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

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.

The culture in Hilltop was such that principals felt free to act upon goals espoused by the superintendent or to table the goals by virtue of inaction. It continued to be the case that some principals were active in their support of differentiation at the building level. Others were not.

A Walkthrough Protocol

After several years, some teachers were effective and comfortable with principles and practices of differentiation. Some were making observable first steps in that direction. Others were unhappy about being asked to change their practice and felt no inclination to do so. Specialists in the program area that had initially adopted differentiation as an approach to supporting students still were working at the classroom level to bring about change, one teacher at a time.

Several years into the venture, classroom teachers expressed frustration at being asked to attend to many separate initiatives commended by district leaders. To address the concerns, several central-office administrators developed a document that demonstrated the close interrelationship between three key district initiatives: developing quality curriculum and instruction, supporting achievement of minority learners and supporting differentiation.

These administrators developed a "walkthrough" document to help principals determine the status of the interrelated initiatives in their buildings. In addition, the central office provided a training session for principals on how to use the walkthrough protocol. Once again, principals felt free to use the document or table it. Elective staff development continued for teachers.

After five years, program area directors in the central office began collaborative discussions and small-scale staff development opportunities for teachers on differentiation. A number of program area directors were beginning to consider the possibilities of differentiation in their assigned areas. They also felt it was important for teachers to see the concept supported by directors in more than one specialty area.

In the absence of a common message to parents about differentiation, some confusion and tension developed among parents about its intent and impact on their children.

Waterside's Story

In Waterside, after careful study a director of special services identified a need to support differentiation in the regular classroom as one way to support success for students with unique learning needs. The director also felt the approach was an important one for all instructional leaders to consider, given the varied nature of the district's student population.

After a joint study of and recommendations by directors from a number of program areas and their superordinates, the superintendent directed central-office leaders to establish a long-term plan to define and direct progression toward effectively differentiated classrooms across the school district.

The plan ultimately included a set of goals focused on developing the knowledge, skills, attitudes and habits of mind of all program coordinators and curriculum specialists necessary to become proficient in staff support and assistance with differentiation. The plan also contained a set of assumptions, including these:

* a common desire among all personnel in the department of curriculum and instruction to increase their personal and collective knowledge of, understanding about and skills in differentiation;

* the willingness of those leaders to prepare for leadership with a commitment of at least five years for that process;

* an agreement among the leaders to collaborate across program areas to ensure success of the change process.

The goals and assumptions evolved from leadership discussions and agreements. Still focusing on district-level leaders, a plan to develop leadership capacity for differentiation reflected variance among the leaders in current comfort both with differentiation and with public leadership roles.

Leaders at a more basic point of entry into the process would begin with guided book studies to dispel misperceptions about differentiation and develop fundamental understandings about the concept. Leaders at a somewhat more advanced point of entry would begin creating staff development materials that could be used by the full cadre of central-office leaders, principals and building support personnel to guide teachers in developing understanding of and abilities to implement differentiation in their classrooms.

The group of leaders most advanced in comfort and competency with differentiation would begin developing differentiated curriculum and differentiated staff development plans. Development of differentiated curriculum avoids the immense pitfall of leaving hundreds of teachers on their own to apply principles of differentiation through curriculum modification. In addition, building-level specialists in a wide range of program areas will be ready to help teachers understand and implement the differentiated curriculum in their classrooms. Further, that process will be part of a loop that enables leaders in curriculum and instruction to continually refine curriculum in response to needs of teachers and students.

To facilitate staff development that is appropriately differentiated in response to teachers' readiness levels, leaders developed a continuum that describes likely attributes of teachers as they progress through four stages of proficiency with differentiation. Also, the continuum notes the kind of support teachers are likely to need at each stage of growth in regard to differentiation. Further, teacher staff development is available through book studies, videos and guides developed by the district, building and district sessions with materials provided by the central office to assist in preparing for the sessions, conference attendance, department meetings and classroom consultation.

Internal Direction

Once exploratory discussions about differentiation evolved into a direction advocated by the superintendent, central-office leaders involved principals in regular discussions about needs for the approach, articulated plans and building implications. To facilitate this process, central-office leaders developed a document for principals organized around key questions about differentiation as it relates to Waterside. The document states a rationale for the approach given the needs of the district, defines differentiation, delineates its key components and purposes for the components, explains a model for differentiation the district will use and outlines key principles of differentiation. The document ends with a position statement that Hilltop believes curriculum and instruction must be differentiated in response to students' levels of readiness, interests and learning preferences in order for all students to achieve maximum growth and individual success.

The leadership meetings and leadership-focused training and documents will help district educators develop a common internal sense of direction. It also will play an important role in helping parents understand the nature and intent of differentiation.

Ample and continuous opportunity exists for central-office and building leadership to shape and reshape key initiatives. Nonetheless, the culture of Hilltop is that the district provides support to leaders at all levels to enable them to effectively implement policies and procedures, and it is the role of the leader to do so, individually and collaboratively, in ways that contribute to the success of the goals.

A Matter of Coherence

Educators in Hilltop and Waterside are largely strong professionals. The intent of leaders in both settings was studied and well-reasoned when they set out to develop classroom practices better suited to academically diverse student populations than a one-size-fits-all practice. In both settings, it is easy to cite examples of forward-thinking and exemplary design. In neither place is the world perfect. Thus in both, broad change will be predictably challenging.

Nonetheless, outcomes in Waterside are likely to be more pervasive, durable and consistent than in Hilltop. The reason centers on the high degree of coherence in the Waterside culture and its plan to support differentiation, in contrast with the diffuse culture and plan of Hilltop.

Hilltop's initiative was, at best, a diffuse idea, belonging primarily to a few leaders. Waterside developed a shared vision based on a shared rationale, common beliefs and a common culture of collaboration, thus ensuring both preparation for and investment of multiple team members in the success of the vision. Hilltop leaders functioned from the "the power of suggestion." That is, if leaders suggest a change is worthy, teachers should adopt it. Waterside developed a long-term plan based on an understanding of the complexity of change.

Hilltop leaders provided an array of largely optional opportunities for teachers to learn about differentiation. Waterside provided sequences of opportunities for teachers to learn about differentiation, including book studies, group staff development, in-classroom coaching and feedback, differentiated curricula matched to grade level and state standards and predictable support in translating the curricula into classroom practice.

Further, Waterside leaders pre-assessed educator readiness for differentiation and differentiated staff development and support based on the preassessment data for both administrative leaders and teachers, in that way, leaders modeled the concept of differentiation for staff members. While Waterside teachers will find multiple avenues of learning about and support with implementing differentiation, the implementation plan does not suggest that either teachers or administrators can opt out of the change process.

Hilltop provided building administrators with tools to determine the degree to which differentiation was implemented in classrooms, but there was no leader accountability for use of the tools, analysis of findings, examination of findings according to district goals, or responsibility for using the data to contribute to refinement of the change process or classroom practice. Waterside will study the progress of the initiative and its impact on teachers and learners from multiple vantage points and systematically use findings to revisit and revise the plan to facilitate its maximum benefit for both teachers and learners.

Bringing about substantive change in schools is a Gordian knot. It is likely that Hilltop will find the knot tightened as a result of its approach to developing more instructionally responsive classrooms--despite intentions to the contrary. It is likely that Waterside will loosen and ultimately untie at least some of the knot as a result of its approach to the same goal--in spite of the complexities of change. The difference, as is nearly always the case with school change, lies not with the initiative itself or even with the intentions of leaders, but with the capacity of leaders to craft and support studied, coherent and sustained movement in a desirable direction.

RELATED ARTICLE: Research evidence for differentiation.

The importance of attending to learner variance is reflected in the ancient writing of Confucius and in the Jewish scriptures. It was practiced in the one-room schoolhouse and today is commended by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, prominent high school reformers such as Ted Sizer and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Each of those sources and countless others recognize that a student's gender, culture, experiences, particular aptitudes, interests and approaches to learning greatly affect how students learn and how they learn effectively.

Research suggests that at least three categories of student variance deserve our attention:

* Addressing readiness is essential for student growth.

* Addressing interest is an important motivational factor.

* Attending to learning profile or learning preference is necessary if we want students to learn efficiently.

Student Motivation

Numerous theorists and contemporary translators of brain research propose that students do not learn effectively when tasks are too simple or too complex for their particular readiness levels. Rather, say these researchers, tasks must be moderately challenging for the individual for growth to occur.

Research in support of these theories concerning the role of readiness in learning is abundant. For example, some studies of multiage/multigrade classes show that students in such classes are likely co have higher achievement and better adjustment than peers in single-grade classrooms. Further, effects tend to become more positive the longer students stay in multigrade settings.

Similarly, numerous theorists propose that addressing student interest enhances motivation to learn. When teachers link required content to student interests, students are likely to respond with greater commitment, energy and endurance. Research confirms that when students are interested in what they study, learning outcomes are more positive in both the short term and the long term.

Finally, various theorists contend that how individuals learn is shaped by their culture, learning style and intelligence preference or neurological makeup. Again, research supports those propositions, finding that student achievement benefits from teacher attention to students' learning patterns.

Several recent studies of a model of differentiation that employs attention to readiness, interest and learning profile also point to positive achievement results for students taught with the model when compared to students not taught by the model.

In the end, however, it is always critical to note there is little magic in a word, including "differentiation." It is the quality of the approach teachers implement that ultimately will tell the tale of student impact, not simply that we can say we do differentiation.

Accessible Resources

To read more about theory and research that support differentiation, consider the following:

* Qualities of Effective Teachers by James Stronge (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) provides a digest of studies that point to promising practices for strong student outcomes. Principles of differentiation are evident throughout the book.

* Chapter 2 in Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms by Carol Tomlinson and Susan Allan (ASCD) contains a literature review for educators of theory and research that support differentiation as a way of thinking about teaching and learning.

--Carol Ann Tomlinson

RELATED ARTICLE: One district's differentiated horizon.

BY KELLY A. HEDRICK

What if someone proposed a comprehensive definition for differentiation, one that provided a more sophisticated view of curriculum and instruction than most teachers or administrators were aware existed? What if someone suggested a way to align best practices across disciplines to ensure success for all learners beyond the state-mandated minimum standards?

You might think this philosophy would be readily accepted and easily mastered.

Think again.

New Ventures

The first critical step in adopting differentiation as a philosophy of teaching and learning in a K-12 school system is to clearly define it and provide a defensible model for all educators. The Virginia Beach, Va., school district uses Carol Ann Tomlinson's definition and model for differentiation. Tomlinson defines differentiation in the context of education as a teacher reacting responsively to a learner's needs. This definition provides the necessary foundation for establishing a common and purposeful goal, but the shift to differentiation is not so easy.

Defining differentiation in the context of education means that the school district aligns the fields of education (regular, gifted, special, career and technical) with a common purpose and pathway for achievement. With a consistent definition for differentiation, the next step is the selection of a model for translating the philosophy into practice.

Virginia Beach, with its 75,125 students uses Tomlinson's model of adapting content, process, product and learning environment based on student readiness, interest and learning profile. The model is comprehensive in design and complex in implementation.

So what if we adopt a more simplistic definition and a less-sophisticated model and hire one of the hundreds of consultants who claim they can make differentiation "easy." The question becomes, will the simplistic definition or consultant's interpretation make high-quality differentiation accessible to teachers and administrators, or will such watered-down approaches simply enable teachers to use the rhetoric and check the box?

Here's the rule of thumb: Some risk exists in aiming high, but more danger lurks in setting the bar low, reaching our destination and then celebrating as if we have accomplished something great.

Nothing Ventured

When many educators realize that differentiation is a far more sophisticated approach than they had previously defined it, the experience can be both humbling and frightening. The dissonance can help propel one's thinking forward, but if ongoing support and guidance are not provided most educators will revert to prior beliefs and dismiss the tenets of high-quality differentiation.

Rick Stiggins, director of the Assessment Training Institute in Portland. Ore., says students can hit any target that is set before them as long as it doesn't move. Are we establishing clear and appropriate targets related to differentiation for administrators and teachers? Do we move the targets when dissonance leads to resistance? Do we lower the level of expectation for teachers and principals because we underestimate their capacity to reach high goals? Is our lack of confidence in their abilities a reflection of our own limited understanding of differentiation?

Keep in mind that the more sophisticated the construct, the more likely we are to find critics and detractors who have difficulty comprehending the philosophy and putting it into practice. While complacency is the most dangerous of educational situations, some critical questions surface in the face of implementing differentiation. How do we insulate ourselves from hesitation? How do we respond to the critics and their fears? What are the roadblocks to differentiation, including the excuses?

The key to implementing high-quality differentiation in a school division of our size has been to establish a comprehensive plan and provide ongoing support with clear expectations for productivity.

Travel Plans

Be mindful of those who deliver the messages about differentiation. At a conference hosted by a local university, one presenter stated it takes 10 years to develop tiered assignments. Not only untrue, this statement is in direct opposition to the differentiation model adopted by Virginia Beach. Dozens of our teachers and administrators heard the consultant's message. The conflicting information reinforced the hesitation of some educators already troubled by the process of creating tasks matched to learner readiness.

Our school board policy requires that all teachers match learning tasks to students' readiness and learning styles. A clear message regarding differentiation comes in the form of the teacher evaluation instrument. One of the 21 criteria on which teachers are evaluated relates to ensuring high-quality differentiation. If we expect something to happen, then we must inspect for it.

With differentiation as an expectation for teachers, building administrators need ongoing support in this area. The district's department of curriculum and instruction meets regularly with a facilitator to work purposefully and systematically through the tenets of high-quality differentiation as outlined in Tomlinson's model. The department has created a position statement on the differentiation of curriculum and instruction. The expectations are clear and appropriate, and the target isn't moving.

Snapshots of Success

At King's Grant Elementary School in Virginia Beach, the principal has begun the journey toward high-quality differentiation with a staff-oriented plan. Following the August 2003 administrators' conference, the principal led her staff in an in-service workshop on differentiation using materials from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. At the end of the workshop, she surveyed her staff and found a clear need for specific tools for differentiating.

The principal met with a curriculum coordinator to review staff input and create a plan for responding to the needs of the teachers. The curriculum coordinator met with teachers in three groups: primary, upper elementary and specialists. The sessions focused on low-prep differentiation and helping teachers move from theoretical understanding to practical application. Next in the process for this elementary school is to work with subject-area curriculum coordinators (in math, physical education, language arts and other areas) and classroom teachers to create school-based models of differentiated lessons. This next step is in direct response to the teachers' desire for examples.

At Salem Middle School in our district, the principal gave her staff members a survey in June 2003 to find out what their needs were in the area of differentiation. Despite resistance from some staff, the principal was clear in her expectations for improving the nature and quality of differentiation. She attended the administrators' conference in August 2003 and scheduled a session with her entire staff to train in differentiation. The goal was to define differentiation and explicitly label the non-negotiables of a differentiated classroom: respectful tasks, flexible grouping and ongoing assessment and adjustment.

The principal outlined the expectation that teacher plans include differentiation on a weekly basis and tiered assignments at least once a month. With ongoing support from the school's resource staff that in, dudes training in specific tools and processes for differentiating, the school's team of administrators provides feedback on the quality of differentiation. While flexibility exists in implementing differentiation at this middle school, the expectations and support are unwavering.

At Bayside High School, the principal offered an optional session on differentiation to his staff. The response was overwhelming. With more than 80 teachers and all of the school's leadership team in attendance, the session helped lay the foundation for the school's work in this area. When teachers requested time and support in their efforts to differentiate, the principal invited curriculum coordinators and teacher specialists to work with the teachers. He provided class coverage, and a comfortable location for the team to work. He made certain an assistant principal joined the planning session.

New Horizons

While these successes exemplify the importance of clearly defining high-quality differentiation and providing support for teachers and administrators, they also point to some powerful principles of adopting differentiation as a philosophy of teaching and learning.

First, it is important to train all staff members from central office to building-level administrators and teachers in the definition and model for differentiation. This first step necessitates the establishment and clear articulation of a districtwide vision and plan for helping all employee groups understand their roles in advancing the vision.

Second, use caution when asking others to deliver the message since the field of education is permeated with charismatic consultants who transform the complex and rich philosophy of differentiation into algorithmic processes and simplistic techniques.

Third, set clear expectations if district leaders want to remain impervious to the hesitation and sabotage of those individuals who don't want to put forth the efforts required to make high quality differentiation a reality. At the administrators' conference in Virginia Beach last fall, the superintendent pointed to the teacher evaluation instrument highlighted the expectation that all teachers differentiate curriculum and instruction and then charged the building principals with being able to show evidence of high-quality differentiation in their schools.

Finally, accept that a movement toward differentiation is a process that will take time as well as ongoing, flexible and responsive support. When you think you have arrived, look for the next horizon with regards to differentiation. It is a complex philosophy with the potential to facilitate all students reaching high expectations and worthy goals. As one colleague said, "Don't confuse the edge of your rut with your horizon."

Kelly Hedrick is coordinator of gifted education and academy programs in the Virginia Beach City Public Schools, 2512 George Mason Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23456. E-mail: [e-mail]

Differentiation in a Time of High-Stakes Tests

On first consideration, the concept of differentiating instruction based on learners' varying readiness levels, interests and modes of learning in a time of high-stakes standardized tests seems counterintuitive.

The focus of the hour is to bring everyone to "standard." That seems to leave little room for concerns about students' competencies, experiences, strengths, learning preferences or dreams. It's all about the score.

At least two reasons exist for moving beyond the first consideration.

First, at a more principled level, if we permit teaching and learning to be only about increasing test scores, we are likely to pay a significant price in years ahead as we realize the losses we have incurred with that approach. The losses will be measured in students who learned for more external than internal reasons whom we lost along the way, who came to believe educators cared about them only so long as they contributed to positive news stories about rising numbers, who failed to make meaning of what they learned and thus lack frameworks for future learning, who honed the skills of finding right answers on tests but not the skills of complex reasoning. The list is extensive.

To avoid those costs, our best understandings of teaching and learning suggest we must teach high-quality curriculum to varied learners in ways that help them jettison their personal misconceptions about the disciplines and replace the misconceptions with reasoned understanding about how the disciplines really work. Further, that sense-making process is highly individual and must be supported in the individual.

A second reason for attending to learner variance in a time of highstakes testing is more focused on the current demand to ensure growth in each learner. To the degree we adopt that outcome as supreme in districts, schools and classrooms, we must deal with the paradox that success on standardized tests necessitates attention to individual learners. We simply do not have evidence or experience to suggest that just because a teacher covers the curriculum, even with intensity and fervor, learner variance ceases to be a factor in test success.

The 7th grader who has not learned to read efficiently is (a) highly unlikely to learn what is in the textbook or from notes dictated by the teacher and (b) highly unlikely to fare well on a grade level standardized history test unless teachers find a way to support the student's growth in reading as well as in history. A high school student who has been learning English for only a few months is not likely even to approach the standard in writing unless teachers are working with that student assiduously in basic vocabulary as well as in writing. A 3rd grader who has never grasped how addition works has little hope of mastering fractions to the degree necessary to perform at standard on the high-stakes test unless the teacher finds a way to help the student go both backward and forward in math.

Further, it should be of importance to us to understand that our brightest learners need only to show up to succeed on the test and to realize that unless we depart from "bulldozing to the standards" and provide work that is personally challenging to those youngsters, we will teach them that success is possible apart from effort--a lesson that itself carries a high price tag in adulthood.

So what are the arguments for differentiating instruction in a time of high-stakes tests that appear to commend standardization on every hand?

First, excellent teaching always has been about maximizing individual strengths and minimizing individual weaknesses. Second, the more value we place on the dubious goal of making everyone essentially alike, the more we will have to attend to individual needs in order to succeed.

-- Carol Ann Tomlinson

Carol Ann Tomlinson is associate professor of educational leadership at University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400277, Charlottesville, VA 22903. E-mail: [e-mail]. She is the author of Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching.