A Twist on Differentiated Instruction: a change will do you good

Best Practices in Instructional Leadership (May 2007)

Randall Pederson, principal
RLCC Elementary School, Plummer

"Thought you were singing your heart out to me, Your lips were singing and now I see. I said a change, would do you good." ~Sheryl Crow

I’m not sure if there are Sheryl Crow fans out there reading this, but if so, you’ll hum that tune in your head and come to an understanding of my mindset in April 2005. I had spent the majority of my first year in a new district – at a school that had not made AYP the year prior, watching and learning, observing and assimilating, and had become convinced that we could not continue to do business the same way we had for the past “however” many years. A change would do us good….

I’m not sure what I can add to anyone’s constructivist journey with the concept of change. What I can share is this: I knew that it was time to take action; the “change” might meet resistance; and it probably wouldn’t be classified as being “textbook.” Regardless, I was convinced of what needed to take place.

This personal journey began as a result of a series of debates with my windshield on my drive home after a long day at school. Now, I particularly enjoy these debates as I haven’t met my match in a windshield: and don’t expect to anytime soon. The topic of these debates was differentiated instruction. I had this sinking feeling that we were about to embark upon a change process just for change’s sake. And it bugged me!

The latest buzzword in education, differentiated instruction, had created quite a stir: the topic of the year. It was not difficult to find professional development nearby if one wanted to attend. I sat in on many of these sessions and meetings. I read the research. Superintendents were even talking about it!

I had my doubts, a pipedream in my mind, not realistic. Differentiated instruction would be one more thing to present to the staff, to convince them to get on board with, only then to have it fall into the abyss of prior “change.” At one point, I actually was able to get a presenter to be truthful enough to share with me after the meeting. He said that for a staff to become experts in differentiated instruction, it would take five - eight years (provided that the district had eight-10 staff days per year to devote to the process) and a lot of money (to bring in the professionals). That would not be an option for RLCC Elementary.

Thus my quandary during these windshield debates. I was convinced that we needed to meet students where they were at instructionally, but how? What if we could put together a schedule where a teacher could focus a majority of their day on one discipline? What if that teacher became an expert in one set of standards? One set of test specifications? What if we could “differentiate” the instruction in terms real to us?

I remember the day my debates moved from my windshield to reality. My superintendent had come into my office and wondered aloud if we should send some staff (and myself) to a two-day , $180.00 per person seminar on differentiated instruction. I said, “no.” My response caught him by surprise. He sat down and I began to share my vision for our school. When I was finished, he asked a few questions and said, “Run with it.”

The events described above took place as we were in the process of a series of public meetings to present a re-writing of our academic pair-and-share agreement with our neighbors in the Oklee district. In my first year at RLCC, my building consisted of K-4 students from the Plummer district and 5-8 students from both the Oklee and Plummer districts. Oklee had their K-4 students from their district and the 9-12 students from both the Oklee and Plummer districts.

To have our K-4 staff and students in separate buildings made no sense to me, especially in light of the fact that we had already combined our 5-8 and 9-12. You know how you sometimes have to talk things into existence? Over the course of the next three months, I preached to the choir enough that both school boards took the idea public.

After multiple community meetings, enough positive response came from parents that both boards passed resolutions to move ahead and have the Plummer district host the K-6 elementary building (RLCC Elementary) and the Oklee district host the 7-12 high school building. (RLCC High School) Under the new agreement, the districts were truly sharing all students, and some staff.

Wouldn’t this be enough in regards to change? Certainly I would be busy with the administrative process of combining the two elementary schools; the physical inventory, redesigning the room and grade alignments, bus routes, etc. Certainly the staff would be as busy preparing for the new school year, some preparing for a different grade level in a different building in a different community!

In the era of open enrollment and parent choice, I knew we had to do something different to make our mark. And so the journey began. At the first of multiple meetings with my new staff, I began to share in regards to how our K-2 set-up would remain traditional, and would remain with a two-section framework to keep classroom student numbers under 20. Then I shared my vision where we would venture from conventional wisdom. It was then that we would shift and begin to deliver curriculum in a different way than we had in the past. Over the course of the next several weeks, I became part car-salesman and part-dictator.

I need to first share a couple of details for a better understanding of where we were at. Incoming for the next school year, we had one section of 3rd grade, two sections of 4th grade, one section of 5th grade and two sections of 6th grade. The number of students in grades 3-4 and 5-6 was such that we could create three blocks of instructional time, with one teacher focusing on math instruction, one reading instruction, and the other science instruction. Each grade band (3-4 and 5-6) would have an instructor in each of the three disciplines that we take MCA-II tests in once April rolls around. We will become a multi-aged, multi-graded, instructionally leveled (MMI? for those who need acronyms), elementary school in grades 3-6.

We looked at our NWEA, MCA and teacher data and created three instructional levels in each grade band. Students would start in their home room to begin the day, and then they would rotate through reading, math, and science by instructional level. Returning to their homeroom, the students would receive their music, art, physical education, spelling, social studies, etc. from their homeroom teacher. By meeting students at their instructional levels, in rooms with teachers as experts of a particular curriculum, standards, and test specifications, we were certain we could positively affect student achievement.

Oh my, did the questions begin from my staff.

Were we labeling students? Maybe, I responded, but what’s more important? Meeting students at their need and teaching them about how populations are diverse in their experiences and abilities? Or hanging a roomful of 25-30 students out to dry by tossing curriculum out to the middle?

Won’t Johnny and Sally be “damaged” emotionally? On the contrary, I replied. A new group of students will emerge at the entry and middle instructional levels. They will have opportunities to develop leadership skills and no longer will they be bound by the “unwritten rules” of days gone by.

Do students get locked into a track? No, we tend to have many students “graduate” at the end of the first quarter and at semester time and move up an instructional level. What do we do? We celebrate!! And by the way, isn’t that how many courses in high school are geared already? Who are we kidding?

How will 3rd and 4th grade students, starting at the lowest instructional level, move through the system and ever “get” 6th grade standards? They won’t “get” them all….but were they ever going to “get” them anyway? While we did not possess data to prove this, there was enough research in my mind to move forward. And wasn’t that the whole premise of differentiated instruction? Now we had a manner in which we could have all students experience success.

Won’t parents get upset, and become competitive in nature, once they find out where their child is placed? I shared with the staff and admitted that I was most perplexed at the answer to this question. I had talked with many parents and had many heads nod in agreement but once things got going? What a pleasant surprise we experienced! As you know, most calls from parents tend to have single-minded issues as motive, and usually are the most uplifting? But instead of complaints, we began to receive calls of “thanks.” Each parent felt that the needs of their children were being met!

So, we embraced for our journey as workshop days commenced late that August of 2005. There was much to do. Then, to add to the frenzy, a “small” wrinkle was added as we found out we were recipients of a Comprehensive School Reform grant! $100,000 per year for three years was the total awarded. We researched from the list of providers from the Department of Education and chose Modern Red SchoolHouse. They came highly recommended, especially from a few neighboring districts who were completing their three year plan. Modern Red had proven to be quite flexible and didn’t present a “canned” package. They delivered researched-based reform that was tailored to a district’s need and set-up.

Let’s just say Modern Red was a little surprised with our new venture into instructional levels. Some of their present clients were dabbling in some grouping and many were “saying” they were engaged in differentiated instruction, but none to the extent of which was our commitment. (In fact, it was admitted to me again as to how difficult true differentiation was for a district to obtain, and maintain!)

Our two goals we set with Modern Red were for them to assist us in embedding the standards and test specifications in reading, math, and science in accordance with the MCA-II’s, and, to help us set a new framework for school governance. Over the school year, we spent 20 total days in professional development in those two areas. They were impressed with the “work ethic” that all of us possess in Minnesota. We accomplished in one year what most all of their clients didn’t accomplish in three!

Enough about the CSR grant. We feel fortunate that we were able to obtain that. It assisted us greatly and hastened the effectiveness of our instructional levels. Teachers did become experts in one set of standards and test specifications and they had them completely embedded into their curriculum. They were able to drill down and focus on students and their instructional need. They felt more confident in what they were doing.

Was it all rosy with no bumps and bruises? Hardly, we have many issues to work through and fine-tune. But, proof is in the pudding and we have had results. More students met their individual growth score on their NWEA tests than ever before. We found out in November 2006 that we were a five-star school in reading and just missed by the narrowest of margins of being a four-star school in math.

Our effort has been additionally confirmed in a major study from the Star Tribune in August of 2006. This study researched a dozen or so school districts in Minnesota that were achieving positive student growth against all odds. A majority of the indicators of success in this article went hand-in-hand with our effort. I highlighted the article and the indicators in my opening meeting with the staff to remind them that we were on the right track. (We didn’t have school report card at that time)

I also read some of the work from Marzano as a reminder to them that they as teachers were the number one indicator in regards to having a positive effect on student achievement. (Marzano, Results Now, 2006). Look at the position they had put themselves in with their dedication and preparation from the year prior! In addition, I quoted them from a well done study that reports impressive effects on pupils’ achievement in reading and mathematics where schools have adopted instructional program coherence. (Newman, Smith, Allensworth, and Byrk, 2001) Instructional program coherence was defined as a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning climate: wasn’t that us I asked?

Plenty of change for one year, no? I guess, when you look back on it. Would it have happened without firm and committed leadership? Probably not. I’m not here to blow my own horn, but to share my journey where I finally quit using the word “but” and got off my own! Where I put on blinders to the obstacles and finally did something worthwhile besides managing and making the team “feel” good!!

What I can share is that if you feel something will be good for your particular district, and it is research-based and doable, then go for it! Sometimes as principals, I think we forget we aren’t in “elected” positions. We spend so much time worrying about consensus (amongst the staff), perception (from our patrons), and in all the reasons we can’t do something, that we do succumb to paralysis. I’m here to say that hey, if it’s good for kids, research-based, backed by your data, then……..a change will do you good!