What Works?
February 9, 2006 12:18 PM
Enough deconstruction! Time for a little "construction." We have taken apart some of the problems with education research--is there anything left to hold onto?
A November 2005 report by the Comprehensive School Reform Quality (CSRQ) Center at AIR reviewed 22 widely adopted elementary school reform models. Although their press release is careful to state that AIR is not picking "winners" or "losers," it's pretty clear that some programs stand head-and-shoulders above the rest. Only two programs, Success for All and Direct Instruction, received a "moderately strong" rating for "Evidence of Positive Effects on Student Achievement." In its own review, the AFT found both programs to be highly effective.
While both models employ successful instructional strategies, they are sometimes accused of being too "rote" in nature and contributing to the "de-professionalization" of teaching. I would be interested to hear from our readers about this--particularly those teachers who have participated in Direct Instruction or Success for All.
Comments
what works?
1. lowering the poverty rate by 5%
2. reducing the rate of incarceration for black males by, oh, 20%? pick a percent...
3. asking individuals who become teachers to be more of a teacher than we have ever asked for and then giving them the autonomy to run their classrooms like professionals.
4. debating and destroying all "scholarship" produced by functional intellectuals. i.e. Jay p Greene, Checker Finn, Rick Hess, and other corporate funded hacks.
5. asking communities and local business members to become genuine participants in public education.
6. reducing the healthcare and homeowning gaps.
7. spending money on realizing participatory democracy here before imposing it on other countries via "smart bombs."
8. paying each of the 191 sovereign nations on planet earth a billion dollars a year not to attack us. we can take the remaining 220 Billion dollars and in less than ten years have a global educational system capable of dealing with 1-7.
all of the above would "work" wonders...
Posted by: deweycounts | February 10, 2006 10:57 AM
There's a big difference between "highly effective" and "moderately strong" evidence, especially since many of these programs are largely evaluated by internal folks. DI and SFA have some good evidence, for some things, but not necessarily the complete package they sell to school systems.
The objection you see to scripted programs (e.g., Kozol's criticism of SFA) depends largely on the time spent in such scripted formats. In essence, there are many times in a day when the interaction is call and response, and whether it's scripted or not, the teacher is fully in control of the direction of class. But if that's only part of the mix instead of what dominates a kid's day, and if it's in fairly short bits, it's not atrocious. What concerns me is professional development and programs that tell teachers that their reading instruction -- ALL of it -- consists of 45 minutes, an hour, or more of this type of interaction.
Posted by: Sherman Dorn | February 10, 2006 11:20 AM