Advocating for Best Practices in Reading Programs: Addressing Concerns about Direct Instruction Mandates
by Michael P. Ford, Chair WSRA Advocacy Committee
February 2000
On this page:
This is the first of what we hope will be several articles from the WSRA Advocacy Committee for the WSRA Journal and WSRA Website. Working in conjunction with the Executive Committee, Legislative Committee and Research Committee, the Advocacy Committee sees its role as preparing materials which can be used by WSRA members to address critical reading issues which may emerge in their schools, districts, areas or at the state level. Information is power. Information about our critics is even more powerful and information to counteract our critics may be the most powerful of all. The Advocacy Committee is committed to the dissemination of that information to all members. The Advocacy Committee intends to use articles like this one as regular feature of the WSRA Journal .
The first issue that the Advocacy Committee has decided to address is recent mandates for Direct Instruction in reading programs. This issue recently emerged at the state level when the funding of the innovative, successful class-size reduction program S.A.G.E. was tied to research involving the use of Direct Instruction as a teaching methodology in SAGE classrooms. Concerned about the decision to interfere with the success of SAGE, the mandating of single methodology at the state level, and the use of tax-payers funds to investigate the efficacy of a commercial program, the WSRA executive committee asked for an informational presentation on the topic of Direct Instruction at the 1999 WSRA Summer Leadership Meeting.
This article makes available a set of blackline master overheads which were used in that presentation. They could be used by members in planning an informational meeting to address concerns about Direct Instruction mandates in their local contexts. An outline describing those overheads is included in this article. The Advocacy Committee would remind all members that these materials are mainly intended to assist the preparation of a presentation on this topic. Members are still encourage to explore a wide range of information sources to build the knowledge base necessary to respond to questions and concerns related to this topic. The article includes a list of resources (including three critical websites) available to develop background on this topic. This article and these resources are not intended to serve as a substitute for a thorough independent investigation of this issue especially within the confines of the members' local contexts.
Why the focus on Direct Instruction? This issue has impacted a number of local districts, educators, parents and families. The administrative team of one major district unilaterally implemented this methodology in first grade classrooms and offered reduced class size as an incentive for teacher cooperation. Another smaller district saw its textbook adoption process overruled upon completion because the committee did not consider a textbook series based on principles of this methodology. And in yet another district, a minority group of school board members circumvented the curriculum process by suggesting that first grade families be surveyed to see whether interest existed in creating an alternative "choice" first grade classroom based on this methodology. Incidences like these are neither isolated nor limited to Wisconsin. As WSRA members find themselves in positions to have to respond to these types of actions, they may find this information useful.
The WSRA Advocacy Committee is ready to respond to other issues as they surface in the state. Those issues may come to its attention from the executive committee, legislative committee, research committee or from you. Members with advocacy concerns should contact Mike Ford .
Outline of Materials 
Provides questions to ask about the rationale for change. This one is specifically related to the SAGE proposal, but basically the questions remain the same. Almost all critics manufacture a crisis in reading to suggest the need for change. We need to remind our audiences that our schools may be among the best schools in a state that is among the best state in a country that ranks second in the world in reading achievement scores. If your district is already getting good results with experimental programs like SAGE, you need to question why we would interfere with that? In particular with DI, we need to point out that this is a 30 year old program with a questionable research base promoted by a company that has a financial incentive for schools to adopt its program.
These quotes are from the new IRA position statement which provides additional rationale from an international professional organization to support a multi-method approach to beginning reading instruction.
Provides a basic overview of Direct Instruction. (Remember take the initiative to define it for your audience.)
Provides a distinction between the commercial program "Direct Instruction" and the phrase "direct instruction." It is very important that your audience know that you are not oppose to teaching skills and strategies directly to children (ie, direct instruction with a little "d" and a little "i"), but that is different from the commercial program called "Direct Instruction" with a capital "D" and a capital "I". Remember research on "direct instruction" does not exclusively support "Direct Instruction" and may support other programs better.
The first type of research you need to attack is research used to suggest program efficacy (meaning the effectiveness of the overall program has been researched). With Direct Instruction, one primary study often used to support the program's effectiveness is Project Follow Through . This overhead describes those results. Note that the survey is over 20 years old. And the program only brought students up to the 41st percentile.
Provides some criticisms of the DI interpretation of this research and suggests that no matter which program received the highest scores instructional models alone could not help all children. It also reminds us that if the research was conducted in 1977, many of today's intervention programs were not a part of this study.
25 Years Beyond DISTAR is the more recent research document used to support Direct Instruction. This overhead describes the results but points out problems with the review (as analyzed by Steven Stahl and his colleagues in his RRQ article).
Lasting Differences is often not mentioned by DI advocates, but it provides controversial data that participants in this program actually had higher felony arrest records than any of the other groups in Project Follow Through.
Other early childhood studies seem to provide additional evidence of negative results from programs like DI.
Another way to provide a research base for DI is to show that its elements of design are based on research. Again this is not research on the overall impact of the program, but research that would support what DI does with one aspect of the program. In their own text, Carnine and Kameenui cite a number of studies but most of these involved invested researchers and many of the other studies support techniques which are not unique to DI. These techniques are used by teachers in many other programs.
Some of the research actually better supports what is done in other programs. For example Reading Recovery does a better job of prompting strategies than DI.
Identifies the three key websites with public endorsements of this program. It is important to be able to discuss the endorsement of DI by AFT and AASA. The final Website is an in-house Website by Direct Instruction advocates. Information from this Website is put out by folks who have a vested interest in the promotion of DI .
Provides the research cited on the AASA Website and the AFT Website. Point out that most of these citations you have already critically reviewed in previous discussions.
Identifies other links to the Direct Instruction family. Point out that any information or research connected to these sources is being disseminated by individuals who have a vested interest in the promotion of Direct Instruction.
Provides a theorized framework for how these "educational issues" are more about using the political process to generate corporate profits rather than concern about children's reading
Presents information about the educational textbook industry to show McGraw Hill's financial stake in the marketing of Direct Instruction based programs and compatible materials
Provides estimated first year costs for Direct Instruction implementation based on information from the AASA Website.
Provides quotes from Jeanne Chall -- often embraced by those advocating DI -- to suggest that what good teachers are currently doing may be better than changing to a new program.
Provides a framework for discussing methods you currently use with children to suggest that what you do may be just as (or even more) structured, explicit, systematic and intensive as the program being proposed.
References
The following materials were helpful background in preparing the presentation on Direct Instruction:
"Thirty Years of Research in Reading: When is a Research Summary Not a Research Summary?" by Allington & Woodside-Jiron In Defense of Good teaching: What Teachers Need to Know about the "Reading Wars" edited by Ken Goodman (Stenhouse, 1998) "Toward Separation of School and State" by Sheridan Blau Language Arts (February 1998) "Transactional Heat and Light: More Explicit Literacy Learning" by Randy Bomer Language Arts (September 1998) Direct Instruction Reading (3rd Edition) by Carnine, Silbert & Kameenui (Merrill, 1997) Learning to Read: The Great Debate (3rd ed) by Jeanne Chall (Harcourt Brace, 1996) Using Multiple Methods of Beginning Reading Instruction: A Position Statement of the International Reading Association International Reading Association (1999) NAEP State-by-State: Cautious Conclusions Reading Today (June/July 1999) "Theory and Research Into Practice: Everything You Wanted to Know About Phonics (But Were Afraid to Ask)" by Stahl, Duffy-Hester & Dougherty-Stahl Reading Research Quarterly (Jul/Aug/Sep 1998) Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science: The Political Campaign to Change America's Mind About How Children Learn to Read by Denny Taylor (NCTE, 1998) "You Gotta Be the Book" Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents by Jeffrey Wilhelm (NCTE, 1997)
You might also want to explore three websites where additional public information is available to see what is being said about Direct Instruction:
And don't forget to search McGraw-Hill on the internet to learn more about the company that markets Direct Instruction.
For more information about this topic or these materials, please contact the WSRA Advocacy Committee.
|
