Recently I’ve run across quite a few articles that seem to give opposing viewpoints about the direction schools should be going in order to improve. I would like to hear your thoughts on some of these topics.
Big Think recently posted an article called, “IEPS Shouldn’t Be Just About Special Ed.” The article, by Chris Dawson, advocates the use of technology to differentiate instruction for all students. The claim is, and to a certain extent it’s true, that only Special Education students have legal documents that specify the type of instruction they should receive. However, all students should have this right, instead of being lumped into large groups who receive standardized lessons which are often directed towards “the middle.”
As a teacher of gifted students, I hear this observation quite a bit from parents and students. While I certainly understand the difficulties with the current structure of most schools to make these types of accommodations, technology can definitely get us closer to customizing instruction. We just need to be careful of the danger of automatizing learning too much. That is why I am a huge advocate of “Genius Hour” and projects like our district’s pilot summer program. I also support Universal Design for Learning as a means for achieving this goal of creating a learning environment that supports and benefits all types of learners.
Interestingly, I found a comment on Dawson’s article that showed a different perspective. “The problem with this notion is that life out of schools doesn’t accomodate to us. We accomodate to it. We also risk limiting kids to the things they are already good at. That they already like. Perhaps the Dawson family would enjoy a different brand of pizza on Friday night, or perhaps something altogether different than pizza.”
So, I wonder. What do you think? Does designing instruction so that it will raise the bar for every student based on his or her needs and abilities do them a disservice in the “real world?” All thoughtful comments are appreciated!