<p>Differentiated instruction is NOT special ed! It is the current “hot” educational theory that recognizes the different learning styles of all students so lessons can be tailored for individual students.</p>
<p>Soozie,</p>
<p>The principal reasons I asked for help interpreting the communication were (1) I was having trouble with the Administration-speak, and (2) parents in the district have largely lost faith in administration of the school system. In other words, not only did I not understand the communication, but I also felt I could not view its purpose objectively.</p>
<p>With this in mind, and with the understanding that I do not wish to slight your (or anyone else’s) school system, could you answer this question for me? How does differentiated instruction square with the “teach the test” philosophy prevalent in many northeastern public school systems? (“The test” is what measures NCLB progress in my state.) </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>NewHope,
I’m not that familiar with “teaching to the test” and frankly, don’t believe in it. However, I would imagine that one benefit of differentiated curriculum is that each child is helped at his/her own level and so in the end, each kid can succeed. If that means doing well on the tests, perhaps that is one plus, but I can’t see that as the rationale. If they are using it as rationale, so be it. But differentiated curriculum is better in the long run, tests or no tests. I certainly do not think it just benefits special ed. I see individualized instruction (which is the only way I ever can imagine teaching and is the way I taught) as benefiting every child because each child works at his/her own pace and level and style and it is not a one size fits all approach to learning. Again, from the parent perspective with two kids who were “advanced learners”, it was very positive when the curriculum was differentiated and very poor experience for them (in middle school) when it was not. We had to have accomodations through much advocating to essentially CREATE a differentiated learning plan for our kids. Every kid deserved it though.</p>
<p>Sorry to intervene in your question to Soozie - I’m in California and we have a lot of testing too. I think the teachers in our school understand the state curriculum standards, plus the AP standards, and they make sure that the core material of the class addresses that. Differentiation in our school does not mean everyone goes at their own pace. It means that everyone can master the material by a slightly different path, through the design of classroom activities and homework assignments that have some flexibility in them. Everyone still has to reach the same learning goals (or beyond).</p>
<p>Edited to add - there are other policies in our school that are not directly about differentiation but support the idea of mixed classrooms very well. Students aren’t allowed to not turn in homework, and they can’t fail a test or assignment and then go on to the next unit as if they had passed. The school is open every day until 5, and students who have missing assignments or failed assignments stay after school to work with tutors. All teachers have weekly office hours. Students have to keep working until they master the material. I think these practices are necessary to make the non-tracked classrooms work, given the mixed backgrounds of our student population.</p>
<p>^ nice description
In my daughters mixed age classrooms- they were all about experiential learning and differentiated instruction. Of course in a well funded classroom of 15 or a team taught classroom * with a full time aide*, of 22- it is much easier to adapt teaching and curriculum for different paths- than a classroom of 30 kids where half are on FRL and parents are working two jobs.</p>
<p>As a parent- I especially appreciated the mixed age aspect. When she was 6- she had kids in her class from 5ish to 7 or so. She had the same teacher for more than one year.
Especially for kids dealing with learning challenges- continuity makes an enormous difference. I also have the impression that the teachers appreciate it too, because they have more knowledge of their students and momentum that has built up over previous year, is not totally lost even though students are transitioning in and out of classroom.</p>
<p>There are always students of varying levels in a class- however they don’t learn the same way or at the same speed.By incorporating different methods of evaluation and instruction, everyone will learn better, not just those who are more linear.</p>
<p>( It is also more fun for the teacher 
)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking as a former teacher who individualized instruction, as well as had a multi age classroom of three grades, while it may be more fun to teach this way (and I have only taught this way so have nothing to compare it to), I would say it is a LOT more work. It involves creating far more plans and materials than teaching everyone the same thing. It involves evaluating each child constantly and coming up with plans for each one. I stayed at my job each day until 6 PM (having arrived at 7:30 AM) and worked all day every Sunday on creating the plans.</p>
<p>Newhope- Our district sent out close to the same letter last year. Let me translate for you. Your test scores are down. Your school administrators need to fix this because of NCLB. Your sub populations that are not succeeding are going to get special help in the classroom. Your bright/gifted students are not. Everyone is going to be taking a lot of practice CMT and CAPT tests. You are not alone. It is happening all over the state.</p>
<p>I can’t tell you how in your district this translates to testing. But NORMALLY a differentiated curriculum also benefits bright and gifted/advanced students.</p>
<p>Soozievt- I agree, that’s the way it should be, and was in the good old days. However, there has been a dramatic change even in the last three years. The school districts in our state (different than yours but same area of the country) are under an enormous amount of pressure to get our sub populations to pass these tests.</p>
<p>This has everything to do with state mandated test scores and nothing to do with new and innovative teaching techniques. The district will try to spin it in such a way to make the parents feel as though these new techniques will benefit all students. The truth is, it’s directed towards the students on the lower end of the scale in the hopes that the school with increase the % of students who meet “Proficiency” level.</p>
<p>The pressure on school districts to raise their test scores is incredible. The success or failure on standardized tests not only affect the school district but also the community in the form of real estate values. It’s sad but that it what has happened around here anyway.</p>
<p>^^ So very true. And this for improvement in a test that at best measures minimal skills. However, thanks to the IB program we found great improvement at least in writing, beginning in 10th grade.</p>
<p>I think agree with both viewpoints- the idea of differentiated instruction is marvelous, each kid learning in their modality- works wonders for my kinesthetic learner. However, having been in and involved and eventually on the school board of a small elementary/middle school district with stellar special ed full inclusion and great teachers and wonderful involved parents, I can say that very few times does it work as intended. </p>
<p>Not every teacher is motivated to put in the work. Not every administrator is really caring about those results, many just want to address those test scores.</p>
<p>I found that in most situations gifted kids lose out, because they will be fine.</p>
<p>We did end up at a HS with tracking for math/science/English/Foreign language, but not for social studies. I am convinced that tracking works better in real life than differentiated instruction within the class.</p>
<p>My kids have had excellent teachers who did a marvelous job with it in multi-age classrooms, but others go by their contract day, arrive after the kids and leave before the kids and just don’t care. Tracking makes it easier for my kid to excel no matter how dedicated the teacher</p>
<p>I agree with Soozievt that well-done differentiated instruction is a) better for everyone, and b) a LOT of work for the teacher. I would add that IMHO districts can make it easier for the teachers by not including the full range of learners in every class. For example, you don’t put one gifted kid in a class alone, your cluster them in groups of at least three, and you don’t assign the three gifted kids to the class that also has the lowest-achieving kids in their grade. You establish reasonable ranges. And you MUST track by HS at the latest, preferably in MS.</p>
<p>Differentiated instruction that I’ve seen means consistently pretesting: kids who can already spell the week’s or month’s words are given something more challenging to do, either more advanced words or perhaps a different word-oriented curriculum. Kids who have already mastered the material in the upcoming math unit are given something else to do–perhaps an enrichment project involving problem solving, or if they are doing something like Everyday Math they can–I gather–compact and go forward. In something like reading there are multiple graded options available in the classroom through which kids are encouraged to advance, and advanced readers can take other books out of the school library or bring them from home. Projects can be designed to have open-ended products: yes, you have a rubric that indicates levels of mastery in specific skills, but there is no “stop here.” The idea is that every kid should be consistently advancing, not stopping once they’ve reached a certain point or waiting for everyone else to catch up. </p>
<p>It would be a lot easier to achieve this in tracked classrooms, but of course that is verboten these days. And it is awfully difficult to achieve in huge classes of 30 randomly distributed along the continuum of achievement. You need smaller classes.</p>
<p>IMHO, high-stakes testing like NCLB makes good differentiation very, very difficult. Instead of being rewarded for moving EVERY child forward, the teacher/school is publicly humiliated by being declared “failing” if one kid in a particular subgroup doesn’t hit some predetermined score. (This is particularly pernicious in smaller schools like the ones around here.) The original version of NCLB in fact looked at AYP on an individual basis, so that schools had to move EVERY child ahead, including the gifted. That didn’t make it into the version we are burdened with now.</p>