This story is very similar to one in the USA which has several more years of data behind it.  NIFDI partnered with the school district of Gering, Nebraska (one of the lower-income communities in the state) to implement Direct Instruction across the district in an incremental manner, adding a grade or two each year.  I have the CD, which I believe you can watch online at:
http://www.nifdi.org/gering_video.html

The most extensive write-up of the ongoing Gering implementation is at the D-Ed Reckoning blog
Here are Ken De Rosa’s posts on the Gering story, in reverse chronological order:
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-evidence-that-good-instruction-can.html
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-results-out-of-gering.html
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2008/04/some-results-out-of-gering.html
http://d-edreckoning.blogspot.com/2008/04/gering-public-schools-school-district.html

If you don ‘t like “backward mapping” (insider joke:-)) you may want to read the links from bottom up.

A key element in Direct Instruction implementation is teacher training (coaching on-site in the classroom, not just lectures or readings) and over time very average teachers can become quite effective with Direct Instruction methods and materials. This is costly, however, and is one reason why Direct Instruction programs are not widely implemented. NIFDI is not the only organization that provides this kind of implementation support; an outfit called JP Associates ( http://www.jponline.com/  )  also does this very successfully, and has developed its own materials for parent support, community involvement and extension of the programs into other parts of the curriculum. Other consulting firms do similar work on a smaller scale.

Some Ontario districts are implementing Reading Mastery or Corrective Reading in Special Education settings, or using Dr. Maureen Lovett’s programs (which originated from DI but for which she had her own materials developed so that she could disseminate the program without the SRA materials) along with training from the Sick Kids’ staff or other local trainers. Dr. Lovett’s PHAST PACES program is offered as a credit course in high schools in the TCDSB and has improved outcomes for students on the OSSLT. The teachers receive several days of training plus in-class mentoring during the year, similar to the NIFDI model.

Because the curricula don’t align with the Ontario Curriculum, wide-scale use of Direct Instruction is not likely even if cost were not a prohibitive factor; some programs, however, like the Language programs (Language for Learning and Language for Thinking) would be a tremendous boost in the ELP, and could be done without many consumable materials . Language delays are a key factor in low-income children’s early school achievement, and these programs have a good track record in accelerating language skills,  both in less advantaged young children and in children with exceptionalities.

On a more sobering note,  when a school has turned around, a new district administration or new school administrator can undo all the progress in a very short time. The Rockford story is an usettling one in this regard:

http://www.illinoisloop.org/rockford.html

I am beginning to question the costs of DI, and who is citing costs, not to implement the program.

“This method, rich in structure and drilling and content, is the opposite of the favored methods of today’s high-paid education gurus, and contradicts the popular theories that are taught to new teachers in our universities. Direct Instruction should be no secret at all, for it has been proven in the largest educational study ever (discussed below) and continues to bring remarkable success at low cost when it is implemented.”

And, “The inescapable conclusion of Project Follow Through is that kids enrolled in educational programs, which have well-defined academic objectives, will enjoy greater achievement in basic skills, thinking skills, and self-esteem. Self-esteem in fact appears to derive from pride in becoming competent in the important academic skills.”

One can eliminate the programs in schools, that are based on self-esteem, and other such questionable programs, that can only add to the costs of the operations of schools and their boards.

And:
“Another valuable resource about Direct Instruction is the video “Failing Grades” which features researchers (not movie stars) who discuss the results of scientific studies comparing the performance of American and Canadian school children with those of other countries. The U.S. Project Follow Through study (see below) is discussed in detail, as well as the limitations of “student-centered” learning (e.g., the teacher as facilitator or “guide on the side”) which focuses primarily on self-esteem and “discovery learning.”

What are the current costs, for discovery learning in our classrooms. Or are the costs where children are failing, are passed down to their parents and in society as whole, when they reach adulthood?  Due to it, no doubt the adult schools, and private tutors can look forward to a steady supply of adults, where the discovery techniques and balance literacy methods, actually are the cause of the rise of adult schools and private tutors in today’s society.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml

The next link is a paper, 1990 stating that DI is cost effective, but the public and many educators are unaware of the low costs, due to the politics.

“The Precision Teaching and Direct Instruction are mature and extremely powerful instructional technologies that are fully capable of erasing America’s “basic skills crisis” if widely adopted.  Those who know about them often resist adoption for philosophical or political reasons. We believe that policy-makers, corporate and cultural leaders, and the general public will opt for measurably effective instructional methods, if they know of their existence. Hopefully this article will help to make a wide audience aware of these cost-effective educational solutions.”

http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf

Within the above PDF file, it is stated: “Becker (1984) estimated that at least 5 million children in the English speaking world are currently learning
with Direct Instruction programs. In addition, Direct Instruction has been introduced in seven African
countries and there are adaptations of the programs operating in other non-English speaking countries. The Association for Direct Instruction (P.O. Box 10252, Eugene, OR 97440) publishes a newsletter, offers training on DI programs, and operates a state-funded preschool. Engelmann-Becker Corporation continues to develop commercial Direct Instruction programs and publish books, and research continues at the
University of Oregon and elsewhere. In spite of these advances and evidence suggesting the superior effectiveness of DI, educators continue to
resist adopting Direct Instruction programs. Recently, Engelmann won a suit in the state of California directing the state curriculum board to base textbook adoptions on “learner validation”—a policy that had been legally mandated but not enforced (Binder & Watkins, 1989). Engelmann filed the suit when Direct Instruction programs, perhaps the most thoroughly tested of any commercially published teaching materials, were rejected for inclusion on the state approved textbook list. Engelmann plans further efforts in
the courts while continuing to develop and refine Direct Instruction programs.”

This paper was written in 1990, how many more parents have to hear the crazy, sometimes creative reasons the education system has employed to say in many different forms, that their children are too stupid too learn. And for the children that has learned, how many more parents have to endure and put up with how the education system employs tactics to blame the parents or anyone else or thing, for the outcomes of education. I don’t think a parent is none too please, their A+ children are taking remedial courses in writing and reading at the university level. Or to find out, that the knowledge learned in high school, is not the knowledge that is needed to navigate throughout society.

Nancy is talking about two levels of “costs.”  The cost to society of children who leave school without basic skills is, of course, astronomical. I’m sure some data-crunchers could put a dollar figure on each one, but that figure is not a school-level factor.  At the school level, costs for what materials and services the school wishes to purchase must be within their budget, or funded from an outside source (parents, in the example I gave on another thread, or a charitable agency, or a bequest in a will, or some other similar source).

“Balanced Literacy” on the other hand, is a philosophy, not a program. Schools can buy whatever materials they can afford to support the BL teaching (levelled books, Fountas and Pinnell resource books, etc.) but since in our low-income schools teachers must come up with most of the instructional materials on their own, the “costs” are whatever the school decides to spend. Teachers have their own self-paid subscriptions to sites like Reading A-Z, EnchantedLearning.com, edhelper.com so that they can download or create the needed curriculum materials, which are not provided by the school of the board (they are in well-to-do schools).

At a previous school, I did a rough calculation of what it would cost to bring in DI through Grade 6 in reading, language and math. It worked out to about $100 000 per year for seven years, and ongoing costs of about $100/yr per student (much more than is allowed for texts). And that did not include teacher training, coaching or data crunching. Add on at least another $50 000/yr for that. 

Of course if the entire education system realigned its priorities, Direct Instruction could be something it decided to invest in. But in the current situation, individual schools don’t have the resources to do it on their own (without outside financing, which happens occasionally). When a principal decides to invest in Direct Instruction for Special Education classrooms, s/he has to divert a substantial amount of the school resources to make it happen. And without the training component, the teacher may not be able to use the materials effectively.

The USA situation is different because there are so many other sources of funding (many foundations, Title I funding, Obey-Porter grants, Reading Excellence Act, etc. etc.) and aboriginal groups also have additional funds available. Some districts in the Yukon and NWT have partnered with Morningside Teachers’ Academy to implement Direct Instruction along with precision teaching data management.  That too, like NIFDI, has an onsite coaching and mentoring component, and is costly for that reason.

Balanced Literacy, “constructivist” math and “Writers Workshop” have no particular required materials and can be done “on the cheap” which is a real, if unvoiced, reason why they are implemented. TDSB strongly discourages textbooks or workbooks of any sort.  Full inclusion is also a money-saving innovation, as I heard a Supt. of the TDSB explain in a public meeting. He argued that Special Education programs were too expensive, and that was why they would be phased out to the greatest extent possible.  Most low-income parents in TDSB are suspicious of testing and Special Education identification anyway, but middle-class parents still seek the LD label for their children in some cases, so it will not be eliminated entirely.

Yes there is the future costs of any educational system. The costs to society.

Than there is the ongoing costs of educating the children. It is where the hidden costs are not included. What are those costs?  Are the costs track in any real data collection? What are the costs to after-school tutor programs?  What are the costs of pulling out students for remediation reading? What are the costs providing other courses, related to bullying, health, studying courses, and the many other courses that have no direct relationship to the core subjects, such as math, English and science?  What are the costs, providing SE services for children in later grades?  What are the costs for not providing teachers with the proper training in the first place?  Where and how the costs matters very much in any type of system. More importantly, there is the hidden costs that impact the educational policies, that helps to increase the costs, besides keeping the status-quo and the predictable solutions that maintains the status-quo.

The Human Rights Commission of Ontario, has a report titled, “THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED: Achieving Barrier-Free Education For Students With Disabilities
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
Published in 2008.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/discussion_consultation/ConsultEduDisablty2?page=ConsultEduDisablty2-ELEMENTA.html

Below, is what I believe is some of the hidden costs, that no one bothers to track with any purpose.

1.” The Commission was told that, as a result of these problems, many students with disabilities are not receiving the accommodation they need to participate fully in the education curriculum and in school activities. 

2. “It has also come to the Commission’s attention that educators in Ontario are not always complying with human rights principles when administering other types of tests.”

3. “Consultees described long delays at various stages of the Identification, Placement and Review Committee process,[45] and in the preparation and implementation of IEPs. “

4. “The view was also expressed that the Safe Schools Act is often applied more strictly to children with disabilities from racialized communities.”

5. “Children of new Canadians and landed immigrants who have disabilities are at a distinct disadvantage…..The families may also have language difficulties and/or cultural perceptions that prevent them from getting the help they need. ........However, the ability of parents to advocate for their child is variable depending on how well informed they are about available services and supports.”[58]”

6. “The Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists expressed a concern that female students with language and/or speech-based disabilities may not receive appropriate special education services. They noted: “Female children with communication and language delays or disorders and whose behaviour may be unremarkable, often go undetected”

7. “Negative attitudes, ignorance, misinformation and stereotypes about the nature of specific disabilities, and/or about persons with disabilities themselves can be extremely damaging to an individual’s sense of dignity, to their self-confidence, and to how they perceive themselves in the educational environment.”

8.” Labelling of students can result in pre-determining accommodation on the basis of stereotypical assumptions, rather than assessing the individual needs and strengths of each student. Moreover, preoccupation with labels and their accompanying stereotypes can lead to pedagogic and social interactions that can be detrimental to students with disabilities.”

9. “Consultees told the Commission that the appeal process for decisions regarding identification and/or placement is cumbersome, time-consuming and overly litigious..”

For one to used the position of DI costing too much money, when study after study, has shown reduced costs and far less kids being identified and needed SE services, which reduces costs over-all for delivery of an education, for all students, are fooling themselves and the public. The educational needs of the students, are based on what is best for the educational system, often on costs. If it is pointed out, that this or another program is not effective for this group of students, the educrats will used the above 9 points, and many more rules and regulations to prevent a change in programming.

Why?  In my opinion,  they are resistent to change, because they want the public and government to think that they are the experts in all things educational. If an educational system cannot teach SE kids effectively, than why would one think the educational system, is teaching regular kids effectively inside the classroom?

I am familiar with practically every study ever published on Direct instruction, but am not familiar with data that suggest it “saves money.”

That might be an inference to be drawn from its effectiveness, but we simply do not have long-term data on Direct Instruction in whole-school, whole-district applications.

The Gering experiment is one to watch, because it involves a whole district, is cross-curricular, and addresses general education students. Even so, they needed outside funding to support it. The short-term results are quite promising; if they in fact continue the experiment for (say) a decade or more, the longitudinal data can shed light on the question of whether DIrect Instruction, despite initial “front loading” of costs, saves money farther down the pike.

We don’t need long-term data on DI.  Everyone knows that it’s effective, and of course it would save money:  with more children succeeding, we wouldn’t need to hire as many teachers.
I really find it annoying when I see simple things like DI being made out to be complicated, and then ‘researched’ on the taxpayers’ dime.  It’s a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Long term data on costs are not collected for whole language and other policy concepts either, yet these programs are used, even through the costs have never been tracked.

Longitude studies, like tracking the costs over a period of years, the public education does a poor job of it. If Revenue Canada ran their operations like the public school system, they too would have a hard time in getting an 60 % compliance rate in collecting taxes. It is a good thing, the compliance rate is much higher than the 60 %, or other wise our federal public programs would not exist.

DI, has been the one program that has been research from every angle, since the 1960s.  The DI studies have indicated, if a whole board approach was use, there will be less people working at the board level, less teachers working at the school level, less of everything . It is amazing that the most effective methods that are not in use, are the same methods if employed, by grade 4 would have over 95 % of the students at high levels of reading and writing by grade 4. The only reason why DI is not used, is because some of the busy work that the staff does at the board level, will no longer be needed.

Seems to me that if DI, or a similar method, was taught in the faculties of ed in the first place, that would be the most cost effective way to implement it.

SQE has always promoted the concept of preventative measures being cheaper and easier in every way than remediating the problems.

Yes if DI was taught in the education faculties in the first place, it would be cost effective.

Further to add, as a parent, I find it perplexing to say the least, why it is easier to make contact with a busy researcher, on leading research, than to make contact with one professor from the education faculties. A leading researcher, will take the time out to speak to the parent. When a parent takes the trouble and time to make contact, they are gracious and are interested in answering questions that a parent has. However, the professors found in the education faculties, are not gracious, nor are they interested in hearing from parents. The most common refrain is, “Why are you calling me?”.

That said, the education faculties are the head of the education beast. It starts there, with the training of the educators, and ends in the data streams of the students. The data streams tells the story of low reading, writing, and numeracy skills in the adult population, the rising number of SE kids, the drop-out rates, the youth crime stats, illicit drug use, the number of non-diplomas issued, the number of low achievers, the number taking remedial courses in post-secondary institutions, the achievement rates, and the other education stats that are normally track.

The stats tells the story of the education faculties and their questionable educational programs for teachers.

Hmmmm. I seem to be the only one commenting here who has a clear understanding of what Direct Instruction is.  There is no bigger fan of Direct Instruction anywhere than I am: I’ve used 15-20 of the programs at various grade levels, with “regular” kids and with Special Education students, for a number of years. But there are clearly some misconceptions about what DI is.
(1) DI is NOT “simple.”  It is a very complex product designed by one of the greatest educational thinkers of the 20th century, Zig Engelmann. He is a true genius, and no one else has ever duplicated his efforts or instructional designs.  The structure of the programs is simple to USE, but not “simple.” The various strands are carefully crafted, like a cable with multicolored skeins of thread that weave in and out in a complex design.
(2) DI is NOT a “teaching method.”  It would be difficult to have faculties of education instruct would-be teachers in DI for this reason, although they could teach prospective teachers ABOUT DI. – not the same thing. Teachers can only learn how to use DI by actually doing it, with students, under the mentorship of a trained coach or instructional leader.
(3) DI is not simply a program, like JUMP Math or Jolly Phonics, that you can purchase, and read the instructions, and then go and use (with help, if necessary).  It is a CURRICULUM, and you can’t take bits and pieces of it and use those, nor can many people just pick it up and use it effectively by reading the directions.  Like ballet or swimming, you can’t learn to do it by reading about it. It’s a complex skills set that must be taught, but can only be taught in the context of the materials designed for the purpose.
(4) Direct Instruction *is* a commercial product, and because it is a commercial product – a copyrighted one, with the monopoly belonging to one publisher – it is available only to those who can afford to buy it.  The materials are exorbitantly expensive – probably because they are sui generis and there is nothing like them on the market, because no one else has been able to replicate Engelmann’s work or develop programs that meet the same criteria.

Not only is the initial purchase of teacher materials expensive (many thousands of dollars per classroom), the student materials are consumable, so you have to keep buying new ones year after year, at a very high price.  You can’t do “Direct Instruction” without purchasing these materials, which are far more expensive than most educational products. Are they better? I think so, but the pricing is one reason they are not more widely used. 
(5) Direct Instruction is very effective but only when done according to Engelmann’s protocols. I have tested kids who “did Reading Mastery” for a whole year and who learned absolutely nothing.  There are millions of similar anecdotes – in the hands of people untrained and unmentored in using the materials, there is little or no progress.  If you subscribe to the DI listserve, you will find many advocates for Direct Instruction bewailing the inappropriate and ineffective use of DI in too many situations. 

People here may be confusing Direct Instruction (the product, which has embedded teaching practices unique to its curricula) with teacher-directed instruction generally, or with explicit instruction in basic skills.  There is no evidence that Direct Instruction gets 95% of students to a “high level” – even in Project Follow Through, it only got them to near the 50th percentile, but that result trumped all the others by a large margin. 

It’s true that DI, used early, would likely prevent many learning difficulties, but there is no data on how well it would work, used effectively, with general education population through the elementary grades.  There is no evidence that it would reduce costs, because the materials are so exorbitantly expensive, and require more instructional staff (not necessarily teachers, but some trained people – paraporofessionals could do it.)

I am an ardent advocate of DI, but can see that what it is and what it does is seriously misunderstood in this forum. No favours are done to DI by making unsupported statements about what it is and what it can do.  I suggest that people interested in learning about contact SRA/McGraw-Hill and ask where they can visit a DI school. There are quite a few private schools using DI in Ontario and elsewhere.  These schools are usually quite expensive, because DI instruction is expensive. It gets results, but you can’t get around the need to purchase the materials on an ongoing basis, and the need to train and mentor all staff using the product.

I expect that this information will be dismissed, so I don’t plan to have anything further to say on the subject.  DI is too outstanding a product to be misrepresented as is happening here.

DI, the same as testing, is self-explanitory.  If educrats have used this name and pasted it on certain teaching methods, fine.  Although I skimmed through the previous blog,  I’m not the least bit interested in a specialized method of DI.
What I’d like to see is all of this child-centred learning in noisey, disruptive classes got rid of and the children taught phonics, spelling, grammar, writing, some real science at the grade school levels (as it is in Europe) and math, by using memory work and aiding the same with drill.
Also, the only thing too expensive are the salaries and benefits (which do not reflect what these educrats withs their education would be making in the private sector) and huge surplus of staff at all educational levels.  Without either one of the above, our tax dollars could well-afford the very best programmes for our children.

“Dr. Grover (Russ) Whitehurst: At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education, a substantial portion of the Department’s discretionary budget, which is roughly fifty-three billion dollars a year, is spent on problems that are related to reading. “

53 billion dollars is a pretty penny to spend every year on reading problems.. Why not prevent the problems, and start using reading programs based on science?

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/whitehurst.htm#HundredsofBillions

‘Dr. Louisa Moats:  Everyday I’m in a school and working with teachers I continue to be astounded by the gulf of knowledge, the gulf between our knowledge base in the scientific community and the practices that go on in teacher training. “

Perhaps the costs are not the workbooks of Direct Instruction, but the costs of re-training the teachers in reading instruction?

“Dr. Louisa Moats:  What drives me? It is the whole realization of the difference between what is and what could be for kid’s lives and seeing first hand, at every level of society, every age group, how reading difficulty effects people for life. Then on the other end of things, seeing at every level what is not happening that could happen to prepare teachers to address the needs of so many individuals who could benefit from informed instruction and who don’t get it because our whole educational system from start to finish is simply not set up to ensure that people do learn to read. “

Perhaps the deeper reason why Direct Instruction and other programs based on science are not in our public schools, is that the structure of the education system is not form and based on reading and writing instruction?

“Reading is Rocket Science:

Dr. Louisa Moats:  There’s this monograph, I don’t know if you’ve seen it called, ‘Teaching Reading is Rocket Science.’

David Boulton:  Why do you call it rocket science?

Dr. Louisa Moats:  We are never going to get anywhere if our approach is teachers ought to be able to do this simple thing called teaching reading. I think the rocket science of all this has to do with the requirement of a good teacher to understand what is involved in kids learning the alphabetic code and that requires meta-linguistic awareness that speech sounds are different from letters and that speech sound processing is a requirement and underpinning for learning the code. I find that that’s kind of counter intuitive. People don’t get that. They don’t think about it, they don’t know what we’re talking about.”

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/rocketsci.pdf

“Such a research-based core curriculum
would provide much more extensive, demanding,
and content-driven training to
inform classroom practice. Specifically, a
core curriculum for teacher preparation
must include components for:
Understanding reading psychology and
development;
Understanding the structure of the
English language;
Applying best practices in all aspects of
reading instruction; and
Using validated, reliable, efficient
assessments to inform classroom
teaching.

This core curriculum can also serve as
the basis for in service professional development
for the vast number of current teachers who have not been exposed to the research-based knowledge.”

SQE has always promoted the concept of preventative measures being cheaper and easier in every way than remediating the problems.
PDF files