<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the real-world implementation of differentiated instruction—focusing on content, process, and product configurations—at SMA Negeri 12 Semarang, and compare it with the ideal pedagogical standards that should be achieved under current educational frameworks. It specifically examines the systemic paradox where student semester report card grades appear uniform despite wide disparities in actual classroom competence. Employing a qualitative postpositivist approach, data were gathered through detailed document analysis of lesson plans and academic transcripts, alongside layered in-depth interviews with the vice principal of curriculum, subject teachers, and students. The comparative analysis reveals a significant gap between documented ideal planning and real classroom execution. In practice, content and process differentiation remain superficial, hindered by rigid fixed-classroom setups, overwhelming diagnostic test lengths, and a heavy reliance on single slide-presentation media that defaults to a passive peer-tutoring system. Crucially, product differentiation faces a conceptual misunderstanding where final report card grades are artificially homogenized. This uniformity is driven by composite grading formulas that mix cognitive scores with non-academic traits, combined with administrative pressures to push all students past minimum thresholds via endless remedial cycles for bureaucratic compliance and university admission advantages. This study concludes that the traditional report card system has strayed from its ideal function as an authentic portrait of student development, shifting instead into an administrative formality. The impact of this research highlights the urgent need for structural assessment reforms aligned with current national strategic policies, proposing a multi-dimensional report card model that clearly separates pure achievement scores from individual growth metrics to restore academic honesty while preserving inclusive education.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
