If you are a principal or instructional leader and want your faculty to effectively differentiate instruction, then you should serve as a model by differentiating support for them as adult learners.
This idea was one of the key messages at an all-day preconference session I attended during Learning Forward’s recent 2015 Annual Conference in Washington DC.
The session, titled “Testing the Soil for Progress: Assessing and Evaluating Differentiation and Other Change Initiatives,” was facilitated by Carol Ann Tomlinson, professor and chair of Education Leadership, Foundations and Policy at the University of Virginia, and educational coach and consultant Mike Murphy. Tomlinson and Murphy are co-authors of the new ASCD book Leading for Differentiation: Growing Teachers Who Grow Kids.
What is Differentiation?
To ensure that everyone was on the same page, Tomlinson began by providing a definition of differentiation. Interestingly, she prefers a definition recently developed by one of her graduate students: “A sequence of common sense decisions made by teachers with a student-first orientation.” (Adam Hoppe)
She painted a picture of a classroom where teachers constantly assess at which level their students currently are and provide support through individual or small group instruction to address those specific needs.
What Do Teachers Need?
To effectively differentiate instruction, teachers first need to see it in process. One of the best ways to do that is for principals and other instructional leaders in the school and district to model differentiation instruction in their support of specific teacher needs.
To effectively differentiate instruction on an ongoing basis, teachers should have:
(1) A clear framework of where they are heading.
(2) Time to learn and to implement, constantly practicing and refining;
(3) An individual growth plan jointly developed by the principal and teacher; and
(4) Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues.
Tomlinson stressed that principals can’t expect all of these actions to be dealt with at the same time. Principals and other instructional leaders should help teachers progress based on their individual needs while, at the same time, reminding them of the critical and interdependent nature of each of these actions.
Where to Begin
Tomlinson, who I consider to be the foremost expert on differentiation, suggested that schools begin first by providing differentiated support to individual teachers so they can effectively differentiate instruction for their students. Noting that “lots of formative assessment in terms of teacher growth is needed before we expect student learning to change,” Tomlinson reminded us that “lots of people want to change and do better, but they don’t know what ‘better’ looks like, and how to get there.”
“There is nobody good enough, “she said. “Everyone can do more and learn more.”
And, she reminded us that teachers don’t change unless the change process takes place in their classroom, usually with someone working with them.
The Five Pillars of Differentiation
Tomlinson and Murphy introduced what they consider the five essential elements of effective differentiation, from both the student and teacher point of view. Here is the student perspective:
Murphy then helped us see how principals and other instructional leaders could use these five pillars to support faculty growth.
Regarding Pillar 1, leaders should create an environment where everyone—including teachers—is expected to learn and get better should be supported by a culture where collaboration is the norm is key.
Pillar 2, when applied to teachers, helps them understand the end-goal and what is expected of them.
With Pillar 3, ongoing checks for understanding are as critical for teachers as for students, as is also true for Pillar 4, in which differentiated support is provided based on that teacher’s needs.
And, finally, Pillar 5 is in place when teachers, having mastered the basics of differentiation, continue to learn together in communities of practice.
What Do Leaders Need to Support Teacher Differentiation?
In order to support teachers in this way, Murphy and Tomlinson (right) suggest that principals become “knowledgeable enough” about the five pillars to pursue them effectively. They also need to take a long view of this work. Change won’t happen overnight and understanding the need for staying the course while monitoring progress is critical.
The long-term view is not often adopted in our “quick remedy world,” but Tomlinson and Murphy both noted that major change takes 3-5 years at a minimum—and more often more time than that—to show results. Throughout the presentation, they reminded us that If we limit our assessment of progress to measurable impacts on students, then we are not painting an accurate picture of what is happening. The impacts on teachers are also critical.
Challenges Associated with Major Initiatives
A second theme of the day was the importance of measuring progress of any adopted initiative by using Tom Guskey’s Five Levels of Evaluation:
Level One: Participants’ Reaction
Level Two: Participants’ Learning
Level Three: Organizational Support and Changes
Level Four: Participant’s Application of What is Learned
Level Five: Student Growth and Outcomes
The levels were familiar to me, but certainly worth the review. And, I spent the most time considering Level Three, which prompts the following questions:
- Has the school altered its schedule to provide time for, first, learning about the initiative and, later, for fine-tuning and focusing on areas of need?
- Has the climate become one of risk-taking?
- Are implementation issues being addressed by changes in resources, time, or schedule?
Change of any sort is complicated, and providing differentiation—to students or adults—can be challenging. And, as Tomlinson noted, when things get complicated, the initiative is often abandoned or watered down.
In fact, Tomlinson and Murphy noted, one of three things usually happens with a new initiative when the going gets rough:
- A single focus on the immediate work rather than supporting it long-term
- No regular communication of progress so motivation stops or slows
- One-dimensional evaluation of results in term of student achievement only
Implementation Dip Meets Implementation Bridge
When adopting any new initiative, be it differentiation or something else, those involved will face what Michael Fullan calls an implementation dip (this link downloads excerpts from Fullan’s book Leading in a Culture of Change, including an explanation of the implementation dip).
Put simply, an implementation dip occurs in the early stages of a new initiative as teachers or students are working to implement it. Things start getting tough, misunderstandings are surfaced, and some abandon the initiative or water it down. As a result, it is accompanied by a drop in performance. (This link will take you to a tool developed by Learning Forward to explain and address the implementation gap.)
To tackle the implementation gap, Tomlinson and Murphy drew heavily on the work of Shirley Hord and Gene Hall and their Implementation Bridge analogy, pointing to Hord’s admonition that:
“Schools don’t change; the people in the school need to change.”
The implementation bridge, which is explained here, helps educators move from frustration and confusion to effective implementation.
There are many more nuggets of wisdom that I gained from the day I spent learning with Tomlinson and Murphy. They’ll appear in the second part of my report later this week.
