With regard to differentiation, I must admit I have had my struggles. Though, I think they are largely the result of a sort of self-preservation. But, I find myself wondering: How different is this whole thing? Is it simply yet another part of the jargoned initiatives championed by the increasingly contradicting field of education? And, how feasible is all of this? Such questions come to mind particularly when I think of my post where I taught six classes--four of which were different with each consisting of over 40 students in an ethnically and experientially diverse urban school setting with little funding and no additional support. Do this for 250 students? Give me a break. But, perhaps that’s what summer is for and I’m simply being selfish. After all, I want to give these students my best, and proponents of differentiation insist that it’s already what happens with good teaching.

I’m grateful that UV has Tomlinson and Hirsch, both of whom are referenced in Schumer’s (2009) piece, “One Classroom, Many Minds; A Paddle for the Mainstream.” I can only imagine their lounge being like almost every English department I’ve taught in—divided.

Hirsch maintains ''Bad things are said about whole-class instruction, but it is by far the most effective mode of reaching 20 kids,” while Tomlinson, has been praised for her mixed bag approach.

Though, speaking of bags, I’m a bit of a story teller and this has included a number of Sunday school lessons or campfire stories. And, I have found that if one puts the key elements of a story in a bag, wonder and curiosity ensues. Slowly introducing a variety of things from a bag in order to hold attention, give variety, and cement meaning. We’ve also probably all seen what handing out all the tools at once does in a kindy classroom. Eager children turn violent, fighting over the scissors, throwing the wrong colored paper willy-nilly, and drawing on their mates. But, if creativity is facilitated, and things are discussed openly with students calling the shots, wonderful things happen. This, in my opinion plays to the strengths of differentiation.  We instructors pull from our bag multiple ways of meaning-making and apply them with regard to a topic, concept, or text only to synthesize while revisiting the process and steps along the way for our more grandiose creations, or content areas, or even our interdisciplinary aims.

Furthermore, if building upon the work of the likes of Khan (2011) is an option, then count me in. In fact, my school is just looking at doing flipped classrooms. And, while both differentiated and flipped methods seems overwhelming from a preparation standpoint--especially since I presently face teaching six sections and four different classes--I need not reinvented everything. Content is mediated by educators, experts, such as that which is found in iTunes U, engaging resources are becoming increasingly more popular and much of this stuff is free.

Furthermore, video and audio lectures bring a polished, uninterrupted version of that which often is disjoint and interrupted in the classroom. Furthermore, one has a control over his/her individual learning pace. Class time can now be used for questions, discussion, and application of content, and especially much needed help with assignments. The sort of things teachers always wish they had more time for but never get around to doing. Kahn (2011) provides that such a mode of instruction is what ultimately leads to mastery of content. Though, in many ways this model is very much dependent upon a learning atmosphere outside of school, one which is also equipped with high-end technology. For many of our youth, this is not yet an option.

Ultimately, even though I’ve expressed looming apprehensions, I think that differentiated instruction is the right thing to do. Schumer (2009) provides that in districts which use differentiated instruction, the consensus seems to be that it is not a cure-all and takes more training than advocates suggest, but the teachers seem to like it. They say that good teachers already teach this way intuitively, and the technique provides a structure. Also, it's uncontroversial at the local level because it avoids confrontations about who is smart and who is not—something which advocates for tracking must consistently address. In addition, Oakes (1985) maintains that "traditions dictate, for the most part, the ways in which schooling is organized and conducted." Many schools are still tracked and this doesn’t seem to be the best option.

Contrary to the thoughts and opinions of many ambitious, affluent and well-intentioned parents, I do not believe weaseling one’s already privileged three-year-old into a GT school is the aim of Mann’s great and equalizing vision. It is not a communal way of operating in the world; it’s an elitist way. I will say, however, that this notion is still tricky for me to stand behind because I’ve taught in a highly successful urban magnet school for GT students, one where the education afforded was excellent despite operating in and amongst a failing system. When I was there, the students achieved the second highest scores in the state of Michigan, and to be honest, my gut tells me that had they gone to the other district schools many wouldn’t have stood a chance socially or even academically while I suspect the majority of those who could have fit in to the social mainstream would have reverted to the status quo of the district’s underachieving schools.

Sir Ken Robinson (TED 2006) says about education that:“It’s one of those things that runs deep with people…like religion.” We need to take such matters seriously and sincerely. If we don’t want to see Bertie Counties (Pilloton, 2010) and Highland Parks, we must reevaluate the ways in which we structure schools. And, I think differentiation should be used consistently in our schools as an equalizing force.