Differentiation: shattering the glass ceiling and stepping up to the challenge

Over the last few years, what we see and what we expect to see in the classroom has massively changed. We’ve gone from super-pacey, four-part, not-too-much-teacher-talkey lessons, to progress for the long haul, repeated learning and in-depth modelling. This is much more a shift in mentality than it is just methodology and thankfully, the same can be said for differentiation. But it is still something so easy to get wrong!

Despite all the controversy that comes with differentiation, with high challenge and upward scaffolding, the glass ceilings once put in place with it, can still be shattered for the wide range of students our classrooms hold. While the transformation of what we know as differentiation is in no way complete, we can still adapt during its transition to something better - it is just a case of reassessing how we are differentiating and why.

The past life of differentiation

Previously, the suggestions and perhaps expectations of differentiation were planning using “All, most, some” (an ideology I have always found divisive and condescending), or three tasks for these three groups  with pictures and sentence starters for the lower attainers that would in some way relate to the same learning objectives as their peers. The problem, however, was that with a lot of these strategies, students weren’t able to produce anywhere near the same quality of work without them; the extra support just became a crutch students expected, but would end up stumbling without in exams or in the context of real life. Plus, it didn’t actually help them to access the more challenging work even with extra support, widening that attainment gap even further. Not to mention the knocks, being given those sheets (and essentially their teacher’s low expectations of them), would have on their confidence and motivation. And with all this said, the other end of the pendulum wasn’t much better. How would giving more work to students because they were deemed “more able'' motivate them to push themselves further? Add-on stretch/extension/challenge - whatever you want to call them - tasks just meant many of the students they were aimed at, took their sweet time on the main task to avoid breaking an academic sweat, limiting their progress as well.

In today’s climate, many are in the “ditch differentiation”, or as I read today, “burn it to the ground” camp, but practically speaking, you can’t just get rid and never look back; the students will still need support as well as pushing, and even the most progressive schools will expect you to provide them. However, their use doesn’t have to be so restrictive and patronising nor burdensome for either the teacher or the students.

Stepping Stones

When my department moved from partially set classes to fully mixed, we reassessed our approach to both differentiation and challenge. Stepping Stones is a strategy that works well in English, in the setting I teach in - I don’t claim it to be the magic answer to the whole problem, but it does work well for me. The biggest reason for this is, because it is in no way limiting, it no longer splits what the class is doing: it’s just a means for everyone to reach the same goal without putting low expectations on anyone. And the teacher isn’t expected to do cartwheels in the preparation of or delivery of the lesson - they're just expected to give it careful consideration.

The idea behind Stepping Stones is to create a high level of challenge in classes as a whole but with support in place to help everyone reach that challenge if they’re not able to get there themselves. Whether they do or don’t is ok, but it’s still a step in the right direction and it doesn’t cap their progress or build overreliance on frames/sentence starters. Neither the support nor the challenge is a “bolt-on” task - the main task is the challenge and everyone is in charge of their own learning. All the while the teacher isn’t photocopying a different sheet for each task and ensuring all of these individual plates of learning are simultaneously kept spinning.

So in “old money” differentiation, a task might look like: 

Main task: why did the writer use this title?

Support: what does the title make you think of?

Challenge: what was the writer trying to evoke in the reader with this title and how does it link with the genre?

Here is what it would look like with Stepping Stones:

First, the main task (in black) is explained and students are then told, that if they're not quite sure how to get there, to look to the Stepping Stone to help them. With Stepping Stones, you are essentially starting off with the challenge task and using the support to reach it. By cutting out the middleman, we now have a scenario where there is no longer the option for students to coast along, whatever their potential may be. The entire class (set or mixed) has the highest expectations set upon them and there is no shame or limit in doing only the stepping stone; starting at the stepping stone and then moving upwards (this time or next); or simply reading the stepping stone to get some guidance on how to move upwards. What’s more, the main task has enough challenge and scope that there isn’t the “I’ve finished. There’s nothing else to do” after 2 minutes. The task is open enough, that with a bit of training, you can explore the hows and the why’s independently, even when you have finished it at its most basic level.

The above is for a class I know can handle the language (after much drilling) and obviously with other SEND/EAL factors, this may look very different in accordance to the skills students in your class may have or the obstacles they may face - but that is just the key - knowing what the students in your class are able to do and how far they are able to go.

Here is another example for a mixed Year 9 class:

Teaching and differentiating this way takes (or at least it took me) a completely different mindset. Despite this being an established part of my teaching now, I still find myself starting at a main task which I inevitably decide isn’t challenging enough so I then create an “old money” challenge for it and switch it round (just as was the case for the lesson above). But the key here is the link between the two - can your stepping stone act as just that: a stepping stone from your support to your challenge for those who struggle the most to those who excel the furthest? Does it in any way condescend them, tell them they have reached the most they are capable of or stop their line of progress? And while students do work at different speeds, have you provided a task with enough to build real skills on and enough to widen the scope of students’ knowledge?

Here is an example fora mixed Year  8: (They are not expected to do both the black and green tasks.)

Harder work doesn’t necessarily have to mean more work and placing the choice in the students’ hands is very empowering. I often find that students across the range of attainment levels will be on either task. There is no shame in needing a little more help and there is no expectation of where you should stop. It is refreshing to see a target 8 student using the stepping stone to really get a grasp of what the task above is actually asking them to do, or seeing students with a target of 3 excelling and reaching the higher level tasks - their progress is in their own hands and that is the way it should be. The fact that the more challenging task is the main focus instead of an added extra means all my students know I have the highest expectations of them and also for them.

My disclaimer: I completely recognise that every subject is different as are different teachers' styles - I can only speak of what I think is effective and at this particular moment, this, is for me and my students. It is in no means a judgement or dictation of how others should teach - just an idea and a llittle insight into my classroom.