College professors and education specialists have argued for the implementation of tailoring every lesson to each student’s individual learning style. It’s easier to juggle with one hand behind your back than to put this theory into action.

Another educational fad torn asunder

Two articles from this past week have shed some much needed light on one popular contemporary “edu-fad,” so to speak: differentiated instruction.

In a nutshell, differentiated instruction (DI) depends on classroom teachers tailoring their instruction to the individual “learning styles” of each student. That’s right, each student in the classroom.

Like way too many other edu-fads, DI is riddled with problems — a lot of which are logistical. Let’s take a gander at what James R. Delisle, a former college professor and now-educational consultant, has to say:

Although fine in theory, differentiation in practice is harder to implement in a heterogeneous classroom than it is to juggle with one arm tied behind your back.

Mike Schmoker, in a 2010 Commentary for Education Week titled “When Pedagogic Fads Trump Priorities,” relates that his experiences of observing educators trying to differentiate caused him to draw this conclusion: “In every case, differentiated instruction seemed to complicate teachers’ work, requiring them to procure and assemble multiple sets of materials, … and it dumbed down instruction.”

As additional evidence of the ineffectiveness of differentiation, in a 2008 report by the Fordham Institute, 83 percent of teachers nationwide stated that differentiation was “somewhat” or “very” difficult to implement.