What we're up against

What do Communism, the Iraq War and Whole Language have in common?
The answer is that these are examples of ideologies put into practice. In each instance, the proponents meant well: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", "reshaping the middle east through democracy, freedom and free-market capitalism" and "a holistic approach to reading instruction" that de-emphasized phonics.
An ideology can be described as :

3. A set or system of theories and beliefs held by an
individual or group, especially about sociopolitical goals
and methods to attain them; in common usage, ideology is
such a set of beliefs so strongly held by their adherents
as to cause them to ignore evidence against such beliefs,
and thus fall into error -- in this sense it is viewed as
a negative trait; contrasted to pragmatism, and distinct
from idealism.
PJC (The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48)

We all know what happened to Communism. The Iraq War is not going well and Whole Language was finally pitched from the classroom in the last decade in favor of more phonics based instruction. The reason these ideological examples failed is because they didn't take into account human nature, tribalism and neurology. The adherents of an ideology will always insist that their plan would have succeeded but it was never fully implemented ot never implemented correctly. You are not likely to hear that the ideology was flawed to begin with.
In 1996, E.D Hirsch wrote a controversial book called, "The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them". The author is a proponent of "core knowledge", an educational reform theory that states that curriculum should have core or common elements nationwide. Whatever your thoughts might be regarding core knowledge, Hirsch's biggest contribution through his book might be the history and analysis of the American educational system from the Enlightenment to the present day. Hirsch is unsympathetic about the ideology that has crept into Schools of Education. This ideology has an aversion to research and facts. It is more about wishful thinking of how things ought to be than how things actually are.
The differentiated classroom experience is one part of this ideology. The idea is that in a mixed environment, children learn as much from each other as from the teacher. The teacher does not teach the same curriculum to each child but takes advantage of many levels of instruction in the same room. The teacher tailors instruction to each individual child based on their strengths and needs.
Now, in theory, this sounds just hunky-dory. The teacher is the maestro of a big, beautiful chorus and is teaching everyone to sing in perfect harmony.
In practice, this is very hard to do with a classroom of 27 children, the bulk of which are either average skill level students and remedial students. What happens to the high level learner is that they finish their work quickly and either do enriched work on their own or they socialize. In neither case are they learning any new material.
A couple of teachers have confessed to me that they are simply stretched beyond their limits. They can't pull off this magnificent orchestration with the number of students in the classroom that require their attention. So, they prioritize. The average learner and remedial students get their help. The very bright and gifted students suffer.
We are lucky in that the REACH kids are pulled out for Social Studies in the intermediate school. But the instruction in Science and Math has gradually gotten worse over the past couple of years. One of the reasons that this has occured is specifically related to the ideology of the differentiated classroom experience. It would be relatively easy to address the problem of teaching to the level of the student by grouping skill levels together. Many of us who were educated in the 60's and 70's might remember this kind of grouping by the term tracking. You may not be surprised to learn that tracking is a undesirable thing to the educator who likes differentiated classrooms. Even though the grouped or tracking method would allow the teacher to teach without exhaustion or guilt and even though all children would benefit, it ain't going to happen as long as the Superintendent and her curriculum advisors want everyone in the same room singing in harmony.
What to do about it?
Two things: 1.) Hold the administration accountable. Ask them to explain their ideology, philosophy, pedagogy. Ask to see the research. Ask how this method of instruction compares to other districts in our socio-economic group. (Like West Windsor-Plainsboro) How do the NJASK scores in Math compare for districts that offer advanced math to those that do not? Do this at every possible opportunity in a public setting, like the board of ed meetings.
2.) Run for the board of education. If you aren't on the board, you can't see the way curriculum is approved in this district and you have no way to question it before it comes before a vote. The board of ed tends to attract people concerned with facilities and budgets. But curriculum is considered sacrosanct and where most board members will vigorously challenge budget items, they tend to rubber stamp curriculum issues. The NJ School Board Association almost encourages such behavior because they hold the educators up as the experts and ask that you trust them. But as working professionals, especially those of you who evaluate data all day, YOU are more than capable of knowing whether the curriculum advisor has done his or her homework and has valid research to back up a proposal. If you have ever wondered if you can make a difference, consider running. We need you.