The M'Obi'us Effect.
Addressing Learner Variance in Schools
Carol Ann Tomlinson
Abstract
Currently, educators separate out from typical students those whose learning needs vary from the norm. The norming and sorting process
may 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 examine the potential costs and benefits of alternative approaches to addressing the learning needs that exist among people.
he argument posed in Reid and
Valle's article brings to mind
"doing school" as a sort of M6bius strip, in which there is a progression of practices and ramifications
feeding one another, almost without
beginning or end-essentially proceeding in circles. In regard to the construct of "learning disabilities (LD),
Reid and Valle propose that at a point
in the recent history of schooling when
it became apparent that significant
numbers of students were not learning
according to schedule and plan, it
seemed reasonable to describe "irregularities" in such students. For many
educators, this gave rise to language,
etiology, diagnosis, prescription, and
specialty related to LD. For many students, it gave rise to identification as
"deviant." For many parents, it gave
rise to a paradoxical sense of both entitlement and alienation. At the same
time, Reid and Valle suggest, there is
little evidence that a particular curriculum or pedagogy exists for students separated out as having LD and
little evidence that this separation has
led to systematic academic gain for
these students. Although there may
have been a moment of beginning in
the progression, that moment is now
lost in taken-for-granted practices of
doing school wherein each element in
the progression serves to legitimiize each
other element.
I believe Reid and Valle's conclusions are validated by looking not
solely within the specialty of LD but
also at the larger system of schooling in
which a persistent undertow of the
"norm" has the effect of setting apart
students who do not appear to approximate the norm. Furthermore, I
will argue that the specialties created
as we systematically segregate from
the "normal" students those whom we
determine to be "not normal" further
deter us from addressing systemic educational flaws that must be corrected
before the increasing numbers of students represented by the specialty
areas can flourish in contemporary
schools. Such changes in how we "do
school" would be immense in scope.
They may also be mandatory in a society that intends unity to emerge from
plurality and that promotes positive
quality of life as a by-product of educational opportunity.
Schools, of course, are complex
networks of complex individuals functioning in a loosely coupled way as
complex groups. There is no single argument that can do justice to the complexity of beliefs, motivations, intents,
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
and practices that play out daily in
schools and classrooms across the nation. Nonetheless, representing some
of the complexities gives us a sense of
what it might require if, as Reid and
Valle suggest, we should elect to move
from what is to what might be in our
schools.
Parallels with Other Student
Populations
If the argument mounted by Reid and
Valle is interesting in regard to students designated as having LD, it becomes compelling when it is echoed in
the literature related to other groups of
students. Reid and Valle's themes play
out with remarkable similarity in regard to students identified as "gifted,"
students identified as "remedial," and
students whose race sets them apart as
"different."
The Construct of "Giftedness"
Articulating positions that sound remarkably like Reid and Valle's argument regarding the construct of LD, a
number of authors have suggested that
"giftedness" is not an objective and
verifiable reality but rather an invention or construction propelled by a range
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER
NUMBER 6,
37, NUMBER
VOLUME
2004
VOLLTIVM 37,
of motivations. Among those motivations are the desire to serve students
who are ill served by general education
classrooms, the desire to create educational safe havens for some students,
and the desire to maintain an education of privilege within public schools
(Borland, 2003; Callahan, 1996; Margolin, 1994; Sapon-Shevin, 1987, 1994,
1996, 2003). Those who take such a position regarding the school construct
of "giftedness" as invention-whether
from a position of firm belief or functioning as gadflies-conclude,
1. "Giftedness" is not only socially
constructed but derives credence
more through discourse about the
construct and investment in the
construct than through empirical
evidence of its existence as an entity (Borland, 2003; Margolin, 1994;
Sapon-Shevin, 1994).
2. Psychometrics becomes a way of
setting apart individuals as different and also becomes a tool to remind them that they are being observed and ranked-a particular
problem for students already marginalized in one way or another
(Borland, 2003; Margolin, 1994;
Sapon-Shevin, 1994).
3. The concept of "normal" is also a
social invention and reflects a desire to dichotomize individuals
into those who are tractable or
teachable, those who would not
benefit from a "standard" education, and those who need to be
particularly nurtured because of
their potential to serve the national
interest (Borland, 2003).
4. There is no broadly agreed-upon
definition of "giftedness," even
though we "identify" students as if
there were such a common definition (Borland, 2003; Margolin,
1994).
5. There is no evidence that students
designated as "gifted" are a homogeneous group with homogeneous
learning needs (Margolin, 1994).
6. There is no strong case to be made
that 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 efficacy of many approaches to teaching gifted learners is lacking
(Borland, 2003; Shore, Cornell,
Robinson, & Ward, 1991).
8. That "gifted programs" exist separately from general classrooms
contributes to and exacerbates
racial inequities in the United
States (Borland, 2003).
9. A more defensible approach to
serving "gifted" learners than labeling and segregating them is differentiating instruction in response
to student need (Borland, 2003:
Tomlinson, 2003: Tomlinson et al.,
2001).
The Construct of "Remedial
Learners"
Those who question the efficacy of
identifying and separately serving students deemed "remedial" in one or
more areas share misgivings not unlike
those who call into question the wisdom and efficacy of identifying, labeling, and developing separate educational practices related to "learning
disabilities" and "giftedness." Once
again, issues of definition, accuracy of
diagnosis, and effectiveness of treatment guide the discussion.
1. As some students have failed to
perform in classrooms according to
expectations of a "norm," there has
followed a sequence of defining
their "problems," developing
means of identifying such students, separating them from the
general population for services,
and developing procedures for "remediating" their problems (Finnan
& Swanson, 2000; Hopfenberg &
Levin, 1993).
2. The concept of the "remedial" student suggests flaws within the
learner rather than within the educational system (Hopfenberg &
Levin, 1993).
517
517
3. Methods used to identify "remedial" learners are imprecise at best
(Finnan & Swanson, 2000).
4. The group of learners designated
as "remedial" is not a homogeneous group, and their learning
backgrounds and needs demonstrate considerable variance (Finnan & Swanson, 2000; Hopfenberg
& Levin, 1993).
5. There is little evidence that the
sorting and remediating process
has benefited "remedial" learners
(Allington, 2003; Finnan & Swanson, 2000).
6. The very structure of many programs for "remedial" learners
often predicts lack of success
(Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993). Students diagnosed with a reading
"deficit," for example, have been
sorted into Title I programs designed to ensure additional literacy
instruction for small groups of students. First, students were typically pulled out of literacy instruction in general classrooms for
Title I instruction, with the result
that these students received not
additionalliteracy instruction but
rather the same amount in a different setting. Second, group size in
Title I classes was generally about
the same as reading group size in
the general classroom, so that students designated as eligible for
Title I services did not receive
more intensive instruction. Third,
there was little personalization in
the Title I classrooms, following
the pattern of teaching to a norm
(Allington, 2003). "The most common Chapter I program designs
virtually precluded instruction of
the sort that might be expected to
accelerate achievement" (Allington, 2003, p. 6). Most students
placed in remedial programs never
leave them (Hopfenberg & Levin,
1993).
7. Evidence indicates that "remedial"
students both need and benefit
from the sort of rich, high-quality
curriculum and program structures
typically missing from "remedial"
OF LEARMNG DISASILITIES
JOURNAL
JOURNAL OF LEARNNG DISABrLrrIES
518
programs (Hopfenberg & Levin,
1993).
Race and Instructional
Decision Making
Race is not argued to be a socially constructed category in the same way that
some authors have argued "learning
disability," "giftedness," and "remedial learning" to be constructed. Nonetheless, placement of students in "categories" for purposes of schooling has
profound racial overtones and equally
potent implications for students of
both majority (EuropeanAmerican) and
minority (particularly African American, Hispanic, and Native American)
learners. Regardless of intent, acceptance of either special classes or tracks
as a pervasive mechanism for addressing learner needs yields racial patterns
that have become predictable in our
schools. Those who write about these
issues present themes remarkably like
the ones arising from critiques of educational practice related to "learning
disabilities," "giftedness," and "remedial learning":
1. We have come to believe that race
affects learning and link race with
school performance. In fact, our
matter-of-fact acceptance of racial
achievement patterns (in discourse, research, and writing)
serves to reinforce those patterns,
making them seem "normal" in
schools (Delpit, 2003; Pollock,
2001).
2. We tend to look for achievementrelated "problems" within the students of various non-European
American races or in their cultural
contexts, rather than in schools
(Hilliard, 2003; Pollock, 2001;
Singham, 2003).
3. We conclude that African American, Hispanic, Native American,
and some other minority learners
are likely to be low performers in
school (Poilock, 2001; Singham,
2003).
4. The assessment process we use to
identify students who will have
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
difficulty in school works against
many minority learners (Hilliard,
2002, 2003).
We place greatly disproportional
numbers of minority students
into special education programs
or low-track classes because of
our beliefs in their low performance potential (Denbo, 2002;
Donovan & Cross, 2002; Finnan &
Swanson, 2000; National Research
Council, 2002; Olson, 2002; Tatum,
1997).
Underrepresentation of many minorities in gifted education programs and high-track classes also
reflects our beliefs about a negative correlation between membership in some ethnic/racial groups
and positive school achievement
(Bernal, 2002; Mehan, Villanueva,
Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; National
Research Council, 2002; Olson,
2002; Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna,
2002).
The nature of the special programs and low-track classes in
which we disproportionately
place minority students reflects
our low expectations of these
students (Hilliard, 2003; Tatum,
1997).
The message of low expectations
is very clear to many minority
leamers and leads to student
disaffiliation with achievement
(Cone, 2003; Delpit, 2003; Hilliard,
2003; Perry, Steele, & Hilliard,
2003; Steele, 2003; Tatum, 1997).
In order to reverse this cycle, minority leamers must be systematically and persistently included in
rich learning opportunities, with
students invested in academic
achievement, and with support to
address particular leaming needs
and success (Cone, 2003; Hilliard,
2003; Hosp & Reschly, 2004;
Ladson-Billings, 2002; Schoenfeld, 2002; Tatum, 1997). Such
approaches are important for
all learners (Singham, 2003).
Racial pattems are never "natural" orders and can and must
be dismantled (Pollock, 2001).
Thus, in the literature of at least
four subsets of educational inquirylearning disabilities, gifted education,
remedial education, and race-there is
a case to be made that (a) we identify
leamers based on differences from a
perceived norm; (b) the means by
which we identify learners for services
based on their differences are at least
questionable, if not worse; (c) the categories in which students are placed are
themselves not homogeneous; (d) the
educational offerings that students receive as a result of their categorization
are seldom defensible as being appropriate only for students in a given category; (e) the efficacy of these services
in promoting student achievement is
often doubtful; and (f) the implications
for students of being labeled may be
negative without offsetting positive
outcomes stemming from effective services.
In light of the similar cautions
from a number of educational specialties, it is critical to look at the larger educational context in which these specialties exist. Failure to do so allows us
the illusion that we can engineer one
segment of a complex system without
regard to its impact on and implications for the system as a whole.
Burgeoning Academic
Diversity
Among the realities facing contemporary educators is the academic diversity that continues to grow at a rate that
will shortly alter the fabric of the nation (Marx, 2000). The number of students who leam English as they grapple with the requirements of school is
increasing across the country (Center
for Immigration Studies, 2001). In
2000, the non-Hispanic White majority
in this country represented 71% of the
population. By 2050, it will represent
only 53%, with those under 18 years of
age representing only 46% of the population (Cetron & Cetron, 2003-2004;
Marx, 2000). Simultaneously (and perhaps not coincidentally, as Reid and
Valle have noted), the number of iden-
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
tified special education students in
general education classrooms has increased 20% in the last decade (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000), with
more students who are identified as
having "learning problems" attending
schools than ever before (Gersten,
Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Furthermore, both students with diagnosed "disabilities" (Lewis & Doorlag,
2003; Villa & Thousand, 2003) and
"gifted" learners (Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993) typically spend most of their school time in
general education classrooms.
Whether we elect to label and segment students based on "differences"
or not, it is the case that students with
a wide variance in pace of learning, opportunity to learn, culture, race, economic support, preferred approach to
learning, and interest form today's
class rosters. Indications are that the
wide variance among learners in our
schools will be neither transitory nor
diminishing in degree in subsequent
generations of students (Cetron &
Cetron, 2003-2004; Marx, 2000). As student diversity escalates, the question
of how educators envision diversity
only becomes more salient. Will the
preferred response continue to be one
of labeling and separating students
whom we see as problematic because
they differ from a "norm' (which itself
becomes less of a reality), or is there the
possibility of envisioning settings in
which teachers systematically plan for
instruction that is responsive to a predictable range of human variance?
Responding to Learner
Variance
A variety of researchers and professional organizations opt for the latter
possibility and speak to the need for
classrooms to be responsive to learner
variance. For example, the National
Association for the Education of Young
Children (Pianta & LaParo, 2000) has
emphasized that it is the responsibility
of schools to adjust to the developmental needs and levels of the children
they serve, rather than expecting chil-
dren to adjust to a system that is inattentive to their needs. Turning Points
2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000) reminded
middle-level educators that middle
school classes should be academically
diverse and that instruction should be
differentiated to respond to this diversity. Sizer and Sizer (1999) reminded us
that it is part of our moral contract with
students for teachers to work with
learners not from a one-size-fits-all
confidence but from a base of knowing
each student well and building on the
student's particular knowledge. Students' voices reflect the reality that
single-size instruction fails them by
mandating that everyone learn alike,
no matter what students' particular
profiles are (Sarason, 1990). The voices
calling for teaching that is responsive
to learner variance are not in short supply. Their message is unambiguous:
We fail students when we assume that
they learn in the same way and in accordance with a singular timetable.
In contrast, research suggests that
current classroom practice-in a variety of settings-is calibrated to some
sort of "norm" (albeit varying from setting to setting). Furthermore, it appears that teachers are disinclined to
modify teaching practices in ways that
extend to students with learning needs
that extend beyond the defined norm.
In fact, it is not clear that the bulk of
teachers believe that responsive instruction is desirable.
In some instances, teachers indicate that it is important to address
student variance in their classrooms
(Hootstein, 1998). In other instances, as
many as half of the teachers in a randomized, national sample of middle
school teachers indicated that they saw
no need to do so (Moon, Tomlinson,
& Callahan, 1995). Furthermore, when
teachers do support responsive instruction, they are likely to find adaptations for learner variance more desirable than feasible (Schumm & Vaughn,
1991; Tornlinson, Callahan, Tomchin,
et al., 1997). Moreover, even when
teachers express support for inclusive
classrooms, they are more likely to
plan for whole-class instruction than
51Y
for instruction that is attentive to a variety of learner needs (Morocco, Riley,
Gordon, & Howard, 1996; Tomlinson,
Callahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).
When researchers examine classroom adaptations for specific "categories" of learners, the general patterns
related to nonresponsive instruction
hold. For example, teachers typically
do not make instructional adaptations
for students with diagnosed LD (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 1998; Schumm & Vaughn,
1995) because they are unaware of student needs (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992,
1995), fear calling attention to student
differences (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995),
or feel that adaptations are poor preparation for "the real world" (Schumm &
Vaughn, 1995). It is noteworthy that
some teachers indicated they did not
make adaptations for students with
diagnosed LD because they felt it
was not their job to do so (Schumm
& Vaughn, 1995). Although teachers
treated students with "mild disabilities" fairly and impartially (McIntosh,
Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee,
1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), they
were resistant to adapting materials,
lesson plans, instructional practices,
evaluation procedures, and grading
criteria (McIntosh et al., 1994; Schumm
& Vaughn, 1995; Vaughn & Schumm,
1994).
Students falling in the category of
"multicultural learners" are likely to
find their teachers unaware of, or inattentive to, ways in which culture or
race can affect their achievement (Delpit, 1995; Lasley & Matczynski, 1997;
Perry et al., 2003), and are likely to receive little in the way of curricular or
instructional modification designed either to ensure that they see themselves
in what they study or to help them
build skills and habits of mind necessary for high levels of school success
(Burstein & Cabello, 1989; Delpit, 1995;
Lasley & Matczynski, 1997; Perry et al.,
2003).
The one category of students designated as deviating from the norm by
having too much knowledge and skill,
rather than in some way being regarded as deficient in those areas, ap-
52U
520
pears to fare no better. Studies suggest
that students identified as "gifted"
find few adaptations in curriculum
and instruction in response to their
learning needs (Archambault et al.,
1993; Reis et al., 1993; Westberg et al.,
1993). The dearth of adaptations for
this category of students may stem
from teachers' lack of knowledge
about how to provide challenge beyond grade level, lack of teacher empathy for students in this category, or
the teacher's belief that making such
adaptations is not his or her responsibility (Tomlinson, 1995; Tomlinson,
Calahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).
If it is difficult for students with
one label designating learning differences to find appropriate support for
their developmental needs, it is likely
to be more difficult for dual-labeled
students. This is the case even in special settings, where one might assume
that teacher sensitivity to learner variance is high. For instance, "English language learners" who also had diagnosed "learning disabilities" found
that teachers in their bilingual classrooms made few adaptations for learning needs-attending instead only to
language issues in the class (Fletcher,
Bos, & Johnson, 1999). Similarly, students who are identified as "gifted"
but who also have a diagnosed "learning disability" are more likely to receive services for areas of difficulty
than for areas in which they are advanced-in other words, to be regarded as "disabled" or "less able"
rather than "advanced" (Mlinner, 1990;
Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997; Whitmore
& Maker, 1985). Students in Title I programs for learners with reading difficulties also rarely encounter personalized instruction despite the reality that
they are not a homogeneous population in regard to their reading needs
(Allington, 2003).
There is a sense among teachers
that exposing students who struggle
with academics to material (vs. scaffolding success with that material) will
somehow benefit them (Tomlinson,
1995; Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin,
et al., 1997) and that once students
have achieved the "standard" expecta-
OF LFARNTNG DISABILiTIES
JOURNAL
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
tions, the teacher is relieved of responsibility to move those learners further
along a continuum of knowledge, understanding, and skil (Tomlinson, 1995;
Tomlinson, Callahan, & Lelli, 1997; Tomlinson, Calahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).
Barriers to classrooms becoming more
responsive to the variance that inevitably exists in learners include (a) lack
of teacher reflection about learners,
(b) lack of teacher clarity regarding the
essential structures of the disciplines
they teach, (c) a shallow reservoir of instructional strategies to respond to
learner needs, and (d) lack of teacher
confidence related to managing more
flexible classrooms (Brighton, Hertberg, Callahan, Tomlinson, & Moon,
2004).
We appear to work in a system in
which a norm defines the parameters of
our practice. It is too often the case that
(a) we have created categories of deviance from a norm; (b) teachers are
aware of both the categories and the
differences they are intended to signify; (c) teachers are unlikely to adapt
instruction in significant ways for students who deviate from their particular norm-whether that norm is based
on general classroom or special setting
plans; and (d) when teachers elect not
to address learner variance, there is a
specialty area that accepts responsibility for doing so. The Mobius strip-like
progression toward segmentation is reinforced by the realization that there
are currently at least 17 categories into
which we diagnose, assign, and "treat"
learners in schools (Mastropieri &
Scruggs, 2004) and that currently,
nearly half of the adults who work
in schools are not classroom teachers
(Allington, 2003). Furthermore, the
categorizing, labeling, and sorting approach to doing school has significant
implications related to the quality of
curriculum and instruction that students are likely to encounter.
Nature of Curriculum and
Instruction
Not only is it the case that student populations are becoming more diverse
even as classrooms generally remain
inattentive to variance in student
learning needs, but it is also a reality
that our beliefs about student potential
greatly affect the quality of curriculum
and instruction that students are likely
to encounter in school. Simultaneously,
many have noted the necessity for
schools to prepare the broadest possible spectrum of the student population
to function at levels of knowledge, understanding, and skill that were once
considered the standard for only the
most successful students in school
(Allington, 2003; Denbo, 2002; Marx,
2000; Tomlinson et al., 2001). Highlevel knowledge, understanding, and
skill seem imperative for contemporary students to succeed in the face of
the social, political, and economic issues they will inherit (Marx, 2000; U.S.
Government, 1994). Certainly some of
the challenge will emanate from trying
to provide economic, cultural, and personal efficacy for all members of an increasingly diverse society with the
goal of securing democracy for the future.
It appears, however, that students
in low-group and low-track classes are
more likely to encounter curricula focused on drill, seatwork, giving right
answers, going over questions, reviewing, and other low-level tasks (Center
on English Learning and Achievement,
2003; Delpit, 2003; Haberman, 1991),
whereas students in high-group and
high-track classes are more likely to be
engaged with cognition and metacognition, problem solving, making meaning, active learning, substantive discussion, and other high-level tasks
(Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002; Center
on English Learning and Achievement,
2003; Hodges, 2001). The former tends
to typify special education, remedial,
low-track, and low-group placements
(Center for English Learning and
Achievement, 2003: Singham, 2003).
The latter tends to typify gifted education, high-track, and high-group
classes (Center on English Learning
and Achievement, 2003).
The argument can be made that as
long as high-level curriculum and instruction are accepted as appropriate
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
only for more advanced settings, and
those settings are the responsibility of
someone other than the general education classroom teacher, there is little
impetus to retool the broader spectrum
of teachers and classrooms to be places
where such high-level curriculum and
instruction are the norm. Conversely,
the argument can be made that as long
as scaffolded learning is accepted as
appropriate for special settings for students deemed deficient in learning,
and those settings are the responsibility of someone other than the general
education classroom teacher, there is
little impetus to retool the broader
spectrum of teachers and classrooms to
be places in which scaffolding achievement is a norm. Indeed, research suggests that classroom teachers tend to
assume they have taught struggling
learners effectively when they "expose" the learners to content and skills,
rather than when they scaffold success
with those skills, and that many teachers do not know how to provide curriculum and instruction that challenge
learners who are advanced (Tomlinson, 1995; Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, et al., 1997).
If there were strong evidence that
labeling students and placing them in
special settings routinely improved
their achievement, it would be easier
to defend the Mbbius strip effect
through which we have come to accept
defining "problems," formally identifying them, segregating learners based
on the identification, and serving them
according to the "problem" we defined. Substantial research suggests,
however, that special programs, special teachers, and segregated instruction are no match for high-quality
classroom instruction (Allington, 2003;
Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989;
Cunningham & Allington, 1994). In
fact, placement in low-track or lowgroup classes contributes to the diagnosis that prompted students to be
placed in those classes (Applebee,
Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;
Mehan et al., 1996).
An exception to this pattern is the
achievement of students identified as
"gifted" and placed in "advanced"
--521
learning settings. These students do
What Is and What Might Be
experience a rise in achievement under
certain conditions-particularly accel- Despite evidence that our identificaeration and other settings where cur- tion mechanisms are not consistently
riculum and instruction are modified reliable, that the specialty groups we
to reflect higher expectations than create are not homogeneous, that the
would be the case in general education curriculum and instruction we apply
classrooms (Borland, 2003; Kulik & to the various groups are not uniquely
suited to those groups alone, and that
Kulik, 1992).
It is also important to note that our interventions are not robustly effimany students labeled and segregated cacious, we continue to prefer addressas "low achieving" not only can ac- ing learner variance via segregation.
complish much higher level academic Reid and Valle make the case that this
fare than they often receive, but may approach to serving students desigachieve better when given more ad- nated as having LD is questionable at
vanced learning opportunities than do best and pernicious at worst. Their arpeers who remain in the "special set- guments only become more powerful
tings" designed to boost their achieve- as we examine them in the broader
ment (Applebee et al., 2003). This is context of schooling and the proliferaparticularly evident when students re- tion of categories of learners we now
ceive appropriate support and scaf- designate as different enough to be disfolding in the context of high-level tinguished from the norm.
We need at least to carefully conlearning opportunities (Delpit, 2003;
Denbo, 2002; Finnan & Swanson, 2000; sider the implications for students,
schools, and society of perpetuating a
Hilliard, 2003; Schoenfeld, 2002).
Thus, it may be that we not only dis-integration of the whole-particuseparate students from one another in larly at a time in our history when, on
ways that are imprecise at best but, in several levels, diversity invites us to
doing so, also may be making a deter- separate "us" from "them." We need at
mination of who does and does not least to explore how it is that schools
merit what we know to be high-quality address our national motto and craft
learning opportunities. In addition to one nation from many individuals
making rich curriculum and dynamic when our educational practices indiinstruction the purview of "gifted" or cate that our differences not only de"advanced" classes, we assign to "re- fine us but separate us from a "norm"medial" or "special" settings responsi- which itself becomes more elusive by
bility for learning about and imple- the year. We need at least to ponder the
menting scaffolded instruction. In so effects on general education classroom
doing, we have quite possibly devel- instruction of making it possible to asoped low-quality, low-support classes sign responsibility for advanced chal(low-track classes); low-quality, high- lenge and supported learning to other
support classes (special education, venues. We need at least to thoroughly
Title I, second language classes); and consider the effects of a systemwide,
high-quality, low-support classes (gifted Mobius strip-like progression of beeducation, advanced, honors classes). liefs about student potentials ascribed
It may well be that our best avenue to by the assignment of students to condeveloping high-quality, high-support notation-laden groups and reinforced
classes for the broadest possible array by these assignments.
To deconstruct the Mbbius strip of
of students is the purposeful integration of the "support specialties" and infinite movement with no clearly dis"advanced specialties" into settings cernable beginning and end and to deguided collaboratively by classroom velop a more productive orientation to
teachers and specialists, with the goal effectively teaching all learners as a
of ensuring that the vast majority of part of the spectrum of what it means
students experience both challenge to be human is as daunting as it is necessary. To do so will require courage
and success.
522
and formidable change-not only for
classroom teachers, but equally for
specialists, administrators, staff developers, and teacher educators.
At the very least, deconstructing
the M6bius strip would call on us to
distinguish between experience and
ability-understanding that the former shapes the latter. To that end, it
would call on us to accelerate learning
for more students (including those
who are advanced) rather than slowing it down. It would call on us to couple the highest quality of responsive or
differentiated instruction with the
highest quality curriculum to ensure
access to maximum growth for all
learners. It would certainly call on us
to attend more to supporting than to
sorting students (Allington, 2003). It
would call on us to somehow work our
way into believing in the intellectual
capacity of students of all races and
economic levels (Delpit, 2003; Hilliard,
2003). Currently, only a quarter of classroom teachers report feeling competent to teach in inclusive classrooms
(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004).
We do know it is possible for students with a broad range of learning
needs to achieve effectively in robustly
responsive communities of learning
(Brimijoin, 2001; Gayfer, 1991; Lloyd,
1999; Miller, 1990; Tomlinson, Brimijoin, & Narvez, 2004). We also know
that there will always be students
whose particular needs are so great
that even a teacher highly skilled in responsive or differentiated instruction,
supported by expert specialists, will be
unable to provide adequately for those
learners (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995;
Van Tassel-Baska, 2003).
In between those two realities are
many things we do not know enough
about: the range of students an effective teacher can effectively serve;
building productive collaborations between classroom teachers and specialists; developing and disseminating
curriculum of the highest quality in
forms that are accessible to teachers;
providing and sustaining staff development that results in positive change;
and overcoming beliefs that restrict
OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
JOURNAL
JOURNAL OF LEARNNC. DISABH=S
human possibility-to name a few. A
key question is whether we have the
will to find answers.
The decisions we make affect the
students assigned to the specialty
areas, and they profoundly affect the
system of schooling as a whole. Reid
and Valle move us from what is to
what might be by raising questions it
would be easier to ignore related to the
construct and specialty of "learning
disabilities." We need to continue raising the same questions as they relate to
the myriad of other constructs and specialties we have spawned in schoolsand in regard to the impact of those
constructs and specialties on the enterprise of schooling as a whole.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
CarolAnn Tomlinson, EdD, is professor of educational leadership,foundations,and policy at
Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. Her interests include teaching for academic diversity and effective curriculumand instruction in K-12 classrooms. Address: Carol
Ann Tomlinson, Room 282 Ruffner Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. (2003). The schools we have, the
schools we need. Retrieved September 11,
2003, from http://cela.albany.edu/
schools/rtinvite.html
Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989).
Different programs, indifferent instruction. In D. Lipsky &A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education
for all (pp. 75-98). Baltimore: Brookes.
ally and linguistically different students
in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 8288.
Borland, J. (2003). The death of giftedness:
Gifted education without gifted children.
In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C.,
Tomlinson, C., &Moon, T. (2004). Thefeasibility of high end learningin academically
diverse middle schools. Storrs, CT: National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Brimijoin, K. (2001). Expertise in differentiation: A preserviceand inservice teacher make
their way. Unpublished dissertation, Uni-
versity of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Burstein, N., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparing
teachers to work with culturally diverse
students: A teacher education model.
Journalof Teacher Education, 40(5), 9-16.
Calahan, C. (1996). A critical self-study of
gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 19,148-163.
Carbonaro, W., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The
production of achievement inequality in
high school English. American Educational
Research Journal,39, 801-827.
Center for hnmigration Studies. (2001). Immigrants in the U.S.-2000: A snapshot of
America's foreign-born population. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Center on English Learning and Achievement. (2003). Tracking and the literacy
achievement gap. RetrievedAugust 3,2003,
from http://cela.albany.edu.newslet/
spring03/tracking.htm
Cetron, M., & Cetron, K. (2003-2004). A
forecast for schools. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 22-29.
Cone, J. (2003). The construction of low
achievement: A study of one detracked
senior English class. Harvard Education
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., &
Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding:
Letter, 19(3),4-5.
Classroom instruction and student per- Cunningham, P., & Allington, R. (1994).
formance in middle and high school EnClassrooms that work: They can all read and
glish. American Educational Research Jourwrite. New York: HarperCollins.
nal, 40, 685-730.
Delpit, L. (1995). Otherpeople's children: CulArchambault, F., Westberg, K., Brown, S.,
tural conflict in the classroom. New York:
Hallmark, B., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W.
New Press.
(1993). Regular classroom practices with Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as "seed peogifted students: Results of a nationalsurvey
ple" growing a new future. Educational
of classroom teachers (Research monoResearcher, 32(7), 14-21.
graph 93102). Storrs: University of Con- Denbo, S. (2002). Why can't we close the
necticut, National Research Center on the
achievement gap? In S.Denbo &L. BeauGifted and Talented.
lieu (Eds.), Improving schools for African
Bemal, E. (2002). Three ways to achieve a
American students:A readerfor educational
more equitable representation of culturleaders(pp. 13-18). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
VOLUME 37, NUMBERS, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004_
Donovan, M., &Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002) Mi- Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning
points 2000. New York: Teachers College
nority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Press.
Kauffman, J., &Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (1995).
Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. (2000). AcceleratThe illusion ofjfull inclusion: A comprehening the learningof all students: Cultivating
sive critique of a current special education
culture change in schools, classrooms, and inbandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
dividuals. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1992). Meta-analytic
Fletcher, T., Bos, C., & Johnson, L. (1999).
findings on grouping programs. Gifted
Accommodating English language learnChild Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
ers with language and learning disabili- Ladson-BiDlings, G. (2002). I ain't writin'
ties in bilingual education classrooms.
nuttin': Permissions to fail and demands
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
to succeed in urban classrooms. In L. Del14, 80-91.
pit & f. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that we
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General eduspeak: Thoughts on language and culture in
cators' instructional adaptation for stuthe classroom (pp. 106-120). New York:
dents with learnng disabilities. Learning
New Press.
Disability Quarterly, 21, 23-33.
Lasley, T., &Matczynski, T.(1997). Strategies
Gayfer, M. (1991). The multi-grade classroom:
for teaching in a diversesociety: Instructional
Myth and reality, a Canadian study. Tomodels. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
ronto: Canadian Education Association.
Lewis, R., & Doorlag, D. (2003). Teaching
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Wiliams, J., &Baker,
special students in general education classS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehenrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril
sion strategies to students with learning
Prentice Hall.
disabilities: A review of research. Review
Lloyd, L. (1999). Multiage classes and high
of EducationalResearch, 71, 279-320.
ability students. Review of EducationalReHaberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of
searcli, 69, 187-212.
poverty vs. good teaching. Phi DeltaKapMargolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified:The
pan, 73(4), 290-294.
emergence of gifted children. New York: AlHilliard, A. (2002). Language, culture, and
dine De Gruyter.
the assessment of African American chilMarx, G. (2000). Ten trends: Educating children. In L. Delpit & J. Dowdy (Eds.), The
dren for a profoundly different fiuture. Arskin that we speak: Thoughts on languageand
lington, VA: Educational Research Serculture in the classroom (pp. 87-105). New
vice.
York: New Press.
Mastropieri,
M., & Scruggs, T. (2004). The
Hilliard, A., III. (2003). No mystery: Closing
inclusive
classroom:
Strategies for effective
the achievement gap. In T. Perry, C.
instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
Steele, &A. Hiliard (Eds.), Young, gifted,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
and black: Promoting high achievement
McIntosh,
R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.,
among African-Americanstudents (pp. 131Haager,
D.,
& Lee, 0. (1994). Observa165). Boston: Beacon Press.
tions of students with learning disabiliHodges, H. (2001). Overcoming a pedagogy
ties in general education classrooms. Exof poverty. In R. Cole (Ed.), More strategies
ceptional Children, 60, 249-261.
for educating everybody's children (pp. 1-9).
Mehan,
H., Vilanueva, I., Hubbard, L., &
Alexandria, VA: Association for SuperviLintz, A. (1996). Constructing school sUcsion and Curriculum Development.
cess: The consequences of untracking lowHootstein, E. (1998). Differentiation of inachieving students. New York: Cambridge
structional methodologies in subject-based
University Press.
curriculaat the secondary level. Richmond,
VA: Metropolitan Educational Consor- Miller, B. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade instruction.
tium (MERC). (ERIC Document ReproResearch in Rural Education, 7, 3-12.
duction Service No. ED 427 130)
Hopfenberg, W., &Levin, H. (1993). The ac- Minner, S. (1990). Teacher evaluations of
case descriptions of LD gifted children.
celerated schools resource guide. San FranGifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 37-39.
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hosp, J., & Reschly, D. (2004). Dispropor- Moon, T., Tomlinson, C., & Callahan, C.
tionate representation of minority stu(1995). Academic diversity in the middle
dents in special education: Demographic
school: Results of a nationalsurvey of middle
and economic predictors. Exceptional Chilschool administrators and teachers (Redren, 70, 185-199.
search Monograph 95124). Storrs: Uni-
bl-523
versity of Connecticut, National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Morocco, C., Riley, M., Gordon, S., &
Howard, C. (1996). The elusive individual in teachers' planning. In G. Brannigan
(Ed.), The enlightened educator (pp. 154176). New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority
students in special and gifted education.
Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.
Olson, L. (2002). Research underscores need
for tough courses. Retrieved October, 2,
2003, from http://www.edweek.org/
ew/newstory.cfm?slug=37brookings.h21
Pianta, R., & LaParo, K. (2000). Predicting
children's competence in the early school
years. Review of Educational Research, 70,
443-484.
Perry, T., Steele, C., & HiDliard, A., Im.
(2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting
high achievement among African American
students. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pollock, M. (2001). How the question we
ask most about race in education is the
very question we most suppress. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 2-12.
Reis, S., Neu, T., &McGuire, J. (1997). Case
studies of high-ability students with
learning disabilities who have achieved.
Exceptional Children, 63, 463-479.
Reis, S., Westberg, K., Kulkiowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., et al. (1993).
Why not let high ability students start school
in January: The curriculum compacting
study (Research Monograph 93106). Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). Giftedness as a
social construct. Teachers College Record,
89(1), 39-53.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorites:
Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany: State University of New
York.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for
school reform. Journalfor the Education of
the Gifted, 19, 194-214.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, excellence,
and school reform: Why is finding a common agenda so hard? In J. Borland (Ed.),
Rethinking gifted education (pp. 127-142).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of
school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematics
work for all children: Issues of standards,
testing, and equity. EducationalResearcher,
31(1), 13-25.
524
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making
adaptations for mainstreamed students:
General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education,
12(4), 18-27.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning
for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general classroom
teachers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-98.
Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting
ready for inclusion: Is the stage set?
Learning Disabilities Research1 & Practice,
10, 169-179.
Schumm, J., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L.
(1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning
disabilities expect? Exceptional Children,
61, 335-352.
Shore, B., Cornell, D., Robinson, A., &
Ward, V. (1991). Recommended practices in
gifted education: A critical analysis. New
York: 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 are
watching: Schools and tihe moral contract.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Steele, C. (2003). Stereotype threat and student achievement. In T. Perry, C. Steele,
&A. Hilliard, Young, gifted, and black: Proinoting high achievement among AfricanAmerican students (pp. 109-130). Boston:
Beacon Press.
Tatum, B. (1997). "Why are all the Black kids
sitting together in tile cafeteria?" and other
ERIGDSBLTE
JUTIL0
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABKXITES
the implementation of the Individuals with
conversations about race. New York: Basic
Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
Books.
DC: Author.
Tomlinson, C. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Prisschool's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly,
oners of time. Retrieved December 1,
39(2), 77-87.
2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/
Tomlinson, C. (1996). Good teaching for one
PrisonersOfI'ime/Prisoners.htmnl
and all: Does gifted education have an inVan Tassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum polstructional identity? Journalfor the Educaicy development for gifted programs: Contion of the Gifted, 20, 155-174.
verting issues in the field to coherent
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfillingthe promise of
practice. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking
the differentiated classroom: Strategies and
gifted education (pp. 173-185). New York:
tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria,
Teachers College Press.
VA: Association for Supervision and CurVaughn,
S., & Schumm, J. (1994). Middle
riculum Development.
school teachers' planning for students
Tomninson, C., Brimijoin, K., & Narvez, L.
with learning disabilities. Remedial and
(2004). Learning to differentiate instrucSpecial Education, 15, 151-162.
tion: A faculty as a community of learners.
Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2003). Making inTom]inson, C., Callahan, C., & Lelli, K.
clusive education work. Educational Lead(1997). Challenging expectations: Case
ership, 61(2), 19-23.
studies of high-potential, culturally di- Westberg, K., Archambault, F., Dobyns, S.,
verse young children. Gifted Child Quar& Salvin, T. (1993). An observationalstudy
terly, 41(2), 5-17.
of instructionaland curricularpractices used
Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E.,
with gifted and talented students in regular
Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M.
classrooms (Research Monograph 93104).
(1997). Becoming architects of communiStorrs: University of Connecticut, Naties of learning: Addressing academic ditional Research Center on the Gifted and
versity in contemporary classrooms. ExTalented.
ceptional Children, 63, 269-282.
Tomlinson, C., Kaplan, S., Renzulli, J., Pur- Whitmore, J., &Maker, C. (1985). Intellectual
giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville,
cell,J., Leppien,J., &Bums, D. (2001). The
MD: Aspen.
parallel curriculum model: A design to develop high potential and challenge high abil- Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., &Sema, I. (2002).
Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" in
ity learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
detracking schools. American Educational
U.S. Department of Education (2000).
Research Journal, 39, 37-67
Twenty-second annual report to Congress on
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: The M"obius Effect: Addressing Learner Variance in
Schools
SOURCE: J Learn Disabil 37 no6 N/D 2004
WN: 0431602284007
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.proedinc.com/
Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company.
All rights reserved.