I am continually amazed at the passivity of certain learners. Today I asked the group to use cursive handwriting to copy some words off of a spelling list. I gave them fine-point markers and a list that I copied with the copy machine so that they would have a model to work from. The task for them was to use the markers to trace the words, and then pencils to rewrite them. After that was finished they were supposed to use the portable keyboards, Alphasmarts, to write a paragraph that included several of the words. The words were semantically related, easy to use for this assignment: healthy, vitamins, product, etc. I went around watching the group. A few of my least skillful readers were busily writing the words in cursive with the markers when I checked to see if they were making meaning of the task. What word are you writing? I asked. Blank stares. After this many years in the classroom, I should not be surprised by this. But I feel astonishment at the willingness of people who do not take responsibility for, or even bother to try, finding out what they need to know to make sense of what they are doing. These kids were content to simply “color” the words. Shortcuts. Clearly, my definition of the task was different from theirs. This happens more than we like to think.

Why does this happen? Part of the reason is that the curriculum dictates what material students in a given grade level are to learn. Of course, teachers who are on the ball know that one size does not fit all. But our ability to differentiate instruction to a vast range of abilities is limited. The solution for the word-colorers today was that they should have been given easier words this week. But I didn’t forsee this need because I don’t have time to plan for every single student. The problem works the other way, too, but is not as evident. There are plenty of kids for whom the work may be too easy. It’s harder to determine who those kids are, though. So a lot of really talented kids are simply maintained while we struggle to Leave No Child Behind.

What is the answer? We - teachers - discuss this all the time. As if it would actually make a difference. Next to student discipline, it may be the biggest challenge we face. I think that we could do a lot more for kids by having them grouped for instruction according to what they know, as opposed to how old they are. We have two separate organizational schemes working at once, and not in concert. There is the content-scheme which calls for presentation of the same content to each group of kids. And we have the socialization-scheme which recognizes that children at given ages share certain awarenesses. The piece that is not recognized institutionally, though, is that children at given ages do not necessarily share the same knowledge. So it’s apples and oranges, or peanuts and popsicles, or whatever combinations of things that don’t belong together that you care to name. We group the kids together because they understand each other and we have them listen to a teacher who asks them to do things whether they are ready to understand them, or not.

Teachers are expected to recognize each student’s strengths and limitations and to adjust the presentation of the lesson so that each student’s needs are met. We can do the first part - the recognition piece. But the adjustments are problematic given the enormity of the need. Problem-centered learning attempts to address this condition by allowing students to make choices as to how they will approach a given learning objective. This only works, though, when kids have the background to understand how to organize the demands of a task and manage their time, seeking input when they reach an obstacle. The kids who want to simply fly on autopilot, like my word-colorers, don’t operate that way. They expect the teacher to tell them what to do every step of the way, and to make them do it. Differentiated instruction is a challenge for all participants, and it requires a high level of cooperation within the group. Without active participation from everyone, there needs to be a whole lot more of me, or a whole lot fewer of them.