Nice idea, but to what extent has it been implemented? Hard to find info on that. And in my own experience, differentiated instruction within the context of traditional mixed-ability, set-pace classroom instruction is still relatively weak.
Further, why be an ass and post a lmgtfy link when the op is clearly not aware of the term to google. You see the contradiction there I'm sure. Next time just post a link to the search results.
First, it's not my job to educate you. Go look it up yourself if you feel like commenting on it.
The fact the original poster fabricated his post out of naked overconfident ignorance is more than enough to warrant a snide reply. His post was not a critique on current educational theory or instruction but based on his experiences as a grade schooler that might be decades out of date, and seen through the eyes of a child.
Chances are your school implemented a similar style of teaching, except your teacher didn't come into a room of 3rd, 5th or 10th graders and say :
"Ok students, I spent 2 weeks this summer on my "vacation" training 8 hours a day and now I will be differentiating my instruction! I sure hope you don't all grow up to be overconfident ignorant asses who can't see beyond the direct and personalized instruction I give each one of you. I hope you realize that I might be explaining these concepts to different students in a way that suits them! Also, I hope you don't make fun of the kids who are in the low classes or need the help of an in class aide.
Now here are three ways to look at multiplication."
Since you've been registered here almost two years, I would hope you'd be aware that snide comments are discouraged here, regardless of context. I have yet to hear why you are more qualified to speak on the topic than anyone else, but I will add my personal experience as a student - I went to some good schools and had some good teachers, but we were rarely introduced to a topic in different ways. For one thing, there simply wasn't time.
The best math course I ever took was geometry. The teacher never lectured - instead, he had written a worksheet of problems for us to do during every class period. Each worksheet would start out asking deceptively simple questions, which built upon other questions or challenges to prove something true. By the end of the worksheet, you had taught yourself a new concept in geometry (or proved a series of fundamental theorems) without really realizing what was happening. If you got stuck, you were encouraged to ask the students next to you, or the teacher himself, who would wander the classroom providing hints and alternate ways of approaching the problem.
There was a textbook, but we only touched it for homework problems (and occasionally as a reference).
I'm not going to defend parfe but I will point out that just because you may not have been offered three different ways of learning a subject doesn't mean the school was only offering one and only one way of teaching it.
The original article is saying based on a simple test you can throw half of the students directly into a 'learn to program' class and the other group into something else (I wish they had explored that a bit more). At no point is the student offered a choice. From their perspective the school only has one track.
Now, your school may indeed have been terrible... but I think the point that parfe was trying to make (ineloquently) is: don't presume that your one experience makes you an expert in the system. You probably weren't even aware of things going on behind your back in your own school, much less all of the other schools in the 'education system'.
This is one of those things like graphic design.. Everyone has an opinion; some people have training. Those who work in the field might come resent those who have opinions without knowing about the training.
Further, why be an ass and post a lmgtfy link when the op is clearly not aware of the term to google. You see the contradiction there I'm sure. Next time just post a link to the search results.