim has worked in various in various capacities as an educator for 39 years.

References cited in this article are as follows:

Farkas, S. and Duffett, A.  2008.  High-achieving students in the era of NCLB: Results from a national teacher survey.  Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Jacobs, J. 2010 Can differentiation work?  Retrieved from http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/11/can-differentiation-work

Schmoker, M. 2010. When pedagogic fads trump priorities.  Education Week, 30(5), 2S.


No comments:

Post a Comment