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