RE: BUILDING ON OUR TENET FOR THE LEARNER

Senator Vasconcellos asked:
"How do we incorporate the research on Multiple Intelligence into
this plan to ensure that every classroom seeks out the learner and his/her learning needs?"

To answer your question Senator, drop any reference to them. As fast as you can. No credible research shows any support for the notion of multiple intelligences, and the costs of this fad are already mind boggling. Do we need another "Whole Language" debacle?

"Although the presumption of matching instructional strategies to individual modality preferences has great intuitive appeal, little empirical support for this proposition was found....  Neither modality testing nor modality teaching were shown to be [effective]." (Kavale, Kenneth,A., and Steven R. Forness. 1987. Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children 54:228-239.)

"Recognition of individuals' strengths and weaknesses is good practice; using this information, however, to categorize children and prescribe methods can be detrimental to low-performing students. Although the idea of reading style is superficially appealing, critical examination should cause educators to be skeptical of this current educational fad." (Snider, Vicki. E. 1992. Learning styles and learning to read: A critique. Remedial and Special Education 13:6-18.)

All the above and much more is cited in:

Stahl, Steven. A. DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS? A Critique of Learning Styles. American Educator, Fall 1999. Found at http://www.aft.org/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf