There are a few demigods in our culture, icons that demand universal respect. Mothers, apple pie, and the American flag all come to mind as examples. But, a school-based equivalent has recently entered our lexicon, a word and concept that, up until recently, had been the bastion exclusively of gifted child educators. The term? Differentiation.

It used to be that differentiation of curriculum was the sole property of educators who were seeking to make the mundane offerings of school more palatable for high-end learners (before political correctness, we called these kids "gifted"). Related terms like critical thinking, Type-III projects, and higher order operations were corollaries of this differentiation concept, and gifted child educators everywhere used this multisyllabic term to distinguish how what they did differed from their classroom colleagues responsible for teaching that most dreaded of beasts, the "regular curriculum."

But then, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) pumped up the volume, extolling the benefits of curriculum differentiation for all learners. Given the age-old assumption (erroneous, of course) that "what is good for the gifted is good for all students," the term differentiation began to appear regularly in ASCD publications, videos, and workshop descriptions that, in the apple pie, American tradition, encompassed all students under the same instructional umbrella.

There's only one problem: This differentiation bandwagon is getting off track (excuse the mixed metaphor). Here's why:

The most subtle and insidious aspect of this "differentiation for all" idea is the insinuation that a properly differentiated curriculum will fully meet the needs of gifted learners. Although I will admit that curriculum alteration for highly able students is a good beginning, we must remember that we are not just talking about gifted students. We are talking about gifted people; gifted individuals who are filled with some unique social and emotional aspects to their lives that always have, and always will, distinguish them as different from their classmates in unseen, yet important ways. For proof of this, talk to a gifted child about how he or she is similar to and different from other kids in class. In most cases, you will hear that the needs expressed by gifted young people transcend the realm of academics. Differentiation seldom (if ever) acknowledges these nonacademic distinctions among children, yet they are often the most important components of growing up gifted.

Secondly, this "one size fits all" interpretation of differentiation is as false in education as it is (I assume) in pantyhose. To be sure, differentiation, in theory, depends on their abilities or levels of achievement. However, theory does not always translate well, or readily, into classroom practice, and I am afraid that what is happening with differentiation is what happened with cooperative learning more than a decade ago: Everyone benefits somewhat, but the gifted child benefits somewhat less than others in the classroom. I do not criticize my colleagues who go from workshop to workshop (as presenters or participants) in search of curriculum's Holy Grail. I only wish they would concentrate more on what is good for the gifted few as avidly as they do for the nongifted many.

The third problem I see with differentiation being offered as this generation's educational panacea is the notion that every single classroom lesson leads to an academic Nirvana for all students. Forgive my naivete, but are these the same classroom teachers who have recently become responsible for serving special education students' needs through another "innovation," inclusion, while also making sure that all students pass the state's competency/ proficiency tests at high enough levels that the statistics published in local newspapers make citizens proud to live where they do? Gee ... I thought so. Isn't it grand, then, that we are adding differentiation for all students to this ever-growing list of demands for classroom teachers?

Is there a workable approach to this differentiation frenzy that is permeating our nation's schools? Of course there is.

The first thing to do is acknowledge that different types of teachers have different types of strengths, and that those with the training, experience, and an affinity for working with gifted students should be allowed to do so--both within general education classrooms and in separate programs or classes specifically designed to meet the academic and emotional needs of gifted children.

Secondly, we can acknowledge that differentiation, while beneficial in a general sort of way, needs to encompass far more thought and insight than merely changing an activity, a lesson, or an assignment. It is a year-long--indeed, a career-long--commitment to matching an individual student with educational options that make sense for him or her throughout the elementary and secondary years. This might entail an 11-year-old attending high school classes, or a 4-year-old skipping kindergarten and entering first grade ... or second. Do proponents of differentiation for all have this mindset? Some do ... many don't ... all must.

With all due respect to apple pie, motherhood, and Old Glory, I am reluctant to elevate yet another item--in this case, differentiation--to sacred cow status. Isn't it time that gifted child educators and the administrators for whom they work speak honestly about the limitations of even a good idea like differentiation? Only when this up-front acknowledgment that even the best of solutions will not fit everyone will the needs of gifted children--academic, social, and emotional--be met in our schools.

James R. Delisle, Ph.D., is professor of education at Kent State University in Ohio, a part-time middle school teacher of gifted students, and the author of many books, including Once Upon a Mind: The Stories and Scholars of Gifted Child Education (Harcourt Brace, 2000). He may be reached at Kent State University, College of Education, Dean's Office, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Prufrock Press
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group