Who to teach to, with some critical thought splashed on the side....

Well, this concept came up... at some point in class. We've abandoned the model of teaching to the middle, or at least that is what I am to believe. Instead, we differentiate instruction, and teach to everyone. However, this concept leaves me with a whole network of questions. Are we essentially preparing three separate lessons, or four, per lesson? I say three or four because it seems like the student grouping is viewed as follows: Bottom, middle, top, and special needs, or differently able, or what have you. This, along with the inclusive model of education, puts a huge strain on teachers, and really challenges them to step up in a lot of ways. Now, I'm coming out and saying it right now, I'm all for inclusive education. I mean, the last thing I want to do is brand a group of students as "The stupids" and shove them into the basement. However, I have a whole host of questions and concerns. Isn't differentiating instruction doing the same thing a bit? I mean, "Here you go Johnny, here is your special test! And your biiiig felt marker to write it with!" (I so stole that joke off of someone.) Moreover, I can't help but feel a certain level of futility with changing terms for students. It seems like any special-needs related term eventually becomes stigmatized... but then I think I agree with it, still. I mean, we aren't calling people "Morons" "Retards" or "Cretins" anymore... not in any official way, anyways. I'd prefer to go in the direction of the positive, to keep from beating someone down. Only so much wordplay can go on, though...

At any rate, back to differentiating. I can't help but think that kids at the lower end will get the attention. I mean, we assume that students at the top will merely take it upon themselves to be good, active, and engaged learners, because they are good. We neglect the possibility that they may get bored, and reject formal education... and without that, they are kind of sunk in this day and age in terms of an intellectual career of some kind. Which is the greater tragedy? A kid falling through the cracks from the bottom or the top? How differentiated can differentiated instruction be? Can I show students a history documentary, and have some recite facts from the documentary, while getting others to give me an in-depth analysis of the events outlined in the documentary? Do I grade students on a relative scale, based on their own person growth? Or do I make them all jump through the same hoop, or over the same hurdle?

Honestly, it makes sense to me to grade students based on their own personal improvement. What else can we expect, really? As long as they are improving themselves, and show drive, are we not succeeding? Obviously, I don't mean infinitesimal improvement, but significant strides. In a gym class we don't look at every student and say "Welp, your final is to become Charles Atlas." No, they get assessed in the beginning, and graded on their improvement. I mean, it's important not to discourage the lower kids by setting them up for failure with the impossible requirement, while, at the same time, making sure that the "smart" kids don't just coast.

This has become more long winded than I thought it would, so I'll save my critical thought speech for next time. Speaking of which, tune in next time... same bat time, same bat channel!