Class differences as well as providing the conditions to limit ability and potential via through the whole language approach and the many variations of whole language.

In my mind, it is discrimination based on the legal definition, not to provide the correct instruction based on the individuals as well as the collective group, taking in consideration of all variables, and not the cherry-picked variables, that often leads and determines the future potential and ability of each student.

Whole language discriminates, whereas Direct Instruction does not discriminate because the approach is to reach the potential and ability of each student.

Oh boy another miracle cure. Add it to the list.

This miracle cure has been around for going on 50 years. It was validated (in spades) by Project Follow-Through, the largest, most-expensive education experiment ever conducted. Project Follow-Through was funded by the US federal government from 1968-1977, and involved over 175,000 low-income children in 170 communities. Direct Instruction was the only one of the nine major methods to have a consistently-positive effect on the three measured aspects of learning - basic skills, higher-order thinking, and affective outcomes (self-esteem).

It is a scandal of major proportions that the education establishment proceeded to ignore the very strong evidence that Direct Instruction was by far the most effective approach to teaching disadvantaged students, giving these kids a chance at a better life. Instead, the education leaders clung (and continue to cling) to the child-centred approaches that did worst on Project Follow Through. More on Project Follow-Through can be found at http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/evidence.shtml

Direct Instruction is by no means a miracle cure, if by that you mean a magic wand. Direct Instruction takes dedication and hard work by all concerned but, implemented properly, it works well, and there is research evidence to prove this. In fact, Direct Instruction is still proving itself in a few lucky communities such as the three schools profiled at http://www.nifdi.org/15/videos/91

“See how Gering Public Schools, a small district in northwest Nebraska, closed a 23 percent achievement gap between white and Hispanic students in three years by implementing the full immersion model of Direct Instruction (DI) with NIFDI.”

As well, DI has their own teacher faculty in the U.S., and a big waiting list for applicants. The newly minted teachers have no trouble in acquiring a job in the public education system, in a market that has an over supply of teachers looking for work.

http://www.nifdi.org/index.html

Almost every teacher I know, uses variations of DI on a daily basis. Making a fetish of it marginalizes the proponent.

There is a big difference between Direct Instruction and the practices that fall under what is commonly known as direct instruction practices.

Direct instruction is, “scripted teaching and drilling” down to the smallest details. for all students to reach mastery.

http://www.projectpro.com/ICR/Research/DI/Summary.htm

Whereas direct instruction practices, are an assortment of methods,

“Direct instruction refers to instruction led by the teacher, as in ?the teacher provided direct instruction in solving these problems.? But if one enters ?direct instruction? into an ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) search, one finds that the term has appeared with a variety of meanings, some general and some specific, some positive and some negative.”
http://www.formapex.com/telechargementpublic/rosenshine2008a.pdf?616d13afc6835dd26137b409becc9f87=b692036c2e9bff46385c7a7ff9a9eae6

Actually most teachers do NOT do direct instruction, either the Engleman scripted kind or the Rosenshine / Hunter less scripted but still precise variation.
In high school you get too often lecture with a few low-level Q & A.This portrait has been documented in the US and Canada for decades.
Too bad, as direct instruction is powerful for basic skills while lectures are usually badly done and have little +ve effect on learning.

Of course I could have been visiting the wrong hundreds of classrooms in the past decade or so

Doug.  The difference between DI and general direct instruction is profound.  You must examine what the program is before you comment on it.  My wife and I both use the program and have read many of Engelmann’s other manuals.  He and Doug Carnine (et al.) have written an enormous amount of material on instruction. 
  Direct Instruction has also been featured on this site many times.  I am sure Malkin could direct you to older postings such as the one regarding Engelmann’s newest book: Teaching Needy Kids in our Backwards System: 42 Years of trying.
  You won’t be able to consume even a fraction of what Direct Instruction constitutes with mere internet research.  It has taken my wife and I something like 4 years of hard study to better understand the elegance and impregnable scientific methodology that underpin his program.

Its fine to take a strict hard line on it as a purist but what happens is followers remain a misunderstood cult who has all the answers. Nobody listens.

Misunderstood cult? Implying what, that good effective instruction is a mere technique and tool for the brainwash?

Take a gander on the pages of education articles from the news, and the comments from parents. Quite revealing to their awareness on the questionable curriculum and other practices, and peeved big time on either paying big dollars on the private tutors, or the 2 to 3 hours after work, re-teaching as well as teaching the missing elements that are no longer taught. in the schools.

I am sure Direct Instruction would be welcome with open arms among all parents, because parents would see that their children are thriving and progressing steadily, Effective teaching practices are just that, effective teaching practices that has no ideology, dogma and does the job it is suppose to do.

Even as you describe DI 100% of teachers will be horrified by that level of scripted teaching. It will therefore remain supported by a tiny group of dedicated followers rather cult like.

Overwhelmingly the parents who are dissatisfied with the public system are the parents of special ed kids. They want to blame “the system” for not education their child up to the level of the other kids. I saw it every day of my life. Many moved the kid many times, public private catholic. Depending on the level of the child they learned but not enough.

Somehow they believe that if their child did not learn then the teacher did not teach. Some kids just have lerning problems that make it difficult for ANYONE to teach them. You can blame the school all you want but where does it get you? Nowhere.

Why is Doug along with his inflammatory language allowed to post again?

So, whoever does not think like him is a member of a cult.

Whoever thinks that poor kids can achieve are not “progressive”, like he is!

Whoever thinks that basics are important oppose creativity and real understanding!

These false dichotomies and straw men are just products of his paranoia against anybody who has a different opinion from him and of his vivid imagination.

I for one I am fed up with such posts that use provocative, low-brow language, that misinterpret at every step being allowed and not filtered out.

I think there is one thing you will have to admit Mr Europe. At this point ‘Doug’s’ POV is majoriterian and the general opinion of SQE contributors is that of a distinct minority in the education field. Does that not give you even a moment’s pause?

I have spent hours and hours pouring over polling data and election results and I fail to find any significant support for any of the pillars of the Corporate Education Reform Movement (privatization, vouchers, charters, phonics, DI, merit pay, .....) with the exception of testing and even support for testing is on the sharp decline with the collapse of support for NCLB in the USA, the end of elementary testing in Alberta, the Finnish example of leading the world without testing,

I think we have seen the high water mark of “reform” in the USA and they are learning that it got them nowhere. Education is very highly cyclical so I anticipate a very strong movement towards progressivism in the very near future.

The only test in the USA with any credibility in the USA is the NAEP because it is exctly the same everywhere. States dumb down their tests to give a rosey picture.

It shows a bit of a bump for math but basically no growth for reading in ten years. It is true in my experience that math time was often stolen for other activities but the testing regime realigned that. Otherwise testing gets you nothing.

Yes, you do have a different opinion than mine. Good for you.

Once again in your post you either misunderstand or misinterpret. Who other than you talks about “Corporate Education Reform Movement”?
That’s a figment of your imagination and paranoia.

This site is about teaching methods that work and about people that unlike “progressive” teachers believe that all healthy children can learn.

Evil corporations fighting against the “progressive” teaching methodologies achievements of producing illiterate high school graduates?
Again, in your mind only.

No, just parents that want their kids to be able to at least to read, write and do basic math well.
This site is about parents that understand the reality that higher learning and creativy is built upon basic skills.

This site is about parents that understand that attitudes are built early in life and who worry that we are distroying civil society as we know it today if the school teaches students that doing homework on time doesn’t have consequences, that learning more does not matter because everybody is equal and all will pass to the next grade no matter how ignorant.

This site is about parents sharing with other parents what has been proven to work in order to be able to help their own children in time before they become another statistic.

And no, I’m not troubled by the fact that other people have different beliefs than mine.

It was believed at times that physicians washing their hands was not a necessity. Hundreds of women died in childbirth.

There were aboriginals in the Pacific islands that after the second world war have build replicas of runways and control towers out of wood and grass in order to entice the white gods to land and to bring them cargo. Cargo is the white men goods brought from the sky by planes landing on runways in the jungle.

So no, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t feel endagered by opinions different from mine.

As Henry Kissinger said of Richard Nixon “even paranoids can have real enemies.”

You may think this is a simple curriculum and pedagogy sharing site, but the friendly relationships with th Fraser institute, CD Howe, AIMS and Frontier Center give away the fact that it is part of the Corporate Education Reform Agenda.

What is CERA? Well the main pillars of the CERA movement are testing, charters, vouchers, privatization, merit pay, union bashing and an approach to classrooms that only stresses human capital formation over personal fullfillment and equity considerations. Have you ever seen any of these priorities here? I think so. “Choice” if private choice is involved, is a centrepiece of the CERA.

The vast majority of parents and the general population reject these directions yet they persist in the corporate roundtables, the think tanks if the USA and Canada, Cato, Fordham, AEI, Heritage, and many others I could name.

The fact is, there are major education business’ and tech giants that could make billions from the privatization of public education and they continue to stoke the debate and attempt to tear down our fabulous public education system that has built the advanced civilization we have today just to make a buck.

Diane Ravitch has helped the progressive movement by asking all progressives to use the same name “Corporate Education Reform Agenda for this movement. Luckily it is close to being a spent force since it cannot demonstrate any gains with any of its reforms so it just keeps shape shifting from one to the next.

http://www.thelittleeducationreport.com/Timeto.html

Diane Ravitch on What is Corporate reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-tQcD9v48

Engelmann has managed to teach children from disadvantaged backgrounds at a high standard.

He has developed curriculum, he trains teachers in direct instruction with repeatable results.

To me that’s the most important thing: that all children attain high standards. I wanted that for my child, I want that for all the children because I want the future of our society to be civilized and prosperous one.

Engelmann has proved it is doable and repeatable.

SQE does a great job helping parents help their children by providing teaching materials that work.
They also do a good job telling parents what to expect and debunking the edubabble.

Just for interests sake Mr Europe, what is your position on testing, charters, vouchers, merit pay, and de-professionalization?

Doug,this is for you and Diane Ravitch and your progressivist friends.
Merry Christmas!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgEnUV7AEw

Doug, if anything you are against all and everything that would take the carefully crafted image of the professional teacher made the public education system, to serve the agendas within, as well as to cushioned the private profits that makes it living for their bread and butter, to promote the private agendas within the public education system.

And yet the ironic part, and the hypocrisy, is that the Dougs of the world, would do exactly the identical actions as other parents have in the past, if they thought their children were at high risked in failing and/or were not learning the fundamental bases needed to navigate in this increasing, and complicated world of rapid changes.

Reread Europe’s posts, and thank sites like SQE that provides information, help and knowledge because it eases the fault lines of the public education system, and one less student to worried about, among many that are falling through the cracks.

“Somehow they believe that if their child did not learn then the teacher did not teach. Some kids just have learning problems that make it difficult for ANYONE to teach them. You can blame the school all you want but where does it get you? Nowhere”  (Doug)

A typical response within the public education system, avoiding accountability and avoiding to account for their own actions and behaviours that contributed to the child’s learning struggles.

Attaining high standards for one and all students, is hard work, in the same way raising children in the 21st century is. Why does an education system rejects and dismiss DI and other effective practices?  For many self-serving reasons, but Doug and many like him, uses it to cast blame to avoid being held to account for their actions, behaviour and beliefs. Unlike parents, who are held to account by their own children.

One thing all researchers notice is that kids come to kindergarten on their first week and middle class kids have a vocabulary of roughly 1000 words whereas poor kids average about 500 words. The school is hardly responsible for that.

This gap continues and in fact spreads over the years because school is only half of the vocabulary growth of any child. The home, the reading at home, the being read to at home, the museum trips the foreign trips the rich language of family and guests accounts for just as much language development as school. This is one of the major ways poor kids fall behind.

The school cannot do much about that, that is why I advocate state sponcered rich summer and after school programs for poor kids.

A solid foundation, using effective methods such as DI, does more to to acquire a steady progression of vocabulary words, than all the whole word reading instruction, enrich literacy, word walls.

Below a link that discusses the complicated nature of vocabulary and its most important relationship between vocabulary and comprehension.

“In summary, we know a lot about vocabulary knowledge, its acquisition, and its importance across the school years. The challenge is to put what we know to work in the classrooms of American schools. The successful reading achievement of many of our students depends upon us doing so.”
http://www.prel.org/products/re_/ES0419.htm

A school can do lots, but not when the reading instruction, and other practices prevents the steady progression of acquiring vocabulary in students, and not the deficiencies and deficits of students.

“One of the most persistent findings in reading research is that the extent of students? vocabulary knowledge relates strongly to their reading comprehension and overall academic success (see Baumann, Kame?enui, & Ash, 2003; Becker, 1977; Davis, 1942; Whipple, 1925). This relationship seems logical; to get meaning from what they read, students need both a great many words in their vocabularies and the ability to use various strategies to establish the meanings of new words when they encounter them. Young students who don?t have large vocabularies or effective word-learning strategies often struggle to achieve comprehension. Their bad experiences with reading set in motion a cycle of frustration and failure that continues throughout their schooling (Hart & Risley, 2003; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 2000; White, Graves, & Slater, 1990). Because these students don?t have sufficient word knowledge to understand what they read, they typically avoid reading. Because they don?t read very much, they don?t have the opportunity to see and learn very many new words. This sets in motion the well known ?Matthew Effects,? Stanovich?s (1986) application of Matthew, 25:29??the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.? In terms of vocabulary development, good readers read more, become better readers, and learn more words; poor readers read less, become poorer readers, and learn fewer words.”

“