Differentiation creates a problem: if we are working to meet every student’s needs at an appropriate level of challenge, and some students learn more quickly and thoroughly than others, some students will learn more than others.

If that is the case, when we give a test at the end of a unit, what should be tested?  If it is the whole amount of material that the fastest students learned, then we are insisting that the students who don’t learn as quickly be penalized with lower grades.  In other words, we continue to reinforce the bell curve. Surely that is not acceptable.

If, on the other hand, we test only what the slower students learn, we run the risk of “dumbing down” the course, or, worse, undermining the motivation of the faster students to push themselves at the appropriate level of challenge.  Why would they work harder if they are going to get an “A” in any case?

One solution to this dilemma is to remove the stipulation that every student achieve the same level of mastery over the same curriculum in order to be successful.  If every student is expected to master the
“essential learning goals” — defined as the content which is considered non-negotiable in its importance  —  then it is possible to create other work that is “above and beyond” — more challenging than the essential learning goals  — for students who are ready for such enrichment activities.  In other words, through differentiation, it’s possible to have every student achieve mastery over essential content and simultaneously have students who are capable of being challenged at a level that is appropriate to them.

“Above and beyond” work, which is by definition enrichment, does not have to be graded differently than essential work.  In some circumstances, it may be useful to have students who take on this work to be assessed to help guide the learning process, but no one should ever be penalized for choosing to do this work.  The issue of assessing above and beyond work is discussed further in the chapter “Making Tests Meaningful.”  

If we define and assess the essential learning goals this way, we are simply making the full range of our curriculum something that every student is exposed to (as is necessary in a true liberal arts education), but not required to master.  We then let those students who are able to pursue their learning into greater depth do so. As for the question of why successful students would dive deeper and accept the challenge of above and beyond work, that is a function of establishing the appropriate classroom culture.

This approach requires a fundamental shift from much of what is seen in traditional classrooms.

We must choose between having a uniform standard for mastery that applies to every student and a system that allows every student to be legitimately successful.  If we base our actions on the true purpose of school, rather than the Curriculum Transfer Model, the choice is easy.