To the Editor:
In the June 12 opinion essay “I Changed What Differentiation Means in My Classroom. Here’s How,” teacher Jeremiah Asendido describes his apparent discovery of the most impactful way to “differentiate” instruction. But his newfound success appears to be a result of abandoning the strategy.
Rather than adjusting instruction to each child’s level or trying to create “separate assignments” with differing expectations, he begins “adding scaffolds, modeling, think-alouds, and structured discussion” to his lessons. He witnesses the profound impact of “modeling tasks before students attempt them,” of “breaking tasks into clear steps.”
He doesn’t seem to realize that these whole-class strategies are the virtual opposite of “differentiated instruction.” They are, as he rightly proclaims, “simply examples of effective teaching.” Exactly. We should learn from such epiphanies. His experience underlines the failure of our ed. schools and professional development to define, then disavow popular but unproven instructional fads; adequately explain and fully train teachers in the most vital, evidence-based elements of explicit instruction; and help teachers distinguish sense from nonsense.
If we ever redress these failures, we will, in Asendido’s words, “create classrooms where all students can succeed.”
Mike Schmoker
Author, Speaker, & Consultant
Tempe, Ariz.
