What's wrong with this program? It bores the teachers.
joannejacobs.com
Direct Instruction under attack
Direct Instruction, a scripted reading program is producing gains in some of Chicago's lowest-performing schools. So it's being dropped. The Sun-Times reports:
Last December, the Chicago Board of Education called the news media to a small school in Woodlawn to show off the best and brightest of its "rising stars."
The Woodlawn Community School boosted reading scores by 20 percentage points in one year after rededicating itself to a controversial, scripted reading program called Direct Instruction, the principal proudly explained.
Now the board has decided no new schools can adopt the program.
DI uses rote learning. Teachers follow a script with little room for creativity. Students are grouped by reading level, not age.
Thirteen first- and second-graders sat ramrod straight in two rows, each with an index finger on the same word in a story.
"Next word. Get ready," chanted teacher Althelia Strong.
"Got!" the students called out in unison.
"Next word. Get ready."
"A."
"Next word. Get ready."
"Goat."
"What did they get?"
"They got a goat!"
Students work on reading for 90 minutes a day.
"By the end of the year they are reading, much more than with any other program I've used in 30 plus years," Strong said.
DI's effectiveness is well-established. In 1999, five leading education groups sponsored a study of 24 school reform models. DI was one of only three to receive a "strong" rating for evidence of positive effects on student achievement.
In Chicago, the recent evidence is not as clear. Standout schools exist, but between 2002 and 2004, DI schools made only marginally better reading gains than the system average. DI supporters say CPS has never supported full implementation and DI was tried in the lowest-performing schools.
"It's silly for a fairly limited group of people to eliminate a reading program that has been demonstrably effective with poverty children and bilingual children across the country because it's scripted, as opposed to free flowing, and that rubs people the wrong way," said Gary Moriello, principal at Gladstone, where reading scores nearly doubled since DI was introduced in 1997.
In higher elementary grades, DI may not include enough writing or literature. Kids get bored, teachers say. So, use it in the early grades, and then move on to something else.
Necessary but not evil
Standards and testing aren't a "necessary evil" that stifle innovation by the best teachers, concluded Time DeRoche, a consultant with the Broad Foundation and the National Center for Educational Accountability. He writes in Education Week:
I was a part of a team that visited five extraordinary urban districts in the country. What we saw was astounding: Many teachers are embracing standards and testing. These tools, when used correctly, have an incredibly positive effect on teacher morale. Educators thrive when expectations are clear and when they have immediate access to data about their students' progress.
Since my epiphany, I no longer think of standards and testing as a necessary evil. I now understand what a positive force these tools can be: They have the potential to spark an extraordinary revolution in the teaching profession.
DeRoche was "astounded" by what classroom teachers told him.
Almost unanimously, they told us that standards and testing have made their jobs both more rigorous and more rewarding. Specifically, they mentioned that the new focus on results fosters more collaboration. Because all grade-level teachers now work with the same content at the same time, there are more opportunities to cooperate on lesson plans. In this environment, educators actively seek out one another to share ideas and improve instruction. Teaching is no longer a lonely profession.
A standards-based approach also encourages the use of benchmark tests as diagnostic tools. To complement state testing (which usually occurs annually), many districts have developed preliminary measures to assess student progress. In many school systems, educators see student results within 48 hours, giving them immediate feedback about the effectiveness of their teaching. We observed several meetings during which teachers discussed the relative performance of their students and then brainstormed about how to improve instruction.
It also creates clear job expectations. By looking at standards documents from the district and state, a teacher can understand exactly what his or her students are expected to learn. This takes much of the guesswork and fear out of the evaluation process.
Teachers have raised their expectations for low-income and minority students, he writes.
Posted by joannej at February 28, 2005 11:58 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
joannejacobs.com
Comments
I can't say enough about testing creating clear job expectations. This is my first year of teaching after many years in research & engineering. Most of my students will take the NYS Math B exam in June. It is very clear what they need to know & what I need to teach, however, reading the NCTM standards it is not so clear, neither are the current NYS Math B standards. However, matching the curriculum & NYC Math B standards to the past Math B exams & the Math B exam standards gives me a clear description of what I need to be teaching. Then I match up that list with what the Pre-Calc & Adv Algebra teachers need as skill sets in their incoming students... voila, A CLEAR set of topics to cover.
But then again in a previous life i wrote job descriptions & machine specs maybe I'm just focused on preparing them for both their next course and the Regents exam :)
I've found doing this has enabled me to share with the students my joy and love of mathematics without getting bogged down by "what should I teach". I already have a game plan.
So personally I think both diagnostic tools to assess where we are in respect to where we were going & clear expectations written in the form of standards/assessments are wonderful. |
