Differentiation and the Achievement Gap

RUNNING HEAD:  DIFFERENTIATION AND THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Differentiation and the Achievement Gap

Debra Isenberger

Argosy University

Abstract

Teachers are faced with ever-increasing pressures of closing the achievement gap across the nation. While schools struggle to meet AYP and teachers get creative, some question the fairness of targeting low-achieving students while higher-achieving students remain stagnant. The primary focus of this paper is on one school district that is achieving success and providing incentives for merit students as well as lower levels.

Differentiation and the Achievement Gap

Differentiation” is the new terminology that is flooding the market in the education arena. In spite of its challenges, it is not going to go away anytime in the near future. Research abounds and data supports it. It holds many advocates and like any new strategy or change, it will be faced with opposition. Administrations promote it and professional development opportunities are made available for development of staff.

            Traditionally, teachers “taught to the middle.” Faced with growing numbers of students with more diverse backgrounds and abilities, the attitude was that if teachers focused on the majority of the population, most of the students would “get it.” With a new view that required teachers to focus on a wider range of students, teachers became frustrated at the impossibility of assuring success to all concerned while keeping the “powers that be” happy. Special education teachers are overwhelmed with caseloads so that their efforts are becoming strained. While the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) raises expectations, budgets are being lowered. High poverty schools already face populations that are not as well prepared for school as more affluent ones, so the readiness gap is increased. The “middle” is smaller. If teachers continue to focus on that group, the majority of students will be left out. The students who are performing at the highest levels will be the ones who get left out. While lower-performing students demand more time and attention, the higher achieving students’ needs to be challenged could become ignored. How do administrators and teachers meet the array of needs in a regular classroom that continues to grow in size? Is it fair to the students at the top end of the spectrum?

            Tomlinson says it is “unfair to assume there is only one way to differentiate....there is no recipe for teaching. Teaching requires ‘broader brushstrokes as opposed to paint by number’ methods” (Tomlinson, 2000). She believes that it is not fair to create standardized tests under these circumstances. We need to adjust the content, process, and the product of teaching and learning. There are many ways of doing this through creating small groups of various abilities, preteaching, reteaching, scaffolding activities, previewing, and varying our expectations for various students.

            Teachers need to increase levels of motivation, and students need to be excited about learning. Instructors are faced with the challenge of creating a desire within the students to enter the classroom and then keep them engaged once they arrive. This can be done by providing more hands-on, relevant activities and open-ended questions to make them think. The days of memorization and recalling facts are gone. With the advent of technology, students need more stimulation. Their experiences demand it. Surrounded by technology at home through the use of television, electronic games, computers, and the Internet, students are accustomed to having access to information at their fingertips. Competition-driven companies encourage students to seek newer and better products that propel the educational arena into the future. Pressures from the NCLB legislation and the threat of ever-decreasing funding adds tension to otherwise struggling administrations.  More demands are placed on teachers who are struggling to keep up with the students as they try to meet AYP in their classrooms.

            Two teachers from urban, poverty schools developed a plan of action that meets the criteria for differentiation. They developed an acronym of REACH to outline the plan. REACH stands for “reflection on will and skill, evaluation of the curriculum, analyze the learners, craft research-based lessons, and hone in on the data” (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, and Gable, 2008). They identify benchmarks with five quality indicators to describe their efforts. The five benchmarks are the teacher, learner, content, instruction, and assessment.

            In regards to the teacher, he or she should be appreciative and recognize the plethora of abilities in the classroom. He or she needs to be committed to the process and dedicated to the students and to the willingness to change his or her methodology. The first question that should be considered is “What about me?” The teacher needs to assess current content knowledge and skills before moving forward. “What are my current practices?” and “What are my available resources?” The teacher needs to reflect often and collaborate with colleagues. He or she needs to be flexible enough to change plans or change direction.

In Washington County, Maryland, benchmark assessments are given three times per year. These benchmarks follow the same guidelines as the Maryland State assessment (MSA). At the beginning of the year, the first benchmark test is a diagnostic assessment. At this point, teachers are able to determine the levels of performance of each of his or her students. It is crucial for the teacher to examine his or her own practices at this time to match teaching with learning. It is advantageous at this juncture to assess multiple intelligences and learning styles so that students can demonstrate mastery in their most comfortable format and learn in their most natural style, whether it be auditory, tactile/kinesthetic, or visual. It is up to the teacher to vary his or her methodologies to meet theses individual styles. The second benchmark is formative. The results are used to adjust lessons and to make arrangements for individual or small-group intervention strategies. Teacher use a district-wide Classroom-Focused Intervention Plan (CFIP) at this time to incorporate reteaching and objective-centered lessons to increase performance on the upcoming MSA. The third assessment is the evaluative assessment. This assessment is often given after the MSA and is used as part of the students’ final marking period grade, giving it purpose and relevance to the students at a point in time when they know the all-important state assessment is over. It is important to note that all assessments are formative; they can be used to adjust instruction throughout the year and beyond.

            Rock, et al identifies the second avenue, which is the content variable. “What content is there? Why should they care?” Although the curriculum may be guided by the state, it is important that the teacher and the students have some choices so that they can feel like they have ownership in the lessons and in their own teaching and learning. Students need time to internalize the content before rushing on to the next objective to meet the demands of a calendar. Schumm et al (1994) provides a triangle that REACH utilized. The triangle demonstrates that the base contains the information that all students know, the middle contains the information that most students know, and the top contains the information that some students know. By preassessing students, a teacher can determine where to start teaching in the content area. Informal and formal assessments throughout a unit will help to place students in the triangle.    

Another step of REACH is to analyze the learner. “Who are they?” Gather specific information about each child. Spend time talking to the kids and getting to know them personally but more importantly, learn “how they think.” What are their Individual Education Plans (IEP’s)? What cultures are represented in the classroom? How should they be grouped? Who are the highest-level performing students and the lowest-level? Would it be beneficial to pair up higher level with lower level students for an activity? Some cultures have differences of which we are not aware.  

            Lessons should be research-based. “What methods are best suited to the students?” A variety of teaching strategies and tools should be utilized—direct instruction, graphic organizers, whiteboards, choral responses, Think-Pair-Share opportunities, and immediate feedback are very useful.  

Lastly, there is a need to examine the data. “How did it go? How do I know?” Through reflection, teachers can discover which methods worked, which ones need to be tossed or modified, and which students were more engaged and successful. One fifth grade teacher used a “windshield” analogy. The first level was “clear as glass; the second level had bugs; the third level was covered with mud.” Stations were set up in the classroom where students could refer to each station for help.

            Differentiation is a goal-directed approach to learning. It relies on a positive environment with choices, and requires change. With economic constraints in schools and a dynamic population of technologically dependent students, administrators and teachers are faced with an ever increasing challenge of meeting the needs of today’s students. It is truly an educational revolution. By examining goals and reflecting on practices, teachers can change with the demands of this society.

Data Supports NCLB and Research-Based Instruction

            In support of NCLB’s efforts to reform the education arena, The U.S. Department of Education released a Strategic Plan For Fiscal Years 2007-12 to outline their “high expectations for America’s schools and students, and for ourselves. “We [Dept. of Ed.] are committed to giving our students the skills they need to succeed in a highly competitive global economy” (US Department of Education, 2007).

            The plan focuses on three areas: (1) student achievement and rewards for qualified teachers, (2) more rigorous coursework, and (3) improvement of “access, affordability, and accountability of universities” (US Department of Education, 2007). Lastly, the goals include raising the expectations within the Department, as well. In the introductory letter of the plan, Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings writes,

“No Child Left Behind (NCLB) provides a strong foundation on which to build these positive results. Data show that the law is working to improve student achievement and close the nation’s achievement gap. We must now work together to reauthorize and strengthen the law. Children who were in grade three when the law was passed will soon be entering high school. They deserve to be taught to high standards by qualified teachers in schools that are held accountable for results” (US Dept. of Education, 2007).

As a result of the NCLB Act, schools across the nation outlined standards, collected data, and created a more rigorous curriculum. As each year the bar is raised for percentages of students to meet “proficiency” ratings for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the data is used to make improvements in specific areas and compare schools to each other, to their respective counties, and to the state as a whole. For example, in Mapping Maryland’s Educational Progress 2008, the results are charted in the following core principles:

o       High Standards

o       Annual Assessments

o       Accountability for Results

o       Highly Qualified Teachers in Every Classroom

o       Information and Options for Parents

o       All Children on Grade level by 2014 (US Department of Education, 2007).

Maryland schools enrolled 860,000 students in 2007. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data, 2005-06 School Year, 31.6% were low-income (FARMS), 3.7% were Limited English Proficient (ELL), and 12.8 % were students with disabilities (SWD).  Out of 1,430 students across the state, 1050 (77.2%) made AYP. Ninety-six schools were in “needs improvement” status, while 53 are in the process of being “restructured,” according to the Consolidated State Performance Report, 2006-07 and NCES CCD, 2005-06.

            In Maryland schools, highly qualified teachers taught in 94.8% of classrooms in low poverty elementary schools and 66% of the classrooms in high poverty elementary schools. In low-poverty high schools, 89.1% of the classrooms were taught by highly qualified teachers, with 63.4% in high poverty high schools. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, achievement trends in grades four through eight have increased from 2002-2007. Maryland’s high school graduation rate was 85.4% in 2006; the freshman graduation rate was 85.4%. Across the nation, the rate was 75%, demonstrating a higher graduation rate in Maryland compared to the rest of the nation.

            Washington County, Maryland reports high ratings. Very active in its attempts to meet the requirements of the NCLB, the county provides ample opportunities and incentives for professional development, including a competitive salary scale and salary ladder for salary increases. The county meets to share best practices and scores and to celebrate school and individual successes. The Maryland Report Card, Boonsboro Middle, Washington County 2007 Performance Report demonstrates that all students of Boonsboro Middle School met AYP in reading, math, and attendance. In 2007, 96.5% met AYP compared to 95.1% in the county, and 94.4% in the state. For 2006, the school’s attendance rates were 96.7% in the school, 96% in the county, and 93.9% in the state, showing improvement for the county and the school.

            The county’s graduation rate for 2007 was 90.09%, while for the state, it was 85.24%. The graduation statistics for 2006 were 90.48% for the county compared to 85.43% for the state, again an improvement for the county. The attendance and graduation rates prove AYP for 2007.

            As for teachers, Washington County takes pride in meeting another goal of the NCLB. In 2006, 33.1% of the teachers held Standard Professional Certificates at the state level, with 34.2% at the county level and 28.9 % at Boonsboro Middle School (BMS). In 2007, the numbers increased. 32.6% held Standard Professional Certificates at the state level, 33.5% at the county level, and 34.2% at BMS, demonstrating a marked increase. In 2006, the certificates are described as follows: state (45%), county (51.1%), BMS (55.3%). In 2007, state (46.8%), county (49.1%), and BMS (50%), demonstrating another achievement of the goals outlined in the US Department of Education’s Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Years 2007-12.

            Washington County is stressing the importance of increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap between the various subgroups within its boundaries. With focus on Students with Disabilities (SWD), Economically Disadvantaged students (ED) English Language Learners (ELL), and minority groups’ scores, efforts are made throughout the district to create and implement plans to reach these students. Departments collaborate within schools and schools meet across the county to discuss the results. At Boonsboro Middle School, teachers are set up in teams. These teams meet on a daily basis to discuss individual students and strategies to increase the chances of being successful. Student Achievement Specialists meet with their respective departments monthly to share strategies and devise plans to help students meet proficiency on benchmarks and state tests. Plans of action are developed through Classroom-Focused Intervention Plans (CFIP). These plans target specific students who are noted as “safe harbor”—students who are at a crux between scoring “basic” and scoring “proficient.” They are the most likely students to pass the next Maryland State Assessment (MSA) if interventions are put in place. This focus moves students from “basic” (low-performing) lists. They are removed from intervention classes according to these meetings. It will be interesting to note their progress from that point forward.

How the Political Process has Changed Schools

            Is it possible that the nation is doing a disservice to the students who maintain the highest scores? With focus on individual schools reaching AYP, it seems they are neglecting the “students at the top.” Interventions are in place; teachers are staying after school working with students and placing more one-on-one attention on struggling students to make sure they pass the state tests.

            Meanwhile, the students at the top of the nations’ scores are not making as much progress. They are still maintaining the highest scores but they are not making the achievement gains in the same growing percentages. “Tom Loveless, from the Brookings Institute, analyzes results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and concludes that the nation’s top pupils have ‘languished’ academically while the lowest performing youngsters have gained dramatically”....The question is, “Can we be equal and excellent too?” (Fordham Institute, 2007).

            When teachers were interviewed, most reported that they spend more time with under-achieving students than higher-achieving ones in an effort to meet whatever accountability factors affect them. Unfortunately, this is one of the pitfalls of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Teachers do believe that “all students deserve equal attention.” However, upon analysis of the data (Fordham Institute, 2007), it demonstrates growth of 3% in high achieving students and 16% in targeted students for 2007. The idea of offering incentives to high achieving students is one that will always be met with approval. Washington County, Maryland is once again meeting the demands of this area of importance by instituting “magnet schools” in their district. Boonsboro is a school district that attracts students with language abilities and interests while E. Russell Hicks Middle School and Emma K. Doub Elementary School maintain a technology focus. These are merit level programs for which parents only need to apply. North Hagerstown High School and its feeder schools are International Baccalaureate Schools, where students will have better chances of entering colleges of their choosing. Several students from the area have won the 2009 National Merit Scholarship (Washington County Public Schools, 2008).

While some may consider it a disservice to spend so much time and attention on low-performing students throughout the school year, the rewards of offering incentives to a motivated segment of the population will benefit them. It is up to the teachers to make these opportunities known. They should be posted and opportunities for growth in the required areas should be offered. More challenging activities should be implemented to encourage participation in all areas and to all groups.

References

Fordham Institute (2007). “In a Nutshell: High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB.” Retrieved November 13, 2008 from http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=732&id=92 

Mapping maryland’s educational progress, 2008.

Maryland state department of education. “Maryland report card.”

Rock, M. L., M. Gregg, E. Ellis, and R. Gable. “Reach: a framework for differentiating classroom instruction” (Report). Preventing school failure. 52.2 (Wntr 2008) p. 31 (17).

US Department of Education. “Strategic plan for fiscal years 2007-12.” Released May 24, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2008.