So You (Might) Want to Lead for Differentiation?There is no shortage of voices advocating for change in schools. Some of the causes and approaches are substantial, promising, and reflective of our best understanding of quality classroom practice. Some of the options are shallow, gimmicky, or ill-informed. Deciding on an initiative that merits the time and attention of faculty members as well as school leaders is a consequential decision. For the initiative to yield significant benefits for educators and students, the journey to success will involve mind-stretching, risk, awkwardness, and inconvenience for all involved. This is how it is with meaningful change. A wise leader carefully considers potential options for growth, and a wiser one recognizes the importance of choosing an option that is personally compelling. When you believe in the change you're proposing, it's easier to convince the people you lead that success is worth the hard work and occasional discomfort it will require. Why Differentiation?The model of differentiation we advocate is multifaceted—both rich and complex. It proposes that students achieve best in classrooms where teachers follow five key principles: Offer each student a positive, secure, challenging, and supportive learning environment. Provide a meaning-rich curriculum that is designed to engage learners and built around clearly articulated learning goals known to both teacher and students. Use persistent formative assessment to ensure that teacher and students alike are aware of student status relative to the specified learning goals, and that teacher and students alike know what next steps are most likely to propel a given learner forward. Plan instruction based on formative assessment information to attend to whole-class, small-group, and individual differences in readiness, interest, and approach to learning. Work with students to create and implement classroom management routines that allow both predictability and flexibility.
This model of differentiation also emphasizes the interdependence of each of its five elements, reminding those who use it that, as is the case with all systems, the health of every element in the model predicts the health of every other element in the model. We believe that developing a whole faculty's competence and confidence in differentiation is a worthy objective because it has the potential to improve the achievement of a full range of students in a school and the power to improve all aspects of classroom practice. Differentiation lifts the professional level of teachers by giving them both the opportunity and tools to chart pathways to success for all of the young people they serve. The scope and scale of a schoolwide differentiation change initiative is certainly ambitious, but it's exactly that comprehensiveness that opens the door to the greatest benefits (Fullan, 2001a). Context has, or should have, much to do with undertaking a particular change initiative. A judicious leader should be able to say both privately and publicly, "This direction is important—in this place, at this time, for these teachers and students, and for these reasons." It seems a misappropriation of leadership to do less. The rationale for embarking on a particular change in a particular context also reflects the personality and educational perspectives of a particular leader. For example, the elementary principal whose work was a focus in The Differentiated School (Tomlinson, et al., 2008) believed strongly that developing faculty expertise in differentiation would benefit all students in her school and would further professionalize an already dynamic faculty. This rationale guided her work and provided the basis for her appeal to the faculty to join her in that work. On the other hand, the high school principal spotlighted in The Differentiated School was propelled by her conviction that differentiation is a civil right. She saw two separate realities—two separate schools—in her building. In one, economically privileged students took advantage of high-quality course offerings, further improving their odds for a bright future. In the other, students with fewer economic means were consigned to low-track classes that made school dreary and their prospects for the future drearier. She felt deeply that differentiation was the key to creating a unified school in which the best curriculum and instruction would be accessible to virtually all students, and where advanced learners could find the enhanced challenge they needed. These two rationales for leading a schoolwide embrace of differentiation are certainly powerful, and each was appropriate for the leader and for the particular context. We encourage you to examine your reasons for electing to invest in differentiation. They should be potent enough to fuel your work and the work of those you lead. At this point, we'd like to offer a few more rationales for leadership toward pervasive, high-quality differentiation—three rationales that were not the focus of either of the two principals in The Differentiated School. We present these not as a multiple-choice option—pick a, b, or c—but rather as a means of illustrating what we mean by "leading change from a sturdy platform." Who's Coming to School? A Demographic Case for DifferentiationWhen we, the authors of this book, were making our way through K–12 classrooms, most of our classmates were from backgrounds relatively similar to our own in terms of ethnicity, language, family structure, and economics. Homogeneity was a myth that was more easily entertained than it is now. Students in today's classrooms are undeniably diverse, and look like a cross-section of life in all its aspects. Consider these realities: Slightly over 9 percent of students in the United States speak English as a second language (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014), although percentages vary by location and are as high as 23 percent of the population in many of the great city schools (Uro & Barrio, 2013). If we include students with limited English proficiency (LEP) in this tally, 13 percent of primary-grade students in U.S. public schools are less than proficient in English (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). U.S. classrooms are more ethnically and culturally diverse today than at any time in the nation's past. In 2014, white students accounted for about 49.7 percent of the student population and no longer constituted the majority. Projections are that the percentage of white students will continue to decline, falling to about 45 percent by 2022 (Krogstad & Fry, 2014). About 5 percent of the U.S. school-age population has a diagnosed learning disability, with another 15 percent or more said to have learning or attention problems that remain undiagnosed. These students are at greater risk than the general population for failing a course in high school, not graduating from high school, and being suspended or expelled from school. Boys are about twice as likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability as girls (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014). In the United States, an estimated 13–20 percent of school-age young people have an emotional or mental health issue in a given year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). As many as 1 in 50 students has some form of autism spectrum disorder (about 2 percent of school-age children), with boys about 4 times more likely than girls to receive a diagnosis. This figure represents an increase of 72 percent in diagnosis since 2007—likely indicating better recognition of milder cases (Steenhuysen, 2013). Approximately 35–45 percent of students in U.S. public and charter schools in 2011–12 received Title I services provided for students who live in areas with high concentrations of low-income families (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Twenty-two percent of children in the United States live in poverty; 45 percent live in low-income families. Research suggests that poverty is associated with academic, social, emotional, and behavioral problems in children (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2014). Although national statistics are scarce on percentages of advanced learners in U.S. schools, it's likely that a sizeable segment of the school-age population is significantly underchallenged by current grade-level and standards-based curricula.
Although the idea of "a typical 5th grader" or a "standard issue 9th grader" has probably always been a construction of myth and convenience, today it seems delusional to operate from the premise that a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching will effectively address the range of learner needs in 21st century classrooms. Outside of school, these young people live in a world that enables them to customize a radio station, download single songs at any time, select from 52 flavors of ice cream, choose from among dozens of phone options and even more service plans, watch television and movies on demand, order burgers or bowls just as they'd like them, and select from hundreds of sports shoe designs. These same young people come to the classroom with a vast spectrum of educational entry points, bringing widely variable backgrounds, calling on disparate out-of-school support systems, fueled by different interests and dreams, and approaching learning in distinctly different ways. Both demographic evidence and sound logic make the case that learner differences should be in the forefront of teacher thinking and planning if our goal is maximum success for every student. All of our students depend on us to help them construct a solid academic foundation for life, and differentiated instruction is an approach that equips us for this responsibility. What's the Evidence? A Research-Based Case for DifferentiationOur model of differentiation, built on a positive learning environment, strong curriculum, formative assessment, instruction that responds to learner needs, and classroom leadership and management that balances predictability and flexibility in teaching and learning, reflects our best current understanding of the elements of quality classroom practice. There are, of course, many valid and reliable sources that distill current scholarship on teaching and learning. Some of these present findings from individual research studies that pinpoint the impact of particular aspects of teaching and learning. Others are meta-analyses that distill the work of many individual researchers to provide a "big picture" look at quality practice. When these latter sources are robust, they are incredibly helpful for practitioners, providing a level of guidance that would be almost impossible to construct on a teacher-by-teacher or school-by-school basis. Three that provide a particularly helpful scholarly and sound distillation of best practices are How People Learn (National Research Council, 2000) and two books by John Hattie: Visible Learning (2009) and Visible Learning for Teachers (2012). How People Learn draws on research to make a case that effective classrooms are Student-centered, because to help each learner grow, it is imperative to know where that learner is in a progression from novice to competent to expert. Knowledge-centered, so that teachers and students invest in important learning goals that help learners make connections among ideas, see relationships among the various aspects of what they learn, and become able to apply and transfer what they learn to contexts beyond the immediate lesson and beyond the classroom. Assessment-centered, because effective use of formative assessment helps teacher and students better understand the student's learning journey and know how to construct the next steps in that journey. Community-centered, because it is important for students to have support as they grapple with challenge and because working in a community (rather than in isolation) inevitably models varied pathways to learning.
These four traits of effective classrooms relate directly to four of the five key principles of differentiation: positive learning environment, powerful curriculum, consistent use of formative assessment, and responsive instruction designed to ensure consistent growth for each student. The idea of a community-centered classroom also overlaps with important elements in the fifth principle of differentiation: teacher and students joining together to make the classroom work for everyone. The work of John Hattie is arguably the most significant examination of the past several decades of research on student achievement. Hattie's goal was to examine all available studies that address the question of which teacher practices contribute most to student achievement. In Visible Learning (2009), he details the findings of his work—a meta-analysis of more than 800 other meta-analyses, covering 50,000 studies and more than 200 million students. In Visible Learning for Teachers (2012), Hattie translates those findings into specific guidance for both teachers and those who seek to support teachers in developing the most effective practices possible. The scope of Hattie's work is impressive, to say the least, and capsuling all of his findings that relate directly to the model of differentiation we advocate is well beyond the scope of this chapter. Nonetheless, it is useful to note at least a few conclusions from Hattie's research synthesis, as they map directly onto practices that are central to our perception of effectively differentiated classrooms. Among practices he advocates as beneficial for student achievement and, therefore, important in classrooms are classroom management that facilitates learning, classroom environments that reduce anxiety, student engagement with content and learning, motivation that stems from the students feeling in charge of their learning, and small-group learning in which materials vary to match the needs of students in the groups. Practices Hattie reports to be even more productive in terms of student achievement include setting challenging goals (directly related to the differentiation concept of "teaching up"), classroom cohesion, and peer tutoring. Still more impressive in terms of positive student outcomes are not labeling students, using a wide variety of teaching strategies, and using collaborative rather than individualistic learning. Finally, among practices that resulted in the highest gains in student achievement are consistent use of formative assessment with quality feedback to students and supportive teacher–student relationships. Briefly, here are few conclusions from Hattie's work that not only align with important principles of differentiation but also point to the interrelatedness of those principles. Invitational Learning Environments. Hattie writes that environments that lead to achievement for all students are "invitational," or characterized by a transparent commitment to the learning of every student and a consideration of what each student brings to the lesson. Such environments encourage students to be collaborative partners in their own learning. Teachers in invitational environments demonstrate respect (the belief that every student is able, valuable, and responsible), trust (they work collaboratively with students to ensure that learning is engaging and that the process of learning is as important as the product of learning), optimism (students get an unambiguous message that they have the potential necessary to learn what is required), and intentionality (it's clear that every step in the lesson was designed to invite every student to learn and to succeed). Teachers in invitational environments believe that their students' intelligence is fluid rather than fixed. Student-Centered Teachers. These teachers visibly demonstrate (not just intend) warmth for each student through unconditional respect and positive regard. They exhibit belief in students, especially when the student is struggling. They are empathetic, understanding that students will learn in many different ways, and they make it a habit to put themselves in each student's shoes in an effort to grasp which approaches will work best to move that student forward. They have a positive relationship with their students—perhaps a reflection of their high expectations, warmth, and encouragement. Respectful Environments and Well-Managed Classrooms. Classes with student-centered teachers exhibit more student engagement, fewer negative behaviors, more student-initiated and student-regulated activities, and higher achievement outcomes. Student Motivation. Student motivation is highest when students are competent, have sufficient autonomy, set worthwhile goals, get useful feedback, have a sense of control over their own learning, and are affirmed by others. Attention to Student Learning Differences. Cognitive development advances on its own schedule. Students' readiness to engage in various stages of thinking isn't directly tied to age, follows no strict learning sequence, and varies across content areas. This calls on teachers to study their students and act on what they learn. Teachers must know what students already know and how they think and then craft lessons to move all students forward according to the criteria for success. Teachers should aspire to know what each and every student is thinking and grasping, to construct meaningful learning experiences in light of this knowledge, and to know their content deeply enough to be able to provide feedback that will guide each student through curriculum progressions. Instruction Informed by Formative Assessment. Expert teachers monitor learning, provide feedback, and adapt their instruction as needed. Evidence doesn't provide teachers with rules for follow-up action but rather with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving. Thus, teachers must ask themselves what works best, for whom, and compared to what alternatives. Asking only, "What works?" can be limiting. The critical nature of teachers' judgment and decision-making skills points to the need for a caring relationship with and among students. Deep Curricular Understanding and Differentiation. Expert teachers teach at a deep (versus surface) level of knowledge more consistently than teachers who are not as proficient. They also have very clear learning goals for each lesson, know how well the various students are reaching criteria for success, and know their content well enough to select the best "next step" to span the gap between a student's current knowledge and criteria for success. In Visible Learning for Teachers, Hattie (2012) speaks directly and insightfully to differentiation, noting that because successful instruction depends on teachers knowing where students are and moving them forward from those points, trying to teach to the class as a whole will lead to an instructional mismatch for many: This is where the skill of teachers in knowing the similarities across students and allowing for the differences becomes so important. Differentiation relates primarily to structuring classes so that all students are working "at or +1" from where they start, such that all can have maximal opportunities to attain the success criteria of the lessons …. [D]ifferentiation relates more to the phases of learning—from novice, through capable, to proficient—rather than merely providing different activities to different (groups of) students. For differentiation to be effective, teachers need to know, for each student, where the student begins and where he or she is in his or her journey towards meeting the criteria of the lesson. Is the student a novice, somewhat capable, or proficient? What are his or her strengths and gaps in knowledge and understanding? What learning strategies does he or she have and how can we help him or her to develop other useful learning strategies? Depending on the student's phase of learning, their understanding of surface and deep thinking, their phase of motivation, and their strategies of learning, the teacher will have to provide different ways in which students can demonstrate mastery and understanding along the way to meeting the success criteria. It should be obvious why rapid formative feedback can be so powerful for teachers to know [a student's] phase of learning and then help [him or her] to achieve "+1" outcomes. The key is for teachers to have a clear reason for differentiation and to relate what they do differently to where the student is located on the progression from novice to expert relative to the learning goals and criteria for success. In grouping students, the goal is not necessarily to arrange students by place in the learning progression, but rather to group students at varied places in the progression so students can move forward as they discuss with, work with, and see the world through the eyes of other students. (pp. 109–110)
Hattie goes on to point out that "the mistake is to assume that just because students 'sit in groups,' there is learning in groups" (p. 110)—or that differentiation is occurring. Differentiation requires structure and instruction designed to help students develop the skills necessary to learn in groups. The multifaceted and complex nature of differentiation makes it difficult for researchers to study as a whole model. What's more, it is a "generalist" model, and much research is conducted in specialty areas (e.g., special education, gifted education, multicultural education, English language learning, and reading). Nonetheless, in excess of 25 studies have been conducted in recent years examining the effect of differentiation as a generic model on student achievement, with findings largely positive. Those studies are reviewed in other publications (e.g., Tomlinson et al., 2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2013; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Additionally, numerous studies conducted in specialized areas of education such as reading and special education examine the effects of differentiation on student achievement; again, these studies revealed largely positive outcomes. It is our strong belief that learning to differentiate effectively is learning to teach at an expert level. It is at the core of quality teaching, not an addendum to it. There is ample basis, in the theory and research of education, to warrant the investment of teacher effort and the support from leaders necessary to enable more teachers to respond to learner differences in ways that multiply achievement across the spectrum of students in contemporary classrooms. It is important for those who seek to provide teacher support for differentiation to understand its research-based justification. Which Way Is North? The Ethical Case for DifferentiationNoted businessman and motivational speaker Stephen Covey sometimes asks members of an audience to stand, close their eyes, and point to the north. When all the hands are raised and index fingers pointing, he asks participants to keep their arms raised and fingers pointing while opening their eyes. The response is predictably explosive laughter. There seems no consensus at all on compass points, with numerous people pointing up, down, left, right, and diagonally. Covey uses the moment to make the point that if we don't have an ethical North in life, we'll always be adrift. Psychologists who study moral development (e.g., Kohlberg, 1981; Piaget, 1997) suggest that individuals may develop in moral "sophistication" over time—perhaps beginning with a rule-following orientation, moving toward moral reasoning based on self-interest, progressing to morality based on what the group is doing or what others will think, growing to decisions based on what will best serve the group, and perhaps ultimately acting out of a conviction that something is right—even if the decision negates rules, self-interest, the will of the group, and so on. Although there is not universal agreement on validity of these specific stages and how they progress, this progression at least calls our attention to the possibility that people can move away from an egocentric orientation to the world toward a more expansive view of right and wrong. It is instructive to pose Stephen Covey's question about an ethical North in the context of progressions of moral development as they might apply to the decision making of educators, both individually and as a group. How often do we make decisions based on rules, personal preference, or the press of the group rather than on what will best serve students or the profession or a nation or the world? Noted educator Lorna Earl (2003) seems to point to the importance of the two "higher" stages of moral decision making when she makes the assertion that it is the overriding moral purpose of the teacher to meet students' needs, even when that decision conflicts with personal preferences. It seems evident that contemporary classrooms are populated by students whose backgrounds, experiences, and needs are characterized by diversity. There is also generous evidence that student-focused approaches to teaching and learning result in greater achievement for the full range of students than do more uniform or rigid approaches. In the past, educators in the United States have acknowledged student differences and the need to address them largely by calling for tracking or "ability grouping." It is common to hear the explanation that such arrangements enable teachers to do a better job of "teaching where students are," enabling them to address student learning needs more effectively. Although there is little if any research on any topic in education that provides indisputable findings, there are tomes of studies on the efficacy of ability grouping; most of these suggest that ability grouping is disadvantageous to students in the low and middle tracks and perhaps advantageous to students in the upper tracks, although more recent research (e.g., Marsh, Tautwein, Ludtke, Baumert, & Koller, 2007) calls the latter conclusion into question. It has been reconfirmed many times that students in low tracks are likely to have newer or weaker teachers while students in the high tracks are more likely to have expert-level teachers. Likewise, high tracks are typically characterized by high expectations, while low tracks are marked by low expectations. Haberman (1991) describes low-track instruction as a "pedagogy of poverty," injecting into the discussion of "ability grouping" or tracking the issue of economics and race. He notes that low-track classes are disproportionally made up of students from low-income or racial-minority groups and are marked by low-level tasks, rote work, giving and repeating information, and student noncompliance. He explains that he chose the phrase "pedagogy of poverty" because the preponderance of students in these classes are poor, and the nature of the classes seems designed to ensure continuation of that status. Hodges (2001), by contrast, writes about what she calls a "pedagogy of plenty"—classes predominantly populated by more affluent students and characterized by meaningful knowledge, robust dialogue, purposeful activities, quality resources, and problem solving. Echoing Haberman, she notes that the phrase "pedagogy of plenty" not only describes the economic status of most students in such classes but also predicts future outcomes for students who benefit from long-term involvement with the classes. The history of education in the United States is punctuated with cycles of favoring "ability grouping," or tracking, to attend to student variance followed by cycles in which evidence against that practice dominates the conversation. In the latter instance, educators eschew ability grouping and place most students in heterogeneous classes for much, if not all, of their learning. Unfortunately, when we do that, we typically fail to attend to the student differences that typify heterogeneity—varied readiness levels, interests, and approaches to learning. Predictably, then, heterogeneity is dismissed as ineffective, and we once again migrate back to "homogeneity" in grouping students. In the United States, educators have not, in any meaningful way, embraced the third grouping option—that is, proliferating heterogeneous classrooms in which we both "teach up" and differentiate instruction to enable most students to succeed with meaning-rich and relevant curriculum. Yet we have among us, or could learn, the skills necessary to create a pedagogy of plenty—that is, to develop high-end curriculum and deliver the kind of learning experiences often reserved for a small percentage of students whom we deem able to benefit from it. We have among us, or could learn, the skills necessary to "differentiate up"—that is, to scaffold learning for students who are not currently succeeding in school to enable them to access complex, meaning-rich learning. Arguably, the current emphasis on Common Core standards, complex Common Core–like standards, and 21st century skills provides even greater support for the expectation that virtually all of our students should and can succeed with what we have often thought of as "advanced" curriculum. If educators have, or could develop, the skills necessary to "teach up" and "differentiate up," the question that remains is whether we have the moral will to invest in that decision. One of John Hattie's conclusions is that labeling students is a detriment to learning, and he is among many experts who draw this conclusion. Van Manen (1986), for example, reminds us of the danger inherent in seeing students as anything less than unique individuals: Once I call a child "a behavior problem" or a "low achiever," or once I refer to him as someone who has a specific learning style, a particular mode of cognitive functioning, then I am immediately inclined to reach into my portfolio of instructional tricks for a specific instructional intervention. What happens then is that I forego the possibility of truly listening to or seeing the specific child. Instead, I put the child away in categorical language, as constraining as a real prison. Putting children away by means of technical or instrumental language is really a kind of spiritual abandonment. (p. 18)
A leader willing to support the schoolwide embrace of more responsive instruction would be wise to examine, and lead faculty in examining, which students in a school are in low-level classes and how often participation in those classes results in students "moving up" academically; which students benefit from the highest quality curriculum we know how to create and which students regularly experience something less; which students are surrounded with vibrant and diverse peer perspectives and which students hear only echoes of themselves; and which labeling and grouping practices dignify students and which of these discourage students in some significant way. In a democratic society and based on our best knowledge of quality teaching, there is a strong ethical imperative to differentiate instruction in the context of heterogeneous classrooms. Strong leaders have the opportunity to help colleagues establish and follow an ethical North. The "What" of Effective DifferentiationIt is likely unwise for a principal or district leader to take on the role of chief professional developer for differentiation. That role is best left for a well-qualified educator who has experience and a solid understanding of differentiation, or a designated school leader who has similar experience and understanding as well as dedicated time to work with colleagues both in and out of their classrooms (Tomlinson et al., 2008). Nonetheless, building and district leaders who seek to ensure teacher growth in responsive teaching will necessarily be differentiation planners, assessors, discussants, and coaches. It is not possible to play those roles responsibly without a comprehensive and accurate understanding of differentiation. Teachers who differentiate instruction effectively craft an environment that signals the value of each individual, provides high challenge with high support, and emphasizes the power of community in achieving success for every learner. They clarify what students must know, understand, and be able to do (KUDs) in order to develop proficiency in a topic or content area. They plan lessons designed to be relevant and engaging to their students—both individually and as a group. They continually monitor student growth relative to KUDs, and they provide feedback and design instruction based on what they learn about student development from systematic interaction with each student, classroom observation, and formative assessment data. Finally, teachers who differentiate instruction enlist the partnership of their students in developing and implementing classroom routines that facilitate their ability to address both whole-class and individual needs. This environment is the essence of classroom differentiation. It's also a powerful platform for thinking about and planning to lead a faculty to become competent and confident differentiators. The leader, then, takes on the role of teacher. He or she must create an environment in which each teacher feels valued, challenged, supported, and part of a team working together for success. The leader must be clear about what teachers should know, understand, and be able to do in order to differentiate instruction skillfully. He or she must continually monitor teacher growth toward these KUDs, providing feedback and developing learning opportunities for teachers based on their varied readiness levels, interests, and approaches to teaching and learning. Then the leader creates structures designed to ensure that each teacher progresses in facility and comfort with addressing learner needs. This means he or she must sometimes work with the faculty as a whole, sometimes work with small groups, and sometimes work with individuals. When leading any long-term change initiative, it is helpful to use principles of "backward design" (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In broad terms, the leader identifies the essential knowledge, understanding, and skills that are necessary for learner (teacher) success. Then the leader determines what major summative benchmarks will indicate teacher success with the KUDs or with specific subsets of the KUDs. Finally, the leader plans learning experiences designed to help teachers master the KUDs so that there is a high likelihood of teacher competence with the summative benchmarks. A part of this third element in backward design is use of persistent formative assessment (in the form of classroom observations, lesson plan analysis, analysis of video lessons, planning conversations, etc.) to inform the next steps of both the leader and the teacher. This deceptively simple, three-stage planning approach is remarkably powerful in ensuring leader and teacher clarity about goals and expectations and in aligning learning opportunities with intended outcomes. Many aspects of a long-term plan for differentiation will vary across sites. It is helpful, however, to have a resource that can guide your thinking about the key attributes of effective differentiation—KUDs that will clarify goals for individuals and the faculty as a whole, establish targets for both formative and summative assessment, and frame professional learning opportunities. Figure 1.1 offers a reasonable starting point for defining the KUDs necessary for competence with differentiation. Figure 1.1. Key Learning Targets (KUDs) for Teacher Proficiency with DifferentiationFigure 1.2 provides a tool for thinking about teacher development along a continuum of knowledge, understanding, and skill with each of the five key elements of differentiation: positive learning environment, strong curriculum, formative assessment, instruction that responds to learner needs, and classroom leadership and management that balances the need for predictability and flexibility in teaching and learning. We encourage you to use both of these tools as frameworks for early thinking and planning, with the understanding that these frameworks will evolve as leader and teacher expertise develops. Figure 1.2. A Novice-to-Expert Continuum to Guide Thinking About Teacher Development with Key Differentiation ElementsPreparing to Lead for More Responsive ClassroomsIt can take a long time for meaningful differentiation to take root and flourish. Throughout the process, teachers will have to give up some familiar and comfortable ideas and practices. They will have to learn to see students and their responsibility to students in new ways. Odds are that growth will be uneven at times; it may slow or even reverse for a while. When and if this occurs, the leader's best recourse is to remain grounded in the intent to improve the lives of teachers and students through differentiation, to know differentiation's tenets and practices deeply, and to embody and model differentiation in his or her own practice. Leading for schoolwide differentiation requires leaders to enlist the minds and hearts of teachers in understanding and ultimately accepting the premise that to respect students is to serve each of them. They must learn to trust in every student's capacity to grapple with profound ideas and complex skills and provide all students the level of support they need to become what they should. Schoolwide differentiation requires leaders who know their ethical North—leaders who will establish "covenant relationships" with teachers, indicating shared commitment to an important purpose (Sergiovanni, 1992). Leading for differentiation requires leaders to work with teachers collegially, understanding the difference between "power to" and "power over"—exercising "moral leadership" rather than "command leadership" (Sergiovanni, 1992). It summons leaders to work with teachers to develop the vision for student-focused instruction so that a way forward is clear. It necessitates that leaders provide teachers with the sustained support necessary to grow steadily from a current point of proficiency while attending to students' varied learning needs as they progress toward expertise. It asks leaders to use formative assessment to guide their thinking and planning and to help teachers develop growing agency in their work. It needs leaders who celebrate significant victories and who challenge unproductive and unsuccessful approaches. In the end, leading for schoolwide differentiation challenges leaders as absolutely as it challenges teachers. It also holds as much promise for leaders to hone their leadership skills as it does for teachers to hone their pedagogical skills. Most of all, it provides an opportunity for leaders and teachers to honor what should be the promise of every school for every young person who enters its doors: We see you, we hold you in high regard, and we will give ourselves to your success as a learner and as a human being. This chapter has briefly explored the "why" and "what" of differentiation. The remainder of the book will provide a guide for becoming an effective catalyst for it. We will map out how to lead significant, schoolwide change to embrace high-quality instruction for the full range of learners for the purpose of ensuring that each student has equal access to excellent learning opportunities and the support he or she needs to succeed with the essential goals of those opportunities. Printed by for personal use only |