Let me give you a brief lesson on IQ scores. The average IQ falls anywhere in the range of 70-130. Now, there is quite a gap between having a 70 IQ and having a 130 IQ. One is teetering on the edge of borderline low and the other is rubbing shoulders with gifted. In the working world, this difference will naturally segregate itself by the choice of occupations. But in the educational arena it's a different story. According to the laws in some states, schools cannot track children according to their ability or IQ. Only those who are considered gifted can be pulled out for enrichment.

But there's another group of students who can be placed in specialized classes, and this is where it gets tricky. In order to be served for special education resource classes, you must have a 20 point deficit between two subjects. For example, if your IQ in math is a 70, but your IQ in language arts is a 90, you are considered to be a special education candidate. However, if you have an IQ of 70 in all subjects, you are considered a below average "slow learner". The slow learner does not qualify for special education and therefore is placed in the regular education classroom.

I have been a teacher in public schools for six years. In those six years I've been in three different middle schools in three different school districts. I've taught social studies my entire career to students across the spectrum. Most schools don't offer gifted classes or special education classes for social studies so I teach most everybody. To the outsider it sounds like a utopian concept to include everyone together, learning as one. Well, it's not. At closer glance you will notice the pitfalls to including learners of all levels in the same classroom.

Imagine being in a company meeting with the CEO, several mid level sales reps, and the mailroom clerk on his first day of work. You're there to discuss a new sales pitch that the company has been working on. The meeting is directed at the sales reps because there are more of them than anyone else. All the while you're discussing the pitch the new guy is desperately trying to figure out what you're talking about. After an hour of struggling, he finally gives up and puts his head down.

A few hours into the meeting the mail clerk starts to get restless and talks to those around him. When others notice that he doesn't understand, he starts to get embarrassed. You ask a question and he obviously doesn't know the answer. The quickest way out of the situation is to distract from his ignorance. Being a jerk gets him removed from the meeting. He's in the clear... for now. Unfortunately, there are four more meetings scheduled this week.

Remember the CEO? Well you've lost control of him too. He already knows everything being said, so he shuts down. Sure, there are various tasks all three groups could be working on during the meeting, but doesn't it make sense to have them in three different meetings? Instead, you have to provide different materials and instruction, and devote time to each group without the other becoming restless. That's what's happening in our schools. We are consolidating all the children together, regardless of ability, and expecting our teachers to somehow reach them all. Differentiation is the technical term, and in theory and on paper it sounds great. But in practice it's extremely difficult, and teachers and students are feeling the effects.

Teachers catch flak from the public since it's a publicly funded job. I've heard more than once from non-teachers that they're "paying my salary". But really, only a few dollars of their tax money goes into my pocket. I am not governed by the public. What I am governed by are people in charge of education who aren't quite sure what to do with it. Children are failing so let's change something. Let's give it a nifty name and a glossy package. When it catches on it becomes the newest "quick fix". Children don't need a quick fix they need honesty. You would never hire the mail clerk to do the CEO's position, so why would you do it in the classroom.