The M'Obi'us Effect.Addressing Learner Variance in Schools

Carol Ann Tomlinson

AbstractCurrently, educators separate out from typical students those whose learning needs vary from the norm. The norming and sorting processmay earmark students as "different" without providing markedly unique instruction and without producing robust academic outcomes.An alternative to fragmentation for some students is the creation of classrooms in which human differences are valued and provided for,yet few teachers (including specialists) seem currently to have the skill or will to develop these sorts of settings. Educators need to ex-amine the potential costs and benefits of alternative approaches to addressing the learning needs that exist among people.

he argument posed in Reid andValle's article brings to mind"doing school" as a sort of M6-

bius strip, in which there is a progres-sion of practices and ramificationsfeeding one another, almost withoutbeginning or end-essentially pro-ceeding in circles. In regard to the con-struct of "learning disabilities (LD),Reid and Valle propose that at a pointin the recent history of schooling whenit became apparent that significantnumbers of students were not learningaccording to schedule and plan, itseemed reasonable to describe "irreg-ularities" in such students. For manyeducators, this gave rise to language,etiology, diagnosis, prescription, andspecialty related to LD. For many stu-dents, it gave rise to identification as"deviant." For many parents, it gaverise to a paradoxical sense of both en-titlement and alienation. At the sametime, Reid and Valle suggest, there islittle evidence that a particular cur-riculum or pedagogy exists for stu-dents separated out as having LD andlittle evidence that this separation hasled to systematic academic gain forthese students. Although there mayhave been a moment of beginning inthe progression, that moment is nowlost in taken-for-granted practices of

doing school wherein each element inthe progression serves to legitimiize eachother element.

I believe Reid and Valle's conclu-sions are validated by looking notsolely within the specialty of LD butalso at the larger system of schooling inwhich a persistent undertow of the"norm" has the effect of setting apartstudents who do not appear to ap-proximate the norm. Furthermore, Iwill argue that the specialties createdas we systematically segregate fromthe "normal" students those whom wedetermine to be "not normal" furtherdeter us from addressing systemic ed-ucational flaws that must be correctedbefore the increasing numbers of stu-dents represented by the specialtyareas can flourish in contemporaryschools. Such changes in how we "doschool" would be immense in scope.They may also be mandatory in a soci-ety that intends unity to emerge fromplurality and that promotes positivequality of life as a by-product of edu-cational opportunity.

Schools, of course, are complexnetworks of complex individuals func-tioning in a loosely coupled way ascomplex groups. There is no single ar-gument that can do justice to the com-plexity of beliefs, motivations, intents,

and practices that play out daily inschools and classrooms across the na-tion. Nonetheless, representing someof the complexities gives us a sense ofwhat it might require if, as Reid andValle suggest, we should elect to movefrom what is to what might be in ourschools.

Parallels with Other StudentPopulations

If the argument mounted by Reid andValle is interesting in regard to stu-dents designated as having LD, it be-comes compelling when it is echoed inthe literature related to other groups ofstudents. Reid and Valle's themes playout with remarkable similarity in re-gard to students identified as "gifted,"students identified as "remedial," andstudents whose race sets them apart as"different."

The Construct of "Giftedness"Articulating positions that sound re-markably like Reid and Valle's argu-ment regarding the construct of LD, anumber of authors have suggested that"giftedness" is not an objective andverifiable reality but rather an inven-tion or construction propelled by a range

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESVOLTME 37. NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004.

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 517

of motivations. Among those motiva-tions are the desire to serve studentswho are ill served by general educationclassrooms, the desire to create educa-tional safe havens for some students,and the desire to maintain an educa-tion of privilege within public schools(Borland, 2003; Callahan, 1996; Mar-golin, 1994; Sapon-Shevin, 1987, 1994,1996, 2003). Those who take such a po-sition regarding the school constructof "giftedness" as invention-whetherfrom a position of firm belief or func-tioning as gadflies-conclude,

1. "Giftedness" is not only sociallyconstructed but derives credencemore through discourse about theconstruct and investment in theconstruct than through empiricalevidence of its existence as an en-tity (Borland, 2003; Margolin, 1994;Sapon-Shevin, 1994).

2. Psychometrics becomes a way ofsetting apart individuals as differ-ent and also becomes a tool to re-mind them that they are being ob-served and ranked-a particularproblem for students already mar-ginalized in one way or another(Borland, 2003; Margolin, 1994;Sapon-Shevin, 1994).

3. The concept of "normal" is also asocial invention and reflects a de-sire to dichotomize individualsinto those who are tractable orteachable, those who would notbenefit from a "standard" educa-tion, and those who need to beparticularly nurtured because oftheir potential to serve the nationalinterest (Borland, 2003).

4. There is no broadly agreed-upondefinition of "giftedness," eventhough we "identify" students as ifthere were such a common defini-tion (Borland, 2003; Margolin,1994).

5. There is no evidence that studentsdesignated as "gifted" are a homo-geneous group with homogeneouslearning needs (Margolin, 1994).

6. There is no strong case to be madethat there is a "gifted curriculum"appropriate for these learners and

not for others (Borland, 2003;Tomlinson, 1996; Tomlinson et al.,2001).

7. Convincing evidence of the effi-cacy of many approaches to teach-ing gifted learners is lacking(Borland, 2003; Shore, Cornell,Robinson, & Ward, 1991).

8. That "gifted programs" exist sepa-rately from general classroomscontributes to and exacerbatesracial inequities in the UnitedStates (Borland, 2003).

9. A more defensible approach toserving "gifted" learners than la-beling and segregating them is dif-ferentiating instruction in responseto student need (Borland, 2003:Tomlinson, 2003: Tomlinson et al.,2001).

The Construct of "RemedialLearners"

Those who question the efficacy ofidentifying and separately serving stu-dents deemed "remedial" in one ormore areas share misgivings not unlikethose who call into question the wis-dom and efficacy of identifying, label-ing, and developing separate educa-tional practices related to "learningdisabilities" and "giftedness." Onceagain, issues of definition, accuracy ofdiagnosis, and effectiveness of treat-ment guide the discussion.

1. As some students have failed toperform in classrooms according toexpectations of a "norm," there hasfollowed a sequence of definingtheir "problems," developingmeans of identifying such stu-dents, separating them from thegeneral population for services,and developing procedures for "re-mediating" their problems (Finnan& Swanson, 2000; Hopfenberg &Levin, 1993).

2. The concept of the "remedial" stu-dent suggests flaws within thelearner rather than within the edu-cational system (Hopfenberg &Levin, 1993).

3. Methods used to identify "reme-dial" learners are imprecise at best(Finnan & Swanson, 2000).

4. The group of learners designatedas "remedial" is not a homoge-neous group, and their learningbackgrounds and needs demon-strate considerable variance (Fin-nan & Swanson, 2000; Hopfenberg& Levin, 1993).

5. There is little evidence that thesorting and remediating processhas benefited "remedial" learners(Allington, 2003; Finnan & Swan-son, 2000).

6. The very structure of many pro-grams for "remedial" learnersoften predicts lack of success(Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993). Stu-dents diagnosed with a reading"deficit," for example, have beensorted into Title I programs de-signed to ensure additional literacyinstruction for small groups of stu-dents. First, students were typi-cally pulled out of literacy instruc-tion in general classrooms forTitle I instruction, with the resultthat these students received notadditional literacy instruction butrather the same amount in a differ-ent setting. Second, group size inTitle I classes was generally aboutthe same as reading group size inthe general classroom, so that stu-dents designated as eligible forTitle I services did not receivemore intensive instruction. Third,there was little personalization inthe Title I classrooms, followingthe pattern of teaching to a norm(Allington, 2003). "The most com-mon Chapter I program designsvirtually precluded instruction ofthe sort that might be expected toaccelerate achievement" (Alling-ton, 2003, p. 6). Most studentsplaced in remedial programs neverleave them (Hopfenberg & Levin,1993).

7. Evidence indicates that "remedial"students both need and benefitfrom the sort of rich, high-qualitycurriculum and program structurestypically missing from "remedial"

VOLLTIVM 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 517

518 JOURNAL OF LEARMNG DISASILITIES

programs (Hopfenberg & Levin,1993).

Race and InstructionalDecision MakingRace is not argued to be a socially con-structed category in the same way thatsome authors have argued "learningdisability," "giftedness," and "reme-dial learning" to be constructed. None-theless, placement of students in "cat-egories" for purposes of schooling hasprofound racial overtones and equallypotent implications for students ofboth majority (EuropeanAmerican) andminority (particularly African Ameri-can, Hispanic, and Native American)learners. Regardless of intent, accep-tance of either special classes or tracksas a pervasive mechanism for address-ing learner needs yields racial patternsthat have become predictable in ourschools. Those who write about theseissues present themes remarkably likethe ones arising from critiques of edu-cational practice related to "learningdisabilities," "giftedness," and "reme-dial learning":

1. We have come to believe that raceaffects learning and link race withschool performance. In fact, ourmatter-of-fact acceptance of racialachievement patterns (in dis-course, research, and writing)serves to reinforce those patterns,making them seem "normal" inschools (Delpit, 2003; Pollock,2001).

2. We tend to look for achievement-related "problems" within the stu-dents of various non-EuropeanAmerican races or in their culturalcontexts, rather than in schools(Hilliard, 2003; Pollock, 2001;Singham, 2003).

3. We conclude that African Ameri-can, Hispanic, Native American,and some other minority learnersare likely to be low performers inschool (Poilock, 2001; Singham,2003).

4. The assessment process we use toidentify students who will have

difficulty in school works againstmany minority learners (Hilliard,2002, 2003).

5. We place greatly disproportionalnumbers of minority studentsinto special education programsor low-track classes because ofour beliefs in their low perfor-mance potential (Denbo, 2002;Donovan & Cross, 2002; Finnan &Swanson, 2000; National ResearchCouncil, 2002; Olson, 2002; Tatum,1997).

6. Underrepresentation of many mi-norities in gifted education pro-grams and high-track classes alsoreflects our beliefs about a nega-tive correlation between member-ship in some ethnic/racial groupsand positive school achievement(Bernal, 2002; Mehan, Villanueva,Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; NationalResearch Council, 2002; Olson,2002; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna,2002).

7. The nature of the special pro-grams and low-track classes inwhich we disproportionatelyplace minority students reflectsour low expectations of thesestudents (Hilliard, 2003; Tatum,1997).

8. The message of low expectationsis very clear to many minorityleamers and leads to studentdisaffiliation with achievement(Cone, 2003; Delpit, 2003; Hilliard,2003; Perry, Steele, & Hilliard,2003; Steele, 2003; Tatum, 1997).

9. In order to reverse this cycle, mi-nority leamers must be systemati-cally and persistently included inrich learning opportunities, withstudents invested in academicachievement, and with support toaddress particular leaming needsand success (Cone, 2003; Hilliard,2003; Hosp & Reschly, 2004;Ladson-Billings, 2002; Schoen-feld, 2002; Tatum, 1997). Suchapproaches are important forall learners (Singham, 2003).

10. Racial pattems are never "nat-ural" orders and can and mustbe dismantled (Pollock, 2001).

Thus, in the literature of at leastfour subsets of educational inquiry-learning disabilities, gifted education,remedial education, and race-there isa case to be made that (a) we identifyleamers based on differences from aperceived norm; (b) the means bywhich we identify learners for servicesbased on their differences are at leastquestionable, if not worse; (c) the cate-gories in which students are placed arethemselves not homogeneous; (d) theeducational offerings that students re-ceive as a result of their categorizationare seldom defensible as being appro-priate only for students in a given cat-egory; (e) the efficacy of these servicesin promoting student achievement isoften doubtful; and (f) the implicationsfor students of being labeled may benegative without offsetting positiveoutcomes stemming from effective ser-vices.

In light of the similar cautionsfrom a number of educational special-ties, it is critical to look at the larger ed-ucational context in which these spe-cialties exist. Failure to do so allows usthe illusion that we can engineer onesegment of a complex system withoutregard to its impact on and implica-tions for the system as a whole.

Burgeoning AcademicDiversity

Among the realities facing contempo-rary educators is the academic diver-sity that continues to grow at a rate thatwill shortly alter the fabric of the na-tion (Marx, 2000). The number of stu-dents who leam English as they grap-ple with the requirements of school isincreasing across the country (Centerfor Immigration Studies, 2001). In2000, the non-Hispanic White majorityin this country represented 71% of thepopulation. By 2050, it will representonly 53%, with those under 18 years ofage representing only 46% of the pop-ulation (Cetron & Cetron, 2003-2004;Marx, 2000). Simultaneously (and per-haps not coincidentally, as Reid andValle have noted), the number of iden-

518 JOURNAL OF LEARNNG DISABrLrrIES

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004

tified special education students ingeneral education classrooms has in-creased 20% in the last decade (U.S.Department of Education, 2000), withmore students who are identified ashaving "learning problems" attendingschools than ever before (Gersten,Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Fur-thermore, both students with diag-nosed "disabilities" (Lewis & Doorlag,2003; Villa & Thousand, 2003) and"gifted" learners (Westberg, Archam-bault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993) typi-cally spend most of their school time ingeneral education classrooms.

Whether we elect to label and seg-ment students based on "differences"or not, it is the case that students witha wide variance in pace of learning, op-portunity to learn, culture, race, eco-nomic support, preferred approach tolearning, and interest form today'sclass rosters. Indications are that thewide variance among learners in ourschools will be neither transitory nordiminishing in degree in subsequentgenerations of students (Cetron &Cetron, 2003-2004; Marx, 2000). As stu-dent diversity escalates, the questionof how educators envision diversityonly becomes more salient. Will thepreferred response continue to be oneof labeling and separating studentswhom we see as problematic becausethey differ from a "norm' (which itselfbecomes less of a reality), or is there thepossibility of envisioning settings inwhich teachers systematically plan forinstruction that is responsive to a pre-dictable range of human variance?

Responding to LearnerVariance

A variety of researchers and profes-sional organizations opt for the latterpossibility and speak to the need forclassrooms to be responsive to learnervariance. For example, the NationalAssociation for the Education of YoungChildren (Pianta & LaParo, 2000) hasemphasized that it is the responsibilityof schools to adjust to the develop-mental needs and levels of the childrenthey serve, rather than expecting chil-

dren to adjust to a system that is inat-tentive to their needs. Turning Points2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000) remindedmiddle-level educators that middleschool classes should be academicallydiverse and that instruction should bedifferentiated to respond to this diver-sity. Sizer and Sizer (1999) reminded usthat it is part of our moral contract withstudents for teachers to work withlearners not from a one-size-fits-allconfidence but from a base of knowingeach student well and building on thestudent's particular knowledge. Stu-dents' voices reflect the reality thatsingle-size instruction fails them bymandating that everyone learn alike,no matter what students' particularprofiles are (Sarason, 1990). The voicescalling for teaching that is responsiveto learner variance are not in short sup-ply. Their message is unambiguous:We fail students when we assume thatthey learn in the same way and in ac-cordance with a singular timetable.

In contrast, research suggests thatcurrent classroom practice-in a vari-ety of settings-is calibrated to somesort of "norm" (albeit varying from set-ting to setting). Furthermore, it ap-pears that teachers are disinclined tomodify teaching practices in ways thatextend to students with learning needsthat extend beyond the defined norm.In fact, it is not clear that the bulk ofteachers believe that responsive in-struction is desirable.

In some instances, teachers indi-cate that it is important to addressstudent variance in their classrooms(Hootstein, 1998). In other instances, asmany as half of the teachers in a ran-domized, national sample of middleschool teachers indicated that they sawno need to do so (Moon, Tomlinson,& Callahan, 1995). Furthermore, whenteachers do support responsive in-struction, they are likely to find adap-tations for learner variance more desir-able than feasible (Schumm & Vaughn,1991; Tornlinson, Callahan, Tomchin,et al., 1997). Moreover, even whenteachers express support for inclusiveclassrooms, they are more likely toplan for whole-class instruction than

for instruction that is attentive to a va-riety of learner needs (Morocco, Riley,Gordon, & Howard, 1996; Tomlinson,Callahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).

When researchers examine class-room adaptations for specific "catego-ries" of learners, the general patternsrelated to nonresponsive instructionhold. For example, teachers typicallydo not make instructional adaptationsfor students with diagnosed LD (Fuchs& Fuchs, 1998; Schumm & Vaughn,1995) because they are unaware of stu-dent needs (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992,1995), fear calling attention to studentdifferences (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995),or feel that adaptations are poor prepa-ration for "the real world" (Schumm &Vaughn, 1995). It is noteworthy thatsome teachers indicated they did notmake adaptations for students withdiagnosed LD because they felt itwas not their job to do so (Schumm& Vaughn, 1995). Although teacherstreated students with "mild disabili-ties" fairly and impartially (McIntosh,Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee,1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), theywere resistant to adapting materials,lesson plans, instructional practices,evaluation procedures, and gradingcriteria (McIntosh et al., 1994; Schumm& Vaughn, 1995; Vaughn & Schumm,1994).

Students falling in the category of"multicultural learners" are likely tofind their teachers unaware of, or inat-tentive to, ways in which culture orrace can affect their achievement (Del-pit, 1995; Lasley & Matczynski, 1997;Perry et al., 2003), and are likely to re-ceive little in the way of curricular orinstructional modification designed ei-ther to ensure that they see themselvesin what they study or to help thembuild skills and habits of mind neces-sary for high levels of school success(Burstein & Cabello, 1989; Delpit, 1995;Lasley & Matczynski, 1997; Perry et al.,2003).

The one category of students des-ignated as deviating from the norm byhaving too much knowledge and skill,rather than in some way being re-garded as deficient in those areas, ap-

51Y

52U JOURNAL OF LFARNTNG DISABILiTIES

pears to fare no better. Studies suggestthat students identified as "gifted"find few adaptations in curriculumand instruction in response to theirlearning needs (Archambault et al.,1993; Reis et al., 1993; Westberg et al.,1993). The dearth of adaptations forthis category of students may stemfrom teachers' lack of knowledgeabout how to provide challenge be-yond grade level, lack of teacher em-pathy for students in this category, orthe teacher's belief that making suchadaptations is not his or her responsi-bility (Tomlinson, 1995; Tomlinson,Calahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).

If it is difficult for students withone label designating learning differ-ences to find appropriate support fortheir developmental needs, it is likelyto be more difficult for dual-labeledstudents. This is the case even in spe-cial settings, where one might assumethat teacher sensitivity to learner vari-ance is high. For instance, "English lan-guage learners" who also had diag-nosed "learning disabilities" foundthat teachers in their bilingual class-rooms made few adaptations for learn-ing needs-attending instead only tolanguage issues in the class (Fletcher,Bos, & Johnson, 1999). Similarly, stu-dents who are identified as "gifted"but who also have a diagnosed "learn-ing disability" are more likely to re-ceive services for areas of difficultythan for areas in which they are ad-vanced-in other words, to be re-garded as "disabled" or "less able"rather than "advanced" (Mlinner, 1990;Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997; Whitmore& Maker, 1985). Students in Title I pro-grams for learners with reading diffi-culties also rarely encounter personal-ized instruction despite the reality thatthey are not a homogeneous popula-tion in regard to their reading needs(Allington, 2003).

There is a sense among teachersthat exposing students who strugglewith academics to material (vs. scaf-folding success with that material) willsomehow benefit them (Tomlinson,1995; Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin,et al., 1997) and that once studentshave achieved the "standard" expecta-

tions, the teacher is relieved of respon-sibility to move those learners furtheralong a continuum of knowledge, un-derstanding, and skil (Tomlinson, 1995;Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997; Tom-linson, Calahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).Barriers to classrooms becoming moreresponsive to the variance that inevi-tably exists in learners include (a) lackof teacher reflection about learners,(b) lack of teacher clarity regarding theessential structures of the disciplinesthey teach, (c) a shallow reservoir of in-structional strategies to respond tolearner needs, and (d) lack of teacherconfidence related to managing moreflexible classrooms (Brighton, Hert-berg, Callahan, Tomlinson, & Moon,2004).

We appear to work in a system inwhich a norm defines the parameters ofour practice. It is too often the case that(a) we have created categories of de-viance from a norm; (b) teachers areaware of both the categories and thedifferences they are intended to sig-nify; (c) teachers are unlikely to adaptinstruction in significant ways for stu-dents who deviate from their particu-lar norm-whether that norm is basedon general classroom or special settingplans; and (d) when teachers elect notto address learner variance, there is aspecialty area that accepts responsibil-ity for doing so. The Mobius strip-likeprogression toward segmentation is re-inforced by the realization that thereare currently at least 17 categories intowhich we diagnose, assign, and "treat"learners in schools (Mastropieri &Scruggs, 2004) and that currently,nearly half of the adults who workin schools are not classroom teachers(Allington, 2003). Furthermore, thecategorizing, labeling, and sorting ap-proach to doing school has significantimplications related to the quality ofcurriculum and instruction that stu-dents are likely to encounter.

Nature of Curriculum andInstruction

Not only is it the case that student pop-ulations are becoming more diverse

even as classrooms generally remaininattentive to variance in studentlearning needs, but it is also a realitythat our beliefs about student potentialgreatly affect the quality of curriculumand instruction that students are likelyto encounter in school. Simultaneously,many have noted the necessity forschools to prepare the broadest possi-ble spectrum of the student populationto function at levels of knowledge, un-derstanding, and skill that were onceconsidered the standard for only themost successful students in school(Allington, 2003; Denbo, 2002; Marx,2000; Tomlinson et al., 2001). High-level knowledge, understanding, andskill seem imperative for contempo-rary students to succeed in the face ofthe social, political, and economic is-sues they will inherit (Marx, 2000; U.S.Government, 1994). Certainly some ofthe challenge will emanate from tryingto provide economic, cultural, and per-sonal efficacy for all members of an in-creasingly diverse society with thegoal of securing democracy for the fu-ture.

It appears, however, that studentsin low-group and low-track classes aremore likely to encounter curricula fo-cused on drill, seatwork, giving rightanswers, going over questions, review-ing, and other low-level tasks (Centeron English Learning and Achievement,2003; Delpit, 2003; Haberman, 1991),whereas students in high-group andhigh-track classes are more likely to beengaged with cognition and metacog-nition, problem solving, making mean-ing, active learning, substantive dis-cussion, and other high-level tasks(Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002; Centeron English Learning and Achievement,2003; Hodges, 2001). The former tendsto typify special education, remedial,low-track, and low-group placements(Center for English Learning andAchievement, 2003: Singham, 2003).The latter tends to typify gifted edu-cation, high-track, and high-groupclasses (Center on English Learningand Achievement, 2003).

The argument can be made that aslong as high-level curriculum and in-struction are accepted as appropriate

520 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004

only for more advanced settings, andthose settings are the responsibility ofsomeone other than the general educa-tion classroom teacher, there is littleimpetus to retool the broader spectrumof teachers and classrooms to be placeswhere such high-level curriculum andinstruction are the norm. Conversely,the argument can be made that as longas scaffolded learning is accepted asappropriate for special settings for stu-dents deemed deficient in learning,and those settings are the responsibil-ity of someone other than the generaleducation classroom teacher, there islittle impetus to retool the broaderspectrum of teachers and classrooms tobe places in which scaffolding achieve-ment is a norm. Indeed, research sug-gests that classroom teachers tend toassume they have taught strugglinglearners effectively when they "ex-pose" the learners to content and skills,rather than when they scaffold successwith those skills, and that many teach-ers do not know how to provide cur-riculum and instruction that challengelearners who are advanced (Tomlin-son, 1995; Tomlinson, Callahan, Tom-chin, et al., 1997).

If there were strong evidence thatlabeling students and placing them inspecial settings routinely improvedtheir achievement, it would be easierto defend the Mbbius strip effectthrough which we have come to acceptdefining "problems," formally identi-fying them, segregating learners basedon the identification, and serving themaccording to the "problem" we de-fined. Substantial research suggests,however, that special programs, spe-cial teachers, and segregated instruc-tion are no match for high-qualityclassroom instruction (Allington, 2003;Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989;Cunningham & Allington, 1994). Infact, placement in low-track or low-group classes contributes to the diag-nosis that prompted students to beplaced in those classes (Applebee,Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;Mehan et al., 1996).

An exception to this pattern is theachievement of students identified as"gifted" and placed in "advanced"

learning settings. These students doexperience a rise in achievement undercertain conditions-particularly accel-eration and other settings where cur-riculum and instruction are modifiedto reflect higher expectations thanwould be the case in general educationclassrooms (Borland, 2003; Kulik &Kulik, 1992).

It is also important to note thatmany students labeled and segregatedas "low achieving" not only can ac-complish much higher level academicfare than they often receive, but mayachieve better when given more ad-vanced learning opportunities than dopeers who remain in the "special set-tings" designed to boost their achieve-ment (Applebee et al., 2003). This isparticularly evident when students re-ceive appropriate support and scaf-folding in the context of high-levellearning opportunities (Delpit, 2003;Denbo, 2002; Finnan & Swanson, 2000;Hilliard, 2003; Schoenfeld, 2002).

Thus, it may be that we not onlyseparate students from one another inways that are imprecise at best but, indoing so, also may be making a deter-mination of who does and does notmerit what we know to be high-qualitylearning opportunities. In addition tomaking rich curriculum and dynamicinstruction the purview of "gifted" or"advanced" classes, we assign to "re-medial" or "special" settings responsi-bility for learning about and imple-menting scaffolded instruction. In sodoing, we have quite possibly devel-oped low-quality, low-support classes(low-track classes); low-quality, high-support classes (special education,Title I, second language classes); andhigh-quality, low-support classes (giftededucation, advanced, honors classes).It may well be that our best avenue todeveloping high-quality, high-supportclasses for the broadest possible arrayof students is the purposeful integra-tion of the "support specialties" and"advanced specialties" into settingsguided collaboratively by classroomteachers and specialists, with the goalof ensuring that the vast majority ofstudents experience both challengeand success.

What Is and What Might Be

Despite evidence that our identifica-tion mechanisms are not consistentlyreliable, that the specialty groups wecreate are not homogeneous, that thecurriculum and instruction we applyto the various groups are not uniquelysuited to those groups alone, and thatour interventions are not robustly effi-cacious, we continue to prefer address-ing learner variance via segregation.Reid and Valle make the case that thisapproach to serving students desig-nated as having LD is questionable atbest and pernicious at worst. Their ar-guments only become more powerfulas we examine them in the broadercontext of schooling and the prolifera-tion of categories of learners we nowdesignate as different enough to be dis-tinguished from the norm.

We need at least to carefully con-sider the implications for students,schools, and society of perpetuating adis-integration of the whole-particu-larly at a time in our history when, onseveral levels, diversity invites us toseparate "us" from "them." We need atleast to explore how it is that schoolsaddress our national motto and craftone nation from many individualswhen our educational practices indi-cate that our differences not only de-fine us but separate us from a "norm"-which itself becomes more elusive bythe year. We need at least to ponder theeffects on general education classroominstruction of making it possible to as-sign responsibility for advanced chal-lenge and supported learning to othervenues. We need at least to thoroughlyconsider the effects of a systemwide,Mobius strip-like progression of be-liefs about student potentials ascribedby the assignment of students to con-notation-laden groups and reinforcedby these assignments.

To deconstruct the Mbbius strip ofinfinite movement with no clearly dis-cernable beginning and end and to de-velop a more productive orientation toeffectively teaching all learners as apart of the spectrum of what it meansto be human is as daunting as it is nec-essary. To do so will require courage

---521

522 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

and formidable change-not only forclassroom teachers, but equally forspecialists, administrators, staff devel-opers, and teacher educators.

At the very least, deconstructingthe M6bius strip would call on us todistinguish between experience andability-understanding that the for-mer shapes the latter. To that end, itwould call on us to accelerate learningfor more students (including thosewho are advanced) rather than slow-ing it down. It would call on us to cou-ple the highest quality of responsive ordifferentiated instruction with thehighest quality curriculum to ensureaccess to maximum growth for alllearners. It would certainly call on usto attend more to supporting than tosorting students (Allington, 2003). Itwould call on us to somehow work ourway into believing in the intellectualcapacity of students of all races andeconomic levels (Delpit, 2003; Hilliard,2003). Currently, only a quarter of class-room teachers report feeling compe-tent to teach in inclusive classrooms(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004).

We do know it is possible for stu-dents with a broad range of learningneeds to achieve effectively in robustlyresponsive communities of learning(Brimijoin, 2001; Gayfer, 1991; Lloyd,1999; Miller, 1990; Tomlinson, Brimi-join, & Narvez, 2004). We also knowthat there will always be studentswhose particular needs are so greatthat even a teacher highly skilled in re-sponsive or differentiated instruction,supported by expert specialists, will beunable to provide adequately for thoselearners (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995;Van Tassel-Baska, 2003).

In between those two realities aremany things we do not know enoughabout: the range of students an ef-fective teacher can effectively serve;building productive collaborations be-tween classroom teachers and special-ists; developing and disseminatingcurriculum of the highest quality informs that are accessible to teachers;providing and sustaining staff devel-opment that results in positive change;and overcoming beliefs that restrict

human possibility-to name a few. Akey question is whether we have thewill to find answers.

The decisions we make affect thestudents assigned to the specialtyareas, and they profoundly affect thesystem of schooling as a whole. Reidand Valle move us from what is towhat might be by raising questions itwould be easier to ignore related to theconstruct and specialty of "learningdisabilities." We need to continue rais-ing the same questions as they relate tothe myriad of other constructs and spe-cialties we have spawned in schools-and in regard to the impact of thoseconstructs and specialties on the enter-prise of schooling as a whole.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Carol Ann Tomlinson, EdD, is professor of ed-ucational leadership,foundations, and policy atCurry School of Education, University of Vir-ginia. Her interests include teaching for aca-demic diversity and effective curriculum and in-struction in K-12 classrooms. Address: CarolAnn Tomlinson, Room 282 Ruffner Hall, Uni-versity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904.

REFERENCES

Allington, R. (2003). The schools we have, theschools we need. Retrieved September 11,2003, from http://cela.albany.edu/schools/rtinvite.html

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989).Different programs, indifferent instruc-tion. In D. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Be-yond separate education: Quality educationfor all (pp. 75-98). Baltimore: Brookes.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., &Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based ap-proaches to developing understanding:Classroom instruction and student per-formance in middle and high school En-glish. American Educational Research Jour-nal, 40, 685-730.

Archambault, F., Westberg, K., Brown, S.,Hallmark, B., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W.(1993). Regular classroom practices withgifted students: Results of a national surveyof classroom teachers (Research mono-graph 93102). Storrs: University of Con-necticut, National Research Center on theGifted and Talented.

Bemal, E. (2002). Three ways to achieve amore equitable representation of cultur-

ally and linguistically different studentsin GT programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 82-88.

Borland, J. (2003). The death of giftedness:Gifted education without gifted children.In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted edu-cation (pp. 105-124). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.,Tomlinson, C., & Moon, T. (2004). Thefea-sibility of high end learning in academicallydiverse middle schools. Storrs, CT: NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Tal-ented.

Brimijoin, K. (2001). Expertise in differentia-tion: A preservice and inservice teacher maketheir way. Unpublished dissertation, Uni-versity of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Burstein, N., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparingteachers to work with culturally diversestudents: A teacher education model.Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 9-16.

Calahan, C. (1996). A critical self-study ofgifted education: Healthy practice, neces-sary evil, or sedition? Journalfor the Edu-cation of the Gifted, 19,148-163.

Carbonaro, W., & Gamoran, A. (2002). Theproduction of achievement inequality inhigh school English. American EducationalResearch Journal, 39, 801-827.

Center for hnmigration Studies. (2001). Im-migrants in the U.S.-2000: A snapshot ofAmerica's foreign-born population. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

Center on English Learning and Achieve-ment. (2003). Tracking and the literacyachievement gap. RetrievedAugust 3,2003,from http://cela.albany.edu.newslet/spring03/tracking.htm

Cetron, M., & Cetron, K. (2003-2004). Aforecast for schools. Educational Leader-ship, 61(4), 22-29.

Cone, J. (2003). The construction of lowachievement: A study of one detrackedsenior English class. Harvard EducationLetter, 19(3),4-5.

Cunningham, P., & Allington, R. (1994).Classrooms that work: They can all read andwrite. New York: HarperCollins.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cul-tural conflict in the classroom. New York:New Press.

Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as "seed peo-ple" growing a new future. EducationalResearcher, 32(7), 14-21.

Denbo, S. (2002). Why can't we close theachievement gap? In S. Denbo & L. Beau-lieu (Eds.), Improving schools for AfricanAmerican students: A reader for educationalleaders (pp. 13-18). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

522 JOURNAL OF LEARNNC. DISABH=S

VOLUME 37, NUMBERS, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004 bl--

Donovan, M., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002) Mi-nority students in special and gifted educa-tion. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). Accelerat-ing the learning of all students: Cultivatingculture change in schools, classrooms, and in-dividuals. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fletcher, T., Bos, C., & Johnson, L. (1999).Accommodating English language learn-ers with language and learning disabili-ties in bilingual education classrooms.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,14, 80-91.

Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General edu-cators' instructional adaptation for stu-dents with learnng disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 21, 23-33.

Gayfer, M. (1991). The multi-grade classroom:Myth and reality, a Canadian study. To-ronto: Canadian Education Association.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Wiliams, J., & Baker,S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehen-sion strategies to students with learningdisabilities: A review of research. Reviewof Educational Research, 71, 279-320.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy ofpoverty vs. good teaching. Phi Delta Kap-pan, 73(4), 290-294.

Hilliard, A. (2002). Language, culture, andthe assessment of African American chil-dren. In L. Delpit & J. Dowdy (Eds.), Theskin that we speak: Thoughts on language andculture in the classroom (pp. 87-105). NewYork: New Press.

Hilliard, A., III. (2003). No mystery: Closingthe achievement gap. In T. Perry, C.Steele, & A. Hiliard (Eds.), Young, gifted,and black: Promoting high achievementamong African-American students (pp. 131-165). Boston: Beacon Press.

Hodges, H. (2001). Overcoming a pedagogyof poverty. In R. Cole (Ed.), More strategiesfor educating everybody's children (pp. 1-9).Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Hootstein, E. (1998). Differentiation of in-structional methodologies in subject-basedcurricula at the secondary level. Richmond,VA: Metropolitan Educational Consor-tium (MERC). (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 427 130)

Hopfenberg, W., & Levin, H. (1993). The ac-celerated schools resource guide. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hosp, J., & Reschly, D. (2004). Dispropor-tionate representation of minority stu-dents in special education: Demographicand economic predictors. Exceptional Chil-dren, 70, 185-199.

Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turningpoints 2000. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Kauffman, J., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (1995).The illusion ofjfull inclusion: A comprehen-sive critique of a current special educationbandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analyticfindings on grouping programs. GiftedChild Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

Ladson-BiDlings, G. (2002). I ain't writin'nuttin': Permissions to fail and demandsto succeed in urban classrooms. In L. Del-pit & f. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that wespeak: Thoughts on language and culture inthe classroom (pp. 106-120). New York:New Press.

Lasley, T., & Matczynski, T. (1997). Strategiesfor teaching in a diverse society: Instructionalmodels. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lewis, R., & Doorlag, D. (2003). Teachingspecial students in general education class-rooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrilPrentice Hall.

Lloyd, L. (1999). Multiage classes and highability students. Review of Educational Re-searcli, 69, 187-212.

Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: Theemergence of gifted children. New York: Al-dine De Gruyter.

Marx, G. (2000). Ten trends: Educating chil-dren for a profoundly different fiuture. Ar-lington, VA: Educational Research Ser-vice.

Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2004). Theinclusive classroom: Strategies for effectiveinstruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.,Haager, D., & Lee, 0. (1994). Observa-tions of students with learning disabili-ties in general education classrooms. Ex-ceptional Children, 60, 249-261.

Mehan, H., Vilanueva, I., Hubbard, L., &Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school sUc-cess: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Miller, B. (1990). A review of the quantita-tive research on multigrade instruction.Research in Rural Education, 7, 3-12.

Minner, S. (1990). Teacher evaluations ofcase descriptions of LD gifted children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 37-39.

Moon, T., Tomlinson, C., & Callahan, C.(1995). Academic diversity in the middleschool: Results of a national survey of middleschool administrators and teachers (Re-search Monograph 95124). Storrs: Uni-

versity of Connecticut, National ResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented.

Morocco, C., Riley, M., Gordon, S., &Howard, C. (1996). The elusive individ-ual in teachers' planning. In G. Brannigan(Ed.), The enlightened educator (pp. 154-176). New York: McGraw-Hill.

National Research Council. (2002). Minoritystudents in special and gifted education.Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Olson, L. (2002). Research underscores needfor tough courses. Retrieved October, 2,2003, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=37brookings.h21

Pianta, R., & LaParo, K. (2000). Predictingchildren's competence in the early schoolyears. Review of Educational Research, 70,443-484.

Perry, T., Steele, C., & HiDliard, A., Im.(2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promotinghigh achievement among African Americanstudents. Boston: Beacon Press.

Pollock, M. (2001). How the question weask most about race in education is thevery question we most suppress. Educa-tional Researcher, 30(9), 2-12.

Reis, S., Neu, T., & McGuire, J. (1997). Casestudies of high-ability students withlearning disabilities who have achieved.Exceptional Children, 63, 463-479.

Reis, S., Westberg, K., Kulkiowich, J., Cail-lard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., et al. (1993).Why not let high ability students start schoolin January: The curriculum compactingstudy (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs:University of Connecticut, National Re-search Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). Giftedness as asocial construct. Teachers College Record,89(1), 39-53.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites:Gifted education and the disruption of com-munity. Albany: State University of NewYork.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted ed-ucation: Building a shared agenda forschool reform. Journalfor the Education ofthe Gifted, 19, 194-214.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, excellence,and school reform: Why is finding a com-mon agenda so hard? In J. Borland (Ed.),Rethinking gifted education (pp. 127-142).New York: Teachers College Press.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure ofschool reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematicswork for all children: Issues of standards,testing, and equity. Educational Researcher,31(1), 13-25.

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004_ 523

524 JUTIL0 ERIGDSBLTE

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Makingadaptations for mainstreamed students:General classroom teachers' perspec-tives. Remedial and Special Education,12(4), 18-27.

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planningfor mainstreamed special education stu-dents: Perceptions of general classroomteachers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-98.

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Gettingready for inclusion: Is the stage set?Learning Disabilities Research1 & Practice,10, 169-179.

Schumm, J., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., Mc-Dowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L.(1995). General education teacher plan-ning: What can students with learningdisabilities expect? Exceptional Children,61, 335-352.

Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., &Ward, V. (1991). Recommended practices ingifted education: A critical analysis. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap:Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84,586-591.

Sizer, T., & Sizer, N. (1999). The students arewatching: Schools and tihe moral contract.Boston: Beacon Press.

Steele, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and stu-dent achievement. In T. Perry, C. Steele,& A. Hilliard, Young, gifted, and black: Pro-inoting high achievement among African-American students (pp. 109-130). Boston:Beacon Press.

Tatum, B. (1997). "Why are all the Black kidssitting together in tile cafeteria?" and other

conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks.

Tomlinson, C. (1995). Deciding to differen-tiate instruction in middle school: Oneschool's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly,39(2), 77-87.

Tomlinson, C. (1996). Good teaching for oneand all: Does gifted education have an in-structional identity? Journalfor the Educa-tion of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.

Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise ofthe differentiated classroom: Strategies andtools for responsive teaching. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-riculum Development.

Tomninson, C., Brimijoin, K., & Narvez, L.(2004). Learning to differentiate instruc-tion: A faculty as a community of learn-ers.

Tom]inson, C., Callahan, C., & Lelli, K.(1997). Challenging expectations: Casestudies of high-potential, culturally di-verse young children. Gifted Child Quar-terly, 41(2), 5-17.

Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E.,Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M.(1997). Becoming architects of communi-ties of learning: Addressing academic di-versity in contemporary classrooms. Ex-ceptional Children, 63, 269-282.

Tomlinson, C., Kaplan, S., Renzulli, J., Pur-cell,J., Leppien,J., & Bums, D. (2001). Theparallel curriculum model: A design to de-velop high potential and challenge high abil-ity learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

U.S. Department of Education (2000).Twenty-second annual report to Congress on

the implementation of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act. Washington,DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Pris-oners of time. Retrieved December 1,2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/PrisonersOfI'ime/Prisoners.htmnl

Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum pol-icy development for gifted programs: Con-verting issues in the field to coherentpractice. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinkinggifted education (pp. 173-185). New York:Teachers College Press.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1994). Middleschool teachers' planning for studentswith learning disabilities. Remedial andSpecial Education, 15, 151-162.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2003). Making in-clusive education work. Educational Lead-ership, 61(2), 19-23.

Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S.,& Salvin, T. (1993). An observational studyof instructional and curricular practices usedwith gifted and talented students in regularclassrooms (Research Monograph 93104).Storrs: University of Connecticut, Na-tional Research Center on the Gifted andTalented.

Whitmore, J., & Maker, C. (1985). Intellectualgiftedness in disabled persons. Rockville,MD: Aspen.

Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., & Sema, I. (2002).Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" indetracking schools. American EducationalResearch Journal, 39, 37-67

524 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABKXITES

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The M"obius Effect: Addressing Learner Variance inSchools

SOURCE: J Learn Disabil 37 no6 N/D 2004WN: 0431602284007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.proedinc.com/

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.