Thank you — I completely agree with your philosophical stance. From an educational perspective, meeting learners where they are is what great teaching is — and what many teachers strive to do every day.
In fact, differentiation isn’t new. It’s been an expectation for years. Teachers across the country already do this daily — modifying tasks, grouping flexibly, adjusting language, and scaffolding content — often minute by minute, lesson by lesson. It’s part of the craft of teaching. But, as you rightly point out, the challenge isn’t the idea of differentiation — it’s the practical application, especially as classroom complexity increases.
What it looks like in practice is that teachers need far more workforce support — not necessarily more teachers, but better access to skilled specialists, trained teacher aides, release time to plan, and ongoing, embedded professional learning that builds capability over time.
In my own classroom, differentiation was constant. And it’s what most experienced teachers do — instinctively and expertly. But no one sustains that alone forever, especially as learning, behaviour, and social needs grow more complex.
Of course, smaller class sizes and more help would always be welcomed — they make it easier to get around the room, form stronger relationships, and personalise learning. But philosophically, I don’t believe large classes automatically prevent effective differentiation. The real issue is resourcing teachers with the tools, time, and training to keep adapting — because that’s what differentiation demands.
Your question about what the system would look like is a good one. For me, it’s not about wholesale structural change, but rather reimagining support:
Professional development focused on practical differentiation, not just theory
Consistent access to specialists (e.g., literacy, maths, ESOL, neurodiversity)
Timetabled collaboration and planning time
Well-trained support staff integrated into classroom teaching, not working in isolation
Systems that respect teacher judgement — rather than reducing everything to curriculum compliance
Differentiation is happening. But like any good teaching practice, it needs investment, time, and trust to thrive.
Thanks for raising such an important point — I really appreciate the thinking space it’s created.
Yes 100%, it's more about team work between teachers who have specialized knowledge, as you mentioned; ESOL, neurodiversity etc along with class teachers.
Forgive me for being self-indulgent here, I reflected on my own learning experience at school as I was reading your response. I remember having access to remedial learning programs at primary school, especially with language related stuff. The fact that they even picked up that I needed help was quite remarkable.
Later in my early high school years I had a teacher aid who helped me with math. She made such a huge difference, up until that point I thought I sucked at maths.
It really is an all round effort isn't it?
I'm glad you also mentioned systems that "respect teacher judgement — rather than reducing everything to curriculum compliance".
I used to work as a part time teacher in the ACE sector. The course I taught was not NZQA accredited, which might sound like a negative to most people but it was truly liberating. I had full autonomy in the curriculum I set out, not "teaching to test" was sooo freeing as a teacher.
And... you are right in terms of experience playing a key role. As I got more experience in the role, I was more confident in my judgment as a teacher; knowing which students can be more self directed to move forward in class, & which students needed more guidance. Some students if they were far enough into the class work, I would allow them to bring in personal projects to work on during class time, while I still assisted the others. I would not have been able to do so if I had to teach to test.
Yes differentiation is happening all the time often with out even realizing it. I think you are on point regarding how curriculum can potentially hinder a teachers judgment & therefore stifle flexibility to meet the different students learning needs.
Thanks for the korero, your insights are always appreciated :-)
An area where teaching practice strongly agrees with the research.
The problems (not just issues) with the "new" approach are so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that teachers are actually being told to use this approach that will only lead to more students left behind and the educational outcomes gaps get even wider.
There are options and we ran a maths programme that offered individual choice of content, working at students own pace and completely un streamed with year 11 and 12 in mixed classes.
The biggest problem with "teaching to the middle" is that there is no "average student" to teach.
From a philosophical point of view I 100% agree with you.
I was wondering though, logistically how do you implement that?
What would the system look like?
I suspect it would require more teachers & smaller learning groups/classes...perhaps?
Thank you — I completely agree with your philosophical stance. From an educational perspective, meeting learners where they are is what great teaching is — and what many teachers strive to do every day.
In fact, differentiation isn’t new. It’s been an expectation for years. Teachers across the country already do this daily — modifying tasks, grouping flexibly, adjusting language, and scaffolding content — often minute by minute, lesson by lesson. It’s part of the craft of teaching. But, as you rightly point out, the challenge isn’t the idea of differentiation — it’s the practical application, especially as classroom complexity increases.
What it looks like in practice is that teachers need far more workforce support — not necessarily more teachers, but better access to skilled specialists, trained teacher aides, release time to plan, and ongoing, embedded professional learning that builds capability over time.
In my own classroom, differentiation was constant. And it’s what most experienced teachers do — instinctively and expertly. But no one sustains that alone forever, especially as learning, behaviour, and social needs grow more complex.
Of course, smaller class sizes and more help would always be welcomed — they make it easier to get around the room, form stronger relationships, and personalise learning. But philosophically, I don’t believe large classes automatically prevent effective differentiation. The real issue is resourcing teachers with the tools, time, and training to keep adapting — because that’s what differentiation demands.
Your question about what the system would look like is a good one. For me, it’s not about wholesale structural change, but rather reimagining support:
Professional development focused on practical differentiation, not just theory
Consistent access to specialists (e.g., literacy, maths, ESOL, neurodiversity)
Timetabled collaboration and planning time
Well-trained support staff integrated into classroom teaching, not working in isolation
Systems that respect teacher judgement — rather than reducing everything to curriculum compliance
Differentiation is happening. But like any good teaching practice, it needs investment, time, and trust to thrive.
Thanks for raising such an important point — I really appreciate the thinking space it’s created.
Thank you so much for your in-depth response.
Yes 100%, it's more about team work between teachers who have specialized knowledge, as you mentioned; ESOL, neurodiversity etc along with class teachers.
Forgive me for being self-indulgent here, I reflected on my own learning experience at school as I was reading your response. I remember having access to remedial learning programs at primary school, especially with language related stuff. The fact that they even picked up that I needed help was quite remarkable.
Later in my early high school years I had a teacher aid who helped me with math. She made such a huge difference, up until that point I thought I sucked at maths.
It really is an all round effort isn't it?
I'm glad you also mentioned systems that "respect teacher judgement — rather than reducing everything to curriculum compliance".
I used to work as a part time teacher in the ACE sector. The course I taught was not NZQA accredited, which might sound like a negative to most people but it was truly liberating. I had full autonomy in the curriculum I set out, not "teaching to test" was sooo freeing as a teacher.
And... you are right in terms of experience playing a key role. As I got more experience in the role, I was more confident in my judgment as a teacher; knowing which students can be more self directed to move forward in class, & which students needed more guidance. Some students if they were far enough into the class work, I would allow them to bring in personal projects to work on during class time, while I still assisted the others. I would not have been able to do so if I had to teach to test.
Yes differentiation is happening all the time often with out even realizing it. I think you are on point regarding how curriculum can potentially hinder a teachers judgment & therefore stifle flexibility to meet the different students learning needs.
Thanks for the korero, your insights are always appreciated :-)
An area where teaching practice strongly agrees with the research.
The problems (not just issues) with the "new" approach are so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that teachers are actually being told to use this approach that will only lead to more students left behind and the educational outcomes gaps get even wider.
There are options and we ran a maths programme that offered individual choice of content, working at students own pace and completely un streamed with year 11 and 12 in mixed classes.
The biggest problem with "teaching to the middle" is that there is no "average student" to teach.