James DeLisle recently wrote a Commentary in Education Week in which he trashed differentiation of learning. In this post, I respond to his utterly invalid arguments. In the next post I speak to the larger issue of teacher vs. school obligation in dealing with heterogeneous classes, and what heterogeneity should and should not demand of teachers. Ed Week has not responded to my submission, so I am publishing this on my own.
To the Editor:
Why in the world did you publish James DeLisle’s one-sided self-serving rant on differentiated instruction (“Differentiation Doesn’t Work,” by James R. Delisle, Education Week)?
First of all, he covers exactly the same ground in the back and forth in Education Week a few years ago between Mike Schmoker (Ed Week Commentary, September 20, 2010) and Carol Ann Tomlinson (Letter November 12, 2010) – and does so far less coherently and persuasively than Schmoker originally did. Secondly – and more egregiously – he provides an utterly cherry-picked referencing of the (few) sources he cites. Additionally, he conflates DI with individualized instruction and learning styles.
DeLisle rants about DI as a fad, and the lack of evidence to support DI. However, what evidence does he cite? Some “observations” by Mike Schmoker (from the aforementioned Ed Week Commentary), and survey data on teacher views about implementing DI from which DeLisle illogically concludes:
As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 report by the Fordham Institute, 83 percent of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was “somewhat” or “very” difficult to implement.
And this is a summary of the first half of his piece (before he talks about the need for homogeneous grouping):
In theory, differentiation sounds great, as it takes several important factors of student learning into account:
It seeks to determine what students already know and what they still need to learn.
It allows students to demonstrate what they know through multiple methods.
It encourages students and teachers to add depth and complexity to the learning/teaching process.
Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The problem is this: Although fine in theory, differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back…
It seems that, when it comes to differentiation, teachers are either not doing it at all, or beating themselves up for not doing it as well as they’re supposed to be doing it. Either way, the verdict is clear: Differentiation is a promise unfulfilled, a boondoggle of massive proportions.
Huh?? How is the difficulty of implementing a practice indicative of its ineffectiveness when implemented?? By that argument, problem-based learning, socratic seminar, science labs, the use of learning stations and other difficult pedagogies are all “boondoggles.” Also: the bullets he identifies apply just as much to techniques such as formative assessment and authentic assessment, not just differentiation – yet he doesn’t say formative and authentic assessment are boondoggles.
Reference to the teacher surveys is also very ironic: The data comes from a thoughtful and even-handed piece on differentiation by Mike Petrilli of the same Fordham Institute that did the survey. (What DeLisle also conveniently fails to mention is that Fordham is often critical of practices that might threaten the needs of the most able students.) However, to his credit, Mike Petrilli actually visits his local school to find out how DI is doing. His conclusion? It works:
Since Mr. G.’s arrival five years ago, the percentage of African American 5th graders passing the state reading test is way up, from 55 to 91 percent. For Hispanic children, it’s up from 46 to 74 percent. It’s true that scores statewide have also risen, but not nearly to the same degree.
And there’s no evidence that white students have done any worse over this time. In fact, they are performing better than ever. Before Mr. G. arrived, 33 percent of white 5th graders reached the advanced level on the state math test; in 2009, twice as many did. In fact, Piney Branch white students outscore the white kids at virtually every other Montgomery County school.
What’s his secret? Was he grouping students “homogeneously,” so all the high-achieving kids learned together, and the slower kids got extra help?
“There’s no such thing as a homogenous group,” Mr. G. shot back. “One kid is a homogeneous group. As soon as you bring another student in, you have differences. The question is: how do you capitalize on the differences?”
Well, that sounds OK in theory. But come on, Mr. G., how are you going to make sure my kid doesn’t get slowed down? “My job as a principal is to let my parents know that your child will get the services they need,” he answered patiently. “We are going to make sure that every child is getting pushed to a maximum level. That’s my commitment.”
And that’s when I was introduced to the incredibly nuanced and elaborate efforts that Piney Branch makes to differentiate instruction, challenge every child, and avoid any appearance of segregated classrooms … It sounds like some sort of elaborate Kabuki dance to me, but it appears to succeed on several counts. All kids spend most of the day getting challenged at their level, and no one ever sits in a classroom that’s entirely segregated by race or class.
He concludes his piece by saying:
So with a well-trained and dedicated staff, and lots of support, “differentiated instruction” can be brought to life…
Piney Branch and Ms. M. might be able to pull it off. But how many Piney Branches and Ms. M.’s are there?
Technology may someday alleviate the need for such com- promises. With the advent of powerful online learning tools, such as those on display in New York City’s School of One, students might be able to receive instruction that’s truly individualized to their own needs—differentiation on steroids.
Perhaps. But until that time, our schools will have to wrestle with the age-old tension between “excellence” and “equity.” And that tension will be resolved one homogeneous or heterogeneous classroom at a time.
(I’ll return to this excellence vs. equity challenge in my follow-up post. It’s code for “maintaining high standards and challenging our most able and motivated students” vs. “dumbing down everything.”)
Here, by contrast, is DeLisle’s only reference to Petrilli’s article:
Case in point: In a winter 2011 Education Next article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Michael Petrilli wrote about a University of Virginia study of differentiated instruction: “Teachers were provided with extensive professional development and ongoing coaching. Three years later the researchers wanted to know if the program had an impact on student learning. But they were stumped. ‘We couldn’t answer the question … because no one was actually differentiating,’ ” the researcher, Holly Hertberg-Davis, told Petrilli….
In fact, DeLisle conveniently fails to use the paragraph right before the above one where Petrilli says:
I asked Holly Hertberg-Davis, who studied under Tomlinson and is now her colleague at UVA, if differentiated instruction was too good to be true. Can teachers actually pull it off? “My belief is that some teachers can but not all teachers can,” she answered.
His selective use of quotes thus misrepresents the article and its point; the claim that DI is a “boondoggle” has no warrant whatsoever from the data DeLisle provides. Nor does his nasty sweeping conclusion: “Differentiation is a failure, a farce, and the ultimate educational joke played on countless educators and students.”
Yes, DI is difficult – even Carol Tomlinson admits that. Excellent teaching leading to significant learning of all students is very challenging. So is calculus, but I suspect Mr. DeLisle is not prepared to say that calculus teaching is a boondoggle and farce because it is often done poorly or not at all in some high schools. To conclude that DI is a cruel hoax is both shoddy reasoning and disingenuous in light of his own explicit commitment to working on behalf of gifted learners (as found in his credentials and writings.)
I encourage readers to check out the following sources to determine for themselves if Mr. DeLisle’s view (and the argument upon which it is based) has merit:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/09/29/05schmoker.h30.html – the original post 5 years ago by Mike Schmoker.
Tomlinson’s response: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/17/12letter-b1.h30.html
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/is-differentiated-instruction-a-hollow-promise – the Petrilli article
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb10/vol67/num05/Differentiated-Learning.aspx – a summary of DI
https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/differentiating-instruction – a teaching Channel video look at DI
http://hepg.org/hel-home/issues/27_3/helarticle/differentiated-instruction-reexamined_499 – A Harvard Newsletter article on DI and learning styles research
http://www.diffcentral.com/model.html – Carol Tomlinson’s resources on DI on the UVA site
http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2012/02/schmokers-blind-spot.html – a commentary on the Schmoker-Tomlinson exchange in Education Week
http://edge.ascd.org/blogpost/is-differentiated-instruction-a-useless-fad – Jeff Bryant weighs in on the Schmoker-Tomlinson exchange
http://www.caroltomlinson.com/handouts/NELMS%20Keynote.pdf – A handout from a recent Tomlinson workshop that nicely summarizes DI and the research, including a helpful quote from John Hattie.
http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html – Dan Willingham responds to criticism of his view that learning styles do not exist. Note the last paragraph which DeLisle conveniently does not mention:
So you think all kids should be treated the same way?
Not at all. Teachers use their experience to differentiate instruction: for example, knowing that saying “good job” will motivate one child, but embarrass another. One way that science might be useful to teachers is to provide them with categories of kids. I could give them a short survey, for example, and then tell you whether a kid is introverted, extroverted, or in between. I might tell you “lots of data shows that introverts are likely to be embarrassed when praised in front of others.” I’m fabricating the details, obviously, but you get the idea. I’m claiming that there are three types or categories of kids, I’m claiming that these categories are meaningful for the classroom, and I’m claiming that I can successfully categorize kids based on this short survey.
The styles theories are that sort of idea: they really seek to categorize kids. Once you know that some people are visualizers and some are verbalizers, you can use that information to inform instruction, in addition to using your experience and judgment. My point is that scientists can’t help teachers in this way. We haven’t developed categories that have proven meaningful.
You don’t have to believe in learning styles theories to appreciate differences among kids, to hold an egalitarian attitude in the midst of such differences, and to try to foster such attitudes in students.
Looking ahead to the next post
While I felt a tart response was necessary to DeLisle’s one-sided and poorly researched piece, readers should not conclude that criticism of DI is unwarranted or that it is necessarily the best solution to the challenge of great diversity in our classrooms and schools.
We can all surely appreciate that the issue is complex, that differentiation arose as the need to reach all learners became a universal obligation for teachers in the late 20th century. It is not unfair, in fact, to say that differentiation places the greatest burden concerning student diversity on individual teachers, while the larger system questions related to staffing, curriculum, and supervision are downplayed in most schools – whether doing DI or not. (Carol Tomlinson addresses them succinctly here.)
DeLisle sees only one solution, however – homogeneous grouping:
Differentiation might have a chance to work if we are willing, as a nation, to return to the days when students of similar abilities were placed in classes with other students whose learning needs paralleled their own. Until that time, differentiation will continue to be what it has become: a losing proposition for both students and teachers, and yet one more panacea that did not pan out.
But that response is knee-jerk. A far more complex inquiry and discussion is called for, without jumping to “the” solution. A full diagnosis of the root causes is surely needed first before we jump to a simplistic prescription.
Let’s start with some essential questions, to help us dig deeper and without prejudice into the key issues:
- Does it still make sense to make the default option of classes the grouping of students by their birth year?
- How mixed does a class need to become before it is impossible to teach it effectively?
- Is homogeneous grouping perhaps acceptable now in a post-tracking world where all students must meet the same standards and where educators are accountable for the performance of all?
- What are the benefits and harms of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping, and are there other solutions to the challenge of student diversity?
- Are any sub-groups of student more helped or more harmed than others when classrooms are highly heterogeneous or highly homogeneous?
- What is the optimal staffing of individual classrooms? Should co-teaching be more of the norm, for example?
- What aspects of differentiation are the teachers’ problem? What aspects are structural and leadership-related?
I will pursue some of these questions in my follow-up post; I encourage readers to provide their answers (and any other questions that you think should be here).
33 Responses
Grant, thank you for addressing that article. I too was bothered by the commentary, but I would not have responded nearly as well as you did here.
I hope I am wrong, but I suspect this article is part of a broader initiative to de-professionalize teaching in order to bring in corporate reforms and tap into the educational market. Thoughts?
In this case, i think not. He seems to be part of the crowd that worries about the dumbing down of curriculum and instruction for the more able learners.
That’s a nice, civil defense of your target, Grant, and speaks well of your character. I would love to here more of your thoughts about the camp that has that “dumbing down” concern. I don’t necessarily share their view or agenda, but the natural gadfly in me thinks their point needs to be part of the discussion, I don’t believe it’s an either/or choice, as I suspect many in both camps want it to be.
Reblogged this on Reading By Example and commented:
If you are going to read one post this week, I suggest you make it Grant Wiggins’s (reblogged here). The author of Understanding by Design responded to James DeLisle’s commentary for Education Week, titled “Differentiation Doesn’t Work”. Like Grant, I also was surprised that DeLisle’s piece even made it to publication. His commentary cherry picked quotes from other sources, poorly representing those texts on the challenges and benefits of differentiation.
What are your thoughts on differentiation, DeLisle’s commentary, and Wiggins’s response? Please share in the comments.
Grant, I don’t know if this essential question moves too much off of the point but….”Assuming DI is valuable to ensure quality education for kids, to what extent should DI be applied to teacher learning as well?” I ask this because I believe the surest way to get teachers to embrace the value of DI is to create professional development environments where teachers– as adult learners– are experiencing the benefits of DI. Teachers must internalize its benefits before being expected to implement the strategy with their own students. As it stands now, DI is yet another expectation applied unevenly to human beings in a school.
To elaborate on my point a little more…. When you may ask a school leader why he/she doesn’t choose DI to guide teacher learning, a familiar response might closely resemble a teacher’s excuse for not implementing DI in his/her classroom: “Because we don’t have the time and resources to treat each person as an individual learner.” What follows from this? standardized PD delivery methods, standardized teacher evaluation systems and the like. Teachers are treated as a homogeneous group and are made to suffer for not being treated as individual learners with unique needs, which they surely have just as their students have them. They are then told to cheerily implement DI with their students when their own learning experiences were colored with conformity. No wonder teacher adoption of DI is so hard to come by.
I teach, train and assess youngsters (17) and upwards to mid 50’s.
One has (supposedly) the technology savvy to the digital illiterate.
The ones who are soaking it up are challenged to help those floundering.
And those with life experience act to draw in the boisterousness of youth.
Classes have ranged from a handful to upwards 30 plus.
Some years ago the idea of streaming was considered but at the end of the day the differences add immeasurably to seeing people blossom and others realise they are fortunate to help some one else succeed.
And it is a walk in the park in vocational school /college compared to pre school and upwards but streaming is IMHO not valid educationally.
Interesting thoughts and arguments from both sides. Each choosing the quotes that support their view. I’m pleased t see the discussion take place in an open forum.
Hi Norah,
It is good that there is an open forum. 🙂
I’m not sure that we need to “choose” quotes, rather go to the source, DeLisle. His choice of quotes are out of context, with one exception. Should the person with the original over the top stance–shouldn’t he back up his ideas with an accurate accounting of his sources? This might help: http://openingpaths.org/blog/2015/01/rebuttingmisconceptionsaboutdi/
An open forum needs people to also be genuine about their intentions, which I think you get. Unfortunately, DeLisele, in this case, does not.
Thanks for your reply and link to your blog. You have some interesting discussion over there too. My point about quotes was that people seek out opinions, quotes, ideas etc that support their own views. They will often ignore anything else, not ‘seeing’ it really because, as an opposing view, it doesn’t belong or exist. It is very difficult to disprove a belief to a believer, no matter what the evidence. A counter argument can always be found.
Agreed. The difference is having the dialog where those involved are interested in a true exchange, using substantive references. May not change the other person’s mind, but both will learn more that may impact their thinking. What troubles me is when people such as DeLisle present their findings as if they are genuine. Not everyone will check his facts, because we want to believe that his intentions are above board.
I can only speculate (just being transparent in my thinking) is that in DeLisle’s championing the needs of Gifted students, which I agree needs advocates, he chooses a path–in this article–to trash differentiation as it’s dealt with for other groups. He has other articles that do a better job on advocating for GIFTed. In his rebuttle to the wave of feedback, he admits that his concerns are for the GIFTed. Unfortunately, because he finds himself lacking in effectively differentiating for heterogeneous classrooms he makes the over the top statement that DI isn’t doable.
Why doesn’t he reach out to those who understand DI implementation? His profile is one that would give him access to many such people. There are many who can help him and others, but the perception is that is not his agenda. Separating Gifted students from mainstream students is his agenda. I won’t judge him on that initiative. It’s a whole different conversation. I just wish he’d be upfront and not “appear” to manipulate others by quoting articles out of context.
Yes, there can always be found a counter argument–if we’re playing a game of words. There can also be substantive dialog when our intention is to seek to understand before being understood (Stephen Covey) so as to adapt our understanding–even deepen it.
Well said.
I’m a firm believer in dialogue and exchange of ideas. Sometimes we only know what we really think when we discuss it. And if we only ever hear what we agree with, then our thinking can never develop. I like the reference you have made to Stephen Covey here. I think its true that we need to understand before we can be understood. That’s is quite a profound thought. Thank you for responding in such depth.
A view quite limited to national reality: “The biggest reason differentiation doesn’t work, and never will, is the way students are deployed in most of our nation’s classrooms.”
The theoretical foundation and research back up shouldn’t be limited by considerations around one single country -whether it is US or not.
The one thing I never hear or see addressed in the conversation of DI is a student’s personal responsibility. I teach Seniors and firmly believe that they are each responsible, or should be–I’m rather lonely here–, for their own education. As a parent, I insist that my 13-yr-old take responsibility for her own learning should the classroom instruction not meet our shared expectations. At what point do we stop killing ourselves in the pursuit of being the PERFECT–and inhuman–teacher and ask students to shoulder some of this weight. If we continue to ignore student responsibility in this profession, we fail. DI must be a partnership between teacher and student. Nothing good can come from an education system that treats differences as the same for everyone.
Patterns seem to be dictating that computer programs are a far better teachers than any of us mere mortals. The DI argument feeds this pattern. I have yet to experience more than one practicing educator, teachers, administrators, counsellors, etc, that can define differentiation as a practice. Everyone has a different opinion of what it is, what it looks like, and how to achieve perfection through its utilization. Huh? That’s strange….differentiation is different for EVERYONE. How can we ever standardize it?! I think I’ll become a welder when I grow up.
Thank you!
Hi Grant,
Thanks for this post. I too found his cherry picking of references concerning. I’ve seen comments elsewhere applauding his view who take on faith that his references are valid. I too read the articles which offered a different message. Here was my response to his article: http://openingpaths.org/blog/2015/01/rebuttingmisconceptionsaboutdi/
Although I enjoyed yours even more.
Thanks.
Good teachers have ALWAYS differentiated. This is not new. Saying it doesn’t work means no teacher ever has been successful. Surely everyone knows that factory-model robotic instruction is ludicrous. Thank u for taking this on!
Thanks Grant!
Looking Forward to seeing your answers to the essential questions you have posted.
On the topic of heterogeneous vs homogenous groups, does it have to be an either/or? I think both types of grouping have value depending on the situation and instructional goals.
This may be oversimplifying, but to me heterogeneous grouping seems preferable when students are processing information while learning new content. While homogenous grouping seems valuable after assessing that way you can isolate groups of students who need remediation on certain standards and provide extension activities to those students who mastered a standard.
Your thoughts?
That’s an interesting angle. I confess that I was thinking of more permanent arrangements – but your thought reminds me of the more fluid and ongoing grouping done in elementary classrooms. So, it will probably be wise to distinguish short-term from long-term options. Thanks!
A good teacher always differentiates in any classroom. However, heterogeneous classrooms with no nod to ability differences place an exceptional burden on teachers, often resulting in “teaching to the middle,” and little challenge to gifted ability students. How would you realistically address the gifted student who remains bored in a heterogeneous classroom?
That’s an important question, isn’t it? However, there is nothing in differentiation that says dumb things down. On the contrary, we begin with where all students are.
I’ll address your q in the follow-up post.
In response to the following posed questions from the article: What aspects of differentiation are the teachers’ problem? What aspects are structural and leadership-related?
To me, it is not differentiation that is the problem. It is, quite possibly, feeling rather ill prepared to do so effectively, or as was mentioned in the aricle of question “beat myself up” for not implementing differentiation “well enough.” During the times I was in college there was no paritcular course that train teachers to analyze data and look at how to differentiate, just a lot of buzz about the word differentiation and what it was. Once you learn how to try to implement differentiated instruction you figure that you have ability levels ranging from say, 2nd to 8th grade in one classroom, and it begins to feel like preparing effective lessons and truly differentiated instruction to each and every student is sucking the life right out of you (particularly when you teach each subject of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies). I mean, a person has got to sleep at some point 🙂
Do I think differentiation is farce and the doom of my profession? No, but when I think about what aspects of it are difficult I also must turn my mind to an old PowerPoint video that was going around titled “Shift Happens.” The presentation elaborates on an advancing technological society. “We are currently preparing students for jobs and technologies that don’t even exist yet….in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.” It then goes on to explain that in 2002, Nintendo invested more than 140 million dollars in research in development. Meanwhile, the U.S. government spent less than half as much on research and innovation in education.
My conclusion would have to be that the problem truly lies with struggling districts that lack government funding, severely. That means that, when you think about it, if the government is not willing to invest necessary funding into education, then continously rattling off what will work successfully (i.e., differentiation for each child) to the men in the trenches without arming them with the equipment to do so is like trying to smell the number 9. Therefore, even teachers who work their hardest to differentiate the best ways they can do not always feel that they are set up for success. AND, I do not blame that on districts, but on the state and federal funding systems that we continuously and creatively try to work around each year when our funds are lessened due to some new bill, act, or government officials idea about why certain funds should no longer be “allocated” in our direction.
So, my “problem” as a teacher is not that differentiation is impossible, but tedious to do with other responsibilities and obligations of my job and I am only human. As for the leadership-structural aspect, well, I know my district would love to provide as much innovation and support as possible to its teachers, IF it were funded well enough to do so. In the meantime, I would imagine that those who actually teach and don’t just write about what they think of it will continue to differentiate in the best ways they can, with or without the governement funding needed to do so.
Differentiation is extremely hard, especially when we consider that the easiest way to do it is that some students get more and better content and some students get less and worse content. How does a teacher maintain equity and social justice when some students get less and some get more? What happens when those students that get less are poor and/or students of color? Is it possible to differentiate so that everyone gets what they need? Maybe. I would argue it is more likely that differentiation further stratifies and separates differences that already exist.
Last year our assistant principal led a short PD session on differentiation. Afterwards, I attempted to create a lesson plan that would adequately cover all learning levels in my class. It took four hours to make plans for one class. Since I teach four different classes, that would be 16 hours spent planning per day. Add the seven hours I spend at school each day and that leaves me one hour of sleep per night. I don’t think I can go on that for very long.
You raise a valid point and speak to the reality of the situation. Differentiation sounds good, but in reality, it is impossible to implement effectively.
It can be challenging when trying to effectively implement differentiation; however your attempts are steps in the right direction for inclusion. I completely understand wanting to perfectly distribute learning outcomes for all students, but sixteen hours seem quite excessive for one lesson. Could you create one exercise or activity aimed at differentiation, while maintaining your traditional format for the remainder of class?
Sure. This is what often happens in a class that mixes group with whole class teaching for example. Or different versions of same text in Elan for example.
I can’t find any person or literature that can teach me how to write effective differentiation efficiently. If you know of any resources, I would appreciate it greatly.
Have you looked at all the resources published by ASCD, specifically those authored by Carol Tomlinson? That’s where I would start – especially the book co-authored by Carol and Jay McTighe my friend and colleague, on DI and UbD. There are also many resources developed by Harvey Silver and Richard Strong.
Yes, Carol Tomlinson has many good resources. Her 2 recent books:
The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2nd EditionJun 6, 2014: http://www.amazon.com/Differentiated-Classroom-Responding-Needs-Learners-ebook/dp/B00KTMHJ8A/ and Assessment and Student Success in a Differentiated Classroom: http://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Student-Success-Differentiated-Classroom-ebook/dp/B00FJ4H5V4/ Also, here are a list of articles via Edutopia: http://www.edutopia.org/blogs/tag/differentiated-instruction
Truely, differentiation begins with formative assessment. Once you understand what the data tells you about the students and their needs, then differentiation can occur.
http://www.cast.org/ is a great place to start. You can even plug in topics and get lessons already differentiated. Big website, takes a bit to navigate.
It is very interesting to read different responses. We try to solve the same problems, but see absolutely different roads that lead us to the academic victory. Good Luck!