\doc\web\98\02\skinbad.txt Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 02:03:07 -0500 From: "Melanie Fields P.M., LLSDL" Organization: Professional Mother, Life-long, Self-directed learner To: "Grimm, Karen NE" Subject: Re: Direct Instruction Works-reply Loopies, What I have to say is controversial and since there isn't a diplomatic way to say it, I'll just say it and hope it doesn't come out nasty cause it isn't meant that way. I downloaded the Policy Review article mentioned below and read it. I have no doubt Direct Instruction works. That has never been the issue. But suggesting that something should be used because it works is the wrong standard by which to measure a thing. Just because something "works" doesn't make it right! Direct Instruction is based on the same thing as OBE/Mastery Learning, B.F. Skinner. Direct Instruction is content based Skinner. It's not DI's content in question, it is the scripted, S-R/S-R-S method in question. I have not heard the Skinnerian method defended and proven right based on Biblical grounds. But I have heard it suggested (on this loop) that God must have read Skinner. I don't know if God knows He studied Skinner. DI is being supported essentially without question. We are a group that questions everything, that's why we're here. As with anything right and good, if it is right and good, DI will withstand close scrutiny. I'm not understanding why DI and Project Follow Through have been exempted from careful scrutiny. I was truly mystified by the article. Johnson's Great Society is anathema to conservative thought, but this article used a Great Society program--Project Follow Through--as proof that DI is a good thing?!? Is it me or does this seem like a contradiction? The Great Society stunk, all except for this?? There is plenty of documented evidence available for those who wish to examine Direct Instruction/Distar/Project Follow Through a little further. If you still conclude the Skinnerian method is acceptable, at least you will have thoroughly examined the issue. Melanie Mike McKeown (by way of James Kilpatrick) wrote: > > Subject: Time: 8:36 AM > OFFICE MEMO Direct Instruction > Works Date: 1/21/98 > > The following address takes you to an article on a real > educational success > story in Houston, Wesley Elementary. In short, the key is > introduction of > well planned direct instruction programs coupled to high > expectations for > students and teachers. This plan is not unique. It was > shown to be quite > effective in the Project Follow Through studies and has > been show to succeed > in California schools with demographics similar to those > at Wesley: Kelso and > Bennett-Kew elementary schools in Inglewood. > > In addition to describing what this high achieving school > does, there is a > thoughtful discussion of the reason many educators use to > dismiss successful > programs rather than emulating them, and a discussion of > the way schools > sometimes manipulate their testing programs to hide the > existence of their > low-performing students. > > To read the article (which is too large for this message) > go to > > http: > /www.heritage.org/heritage/p_review/jan98/noexcuses.html > > email me if you need more information on Project Follow > Through > > Mike McKeown Date sent: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:27:51 -0500 From: "Melanie Fields P.M., LLSDL" Organization: Professional Mother, Life-long, Self-directed learner To: "Grimm, Karen NE" Subject: Fwd: Thaddeus Lott's DISTAR schools The following is forwarded for Tracey in MS <warrior@norfolk-county.com>.

Having read the loop's mission statement I thought we all had similar goals when it came to education.
Recently though, I have found some of the messages to be contrary to my ideals. DIRECT INSTRUCTION IS O.B.E. just as O.B.E. IS MASTERY LEARNING. Whether it is D.I.S.T.A.R. or Success For All, or Core Knowledge, Direct Instruction is based on OPERANT CONDITIONING. Some curricula are more obvious than others, but the fact that the above all rely on a scripted text, stimuli-response techniques to achieve the desired outcomes, mastery of content with little to no spiraling back, frequent tests of newly learned facts but few tests of overall material, group regurgitation, and little teacher autonomy, I must wonder why some want DI in the classroom.

Since I have surely rained on your parade, I will direct this message to those who positively responded to the Policy Review article titled, "Houston Educator Thaddeus Lott puts Failing Schools to Shame" Jan/Feb 1998. Starting with section; Only $2,500 Per Child, paragraph three, "D.I.S.T.A.R. known now as Reading Mastery is a regimen of structured drills and sequential lessons, each building on the last, literally scripted for the teacher, who is required to ask 200 - 300 questions per day, often in rapid fire sequence. The children's high-decibel choral responses may sound like a high-school cheer leading squad hopped up on No-Doz." (My response: This sounds like boot camp for youngsters.)

Moving down to; Holding Teachers Accountable, second page; "The first action Lott took as principal was to test his students, rank them by instructional level, and place the top 22 students in one class, the next 22 in another, and so on. The students in each class comprise at most three skill levels, making it easier for teachers to tailor their lesson plans for the individual needs of their students. A child's self esteem and success at learning are determined by his having an opportunity to be taught at the rate and level that he is capable of being taught." (My response: Can you imagine this happening in your average elementary school? Talk about I.E.P.s and self-contained classrooms. Ability grouping is one thing and special education is another.)

Moving down to paragraph nine; "A linchpin of direct instruction is that students are tested often to ensure they have mastered the material before moving on." (My response: Hello, Mr. Bloom.)

Regarding teachers, I will quote excerpts but in no particular order. New teachers, in particular, can expect to be observed two to three times a day. Lott says, So we have a lot of training focused on teaching teachers how to teach. "Teachers need to be trained," Lott insists. Wesley typically loses four to six teachers at the beginning of each year because they dislike the program or fail to meet Lott's standards of competence. The demanding hours and pressure to perform take their toll. Lott's success: He trains young teachers his way before they become entrenched in another philosophy. Teachers are assigned posts at high-traffic areas during breaks. Their mission: Maintain order. "The teachers and administrators have finally gotten control." (My response: Who is controlling who for whom?)

Addressing HR 2614 and ending with the last two paragraphs of this article; Education reform demands replicable models for improving entire districts, not just a tiny subset of schools. Lott's success with direct instruction, and even Davis's record with Success For All, suggest effective reforms. "Direct Instruction will certainly give us a lot more success than we have right now," says Lovely Billups, the director of field services for education issues at the AFT. Choosing a research-based curriculum, measuring teacher performance, conducting an on going effort to train those teachers, and expecting children to master subjects before moving on. Should we really expect anything less? (My response: Beware of wolves in sheep clothing.)

Members of the loop, the Emperor has no clothes! But for now Skinner is jumping for joy. Please do not buy into DI rhetoric. Yes, we want fact-based / content-rich curriculum. Yes, we want traditional phonics. It is the METHOD of implementation that concerns me. "HOW the WHAT is taught verses WHAT the outcomes are "should be our focus". Do we want our teachers to lose their ability to teach because they have been indoctrinated? Do we want our children to lose their ability to think because they have been brainwashed? Knowledge is power, but without retention and application, what purpose does is serve, if connections are not made? Operant Conditioning is based on the knee-jerk-reflex. (Mindless thinking - involuntary response) Chanting out letter sounds on demand, may sound better to those who are fed up with Whole Language and D.A.P., but at what cost are we willing to sacrifice our children's intellect, self -motivation and free will?

For those who plan on responding to this message in a negative tone, please present the much needed evidence to dispute my words. It is my understanding that children test out well by way of Direct Instruction. That is not the issue here. Remember, with Mastery Learning "All children Shall Succeed". What I want to know is; Of all the children who attended Thaddeus Lott's schools, how many went on to four year colleges, graduated, landed descent jobs, and are still working today????????? Of those who dropped out, how many are in need of therapy? Years of operant conditioning is bound to pay its toll. Talk to the victims and the teachers who quit DI.

Looking forward to feedback from both sides of this issue. Tracey