Differentiated instruction is the coconut oil of education: It can reduce cholesterol, moisturize your skin and meet the needs of all students, no matter where they fall in the performance panorama. (And make a tasty pie crust, too.)
Defined simply, differentiated instruction means tailoring instruction to meet the individual needs of each child. In theory, teachers are supposed to assess where every student is and calibrate instruction, content and classroom environment to accommodate the child’s readiness, interest and learning mode.
Classrooms then become dynamic and busy hubs where students can work alone or in groups on material or projects appropriate to their abilities and needs. For example, an advanced group in a high school math class could tackle challenge problems while struggling peers learn one-on-one with the teacher or aide.
That’s how differentiated learning is supposed to work. But here’s how a science teacher described it to me:
“So I have 32 ninth graders (some are repeating ninth graders) in a physical science classroom. Some will end up in the AP Biology, Chemistry, and Physics classes and need to be prepared for that. Others are reading and doing math at a kindergarten to second-grade level, and most of the 9th grade curriculum is way over their heads. At the end of the year, they’re all supposed to pass the same state End of Course Test, and my evaluation — and self-respect — depends upon how well they do.”
How reasonable is it to ask teachers to essentially design individual plans in classrooms of 33 students? Because at the same time school administrators and state education officials urge teachers to meet children at their level, the state of Georgia still expects all children to pass the exact same Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests and End of Course Tests.
But differentiated instruction is the go-to reform in Georgia. Ask about the children in the class who are struggling, and the solution is differentiated instruction. Ask about the ones who are bounding ahead, and differential instruction is touted as their springboard
In Atlanta recently, Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Chester E. Finn expressed skepticism over the prescribing of differentiated learning for whatever ails the classroom. A former professor of education at Vanderbilt, Finn said the research moorings supporting the effectiveness of differentiated learning are weak, adding, “We don’t know how well it works.”
The practice is spreading to higher education classrooms.
A community college instructor said, “We are attempting to do something like this in freshman composition classes at the community college now that remedial courses are nearing extinction. Or, I should say, we were told by the administration that students, who formerly would have ended up in remedial classes, will now be blended into our regular comp classes. So my colleagues and I are supposed to figure out how to make all boats rise, so to speak.
“Based on my experience this semester, all boats may rise with the tide, but the same cannot be said for students. It is very difficult to remediate the hardcore reading and writing skill deficiencies of some students and at the same time keep college-ready students awake.”
In talking to veteran educators, they agreed differentiated instruction can be done, but requires experienced teachers.
"To expect every teacher on the continent to take the full range of capacity, motivation and personality every day of every school year in a 35-kid packed classroom by themselves is nefarious," said Gerald Eads, an assistant professor of education at Georgia Gwinnett College. "Is competent differentiation a good thing? Absolutely. Can we help teachers get better at it? Absolutely. Is it the silver bullet? If you think so, I've got this bridge."
