Differentiation of Instruction

BY Robert Golomb

Many of us have read research findings that describe today’s education system as a vicious and ugly cycle that can most accurately be described as educational apartheid.  Children who begin their first day in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten with cognitive delays of 2-3 years are in overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers poor, black and Latino. Further studies show that such children essentially will be all but certain to be retained in their elementary, and, or, middle school years, based upon their performance on standardized reading and mathematics examinations. Further, according to virtually all research on this issue, retained just once, these students’ chances of obtaining a high school diploma become five times less likely than their equally cognitive deficient (often non-poor and non-minority) counterparts who have never been held back, and retained twice or more, these same students have virtually no chance of obtaining a high school diploma. Tragically, both the retention rate and the ominously corresponding high school drop out rate, a staggering 50% a decade ago for the same poor urban minority students for whom the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (NCLB)- a bi- partisan law former President Bush and the late Senator Ted Kennedy crafted in 2002 with the goal to significantly reduce the achievement gap on standardized examinations and high school graduation rates between minority and non-minority students – rather than decreasing under NCLB, had apparently risen as a result of the emphasis that the law has placed on high stakes testing in the elementary and middle school.  According to the Obama White House, which is currently working to amend NCLB, as it stands today, approximately 1.2 million students drop out of school every year, roughly half of whom are black or Latino.

Nor does the tragedy of this vicious cycle end at the high school’s exit door for these million plus yearly victims. It continues into their adulthood. Every sociological study on the subject shows that adults who have not obtained a high school diploma possess virtually no chance of achieving middle class status ever in their lifetime. In addition, such adults, studies confirm, suffer in overwhelming disproportionate numbers such social ills as drug and alcohol addiction, chronic unemployment, welfare dependency, divorce, out of wedlock parenthood and incarceration. These are the same victims whose fate President Obama was lamenting when he stated, “ In this kind of knowledge economy, giving up on your education and dropping out of school means not only giving up on your future, but also giving up on your family’s future…It’s giving up on your country.” What steps can the President take to end this vicious cycle and provide a productive future for these young Americans who currently face a dismal future.  Here are four for the Obama White House to consider:

The expansion of early intervention programs (EIP) was one of the few positive features of NCLB. Since this program in its expanded form is relatively new, the research on its success is inconclusive and incomplete. But one key feature of the program, having Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) visiting homes to prime on a one to one basis the cognitively deficient pre school aged children on the basic pre-reading skills that are the prerequisites of obtaining early literacy might prove to be at least a partial roadmap to the child’s later ability to succeed in elementary and middle school and subsequently earn a high school diploma.  As the program is in effect today, however, the onus has been placed on the parent to prove her child requires early intervention services. Since many parents lack the knowledge of how the system works, the government must take proactive steps to teach parents how to know when their child requires early intervention services and inform them and guide them on how these vital services can be obtained.

Currently, just as before and during NCLB, performance on the high stakes standardized reading and mathematics examinations that are used to determine promotion or retention for students in the elementary and middle schools are norm referenced. Establishing an inherent structure of winners and losers, this system places advantaged students in competition with the disadvantaged students in a vile type of surreptitious competition. The usual outcome is that the winner, the advantaged student, is promoted, and the loser, the disadvantaged student, will be retained at least once through his eighth year in school. Changing to a criterion referenced system in which students are assessed on specific curricula they have learned, rather on what they have learned   compared to other students, and in which the criterion itself is aligned with their interests and needs, would reduce the number of holdovers, thus decreasing the number of high school drop outs and increasing the number of high school graduates.

While Differentiation of instruction (DI), understanding that children learn differently and planning instruction accordingly, still remains a buzz term for educators today, strongly scripted, high stake standardized test oriented lessons mandated by many of the school districts that live in fear of NCLB sanctions have reduced DI more to an abstract theory than to an every day practice. This is unfortunate, if not tragic, given research that demonstrates the validity of DI, and, more importantly, given the mountains of anecdotal evidence coming from students and teachers and administrators alike that attests to the success of DI driven instruction. Thus it is vital that DI be put back into everyday practice in classrooms throughout America. For this to occur it is essential that school administrators and teachers understand the premise and practice of DI.

The premise of DI is actually quite simple. The one size fits all method of teaching, workable, perhaps, in the far less diverse American society of two generation ago seldom prove to be effective today. The premise of DI then is that every child can learn, but that they learn differently. This seems to be only common sense. For how, any teacher or parent would reasonably ask himself, can a student achieve her maximum level of learning when, for example, the level of instruction is either too challenging or when it is not challenging enough? Or what if visual instructional approaches are used for a primarily tactile learner? Or, what if the opposite is the case?  Doctor Howard Gardner, the iconic educational theoretician best known for his theory of multiple intelligences, encapsulates the fundamental tenet of DI when he writes, “ It is not how smart you are, it’s how you are smart.”

Once the premise of DI is understood putting the theory into practice commonly develops naturally, creating as an end result a series of sound connective instructional practices that would be discernible to any parent or educator entering a DI driven classroom. A visitor to such a classroom would observe students working on leveled concept and skill based curriculum in small, flexible and cooperatively functioning small groups. A visitor to such a classroom would also, according to Bertie Kingore Ph.d., a highly respected writer on the subject, see a learning environment where, “Students are recognized for current levels of achievement and then challenged to strive toward their personal best.”

For students of all grade levels but for high school students in particular, another form of DI should be coined and put into practice as well – Differentiation of Interest. This new form of DI possesses particular relevance for those students who fit into today’s second category of the high school drop: Students who have successfully completed every grade in elementary and middle school, only to later leave high school within their freshmen to senior years without obtaining their diplomas.  When asked by their parents, teachers and guidance counselors why they stopped going to school, these students, reportedly, seem almost inevitably to reply that they found the courses they were taking to be overly theoretical, uninteresting and irrelevant. While research on the aptitudes and interests of students who fit into this category is scarce, there are mountains of anecdotal evidence that suggest a sizable number of them are minority students who possess the interest and ability that would enable them to successfully learn a trade.  But, sadly, just as the current job market for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, automotive mechanics, health care providers and a vast number of additional secure and other high paying blue collar jobs is increasing, the quantity and, frequently, due the lack of adequate funding, the quality of vocational high schools across America is decreasing.

Reversing this trend requires the adequate planning, funding and encouragement that trade schools, which had been thriving in America for many years until their steady decline beginning in the 1960’s, need to be reinvigorated. Designing and adequately funding state of the art trade schools that offer a strong academic as well as a vigorous trade skill curriculum, identifying the hands-on, concrete task oriented students by their final year in middle school or in the beginning of their freshmen year in high school, and enrolling them in the vocational program that best meets their interests and abilities will save countless young men and women from the dead end life of a high school drop-out and transform them into productive participants of the culture and economy of our great land.

Robert Golomb is currently an adjunct professor of graduate writing, education and school administration. Before his retirement, he had served ten years as an English teacher and twenty years as an assistant principal in N.Y.C. intermediate schools. His previously published articles have covered a range of educational, political and cultural topics. He can be contacted via e-mail: MrBob347@aol.com.