I’ve had some time now to reflect on my blog’s discussion about differentiation that brought about some pretty exciting comments, particularly on this post about classroom management which now has 40 comments, most of them about differentiation even though that wasn’t what the post was about.
Tracking vs. Differentiation is the Wrong Argument
I think the discussion was framed incorrectly by people who viewed the conversation as one about tracking vs. differentiation. I understand that the argument was framed as such if you followed certain links in but I reject the idea that tracking means you won’t have to differentiate because even then the students have different talents and skills. I’m also not about discussing whether heterogenous groupings of students is better or not better. The fact is that most classes are put together with mixed ability groupings and I’m about how to make that work. Arguments for or against differentiation have their place but this isn’t it.
We Have to Accept Mediocrity/Every Teacher Can’t Be a Superstar
No we don’t/not every teacher has to be.
These were a couple of the comments I received. If you haven’t heard me when I say that differentiation through methods like writer’s workshop and student research are not more work for a teacher than traditional worksheets then I haven’t done what I set out to do.
I do not consider myself a superstar and I’m not one of those teachers who stays at school until six o’clock at night every day cleaning my closets. Many teachers put in a lot of time and it doesn’t necessarily translate into better teaching. I like teaching methods that require little preparation but involve small tweaks that make huge differences in student learning…like having students pair share information, employing visuals for presentation, allowing students to choose topics of interest to them. None of these things take more of my personal time and they each have paid big dividends for me. Try them out.
English Language Learners Don’t Read My Blog
I sympathize with the gifted parents who read and commented on my blog posts. In the interest of full-disclosure I was identified as gifted in the second grade and although I was placed in regular classrooms I participated in a pull-out GATE program. Those who commented that gifted students need to be challenged and engaged are preaching to the choir if they’re talking to me.
However, the voices of parents of English Language Learners I teach are apparently not represented in the comments. I reject the idea that gifted students are the only ones who are bored in class. I think everyone needs better (read more engaging and relevant teaching that promotes higher level thinking). The idea that your lowest students can’t participate in writing and research on their current academic level is hogwash.
Teacher Used to Do It All the Time
My favorite comment received is from Carolyn who said:
Teachers used to differentiate instruction all the time–this was what happened in one room school houses, with eight grades. All kids learned to work independently and all kids’ needs could be addressed since there were eight levels of material at any given moment.
While one-room schoolhouses had a lot of problems, I do get tired of whining about how hard it is to have students of different talents in the same room.
I don’t see engaging students of different levels as an option, I think that’s what teaching is.
I teach a GT 5th grade class. I don’t think even my teammates really understand how much differentiation I need to do. Just because all of my students have been identified as GT doesn’t mean that they are all at exactly the same point in every subject. The idea that that would be true anywhere, at any level, in any class is absurd.
I read this post cheering inside. What you are saying seems like common sense, but it is far from common.
I, like Jenny, teach gifted kids. I think people would be surprised at the range of abilities, personalities, and behaviors within what most people think is a small population (top 1%). Some years the cognitive range (IQ) in my class is wider than the range in the regular classroom. I’ve got athletes–nonathletes, workers–nonworkers, sitters and kids who never sit, Aspergers, ADD, ADHD, OCD, anxiety, most popular–least popular, nerds–nonnerds, readers and those who don’t like to read, computer geeks and no-computer kids, math whizzes and non-math whizzes. What they do have in common is their academic needs are many times not met in the classroom. BUT what their needs are may vary widely. I’m glad I don’t have to teach them everyday, I only have them one day a week! It is a hard job.
Kudos, Mathew, for your conclusion, “I don’t see engaging students of different levels as an option, I think that’s what teaching is.” Full speed ahead with that point.
As a footnote, I think Jane’s point in commenting on your classroom management post was about what teachers call individualization, not necessarily differentation. But those are just words. With whatever generalizations teachers use, Jane wants someone to let her daughter learn in school as she can. Seems like an appropriate request from a parent. I’m embarrassed how few supportive comments she received from teachers, including from me. We all know she’s right, yes?
@Bob
I’d hate to revive a dead horse and beat it again. Yes, her child deserves a good education and everyone has agreed with that point since the beginning. I guess I’m interested in solutions and not as interested in complaining.
I am an advocate for ability grouping (tracking?). As Jenny and Nancy have both pointed out, no matter how tightly you attempt to “group” you will always have many different levels to teach and Mathew is correct that that is one aspect of teaching. Ability grouping is not evil. It allows for more effective teaching at the students’ instructional level(s). Ability grouping is already alive and well when one considers:
1) grades k – 8 are based on ability/standards (except for social promotion)
2) one of the first things any teacher does is sort children into reading levels/groups by…(guess what?). The Joplin Plan does indeed work.
3) at the high school level, and many jr. high classes, students may not take certain classes until passing previous classes (Why at the elementary level, when maturity/developmental issues are greater, isn’t this more important?)
Oddly, our district requires that the ELD classes be sorted by ability and taught at their instructional level. So is learning English the only subject that benefits from ability grouping? By the way, our ELD groups are highly successful. The students are progressing at a rapid rate. The instruction is right at their level…and yes, there are STILL many levels within that group.
Ability grouping does not stigmatize, it allows teachers to work smarter, not harder, and focus the instructional strategies.