Program Goal III: Diverse Learners

The wide range of diversities in the United States “is one of its national treasures” (Futrell, 2003), and our schools clearly reflect that rich diversity.  It is projected that by 2005, Hispanics will constitute the largest minority in the United States, and by the year 2050, about 50 percent of the U.S. population will be composed of Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians (Spring, 2000).  In addition, increasing numbers of our students  are homeless; many new immigrant children are new to English and even to school; non-Western religions are growing at a newly increased rate; our schools are plagued by relatively infrequent but deadly violence; and the unmet needs and challenges of gay, lesbian, bi- and trans-sexual students are becoming more apparent.  Although teachers have always needed to address the diverse learning needs of their students, current and projected demographic trends prompt many educators to believe that awareness and sensitivity to diverse learners have become even more pressing needs (Gay, 2004).

Despite the fact that the demographic makeup of our country is shifting, the teaching force in the United States is still made up largely of white women from middle-class backgrounds. Subsequently, there is often a disparity between the cultural background of students and teachers. This disparity in background can be problematic unless teachers are knowledgeable regarding the commonalities and differences among their students. We now know that students do not bring the same ways of knowing, language, family expectations, or strategies for learning to school (Cleary & Peacock, 1998; Heath, 1983; Heath & Mangiola, 1991), and there is often a mismatch between ways of learning at home and ways of learning at school. This mismatch contributes to students falling behind and failing to meet their potential as learners (National Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence Report, 2003; Viadero, 2004).

Effective teachers recognize differences among their learners and have the capacity and willingness to understand the impact of dissimilar backgrounds and abilities on learning (Wiseman, Cooner and Knight, 1999). With understanding and appreciation for diversity, successful teachers will be able to make effective decisions that allow them to respond to their students in appropriate ways.

The differences among students in American schools vary in extent and dimension. The dimensions can be classified into categories including cultural and ethnic backgrounds, language, learning styles, and gender (Ryan and Cooper, 1995; Banks & Banks, 1993). Students with disabilities and those who are gifted or talented constitute additional categories. The following paragraphs describe the knowledge and skills we believe are essential for teachers to create a democratic and humane environment where all students are seen as individuals and respected and valued for their diversity.

Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: One dimension of diversity is cultural and ethnic background. We have always been a country of diverse cultures, but not since the turn of the century has there been such a great influx of immigrants entering our schools (Ryan & Cooper, 1995). Cultural pluralism is a term that best captures the diverse and complex fabric of our nation’s children. Our students must learn in an environment in which the contributions and perspectives of all cultural and racial groups are integrated thoroughly into the curriculum. To do so necessitates that teachers revise their views of different cultures in order to integrate knowledge of pedagogy with knowledge of how culture may influence a student’s approach to learning (McIntosh, 1990).

Teachers must begin this process through self-analysis and reflection on their own beliefs. Through self-analysis, Peggy McIntosh and Beverly Tatum (1997) have explored the concept of white privilege. McIntosh and Tatum stated that whites are taught to think of themselves as normative, as average, as ideal (McIntosh, 1998) and seldom, if ever, acknowledge that certain privileges are granted them because of their race. The process of recognizing one’s whiteness, as risk-laden and uncharted as that process might be for both teachers and students (Howard, 1993; Gorski, 2000, 2001; Polite and Saenger,2003; Lewis-Charp, 2003), is an important first step in increasing one’s efficacy in multiracial settings. Consistent with these views, a theme running throughout the various addresses delivered at a national workshop on racism and pedagogy held in St. Cloud, Minnesota was that of self-analysis: teachers must first understand their own culture and examine critically their beliefs and biases (Crumpton & Davis, 1992).

An important part of self-analysis involves challenging long-held beliefs regarding learners and learning. For instance, contrary to what many teachers believe, seldom, if ever, is there a continuous upward progression in learning. Rather, as Heath and Mangiola (1991) remind us, our students learn in great spurts, and frequently the spurts of learning are prompted by the individual’s keen desire to know. We are further reminded to reconsider our opinions regarding the agents of learning. For example, children’s families and communities figure significantly in their language development, strategies of learning, and ways of participating in a classroom. Successful teachers embrace the concept of multicultural education by seeking ways of teaching that are congruent with a students’ language, ways of learning, and participation strategies (Cleary & Peacock, 1998; National Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence Report, 2003).

Multicultural Education received its major impetus from a few key social movements (Gorski, 2000).  During the 1960s, the civil rights movement “challenged discriminatory practices in public institutions.  Beginning in the late 1960s, the women’s rights movement added pressure for changes to our schools.  Those movements and others resulted in a body of scholarship on multicultural education.  James Banks (1981) was among the first to call for systematic school changes to promote educational equity for all learners.  He was soon joined by many others who called for changes to promote equal educational opportunity with the ultimate goal being social transformation.   More recent frameworks call for school and learning to be “built on a foundation of social justice, critical thinking, and equal opportunity” (Gorski, 2000).  The shared goals of these frameworks include ensuring educational equity for all students so that they are prepared to participate in our increasingly diverse culture, urging educators to become active in ending oppression, and thoughtfully examining educational practices that might impact the achievement of the previously mentioned goals (Gorski, 2000). 

Approaches to multicultural education such as those described by Vasquez (1990) which seek to match instruction to the learning preferences of specific minority groups provide interesting ideas for consideration. However, adopting such approaches ignores student individuality and runs the risk of stereotyping students based on their ethnicity. Therefore, we favor more comprehensive ideas for school and curricular revision such as those formulated by James and Cherry Banks (1993).  These writers identified four approaches to multicultural education with each approach requiring a different level of integration of multicultural content: the Contributions Approach, which focuses on heroes, holidays, and discrete elements of diverse cultural groups; the Additive Approach, which emphasizes the addition of content, concepts, themes, and perspectives from diverse cultures without changing the structure of the curriculum; the Transformation Approach, which changes the structure of the curriculum to enable students to view concepts, issues, events, and themes from the perspectives of diverse ethnic and cultural groups; and the Social Action Approach, which requires students to make decisions on important social issues and take actions to help deal with them. To reach the goal of helping all students develop the necessary knowledge, attitudes and skills to live productive and happy lives, individual teachers and the school, in all of its variables, must move beyond the contributions and additive approaches and emphasize transformation and social action.

Similar to the four levels of integrating multicultural content identified by Banks and Banks (1993), Peggy McIntosh (1990) outlined five phases of curricular and personal revision with regard to race. The first phase, monoculturalism, not only ignores multicultural issues and perspectives, but is blind to this fact. The next three phases correspond roughly to Banks’ Contributions, Additive, and Transformational levels; and the fifth phase, somewhat analogous to Banks’ Social Action Approach, "involves a reconstruction of consciousness, perception, and behavior" (p. 8) that redefines and restructures the curriculum to include all cultures and ethnicities. Like James and Cherry Banks, McIntosh urges educators to move beyond monocultural and contributions approaches and toward real curricular reform that is reconstructivist in nature.

For multicultural education to be effective, all learners must have the opportunity to see an adult community that participates in the oral and written exchange of ideas and the forms of decision-making that democracy promotes.  The school must be viewed as a social system made up of a number of major variables and factors, such as school culture, school policy, politics, teaching approaches, evaluation and assessment, school psychology and counseling, educational materials and textbooks, and the formal curriculum (McLeskey and Waldron, 2002).  More specifically, the Crede Report (National Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence) (2003) identifies five pedagogical standards as “critical to improving learning for students from diverse ... backgrounds:  (1)  teachers and students “producing” together...; (2) developing students’ language and literacy competence in all subjects; (3) ... contextualizing knowledge; (4) teaching complex thinking; and (5) teaching through conversation rather than relying...on lectures.”

Language: Educators have long considered children who are different linguistically and culturally to be at risk of failing to learn the language skills needed to achieve a secure and productive life.  Current data indicate that the numbers of such children are significant.  The 1999-2000 data from the Office of English Language Acquisition of the U.S. Department of Education revealed that almost four and a half million K-12 children were designated ELL (Lessow-Hurley, 2003).  And although Spanish speakers make up the largest group of bilingual students in the United States (Lewis and Doorlag, 1999),  children of immigrant families may speak any one of a large number of languages. Among recent immigrants, some may never have learned an orthography for their spoken languag, and others may have never  (or only sporadically) attended school. To help learners with these challenges succeed, "Congress passed the bilingual education act in 1968, and subsequently amended it several times to provide federal funds to develop bilingual programs" (Ryan and Cooper. 1995, p. 449). According to Ryan and Cooper, these programs can be classified into the categories described below:

Transitional Programs, which move the child into regular, all-English classes as soon as possible.

Immersion Programs, which place students in classrooms where the teacher understands their first language, but speaks only in English.

Submersion Models, which place students in all-English classes where they must learn to speak and understand English as quickly as possible.

English as a Second Language or ESL, which are programs provide individual or small-group instruction in English and tutoring to supplement regular classroom instruction.

There is strong evidence that bilingual and ELL students are best served with some form of primary language instruction (Lessow-Hurley, 2003).  This is particularly true for young students and those who speak no English at all.   Lessow-Hurley reported that research indicates primary language instruction in the classroom actually helps students learn English and fosters academic success. 

Though bilingual services are crucial for students whose English language skills are limited, it is equally important for regular classroom teachers to view all students who are linguistically different or bilingual as children of promise rather than seeing them only as children at risk of failure. Teachers must also provide them with a stable classroom environment that recognizes and values their culture and language (Cleary & Peacock, 1998; Heath & Mangiola, 1991).  More specifically, classroom teachers must be prepared to share the responsibility with language specialists to work with bilingual or linguistically atypical children  (Lessow-Hurley, 2003).  And since language is often inseparable from culture and from the learner’s self-identity (Baker and Jones, 2003), programs that celebrate that relationship can result in academic improvements, relevance of educational experiences, and opportunities for authentic self-expression.   Programs such as the PACE curriculum for the Gullah Nation school children on St. Helena Island in South Carolina (Swope, 2004) as well as the online curriculum, Vietnamese Americans:  Lessons in American History  (Teaching Tolerance, 2004) are examples of programs that capitalize on language and personal/cultural identity.

Students with Disabilities: Students with disabilities constitute another important category of diversity. Parents and advocates for these children were influenced by the success of the civil rights movement to seek equity in educational opportunities for their children (Banks & Banks, 1993). One important consequence of their advocacy was the passage of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P. L. 94-142). This legislation dramatically changed the way students with disabilities are educated in American schools (National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped, 1976). Important aspects of this legislation include Provision of Full Services (All students with disabilities have the right to a free, appropriate education), Least Restrictive Environment (Students with disabilities should receive their education in the regular classroom along with non-disabled students whenever such placement is appropriate), Individualized Educational Plans (The education of students with disabilities must be based on an individualized educational plan or IEP that takes into account their individual strengths and needs), Non-Discriminatory Assessment Procedures (All assessment procedures used in identification and placement of students with disabilities must not discriminate on the basis of race, culture, or language), and Due Process (The rights of parents and students must be protected).

In 1990, legislators updated P. L. 94:142, changing its wording and broadening its scope. This revision was called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).. Important changes in the law included substituting the word disability for handicap, adding children with autism and traumatic brain injury to the categories of disability, and mandating transition services for secondary students with disabilities (Lewis and Doorlag, 2003.

Current categories of disability specified by IDEA are mental retardation, learning disabilities, behavior disorders or emotional disturbances, communication (speech and language) disorders, hearing impairments, visual impairments, physical and other health impairments, severe and multiple disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain injury. Information regarding definitions, characteristics, and educational needs of children receiving special education within the above categories is available from such sources as Hallahan and Kauffman (1998) and Lewis and Doorlag 2003).

It is important to note that children with attention deficit-hyperactive disorder (ADHD) are not currently included within the categories of disability specified by IDEA. However, the law does call for additional study of this disorder (Lewis and Doorlag, 2003).

In addition to changes mandated by law regarding special education services, another important consideration regarding those with disabilities is "people-first language." Just as the term would imply, this language trend involves putting the person first, not the disability (e.g. a person with a disability, not a disabled person). Other suggestions for referring to those with disabilities include avoiding generic labels (people with mental retardation is preferable to the mentally retarded); emphasizing abilities, not limitations (for instance, uses a wheelchair is preferable to confined to a wheelchair); and avoiding euphemisms (such as physically challenged) which are regarded as condescending (Scheifelbush Lifespan Institute, 1996).

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities: Though not the norm in all states, special education in Minnesota is typically provided within the framework of the inclusion model. Inclusion can be defined as "meaningful participation of students with special needs in the general education classroom" (Lewis and Doorlag, 1999, p. 475). Therefore, here in Minnesota, most students with disabilities spend at least some time each day in the regular classroom environment. Delivering appropriate instruction for these students within the regular classroom is challenging but rewarding. In working with learners with exceptionalities, teachers are advised to be familiar with the student’s IEP and work collaboratively with other members of the IEP team. Additionally, teachers are encouraged to use multi-level cooperative learning strategies by developing flexible and multi-level learning objectives that can be achieved through cooperative learning activities (Stainbach, Stainback & Stefanich, 1996). Working toward objectives based on individual needs within cooperative learning groups allows many students with disabilities to successfully master important educational objectives and, at the same time, participate with classmates in the mainstream classroom.

Peer tutoring is another small-group technique that helps to effectively include students with disabilities in regular classroom settings. According to Hendrickson and Frank (1993), tutoring with same-age peers is most effective when the tutors are carefully trained in the desired tutoring procedures. During training, teachers should model the tutoring process and then allow students the opportunity to practice each step.

In lecture-based classes, such as those often encountered in middle or secondary grades, the "lecture-pause" approach may also prove effective, particularly for those with mild disabilities (Hendrickson & Frank, 1993). In this approach, the lecture is broken into short segments (6 to 8 minutes) followed by pauses (2 to 4 minutes) during which students gather in prearranged groups to discuss the lecture and share notes. During these pauses, the teacher circulates around the room to help clarify information and reinforce individuals for appropriate responses. When using this approach, it would seem most appropriate to place students in mixed-ability groups and to provide a structure/process for students to follow during pauses.

When those needing more extensive supports (such as students with severe or profound disabilities) are included in the regular classroom, they are typically accompanied by a paraprofessional (special education aid) who provides this support on a one-to-one basis. Though these paraprofessionals are generally quite helpful, they do add another person to the IEP team, and therefore, it is important for the regular classroom teacher to meet with them as well as the student’s special education teachers in order to clarify goals and expectations.

Often, the goals for students needing more extensive supports are more social and behavioral than academic in nature, such as providing opportunities for peer interaction, improving social skills, and helping non-disabled students become more comfortable interacting with persons with disabilities (Benner, 1998). When these students attend regular class settings, the teacher’s attitude toward them is crucial in helping to accomplish these goals and create an overall atmosphere of acceptance. As Giangreco (1998) has noted, the teacher is the primary role model in the school setting, and therefore, it is important that s/he not only welcomes these students, but also spends an appropriate amount of time talking to and interacting with them. To help them feel a part of the classroom community, Giangreco has also suggested being sure that these students are seated with their non-disabled classmates and allowing them to take part in as many classroom activities as possible.

Including students with severe disabilities in regular classrooms can result in both friendship development and positive attitude shifts among those without disabilities (Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). However, these outcomes typically do not just happen. Rather, they are the result of special efforts such as providing appropriate information about disabilities, training students without disabilities to be special friends or helpers to their classmates with special needs (Wisniewski & Alpers, 1994), and pairing like-minded students with and without disabilities (Bergen, 1993). As York and Vanderhook (1991) have noted, non-disabled students can be valuable resources in suggesting ways to include their classmates with disabilities in classroom activities, and these authors have suggested involving them in formal planning sessions

Whether the inclusion model is preferable for all students with disabilities is a matter of some debate. As Benner (1998) has noted, the evidence regarding the benefits of inclusion, even for those with mild disabilities, is ambiguous and contradictory, with advocates citing research showing better social and learning outcomes for those with disabilities (Cole & Meyer, 1991), lower per-pupil costs (Halverson, 1996), and no adverse effects on the achievement of non-disabled classmates (Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994). However, opponents cite studies showing no benefits or even negative effects such as high frustration by teachers who feel unprepared to deal with students with disabilities and who report being so busy meeting the needs of special education students that they have less time to work with students without disabilities (Baines, Baines, & Masterson, 1994; Smelter, Rasch, & Yudewitz, 1994).  Some critics (Kauffman, McGee and Brigham, 2004) of inclusion have suggested that special education is “suffering from the extremes of inclusion and accommodation.”  Their claim is that under the threat of litigation, “the emphasis in special education has shifted away from [it’s intended goals of] normalization, independence, and competence." Research has not yet settled this controversy, and as Zigler, Hodapp, & Edison (1990) noted, the decision regarding whether to include those with disabilities in regular classrooms often "rests on political and philosophical grounds rather than on any scientific evidence...." (p.9).

Gifted and Talented: Though certainly not disabled and, therefore, not included in IDEA, students who are gifted and talented represent another category of diversity. As defined in the Gifted and Talented Children’s Act of 1978 (PL 95-561), "The term gifted and talented means children and, wherever applicable, youth who are identified at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capabilities in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership ability, or in the performing and visual arts, and who by reason thereof, require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school." Though there is no federal law mandating services for students who are gifted, many school districts do make special provisions for them. The most common approaches for providing these services include ability grouping (placing gifted students together in a separate classroom for either all or part of the school day), acceleration (moving students through school at a faster pace), and enrichment (providing additional or higher-level material and instruction) (Lewis and Doorlag, 1999). Regardless of the educational approach being utilized to meet the needs of students who are gifted and talented, it is important that their classroom experiences emphasize higher-level cognitive outcomes, encourage intellectual and academic risk-taking, and allow for creative and divergent responses (Lewis and Doorlag, 1999). Additional suggestions for working with students who are gifted and talented in the regular classroom include curriculum compacting (modifying the curriculum by reducing the amount of time spent on tasks or material on which the student is already competent), self-directed learning (allowing students to investigate areas of interest with minimal teacher instruction or intervention), and problem-based learning (providing ill-structured or vague problems for students to investigate) (Hallahan and Kauffman, 1997). Multi-level, cooperative learning tasks, such as those described by Stainback, Stainback, and Stefanich (1996), may also be useful as a means of effectively including students who are gifted in classroom activities.

Gender: Like multicultural education, gender issues have been a popular topic of discussion in educational circles as well as in the popular media.  However, a study described in Sanders (2002) suggests that those issues are only in the “early stages of consideration.”   Moreover, gender issues tend to generate considerable controversy.  Part of the controversy arises because some experts approach gender from a biological perspective; some view it as a measure of self-esteem; and others view it politically and economically as a battle between the genders for limited resources.  In sounding a voice of reason, Sanders suggested that gender issues, including gender equity in schools, are fundamentally human issues rather than a set of problems owned by or caused by attention to a specific gender.  The available evidence supports Sanders contention that schools need to be attentive to the needs of both male and female students.  And Although rarely intentional, some educators continue to hold different expectations for boys and girls in relation to what they know and can accomplish academically.

Females: It has been the concern of many that girls do not receive equal educational opportunities (Sadker & Sadker, 1995).  For years, females lagged behind males in mathematics and science.  More recently, concerted efforts by educators have resulted in equal performance by males and females in those two disciplines.  Problems persist, however, in some specific disciplines within mathematics and science. For instance, in physics, females still lag significantly behind males (Jobe, 2003), and fewer females than males enroll in calculus and other advanced mathematics courses. (Zittleman and Sadker, 2003).  Sanders (2002) reported that females continue to receive better report cards than males; however, those reports may reflect educators’ reward for quiet, compliant female behavior since females continue to score lower than males on standardized tests, scores that are not subject to the judgment of teachers.  Females continue to experience higher rates of sexual harassment at school (Sanders, 2002).  They also continue to elicit fewer academic contacts with teachers, and when contact is made, they are still less likely to be called by name or to be asked higher level questions (Sadker, 2002).  Additionally, women and girls have traditionally been under-represented in textbooks and other classroom reading materials, and when included they were likely to be portrayed in stereotypical ways (Ryan and Cooper, 1995). Though this has changed to some extent, textbooks still under-represent females (Quinn and Obenchain, 1999) and often portray them in dependent roles (Ryan and Cooper, 1995).  Finally, females face inequities in opportunity when it comes to technology.  Gorski (2001) cited several factors that contribute to this problem:  internet pornography, the threat of cyber-stalking, video games designed by males for males depicting women in gender stereotypical ways, and the systematic steering away of women and girls from professional fields closely linked with computers and the internet.  Gorski further suggested that technology is used differently for females, poor students, and students of color.  Whereas technology is used for white males to promote critical thinking, for the above-listed groups, it is more likely to be used for word processing and to assist skill/drill learning. 

Males:  Males continue to lag significantly behind females in both reading and writing.  Although they report being sexually harassed at lower levels than females, their relatively high self-report rates should be cause for concern ( Sanders,  2002).  Sadker (2002) reported that two thirds of all students identified for special education are male and that males have a higher rates of grade retention and school drop out than females. Males are also less likely than females to attend college.    And while males continue to receive more teacher attention in classrooms, more of that attention tends to be negative.  Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that all but one of the recent fatal school shootings were perpetrated by male students (Sanders, 2002), clearly suggesting that some fundamental male student needs are not being adequately met.     

Gender Bias: As Quinn and Obenchain (1999) suggested, awareness of gender bias is an important first step in changing teacher behaviors. Awareness alone, however, is insufficient, and Sadker and Sadker (1992) urged educators to build nonsexist classrooms by seeking knowledge and understanding of gender issues and by examining textbooks for biases, omission of women’s contributions, and stereotyping. They also suggested bringing outside observers into the classroom to ensure gender fairness. Changes in the curriculum are also necessary, and as Peggy McIntosh (1983) recommended, teachers need to move past approaches that merely site the accomplishments of extraordinary women or include a separate unit on women’s issues. Instead, we need to teach in ways that truly represent the perspectives of both genders and all cultural groups.

Research has suggested a host of teacher strategies to minimize disadvantages for both male and female students.  They include posing complex questions; asking for sustained, reasoned responses; providing acknowledgment for desirable behaviors; emphasizing collaboration versus competition-dominated learning activities; providing choices in assignment response modes; offering reading choices that tap student interests; and using more active learning strategies that invite manipulation of objects and physical movement (e.g., role plays, debates, field trips, and investigations)  (Taylor and Lorimer , 2003). 

Until teacher preparation programs commit themselves to dealing with the substantial problems that continue to plague male and female students in school, problems can be expected to persist.  One study suggested that college textbooks that pay inadequate attention to these problems may be partially at fault (Zittleman and Sadker, 2003).  Finally, some educators have advocated single sex classrooms and schools as solutions. However, the research to data is inconclusive about the effectiveness of gender-segregated education (Jobe, 2003). 

Learning Style: The fact that students vary in their preferred ways of learning is apparent to even the novice teacher. These variations are known as learning styles. Popular approaches to describing and assessing learning styles include those offered by Gregorc (1983), Renzulli and Smith (1978), and Dunn and Dunn (1978). Matching one’s teaching to students’ individual learning styles certainly seems logical and appropriate. However, there is disagreement regarding which learning style variables are the most useful and important, and research on the effectiveness of matching one’s teaching to student learning styles is mixed (Lefrancois, 1999). However, some research has found that students learn best when instructional practices correspond to their learning strengths. Therefore, as Lefrancois concludes, good teaching requires the use of a variety of instructional approaches in order to meet the needs of most learners.

Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner (1995) offers an expanded viewpoint of intellectual abilities that describes eight separate categories of intelligence (linguistic, logical/mathematical, musical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily/kinesthetic, and naturalistic). Though educators have found his theories of multiple intelligences (MI) noteworthy, unfortunately, since 1983 when Gardner published Frames of Mind, many myths and misconceptions have flourished. One myth is that multiple intelligences represent a dimension of learning style. This is incorrect, however. In contrast to a learning style, which as described above refers to learning preferences, intelligence is a biological and psychological potential which can be realized to a greater or lesser extent as a consequence of the experiential, cultural, and motivational factors that affect a person (Gardner, 1995). Thus, MI theory describes aptitudes, not preferences. Despite some of the misunderstandings and misapplications of MI theory in our schools, awareness of this theory helps educators understand the need for presenting material in a variety of ways and through a variety of media.

Poverty and Homelessness: The National Center for Children in Poverty (Columbia University, 2004) reported that more than one million (16%) American children live below the federal poverty line ($18,850 for a family of four).  Their parents are typically unable to provide basic necessities like stable housing and reliable child care.  An even more disturbing number of children live in low income families.  Their parents earn up to double the federal poverty income level and are employed year-round and full-time.  And while two thirds of children living in low income families are white, the greatest increases come from black and Latino families.  Payne (2003) explained that children from low income families lack many of the essential resources for succeeding in schools. They may be unfamiliar with the white middle class rules that characterize American schools.  Poor children bring to school the hidden rules of the class in which they are being raised.  Payne further asserted that their impoverished living conditions do not excuse them from their school responsibilities.  She insisted, instead, that children need education and supportive and challenging relationships with school personnel.  Similarly, Hodges (2001) recommended a "pedagogy of plenty" that includes mentoring relationships between educators and poor children to foster resilience.

Although it is difficult to arrive at accurate estimates of our country’s homeless, families with children are by far the fastest growing sector of the homeless population (National Coalition for the Homeless, Fact Sheet #3, 2002).  The same report showed that children under the age of 18 account for more than 25% of urban homeless, and more than 33% of rural homeless are single women with children.  Those percentages do not reflect the real extent of the problem, however, since adolescent runaways are seldom included in the data, and many families do not stay in shelters and thus are also not reflected in the numbers. 

Homeless children face many fundamental challenges including economic deprivation, lack of availability of basic medical services , the threat of family loss or separation, insecurity, and general upheaval in their lives (Gould and Gould, 2003).  Of specific interest to educators is the evidence for an ever-widening gap between the academic performance of children living in poverty and children living in more fortunate circumstances.   

The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH)( 2002) stated that all children, including the homeless, have a right to a free and appropriate education.  They also have a right not to be isolated or stigmatized because of their living conditions.  On that basis, schools are encouraged to relax requirements for residency, complete school records, and even immunization.  In addition, the NCH recommended that schools offer after-school tutoring, curricular and extracurricular opportunities for socialization, busing so that homeless children can remain in familiar classrooms and schools, access to school choice, and referral services to support agencies within the community.

While some of the academic gap observed in low income, poor, and homeless children may be directly attributable to differences in living circumstances, Cole (2001) joined Haberman (1991) in suggesting that educators share some of the blame in that they unintentionally deliver a “pedagogy of poverty.”  That pedagogy is based on stereotypical assumptions about class and race.  Thus, poor children may be offered a curriculum dominated by low-level tasks while children with more advantageous living circumstances receive a curriculum characterized by more varied social groupings, more choice, and more cognitive and meta-cognitive challenges. 

Religious Diversity: Today, Americans claim affiliation with a growing number of faiths (Cushner et als, 2000).  Some of them are new splinter faiths while recent immigrants have brought other religious ideas with them.  The fastest growing religion in America today is Islam.   And the link between religious affiliation and ethnic identity is clear:  Americans see themselves as Russian Jews or Irish Catholics, for example, so consideration of religious faith in the context of ethnicity is essential to pluralistic or multicultural education (Cushner et als,2000; and Spring, 2000).  While our nation’s religious diversity offers rich opportunities for study, it also offers significant challenges since people of different faiths “vary in their beliefs about the role of religious perspectives in education” (Gollnick & Chinn, 2004).  Educators must take religious diversity into account as they develop curriculum and assessments, plan school calendars, develop dress and attendance codes, address gender, develop policies affecting homosexuality, manage discipline, and deal with legal/ethical issues such as censorship and school prayer.

It is essential that educators be knowledgeable about the religious affiliations of the students, families, and communities they serve (Cushner et als., 2000; Gollnick & Chinn, 2004). Moreover, educators must utilize pedagogies that are respectful of religious sensitivities.    As with meeting other diverse needs in classroom, it is not recommended that classroom experiences be designed to match each child’s experience, since the purpose of education is to stretch children’s knowledge beyond their personal experience (Cushner et als, 2000).  Yet, some students and families from certain faith traditions may prefer teacher-centered pedagogical styles while others might prefer styles that invite higher levels of student-initiated questioning, critical thinking, and interaction.  

Sexual Orientation: Although gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-sexual children and youth constitute only about 2-10% of the general population (percentages vary depending on how homosexuality is defined)  (Berger, 2005; Gollnick and Chinn, 2004), they are some of the most at-risk young people in our communities.  The challenges they encounter become particularly evident during adolescence.  In spite of laws that prohibit it, they are harassed for their sexual orientation at rates that far exceed their numbers in the general population.  As a result, up to 20% of them are frequently truant because they fear for their safety at school (Ryan and Cooper, 2004).  To avoid harassment and violence, many work hard to mask their sexual identities (Spring, 2000) and end up living with loneliness and isolation (Gollnick and Chinn, 2004).  Between a quarter and a third drop out of school rather than risk having their sexual preference known, and the Safe Schools Coalition (2004) suggested that as many as 40% of homeless youth are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans-sexual.   Of that 40%, many are runaways who left home and/or their foster home placements because they were neglected or abused by their parents or surrogate parents (Savin-Williams and Cohen, 1996; National Center for Lesbian Research Fact Sheet, 1999-2004).   Many end up living alone and in despair, conditions that place them at risk for alcohol and drug addiction, depression, and suicide. 

The challenge for educators with respect to the GLBT population is to create a safe environment for all students to learn.  It is a matter of social justice; teachers have the responsibility to promote the emotional well-being and support the cognitive development of all students.  In addition, teachers must combat the often hostile environment of homophobia that afflicts our culture and our schools (Ryan and Cooper, 2004). Professional organizations also call for schools to provide supportive services and to develop and implement anti-harassment policies. Educators must confront colleagues and students who name-call and harass.  All aspects of the school experience, in fact, should be evaluated to ensure that they are not discriminatory to this vulnerable population (Gollnick and Chinn, 2004).

~ ~ ~

We conclude this review by returning to our premise: Effective teachers understand and value their students’ diverse backgrounds and experiences. They use their growing knowledge of those experiences to make instructional decisions that enhance the development of all learners. For detailed information regarding our departmental plans for improving our students’ knowledge of and experience with diverse learners, the reader is referred the Education Department Diversity Plan: 2000 - 2005 (Lamb, 2000).

References:

Baines, L., Baines. C., & Masterson, C. (1994). Mainstreaming: One school’s reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 39-40, 57-64.

Banks, James (1981).  Education in the 80s:  Multiethnic education.  Washington, D. C.  National Education Association.

Banks, James. (1989).  Multicultural education:  Characteristics and goals.  In J. Banks and C. Banks (Eds.).  Multicultural education:  Issues and perspectives.  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Benner, S. M. (1998). Special education issues in the context of American society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bergen, D. (1993). Teaching strategies: Facilitating friendship development in inclusion classrooms. Childhood Education, 69 (4), 234-236.

Berger, Kathleen S. (2005).  The developing person through the life span.  N.Y.:  Worth Publishers.

Christensen, Marge & Gould, Herman. (2003). A clear vision for equity and opportunity.   Phi delta kappan, Dec., 324-328. 

Cleary, L.M., & Peacock, T.D. (1998). Collected wisdom: American Indian education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cole, D. & Meyer, L. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 25, 340-351.

Crumpton, R., & M. Davis (1992). Racism & pedagogy: Who teaches the teachers? A national workshop on racism and pedagogy. October 20-21. St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Davidman, L., & Davidman, P. (1997).  Teaching with a multicultural perspective:  A practical guide.  New York: Longman. 

Dunn, K. and Dunn, R. (1978). Teaching students through individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Prentice-Hall.

Futrell, Mary H., Gomez, Joel, & Bedden, Dana. (2003). Teaching the children of a new America:  The challenge of diversity.  Phi delta kappan,   Jan., 381-385.

Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gardner. H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences. Phi Delta Kappan. 77(3), 200-209.

Giangreco, M. (1998). What do I do now? A teacher’s guide to including students with disabilities. In Freiberg, K. Annual editions: Educating exceptional children. Guilford, CT: Dushkin: McGraw-Hill.

Gay, Geneva (2003/2004).  The importance of multicultural education.  Educational leadership, Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004, 30-35. 

Gollnick, Donna, & Chinn, Philip (2004).  Multicultural education in a pluralistic society.  Upper Saddle River, N.J.:  Pearson Education, Inc.

Gorski, Paul.  (2000)  Multicultural philosophy series:  A narrative on whiteness and multicultural education.  McGraw Hill Supersite, by Paul Gorski, May 2000.

Gorski, Paul (2001).  Multicultural philosophy series:  A narrative on whiteness and multicultural education.  McGraw Hill Supersite, by Paul Gorski, July, 2001.

Gorski, Paul (2001).  Multicultural philsophy series:  Multicultural education and the digital divide.  McGraw-Hill Supersite, by Paul Gorski. 

Gregorc. A. (1982). Gregorc leaning style delineator: Development, technical, and administrative manual. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

Gurian, Michael. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently:  A guide for teachers and parents.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Heath, S. B. & Mangiola, L. (1991). Children of promise: Literate activity in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. Washington DC: National Education Association.

Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49-76.

Hallahan, Daniel & Kauffman, James (1998) Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (7th Ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Halvorson, A. ( 1996). A cost-benefit comparison of inclusive and integrated classes in one California district. ERIC Document (ED 393 249).

Hendrickson, J.M, & Frank, A.R. (1993) In Gable, R.A. & Warren, S. F. (Eds.) Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation. (pp. 11-47). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hodges, Helene (2001). In Coles, Robert. (2001) More strategies for educating everybody’s children. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Holloway, John H.  (2002/2003).  Addressing the needs of homeless students.  Educational leadership, Dec/Jan, 89-90.

Howard, G.  (1993). Whites in multicultural education:  Rethinking our role.  Phi delta kappan.  Sept., 36-41.

Jobe, Denice (2003).  Helping girls succeed.  Educational leadership,   Dec/Jan, 64-66.

Kauffman, James M., McGee, Kathleen, & Brigham, Michele (2004).  Enabling or disabling:  Observations on changes in special education.  Phi delta kappan, April, 613-620.

Lamb, D. (2000). Education Department Diversity Plan. St. Joseph, MN: CSB/SJU.

Lefrancois, G. (1999). Psychology applied to teaching (10^th Edition).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lessow-Hurley, Judith (2003).  Meeting the needs of second language learners:  An educator’s guide.  Alexandria, VA:  ASCD.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1999). Teaching special students in the mainstream (5th Edition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (2003). Teaching special students in general education classrooms (6th Edition). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Lewis-Charp, Heather.  (2003). Breaking the silence:  White students’ perspectives on race in multiracial schools.  Phi delta kappan, Dec., 279-285.

Marshall, C. and Reinhartz, J. (1997). Gender issues in the classroom. The Clearing House, July-August, v.70, n.6, pp 333-338..

McIntosh, P. (1983).Interactive phases of curricular re-vision: A feminist perspective. Working Paper 124. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

McIntosh, P. (1990). Interactive phases of curricular and personal re-vision with regard to race. (Report No. 219). Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.

McLeskey, James & Waldron, Nancy L. (2002) School change and inclusive schools:  Lessons learned from practice. Phi delta kappan, 65-72.

Meier, Deborah (2003).  So what does it take to build a school for democracy?  Phi delta kappan, Sept. 15-21.

National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped (1976). The unfinished revolution: Education for the handicapped, 1976 Annual report. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, US Office of Education, US Government Printing Office.

National Center for Lesbian Research (1999-2004).  LGBTQ Youth in the Foster Care System. 

Polite, Lillian  Saenger, Elizabeth B. (2003).  A pernicious silence:  Confronting race in the elementary classroom.  Phi delta kappan, Dec, 274-278.

Quinn, R. and Obemchain, K.. (1999). Exploring gender biases in general methods classes. The clearing house, Sept-Oct, v.73, pp. 16-19.

Renzulli, J. and Smith, L. (1978) Learning styles inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Russell-Fox, J. (1998). Together is better: Specific tips on how to include children with various types of disabilities. In K. L. Freiberg (Ed), Educating exceptional children 98-99. (pp. 32-34). Annual Editions. Guilford, Connecticut. McGraw-Hill.

Ryan, K., & Cooper, J. M. (1995). Those who can, teach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ryan, K., & Cooper, J.M. (2004).  Those who can, teach.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin.

Sadker, David (2002).  An educator’s primer on the gender war.  Phi delta kappan. Dec., 235-244.

Sadker, D and Sadker, M. (1995).  Failing at fairness:  How America’s schools cheat girls.  N.Y.: Touchstone Press. 

Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Long, L. (1993). Gender and educational equality. In J. Banks & C. Banks(Ed.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. (pp.109-125). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

The Safe Schools Coalition (2004). "Homeless LGBT Youth and LGBT Youth in Foster Care." http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-homeless.html

Sanders, Jo.  (2002). Something is missing from teacher education:  Attention to two genders.  Phi delta kappan, Nov., 241-244. 

Savin-Williams, Ritch C., & Cohen, Kenneth M.  (1996). The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals:  children to adults.  N.Y.:  Harcourt Brace.

Sharpe, M., York, J., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities: A preliminary study. Remedial and special education, 15, 5, 281-287.

Schiefelbusch Institute for Lifespan Studies (1996). Guidelines for reporting and writing about people with disabilities. Lawrence, KS: RTC/IL Publications, University of Kansas. Available at

Smelter, R., Rasch, W., & Yudevich. (1994). Thinking of inclusion for all students? Better think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 35-38.

Spring, J. (2000). American education. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Stefanich, G. (1996). Learning together in inclusive classrooms: What about the curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28 (3), 14-19.

Swope, Brad.  (2004). Let the Mainlands hear the word.  Teaching tolerance, spring, 69-72.

Taylor, Deborah, & Lorrimer, Maureen.  (2002/2003).  Helping boys succeed.  Educational leadership, Dec 2002/Jan 2003, 68-70.

Teaching Tolerance & the Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander Comnmunity Alliance (2004).  Vietnamese Americans:  Lessons in American history.  Teaching tolerance, spring, 31-35.

Vasquez, J. (1990). Teaching to the distinctive traits of minority students. The Clearing House. Vol. 63. No. 7. Pp. 299-304.

Viadero, Debra (2004).  Keys to success.  Education week.  April 21.

Vissing, Yvonne (2003).  The yellow school bus project:  Helping homeless students get ready for school.  Phi delta kappan, Dec, 321-323.

Wiseman, D. L., Cooner, D. D., & Knight, S. L. (1999). Becoming a teacher in a field-based setting. New York: Wadsworth.

Wisniewski, L. & Alper (1994). Including students with severe disabilities in general education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 4-13.

Zigler, E., Hodapp, R.M., & Edison, M.R. (1990). From theory to practice in the care and education of mentally retarded individuals. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 1-12.

Zittleman, Karen, & Sadker, David.  (2002/2003).  Teacher education textbooks:  The unfinished gender revolution.  Educational leadership, Dec/Jan, 59-63.