Differentiation in diverse settings: a consultants experiences in two similar school districts

School Administrator, August, 2004 by Carol Ann Tomlinson

Take a cursory look around most school districts, schools and classrooms to confirm what the experts tell us: Our student population is becoming more academically diverse with each passing year. There are increased categories of special education identification, a rapidly growing second language population, more students carrying the weight of fragmented home lives, and advanced learners languishing in under-challenging classrooms. Further, the federal policymakers tell us we have a greater need than ever to educate the broadest possible range of learners to work confidently at high levels of sophistication because the world into which these students grow up will require them to be generators of knowledge, not merely consumers of it. In the meantime, teachers feel pressure to raise the standardized test scores of students who clearly are not standardized.

More than ever teachers need to know how to teach well in response to diverse learner needs. If that conclusion is evident to many educational leaders, the route to realizing more effectively differentiated or responsive classrooms is less clear. Well-intentioned leaders may feel an impetus to move toward classrooms in which individual variance is acknowledged, valued and taken into account in planning. As in all change efforts, however, the quality of leadership efforts will likely define the quality of outcomes.

That is certainly the case with two districts where leaders recently began to advocate an emphasis on classroom instruction that is attentive to the needs of the diverse learners they serve.

Alike and Different

Hilltop School District and Waterside School District (real districts in the Mid-Atlantic region with pseudonymous names) share a number of key characteristics and concerns. Both school districts are recognized for quality of leadership and performance. Both are in states with high-stakes statewide tests as well as pressure to ensure consistent academic progress for the full range of learners. Both districts serve significant numbers of students from relatively affluent backgrounds as well as from low economic backgrounds. Both are experiencing an influx of English language learners.

In both districts, leaders examined disaggregated student performance and concluded that teachers needed to become effective in determining the academic entry points of students in specific competencies and to respond to the students' varying readiness levels and modes of learning. Leaders in both districts became advocates of differentiated instruction.

Despite their common interests, Hilltop and Waterside differ in significant ways. Waterside, with its 76,000 students, is more than seven times the size of Hilltop--a trait that should make it more difficult for the leadership in Waterside to bring about broad, consistent positive change. A second critical difference in the two districts is the approach of leaders to effect instructional change.

It is accurate to say leaders in both settings advocated, supported and expended personal and professional resources on a movement toward more effectively differentiated classrooms. It would not be accurate to say the two approaches to leadership were equivalent in quality of planning, execution or outcome. The coherence of the Waterside plan for change stands in sharp contrast to Hilltop's diffuse approach to effecting change. Despite the complexity of bringing about change in very large districts, Waterside's leaders have set a course far more likely to lead to their desired destination.

Hilltop's Story

In Hilltop, a director of special services determined, after careful study, a need to support differentiation in the regular classroom as one way of supporting success for students with special learning needs. The director, with the knowledge and support of superordinates, began working toward the goal of helping teachers understand and implement differentiated or responsive teaching.

The director initially worked with support personnel in that program area to enable them to assist teachers in becoming more comfortable and competent with differentiation. The director talked with principals about the new direction and sought their support in providing both staff development and in-classroom assistance to help teachers learn more flexible approaches to diagnosing and responding to learner needs.

Some principals were happy to comply with the request. Others were not. The program area director provided information for teachers in those schools with supportive principals. Over time, the director provided introductory sessions on differentiation at district and faculty levels, opportunities for building-level introductions and discussions, district-level multi-session learning opportunities and in-classroom coaching and feedback from program area support personnel and outside consultants.

A couple of years after that process began, differentiation became a stated goal in the superintendent's annual plan. At that time, the district school board affirmed the goal as one that was important to them as well. Over the next several years, the superintendent hosted information and discussion sessions on differentiation for building principals. While the sessions were conducted largely by consultants and the program area director who had initiated the differentiation, the superintendent stated clearly in the meetings that differentiation was an important goal for the district.