Why MUST teachers continue to learn how to differentiate instruction — assessing students individually prior to planning what the school or class offers the student? I am writing this monograph in an attempt to crystallize a somewhat alternative philosophy that is (finally*) making its way into public education.

Clearly stated, education needs more accurately to address our current societal belief that "every person is unique and important." I suggest that perhaps education (school) has had a problem with this because there is no legitimate justification to do so. Without "proof" of validity it is difficult, if not impossible, to create sturdy and progressive changes based on what appear to be whimsical beliefs. The need and justification for differentiating instruction (individualizing or personalizing teaching and content in the classroom) is urgent - especially in light of the fact that now we have a 28% failure to complete rate in US schools AND over one half million students are (physically) dropping out of school each year. How many have already mentally dropped out is an impossible statisic, albeit significant. If schools are to be successful in this age they must wake up to the reality of the need for differentiation of instruction ("successful" is seen as helping students to be competent and adaptable not only in useful subject matter, but also in the processes critical to personally succeeding, e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, being healthy, money-making and handling it well once made, communicating, raising a family, work ethics, getting needs met healthfully, effective and efficient living, etc.). We need a solid theoretical foundation if we are to have the confidence necessary to persist in the practice of differentiating learning until it is a normal part of our classrooms across the nation.

All theories are meant to explain our concept of reality. I have put forth the following theory with my graduate students based on my research and observations over the last 25+ years as a professor of educational psychology. I offer that the demise of the Nazi party with Hitler's death and the fall of the Berlin Wall — that distinctive segment in time — will eventually be seen as When the World Philosophy Shifted, creating a whole new world which we are (finally) seeing in our schools and teacher training institutions (that are progressive).

The theory I propose is (temporarily) called "Selfness Shielding" and I will try to explain that. I believe that up to that point (in general, WWII) in history it was never questioned that "What is good for the country is what is good for the individual" — this, of course, justifying the official mistreatment of human beings because it was "good for the country". Of course, it was a perfect means by which the Hitler's and Stalin's, or any other tyrant, could maintain their enjoyable seats of power. Only for appearances sake did it have to do with the "good of the country".

This led to many misuses of what appeared to initially be a socially benevolent concept. Take a small village. A person notices something is killing fish in the river that the village depends on for food. Giving up of his own free time, and taking risks in the wild, Juba takes his canoe and, paddling upstream, beaching his canoe to plunge into the jungle, investigates on foot where tributaries dump into the river. He is bitten by flying and crawling insects, goes without food except for a few wild turnips, investigates 23 streams over a 12 mile stretch, and comes back exhausted to report that he discovered singlehandedly the cause of the poisoning and fixed it. Juba suffered for the good of the village. Of course, it did help him too, but mainly he was concerned for his neighbors and families in the village. He does not ask for a bonus ("Okay, you all owe me 6 fish now!") He takes a nap, has a good snack and goes back to farming the next morning, or hunting and gathering, or whatever they do in Juba's village.

Let's misapply this. Esake, a clever fellow in the same village who has risen to chief sees how much people appreciated Juba for his selfless sacrifices. Knowing that for people to admire this trait in Juba they have to possess the seeds of that in themselves. Esake decides to leverage this. He convinces village members that they should all unselfishly spend a day a week expanding and decorating his hut... and then bringing extra food and gifts to him. He knows they will eventually ask why. So, he cleverly says, "You know there are other villages in the area, and they do not respect us... and may even overtake us because they think we are wimps. UNLESS we can show we have a strong, prosperous Chief who the people really look up to... a chief who can organize and inspire his village people (Not the singing group) into a protective, defensive army of defense if necessary. If we have that sort of reputation they will be less likely to attack us. So, let's make this hut — which happens to be mine — a palace to show how important and powerful we are." Anyone that says, "Ummm, personally, Chief, I like my 7^th day spent on resting up and maybe catching up on my hut repairs" is quickly called unpatriotic. "You obviously do not care about the welfare of your family or friends! Look how selfish you are! Look how Juba gave up his rest and hut repairs to take care of our village and you — YOU just want to laze around while everyone else does your share of the work!" Juba might even be impacted by this. "Wow, I never thought of it like that! I AM special! If you guys are not like me, you are slackers! Hey, Esake, can I be a General in the Army we MUST form if we are to be safe?" And on it goes. It is self-perpetuating, down into history, as they say. It becomes a folkway — a tradition. They can even have Palace Day celebrations every year on the day the palace was completed for Esake, the great servant of the people. Palace Day eventually becomes a day to honor those who died in all the Village Wars that no one can remember happening before the first Palace Day.

How will this harmful wolf in sheep's clothing tradition ever get reversed? Well, it won't be easy or quick, that's for sure! It will take time and a fair amount of thinking, some researching, and courage on more than one person's part. It is probably safe to assume that any solitary person standing up and saying, "Our first palacial prez, Esake, who's portrait we have in all our schools, was a selfish bastard and we all got duped and have followed like sheep ever sense. I am taking that portrait down in my classroom. It is dishonest and sends a poor message to our students, who can rise to greatness without false heroes!" will not get positive press. People love a cause, and heroes, and admire the first to do anything. Edison was the first to... Alexander Bell was the first... Esake was the first... To reveal the truth is sacrilege. Penalties are high. It is easy to say to oneself, "What's the use? No one wants to hear this anyway. Besides, I have a wife and family and I don't want to bring shame upon them."

After that point in time (Still remember? The period between WWII and the fall of the Berlin Wall?) we began to see a shift in the orientation regarding our measure of what is "good practice" in education. We are now tentatively and shyly suggesting that "what is good for the individual is what is good for the country" — a 180 degree shift in values! Previously, we could easily justify "programming" (also called learning) our youth like robotic soldiers — seeing them as an expendable commodity. Each person was not seen as making that big of a difference, it was the country/military/society/ the group, that counted — counted to the point of making deliberate death-dealing justifiable. And not just justifying the extinguishing of people but also the death of the unique and independent spirit of each person. Condemning words like selfish, me-centered, egotistical, self-serving are used to keep people in line, and the word sacrificing because something to be sought after... even to the point of volunteering to die as the ultimate and admirable sacrifice. Of course, it depends on your country: Our "boys" dying in the Pacific during WWII were heroes. People flying planes full of explosives into our aircraft carriers were basically evil.

Now we are beginning to see the new (and many of us feel, more accurate and real) Truth and are struggling to wrap our minds around it and perhaps even live up to it. Live up to the fact that, indeed, EACH person is very valuable and has a contribution that is irreplaceable — that the chain is strong because the LINKS must be strong.

Imagine if each child KNEW this in their heart...not only about themselves, but realized it in their perception of others. What if each child KNEW in their hearts that they were unique for a reason, and so was every single other person? What if they knew that all of us are capable of being great, we just need to be truthful about removing things in the way?

It could change the world.

So, although it seems a long time, this little segment of history-making is struggling to clarify all the implications of each child being unique, not only in terms of identity, but also in terms of contributions to society/the world. Now we are trying to preserve the selfness of each child and still fulfill archaic curricula and beliefs. It is our professional wrestling match amongst ourselves. If valuing differentiation does not win out we will return to a pre-WWII mentality, losing six decades of progress.

But this is more than the classic struggle between the old and the new, security vs. change, familiar vs. strange. It is a struggle for survival of the Self. It is one of the most important battles in our lifetime.

We are making history right now that will be remembered forever. How will we be seen?

*In 1969, I worked on a federally-funded project at Florida State University to design and perform a trial run on educating undergraduate teacher educators how to run a totally differentiated instruction classroom. We did it. We proved it can be done. Imagine my surprise to return to teacher education at the master's level twenty years later in 1989 and to discover that all of my students who were classroom teachers were still teaching from the same book, same page, to all the students at the same time. I was floored. Sometimes, changing education is like changing the course of the Titanic with snowballs. Now, ANOTHER 20 years later I still have graduate students teaching like that. BUT, not as many! ;‑) Big Smile.

Home | About | Articles | Multimedia
Products | Services | Reviews | Contact
Follow Doc Zest on Twitter!

D^r. Zest® is a registered trademark of D^r. Anthony S. Dallmann-Jones.
All content of this web site is Copyright © Anthony Dallmann-Jones, 2009.
Unauthorized Duplication Prohibited.