"Differentiated Instruction" taken to the proverbial woodshed:

[Smarmie Doofus]

I've never seen it thrashed so thoroughly. I agree w. Schmoker. But I'm wondering what others ( esp. ... but not exclusively.... classroom teachers) think.

I also wonder about the politics of it all. Seems like... among other things.... a good "gotcha" gimmick with which to harass teachers.

Or maybe it's just garden-variety ed. bureaucracy stupidity.


Education Week

Published Online: September 27, 2010
Published in Print: September 29, 2010, as When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities
Commentary
When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities

By Mike Schmoker
Several years ago, I had a courteous, if troubling, e-mail exchange with the architect of a hugely popular instructional innovation. She had heard that I had been criticizing this approach. (I had.) In a series of e-mails, I explained my reasons, starting with the fact that there was no research or strong evidence to support its widespread adoption. I asked, with increasing importunity, for any such evidence. Only after multiple requests did I finally receive an answer: There was no solid research or school evidence.

The innovation-Differentiated Instruction-went on to become one of the most widely adopted instructional orthodoxies of our time. It claims that students learn best when (despite some semantically creative denial) grouped by ability, as well as by their personal interests and "learning styles."

I had seen this innovation in action. In every case, it seemed to complicate teachers' work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials. I saw frustrated teachers trying to provide materials that matched each student's or group's presumed ability level, interest, preferred "modality" and learning style. The attempt often devolved into a frantically assembled collection of worksheets, coloring exercises, and specious "kinesthetic" activities. And it dumbed down instruction: In English, "creative" students made things or drew pictures; "analytical" students got to read and write.

In these ways, Differentiated Instruction, or DI, corrupted both curriculum and effective instruction. With so many groups to teach, instructors found it almost impossible to provide sustained, properly executed lessons for every child or group-and in a single class period. It profoundly impeded the teacher's ability to incorporate those protean, decades-old elements of a good lesson which have a titanic impact on learning, even in mixed-ability classrooms (more on this in a moment).

When I shared these reasons with educators, many were glad to hear their suspicions affirmed. They had often been required to integrate DI into all their lessons-against their best instincts-as the program morphed, without any reliable evidence of its effectiveness, into established orthodoxy. Others, however, were angered by any criticism of DI. Their reactions stopped some of my presentations dead in their tracks. These educators, and their districts, had invested enormous amounts of time, treasure, and hope in this pedagogical approach.
http://mikeschmoker.com/pedagogic-fads.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. It's just the latest stupid fad - and buzzword

It came up during my evaluation. I teach special ed. My entire program, and every lesson I teach, is differentiated. Was so long before this became a fad. And once again, it's being watered down and twisted to meet some need conjured up by someone who has never been in a classroom.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. I'm SP. ED also. Used to be... before the "term" became popular....

... that I would break the class up into two ( maybe three) ability groupings. I taught one; the para taught the other ( I supervised intermittently).

I would have selected and prepared a two-tiered presentation, etc.

Now... at least theoretically... they're talking about one or two adults individually tutoring 12 ( if that's the class size) different kids on 12 different tasks to achieve 12 different aims.

And you do this ALL day. That is... it all changes at the next bell; onto, say , Math; 12 more lessons, 12 more goals; 12 more individualized tutoring sessions. And so on. Six instructional periods.

Of course, no need for admins to bother grouping the classes homogeneously any more. Since everyone is being taught according to the dictates of "Differentiated Instruction".

Might as well assign the kids to classes in Sept. based on alphabetical order.

Guess what? That's exactly what they did this year.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. And forget about direct instruction

Makes formal evaluations interesting. LOL

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Education fads tend to be politically driven.

A long, long time ago, in another life, I was an educational researcher. We watched crap like what was then called "New Math" sweep over the system despite good psychological evidence that it was stupid. We watched this whole "goals & objectives" approach come in, and predicted exactly what would happen: A devaluing of everything that couldn't be easily measured, and a system devoted to "teaching the test." I guess it was a mercy that I couldn't find a tenure-track position in an ed psych department back then. I ended up following an entirely different career track as a clinician and forensic psychologist.

[mrmpa]

3. I know a 2nd grade teacher who was told to..........

provide 26 individual lesson plans daily. It's insanity. No one size doesn't fit all, but 130 per week is insanity at its worst.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. It's not just insane. It's *criminally* insane.

No sane person would willingly put their own child in a school like that.

This kind of "mandated" methodology is for OTHER peoples' kids.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. On re-read there's a Woody Allen movie or an I Love Lucy episode...

... in there somewhere.

I'd laugh; but they ( administration and bureaucracy) actually take it that seriously.

Or pretend to.


Ok... I'll retire soon and it'll all be over.

[checks-n-balances]

7. Following the money usually leads to the reason these days for fads

Not just because it's "the latest thing." The Latest Thing in education is firing teachers and removing collecting bargaining & tenure.

I've always figured that DI has been instituted to avoid hiring as many teachers as needed. As long as it could be rationalized that one teacher could teach many lessons, no need to hire a variety of teachers. One could do the job of several, thus saving big $$.

And it IS insanity.

[femmocrat]

8. I went to endless in-service days on DI.

I didn't use it and never remembered any of it. (I'm the only art teacher for about 850 kids.)

Just remember, "This too shall pass."