Level Zero

Well, right away, I though of Kung Fu Panda when I read the expression "level zero." Po seems to be a good analogy of the development of the practice of differentiation from Baker to Goldman. We start with an idea. Po wanted very much to be a Kung Fu master while Baker pointed out that dull, average and bright (his words - yikes!) students should have different kinds of instruction. It's like he knew the problem and how it cold be solved, but it was a baby idea - in that it needed a lot of nourishment and growth before it even morphed into Betts' posits.

Mother

I know both my folks were taught at level zero. Mother by the nuns in an all-girl Catholic boarding school, all the way through high school and Dad in a rural elementary.

Not Mom's class, but representative

Mom remembers that the nuns were likely not trained in education. They were only there as part of "what the church does." This strikes me as odd considering the school was there on purpose, as a school, not as a church that happened to have classrooms in it. Sometimes, a Sister would pull a girl aside and conference with her. Mom doesn't know if this was individual instruction or not, but that is all she remembers of any kind of individual or differentiated instruction.


Dad's school was level zero-er. "There were no slow kids. You either passed or you didn't and if you didn't, too bad. You had the same opportunity as everyone else." He clearly remembers sitting in rows, listening and reciting and no one got any special treatment of any kind. Not even reading groups.

I asked my parents about their early education because I wanted to know if differentiation had gotten out from 1936 to 1949. Seems it hadn't, at least not out this direction.

Each article had a different feel to it. Baker is a stodgy old man telling me how and why he knows better than I. It was a lecture intended for other, stodgier old men. The language is older and at times, I had trouble following the train of thought. Baker almost grudgingly reveals that yes, in fact, children do learn differently and at different rates. I am reminded of the old magazines where women are shown dressed in high heels to do the laundry.

So, now we have an idea. An idea that students learn at different rates and in different ways. Betts seems to have this idea down pat, but she writes to us as if it were a brand new idea - and in a way, I suppose it still was. The article was well-thought out and still feels relevant to today's practices where Baker's ideas, especially in comparing bright students to future gods in knowledge and physical stature and dull students to 98 pound weaklings, make me drop my jaw at the stereotypes.

As we mentioned in class, though, it feels like a rough beginning - like Betts knows what she's saying (I assume a female here as I have no reference) and is trying to convince others, through detailed explanation, that her ideas should be seriously considered. Po in training...

The Goldman article is better. It more closely resembles what I'm familiar with both in language and practice. The writing is less like a commercial for differentiation and more like a model for success. I ask how far have we come, if 45 years later I can still relate to this writing? Shouldn't we either be well beyond what I can relate to or is this process in stagnation? Have we become as proficient as possible in differentiation? Are we still Po in training? What is the ultimate goal and how will we, as educators, achieve it?

I submit that my straining is not extensive but I feel these are important questions - I'm sure to have answered as I progress through this class!