People who are in favor of scripts are the very ones in favor of stripping away the "professional" title from teacher. It goes along with everything we've seen thus far in NYC educational politics. Let's not have professionals in the classroom in favor of McDonaldizing the school system. For instance, I feel creativity and technical skills are not mutually exclusive. I mean, I know my subject pretty well, so I have some leeway in terms of straying from the the subject matter for a little bit. For someone who doesn't know math, that's terrifying, but if they depend on these scripts to teach them what to teach to the kids, then they're just as qualified as someone who just started shaking and baking the fries or the person adding the "salad" onto the burgers.
Furthermore, it's important for us as teachers to go from the concrete to the abstract because of the creativity factor. In life, the materials that they come across will be much more diverse and more random than the things we give them on a daily basis, so it's imperative that we instill a little spontaneity and creativity. Granted, we're going to have to grind it out a little bit, but by the end, we should give them a situation (in my case a word problem) and they should be able to find what they've learned and apply.
Good post.
The scripting question cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." First we need to address the following:
1. How and where is the script to be used?
2. Is the script first-rate?
3. Is the script complemented with more flexible lessons?
4. Is a teacher at liberty to use his or her best judgement?
5. and more.
1. As NYC Educator points out, a script may be more appropriate for some situations than others. It can be deadly for subjects that require insight and thoughtful discussion. It could be great for drill or highly systematic presentations.
2. Many teachers are frustrated not by scripts per se, but by mediocre scripts. There is nothing quite so demeaning as reading a faulty explanation or having students engage in mandated but meaningless activity. The script should be so good that the best of teachers would find it engaging and challenging.
3. The script should not take over the entire curriculum. The teacher should have regular opportunities to plan his or her own lessons that supplement, reinforce, or go deeper into the material.
4. No teacher should be FORCED to follow a script verbatim. If an interesting question comes up or a particular topic requires extra time, the teacher should use his or her best judgement. Also, the teacher may have explanations, examples, and problems that illuminate the script.
A script can offer curriculum, consistency, rhythm, routine, and more. If it is superbly written and implemented, it can enhance an educational program. Schools should beware of mediocre scripts or of anything that dictates the entire curriculum and day-by-day lessons.
Thanks to NYC Educator for bringing up this question. I, for one, dread the prospect of a "scripted curriculum," mainly because of the high likelihood that the script would be a) mediocre; b) misapplied; and c) all-encompassing.
If you haven't, I suggest reading Mike Schmoker's excellent book 'Results Now.' He does a much more effective--rather than curmudgeonly--job of laying out the reasons for and effects of the 'Crayola Curriculum' and 'Literature as Arts & Crafts.' (The first is also a title of a PBK article available on the 'net.)
I agree with Grandpa Fred, or whatever his name was, that too often 'constructivism' or 'creativity' (Why is it that conservatives always try to conflate as many different of their pet peeves into one lumpen mess of ideology?) is used as cover to not prepare for class. HOWEVER, when done well, practically every performance, job, skill, etc. looks 'effortless.'
I could show up at your school tomorrow and teach Romeo & Juliet well with nothing but the books because I've done it about 100 times already. I could cold teach just about any poem or short story because I have a thoughtful and practical approach to having students systematically work through a text. And, yes, it is a constructivist approach because the kids answer their own and each other's questions, rather than mine. And it works a heck of a lot better than 'read this chapter and answer these questions I chose.'
But then there are the days we work on memorizing the Prologue to R&J, or learn the rules of sentence combining, or I dictate a timeline of history so my kids know when Shakespeare was writing his plays.
If having reams upon reams of yellowed notes is 'teaching,' then count me out. If that's what passes for 'preparedness' then I want no part of it.
But, at the same time, I've spoken to new teachers who have watched me or other's prepare for class and come away with the mistaken impression that I do very little. They don't realize the difference between the first 5 years and the rest of my career; the first five years were about adding, adding, and adding more ... and it seems that the rest of my career I've been throwing things away and creating a limited set of routines that allow kids to perfect a limited set of skills rather than simply gain exposure to a whole slew of them.
It seems to me that the best teachers know and have the right tool for the job at hand.
Sorry for the rant! 
Jon A,
No apology needed.
And thanks to all for those thoughtful and intelligent comments.
Just a note to all that The Fordham Foundation is not in any way related to my Bronx alma mater, The Fordham Rams. We have enough trouble with our hoops coach, we don't need to blamed for this.
In all the years I've taught, no two classes have ever been alike. There are lessons and units that have gone over really well with some of my classes while tanking with others. A script makes the assumption that all classes of kids are alike, and they aren't. As much as I whine about my school's lack of a real curriculum, I also realize that it's almost impossible to really map out a year's worth of learning experiences. There are so many factors to consider. Activities and projects take longer than planned, kids grasp a concept quicker than expected, "teachable moments" pop up, etc. Scripts don't allow for any of that.
What's a teacher to say to a kid who has a question about yesterday's lesson? Do we say, "Sorry, but if I take the time to help you, I won't have time to finish the script"???
Great post, great comments. As a musician, I'm reminded of two things.
First, scales, arpeggios, and the highly (though not universally) recommended Hanon exercises. 20 min a day. Gets some memory function and patterning going in the fingers. They're tantamount to scripts, yet essential to the art form and you won't be making any artistic contributions without them.
Secondly, when you talk about hanging up nice stuff on the boards being confused with creativity: reminds me of 7th grade science project I had to come up with, on the solar system. I did not have science in my heart, so I put clay figures representing Mercury, Venus, Uranus, Pluto etc. in a circle around an Apollo. My father, a scientist for real, went apoplectic and withdrew to his room in despair. His fury escalated when my project won one of the awards.
I learned more from his reaction to the stupidity of my invalid creativity than I ever did from the project itself.
The script isn't the end-all-be-all of education, but neither is doing what we want. Most teachers are average--in fact, probably 68% of us are within one standard deviation from the mean and half are below the mean!--and a *well-written* script might help many become even better teachers. I know there are a couple trig topics that I still don't teach very well--not because I don't understand the material myself, but because I don't know a more efficient way of communicating my knowledge.
Unfortunately, "academic freedom" and "teacher creativity" are too often synonyms for "I should get to do what I want."
I once was given a script to teach from and it actually expected me to say, "hum , I wonder why this was the effect." I had to laugh. I was expected to say.."hhhuummm." It reminded me of plays where the stage directions are so mapped out. For example, when you read a play you may see a direction like (laughs) or (moves stage left) I finally figured out that most stage directions are not written by the playwright, but rather they are written by a director or a well meaning person who is paid to record what they see. In the case of the "hum" I would think that a "master" teacher probably was recorded and then later the scripted lesson was transcribed to written form.I don't know if this is making sense, maybe I need a script. lol
If you include all work related tasks, how many hours are teachers working?
Do you think that it's possible for teachers to achieve work-life balance? How?
Well, my name isn't Grandpa Fred, at least not yet, and if you read my article, you would have noticed that we use scripts for the unmotivated, unexperienced, largely incompetent MBA student teachers (who are, in those respects, not unlike your average just out of ed school ninny, save perhaps the motivated part). And speaking of, so-called "activities" and "projects" have no business being in a classroom, being yet more substitutes for content.
I tend to agree with you Prof, and I apologize for any misreading or confusion over your name. I'd take it a step further and suggest people who absolutely required scripts should not be teaching that subject to anyone anywhere--just like I shouldn't be teaching math.
I would not rule out activities if they actually reinforced a goal, like forcing speakers of different languages, through Tower of Babel-style grouping, to use English. After introducing vocabulary, and practicing directed conversation, I might make kids write and perform a fashion show in small groups, for example, to reinforce present progressive, materials, and particular word order:
"Look at Silvia. She's wearing a white cotton blouse and bluejeans. She's wearing a light green jacket."
They'll also write all of this, and be tested on the structures in question. Oral proficiency, though, is essential in what I do, and I like to trick the kids into liking English whenever I can.
Sorry about the 'Grandpa Fred' quip ... with all those pics of Granda Fred on your blog, I couldn't help making the pun.
You say "And speaking of, so-called "activities" and "projects" have no business being in a classroom, being yet more substitutes for content."
I'm not sure how you can separate 'activities' and 'content' in an area such as English. IMHO, (actually, not so humble) that would be like trying to coach baseball by lecturing about the batting stats of great hitters. Research has shown that some activities--such as sentence combining and composing--improve the quality of students' writing. Other activities have been shown to improve reading comprehension, especially for students who are below grade level.
Perhaps, though, you and I have different definitions of 'activities' and 'projects.' (I have to admit, I'm lately hesitant to use the word 'project' because too many students think 'coloring' when they hear that word.)
More generally, I once saw a speaker who made the point that most teachers in high school teach the same class, 'Things I like 101.' Thus the need to address what passes for 'standards' and 'frameworks' and 'curriculum' in most schools. I am a big booster of power standards and common exams.
But, more fundamentally, teachers have to shift away from the focus on inputs (when we examine our own work and students' work--such as the meaningless model of the solar system described above) and focus instead on outcomes.
What a great post! I'd be looking for it in the top of the 152nd Carnival of Education.
Beth asked if it's possible for teachers to achieve work-life balance due to the number of hours we work. I believe that it is.
The solution comes in being highly effective when we are at work, setting office hours as much as time allows, and keeping work at work. Much easier said than done, but if we will seek creative solutions for all of the arguments, then it can be done.
We all know how much better we feel the third week of January than we did the third week of December because we were able to get that time to begin sorting through our lives more. The time that we can reclaim is of greater value than anything else we can do personally.
If that work-life balance requires us to come up with scripted teaching of some sort, or a modified scripted teaching that takes into consideration the needs of the individual students, then it might be a personal investment worth exploring.
I know it's not right for me, but I can see how it might be for some. Especially the lazy teachers who decided to major in education "just in case I needed a backup plan."
Uh oh, I wonder how many people I've upset now? 
Okay, can we firstly start off by assuming that for the purposes of this discussion we are talking about a sensible, intelligent script that has been tested and refined and retested and refind again in classrooms?
Second graders can read scripts. Teachers ought to be held to a higher standard than that. There are, in fact, some people who think teachers ought to be untrained replaceable cogs.
So what do you think of an actor who performs Shakespeare according to a script?
Actors use scripts because a play can be better written than anything an actor or bunch of actors can come up with on their own. There are of course some terribly-written plays, and there are some actors who are also good playwrights, but merely using a script does not make an actor into an untrained replaceable cog.
Nor does it make that actor an incompetent. There is more to being an actor than reading a script. A good actor emotes the script. They know how to pace their speech, they change their emotional range, they add facial expressions. They will pause for the audience to finish laughing. The best ones will carry on through colleagues being struck down with stagefright, and make an appropriate quip at props collapsing.
A teacher teaching from a script needs many of the same skills as an actor, and more, since small kids tend to be more disruptive than most audiences.
Teachers have to be replaceable. Every teacher currently in existance is one day going either to retire or die. Hopefully they will die contendedly in their beds at a great old age about as comfortably as is possible to die (or alternatively, for those with more adventurous tastes, will be killed on their descent from the summit of Mt Everest at the age of 96), and will be attended to their grave by thousands of their ex-students, but one way or another every teacher alive today will die, and therefore new teachers will need to be trained to replace them.
Teaching clearly requires training for most people, just as very few people are great actors without any training or experience.
Also, teachers need to be in some ways cog-like. There is always the risk that you will be hit by a bus on your way to school one day and be in a coma for weeks. If this is not to harm your students' education then another teacher needs to be able to replace you. (NB, I hope that no teachers ever get hit by a bus or badly ill or whatnot, but statistically some are going to).
Of course if teaching could be done brilliantly by indestructible robots then I would not want teaching to be full of replacable cogs, but since teaching is done by humans, subject to all the ills flesh is heir to, replacability is a good thing.
I think you have to be tricky, unscrupulous, and yes, creative, to accomplish a goal like that.
When you say "you" are you using the singular, or the plural?
Creativity is not necessarily the result of a single person's actions. For an example, I will go back to plays again. Shakespeare was clearly a very creative writer. I have seen both "Much Ado About Nothing" and "As You Like It" performed three times by different groups, and each performance followed Shakespeare's script, but still added their own creative touches. The actors and director were in effect collaborating with the late Mr Shakespeare to produce something better than they would likely have ever produced on their own (I have yet to run across any other writer who writes like Shakespeare).
In the case of teaching, yes, creativity is important to figure out how to accomplish the goal of inspiring kids to love reading (and, I will say, to read at all). But what's wrong with teachers sharing their experience? If you have come up with some new, more effective way of teaching kids to read and to love reading, why not share it with your fellow teachers? If another teacher has developed a way of teaching kids to read and to love reading that is more effective than yours, why not copy her?
All the other professions build on other people's creativity. Doctors learn from each other. Lawyers steal from each other. The initial idea of patents was to provide an incentive for new ideas to be made available publicly so they could be built on (this is separate from current patent law, which is often criticised, including sometimes by me, for preventing creativity being shared). What's wrong with teachers doing so?
I hear what you are saying about "good teachers", but surely our kids deserve not merely good teachers but the best teaching we can get them? In no field of human activity I am aware of is any one person the best. As Newton said "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".
Good teachers can do better.
Cool. Then we can send the good teachers to develop better scripts for the not-yet-so-good teachers.
Look, if we could fill every classroom in the world with genius teachers who are not merely creative, but magically know as much as the best teachers throughout history, then I'd say dump the scripts. But, well, from your comments not every teacher is a good teacher. For example, it strikes me that your co-teacher is not doing a particularly good job of teaching kids to read and to love reading. Scripts are so far the best way we have of getting the kids assigned to those teachers to learn something.
A script makes the assumption that all classes of kids are alike, and they aren't.
A good script does not.
The Direct Instruction (DI) script is built based on the knowledge that kids are different. There are two main ways in which this is done:
- kids are assigned to lessons in the curriculum based on both how much they already know and how much repitition they need to remember things. So for example two kids start at their first day at school. Under DI, someone at the school tests them on their existing knowledge. Say one kid knows their alphabet, their colour words, etc. while the other only knows "A,..B..., ummm, I forget". The first kid is assigned to a lesson further on in the sequence than the second kid. Kids can and often are assigned to different lessons later on in school too, based on how they are going.
- the teacher is continually, during the lesson, asking questions of the class. If he gets wrong answers, he knows that a kid, or more than one kid, has not understood something properly and there the script instructs the teacher to go back and reteach and retest, thus modifying the lesson on the fly. Obviously, what a "wrong answer" is differs from question to question. For example, one DI script starts off a lesson on weights by the teacher asking kids how much they weigh in pounds. In that case a "wrong answer" would consist of kids looking blank, or calling out numbers like 4,000, which, unless the kid is joking or has a really significant medical problem, would indicate a serious misunderstanding of what a pound is, that would need to be corrected before the rest of the lesson could start. In an English class, a wrong answer to "What is the past tense of 'read'" is pretty obvious, while the wrong answer to an open-ended question like "What is the main theme of the book?" may be a response like writing a summary of the book with no attempt to pick out a theme.
I've used various scripts over the years and have not found them to be stifling. After I've used one a few times, it becomes more of a guide that I feel quite comfortable deviating from and adding to. I can quickly tell a bad script from a good one. Even a bad script will give me an idea of what not to do. And once I have experience teaching a certain subject, I find that the script melts away, to be forgotten.
Most of us use scripts for self-teaching. We search around for the best book on knitting, or computer programming, or painting, or cooking. As we become proficient, we go to books less often. When we achieve expertness (rather rare), we drop the books and consider writing one ourselves.
I, personally, do not have any problems with a script and believe that DI (Englmann's approach) is a very effective teaching tool. I have huge issues with pacing guides, which are used extensively in the district I teach in. The pacing guides dictate absolutely what we are supposed to teach and when we are supposed to teach it. They do not allow any time for ensuring that students are mastering the content and absolutely no time for reviewing the content that has been learned.
I too have problems with scripts and pacing calendars. In EveryDay Math, the lessons have to be supplemented.
And even Open Court gets boring unless I modify it.
These lessons may be used as a guide, but children learn using different modes. A good elementary level lesson needs a teacher with strong background in all subject areas. I found the new science text to be a bit over the top that I needed to go back and review the topics so I could teach it my way.
Another problem is that we require children to learn so many new things in one year instead of teaching fewer topics and dedicating more time to the comprehension. When children still don't understand fractions and graphs when they reach the upper grades, that's telling. Countries like Japan teach "deep rather than wide". In NYC, it's the opposite.
If a teacher only sticks to the script, then that teacher will never learn how to be a master teacher.
I haven't been unfortunate enough (yet) to have to use a script- but doesn't it fly in the face of all the talk about differentiated instruction?
This series on scripting is the most depressing thing I have read since - well I forced myself to finish Linda Pearlstein's excellent book, Tested. I closed the book wondering why the teachers didn't rebel. Why wait until the end of the year to quit? Why not mass resignations before the test date?
Teachers should be a "cog?" Why would anyone want to be a cog in any system?
Ordinarily, I don't believe in criticizing fellow teachers. If you don't think teaching to the test is immoral, then you don't have to protest. I'm not going to criticize all scripts; after all Success For All has research to back it, and I assume that there must be other good scripts. But reading so many endorsements of standardization is depressing. Gee, all of my classes have distinct personalities. I love my job because I can throw myself unreservedly into the classes. I love beeing around the honesty of teenagers. I can't imagine going into a class with a Big Brother standing over my shoulder.
I guess that explains part of my culture shock. I'm assuming the posts are mostly from elementary school teachers. I can't prove it, of course, but I can usually guess whether my high school students come from the working class elementary schools (or back in the day, the middle class schools) where students are celebrated as human beings, as opposed to our highest poverty schools where they just get scripted instruction. My assumption has been that teachers would not participate in those destructive approaches if they had any choice. Regardless, in high school we have to clean up after the extreme standardization of "teacher proof" systems, and its getting tougher all of the time.
Sorry to be so blunt.
The antipathy that many teachers feel about scripts confuses me. Is the issue that the teacher themselves did not develop the script or that they don't like scripts at all.
The reason I ask is that most teachers who have been in a classroom for more than say 3 years, have developed "scripts" that is, lesson plans that are generally recycled for the most part year to year. I don't consider that a bad thing so long as the "scripts" are updated with new information from time to time. These scripts get refined over time so that the teacher doesn't so much as deviate from them as much add to them on the fly as necessary.
It seems to me that the beef that a great number of teachers are having with "scripted" lessons is that they don't have any input into the development of the script. It seems to be a little self-centered to think that only they can come up with the best script to use for their kids.
One other factor comes to mind as well. Time and time again, I read on teacher blogs and in comments on my blog that teachers spend so much time developing lesson plans and preparing for class. It would seem to me that the use of a script, even a mediocre script, can help that process along. One of hte commenters said that lawyers "steal" from eacher other. As lawyer that is partly true. We quote from and cite cases, I even use whole sections of other lawyers motions and briefs to help me spend less time on mundane mattes and more time devoted to those activities geared to maximizing my time and service to my clients.
By the same token, a teacher can use a pre-developed script as a starting point and riff off the script as necessary. The result is that a teacher can be "creative" and "professional" and use a script at the same time.
Our text come with lesson plans or "suggested lessons". These lessons can be good enough to use or need modification. However many schools have old, outdated texts with no accompanying plan, so we create the plan.
Scripted, on the other hand, does not allow for deviation unless a principal gives you permission. Scripts also do not take into account the varying learning styles. Yes, we do have our lessons that we created, but we also modify or improve upon them. And, unlike the script, we try to think outside the box to make the lesson relevant, interesting and fun.
Teachers should be a "cog?" Why would anyone want to be a cog in any system?
Let's take the example of aeroplane pilots. There's a small chance that a pilot will have a heart attack or otherwise become disabled while flying the plane. Because of that risk, pilots are treated like "cogs". In large planes there is a copilot sitting next to the pilot, who if the pilot becomes disabled can fly and land the plane. Do you think pilots suffer from the knowledge that at any moment the guy sitting next to them can take over their job, or they may have to take over their copilot's job?
We treat people as "cogs" when the job they do is ultra-important. Teaching is ultra-important, and since sadly teachers only come in bodies that are merely human, we need to allow for the risk that any single teacher may suddenly become disabled.
But reading so many endorsements of standardization is depressing. Gee, all of my classes have distinct personalities.
And every performance of a Shakespeare play I have seen has a distinct personality. A script does not stop you from being you, anymore than a script stops a director or an actor from bringing their own distinct personality to the performance.
My assumption has been that teachers would not participate in those destructive approaches if they had any choice.
John - Joanne Jacobs asked about teachers' experiences with Direct Instruction in this thread. I think you might be interested in their responses.
http://publiceducationdefender.b...out-
direct.html. And http://joannejacobs.com/2007/02/18/teachers-
wonder-about-direct-instruction/
A quote from the latter thread is by a teacher called Anna (well, a poster called Anna):
"I have used Reading Mastery, Engelman’s DI program for teaching reading. At first I did not like it because I did not enjoy teaching from a script. I became a convert when I saw how effectively it taught students how to read. I think sometimes we forget that things which are boring for teachers are exciting for little kids.
...
I observed the program work effectively with students from all walks of life."
I think that explains why teachers participate in scripted lessons - they can see kids learning.
I think it may help if people see what a successful script looks like. Here are links to two sample DI scripted lessons:
Maths lesson.
Language for thinking lesson.
No one questions that each brain has its own capacity for all the various kinds of cognition: perception, reasoning, differentiation, accommodation, creativity, IQ, etc.
It should therefore be no surprise that some teachers favor using a script and others rebel against it: people think differently, organize their thoughts differently and rely on aspects of their own cognitive processes differently.
Good teaching skills depend on preparedness, flexibility, and a really deep belief that all kids can learn.
"Regardless, in high school we have to clean up after the extreme standardization of "teacher proof" systems"
Ah yes, and then we at the university level have to -- in addition to our own material -- teach them everything they were supposed to have learned in high school but didn't, because they were in your class.
rightwingprof:
Want to change places for a couple of days with one of the public school teachers? Any level, maybe all levels. You can't know the problems until you spend days, weeks in our kinds of classrooms.
That's why BloomKlein are so entirely unqualified to make education-related decisions.
Maybe you have taught in public schools, but it doesn't seem you've done it recently, and times is way different now.
I'd like to return to something Tracy W. said earlier:
"Actors use scripts because a play can be better written than anything an actor or bunch of actors can come up with on their own. There are of course some terribly-written plays, and there are some actors who are also good playwrights, but merely using a script does not make an actor into an untrained replaceable cog."
This analogy between teachers and actors is both interesting and flawed. First of all, actors don't always use scripts. Improvisational theater is a thriving art, and while some may not like it, others dedicate their lives to it. There are school of improv and schools within schools. Moreover, there are gradations between improvisational and traditional theatre. Some actors are famous for their ad-libbing on top of scripts--take Marlon Brando or Shelley Duvall, for example.
Suppose we're talking exclusively about "scripted" acting. Can it really be compared with teaching? When you act, you are trying to realize several artistic visions: that of the author, that of the director, and your own. Without the play, there would be no theatre. Actors are drawn to acting because of the compelling nature of the plays and the quality of the theatre companies.
In teaching, the goals are different, and teachers are drawn to teaching for different reasons. The script is not the heart of teaching; it is simply a means of facilitating it. People decide to teach because they love the subject matter, enjoy working with kids, desire to contribute to their communities, and so forth.
You might ask: If they love those things, isn't that like loving a play?Wouldn't they welcome an effective way of conveying the subject matter, if they loved the subject matter and the kids so much?
Yes, but the subject matter is not a script, nor is the interaction with students a script a priori. Scripts have been written in response to educational inconsistencies, not as a foundation for education. A script can help regularize the instruction, but if a teacher is not allowed to depart from it, then he or she is limited by an inherently limited (damage-controlling) piece of writing.
Now, let us consider an actual script: the "Language for thinking lesson" for which Tracy W. provided the link. I know DI has a good reputation, and I have great respect for some of its supporters. Moreover, I can see how the "call and response" format could bring momentum to a lesson and enable students to retain information. Unfortunately I would not be happy in a DI environment unless I could depart from the script for a portion of the lesson. Why? I don't believe it's right to make kids call out the word they don't know, when some may actually know it. Also, when I discuss vocabulary with kids, I like to go into etymology and various nuances of meaning. Granted, I teach teenagers, not elementary school kids. Nonetheless, a script is problematic at any level when it condescends to students and teachers.
Sadly, scripts are often responses to utter absence of curriculum. "This free-for-all hasn't worked, so let's buy the package and require all teachers to follow it." Why go from one extreme to another? There are many gradations between no curriculum at all and a 100 percent scripted one. As a child, adolescent, and young adult, I went to a wide variety of schools, public and private, in three countries. Not one of my teachers followed a script, but some had a well-developed curriculum and teaching style. Scripts may address certain problems in our schools today, and they may have something to offer to any teacher, in measure. However, they are not the ultimate solution, nor are they compelling as a great play can be, nor have they proven necessary over time.
This analogy between teachers and actors is both interesting and flawed.
All analogies are flawed to some extent. I do know, and like, many improv performances. The reason I talked about actors using scripts is that some commentators appear to assume that using a script automatically conflicts with teacher creativity and personalisation. For example, NYC Educator dismissed scripts with "Second graders can read scripts".
The actor analogy indicates that using scripts is not the same as not being creative or as simplying doing something a second grader can do. Your "criticism" of my analogy does not address that point.
A script can help regularize the instruction, but if a teacher is not allowed to depart from it, then he or she is limited by an inherently limited (damage-controlling) piece of writing.
What a well-designed and tested script does is give every teacher the distilled knowledge of experts. This is not "damage-controlling", unless you believe that the starting point is a brillant teacher who arrives on her first day in the classroom knowing every single thing there is to know about teaching reading, or critical thinking, or whatever.
Why? I don't believe it's right to make kids call out the word they don't know, when some may actually know it.
Children are placed in DI lessons based on their prior knowledge. A kid who already knows the words in question will not be in that class but in another further along the sequence. Of course, perpetual refinement is not possible, there may be the odd word that a particular kid does know and is being told again, but the group as a whole should not know each of those words.
If a kid always knows the relevant words then they should be placed in a lesson further along. The DI curriculum includes testing and reassignment of kids on that basis.
Also, when I discuss vocabulary with kids, I like to go into etymology and various nuances of meaning.
The script is designed for elementary school classes. Consequently it is simpler than what should be covered in high school (though I do not intend this to be read as a criticism of any teacher who must do remedial language tuition in high school).
There is a limit to how much information a child can absorb at any one setting, and there is always a conflict between breath and depth. For example, if you go into the etymology and nuances of meaning of every single word then that limits the number of words you can cover. How many words do you cover the full etymology and nuances of meaning of?
The DI course was designed to improve children's performance on reading and making deductions from any number of stories, so it takes time away from exploring the nuances of meaning of each word to cover more words and to cover logical deductions. It's an inherent trade-off in education. Dumping scripts won't change that.
The advantage of a standardised set of trade-offs is that further lessons by different teachers (say at high school, or if the original teacher is hit by the proverbial bus) can be built on the assumption that the kids who have been through that lesson already know that lesson. So you can assign say a poem that plays on the two different meanings of the word "watch" and then get on with discussing word-play or identifying the main theme or whatever without needing to check that the kids understand that "watch" has two meanings.
Nonetheless, a script is problematic at any level when it condescends to students and teachers.
How do the scripts I have supplied condescend to students and teachers?
Sadly, scripts are often responses to utter absence of curriculum. "This free-for-all hasn't worked, so let's buy the package and require all teachers to follow it."
I am talking about Direct Instruction here, not any random curriculum. And the curriculum does not merely consist of scripts but of a whole other set of changes affecting the whole school, such as placement of kids in lessons based on prior knowledge, continual assessment and adjustments in feedback in response to that assessment, etc.
Why go from one extreme to another? There are many gradations between no curriculum at all and a 100 percent scripted one.
DI does not in fact mean 100% scripting. The curriculum covering English language skills (reading, writing, critical thinking about reading) and maths take about 1/2 the school day, leaving the rest free for whatever the school or school district decides. Teachers are encouraged to use DI principles, such as relating new information to things the kids already know in the remainder of their classes, but the scripting doesn't cover everything.
However, they are not the ultimate solution, nor are they compelling as a great play can be, nor have they proven necessary over time.
Evidence please? What non-scripted form of education has proved to be as effective in educating children as DI or Success For All curriculum? See http://www.projectpro.com/ICR/Re.../DI/
Summary.htm for an evidence of DI's success.
Look, if you have a system of teaching that works with existing teachers and in a wide range of schools, and has results at least as good as DI or Success For All, without using scripts, then don't keep it to yourself. Put your cards on the table.
In the absence of some evidence that there is a better system, let's go with DI or Success For All. I don't believe they are the ultimate solution, but I've never come across anything better.
Evidence? How about the millions of fine writers, musicians, actors, doctors, scientists, counselors, clerics, lawyers, electricians, engineers, architects, translators, parents, luthiers, athletes, teachers, pilots, editors, politicians, secretaries, programmers, carpenters, and so forth who were educated without any scripted program? Maybe some had scripted programs, but I'm willing to bet that the majority didn't. Some may have no scripted program, but highly developed curricula, taught by experienced teachers; some may have had a mixture of schools and methods; and then some may have been self-educated.
As I said, there are things I respect about DI. If I were to have my way (not a proven way, but a way that works for me and that many of my students seem to love), then I would have some time devoted to rigorous, systematic instruction, and some time devoted to intellectual and artistic romping. (Speaking of which, I do not go into the etymology of every word, but I like to go into word origins here and there, as do the kids.)
Learning is not always systematic. As a learner, I often took (and take) leaps that didn't make rational sense but were essential to my learning. When learning a language, I'd delve into a difficult text, memorize a long poem I didn't understand, trap myself in the lovely murk of the unknown language--and then find myself suddenly understanding it.
There is a false assumption that if an approach to education has "proven" successful, it is superior to other approaches. It probably has something valuable to offer, but not for everyone; and as an overarching system it may be unbearable for some. Conversely, there are wonderful schools and programs whose quality is obvious but not "proven," and whose approaches draw upon tradition and wisdom, but are neither scripted nor branded. The only proof that they "work" is the quality of life (inner as well as outer) of their graduates.
29% of school students are failing to meet the basic level of reading in grade 8 as measured by the NAEP. Source http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/
2006451.pdf (figure 12)
32% of school students are failing to meet the basic level of mathematics in grade 8, as measured by the NAEP. Source http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/
2006453.pdf (figure 12)
Now some of those failing children will have brain problems that mean that they can't learn to read or write, but 30%?
Schools are failing a hell of lot of students. In a country with 260 million people, to point to millions of writers, musicians, etc, is not enough.
Look at this graph of prisoner illiteracy compared to general adult population illiteracy http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/
illiteracy.html.
Now what's the likelihood of someone who is completely illiterate being able to find a well-paying job, cope with credit cards, mortgage applications, etc? And what are the odds that they might instead resort to crime instead.
For the millions of children succeeding without scripted programmes, there are millions of children failing.
There is a false assumption that if an approach to education has "proven" successful, it is superior to other approaches. It probably has something valuable to offer, but not for everyone; and as an overarching system it may be unbearable for some.
Diana, if you can get the results that DI has gotten or better with students from poor backgrounds, then go for it.
But DI is now the benchmark. If you're not achieving results at least that good, you are failing your students.
The only proof that they "work" is the quality of life (inner as well as outer) of their graduates.
No. What also counts is the quality of life (inner as well as outer) of the dropouts. Otherwise you could artifically bump up the scores of any programme by just bumping up the hardness of the test necessary to graduate.
Given the long time period between when a pre-school programme starts and when the kids eventually graduate, I also regard information on reading, maths and critical thinking ability as evidence of a successful programme.
But, taking your definition at the moment, taking into account the quality of life (both inner and outer) of the graduates and dropouts of the programme, what data do you have that shows that other, non-scripted programmes work as well as DI or Success For All?
Also you should control for the quality of the students at the start of the programme. Kids with well-educated, rich parents tend to do well regardless of the programme. If they don't their parents hire tutors. The children of the poor don't have that luxury.
So, what are your results that justify you in rejecting DI?
I think I should explain a bit further the problems with judging a programme only by "the quality of life (inner as well as outer) of their graduates".
The problem is the time delay. Say you are looking at a programme for 10th grade. And say that you decide to judge the "quality of life (inner as well as outer) of their graduates" at age 25. Now that is a delay of ten years.
So you start your programme. Ten years later you do your evaluation on the first year's worth of students and you discover that your graduates and dropouts have a terrible quality of life, both inner and outer. 20% of them are in prison, 60% of them have been in prison, 40% are illiterate, 40% have tried committing suicide.
So you set about improving your programme. You make some changes, and then wait ten years to see if those changes have had any impact.
Now it has been twenty years. How many of the people who started the programme are likely to still be around? How much will the world have changed?
And how many lives has the programme failed to save over the last ten years?
The time delay of course simply becomes worse and worse for earlier school ages. How can you improve the performance of kindergarten schools and teachers based on observations of 18-year olds?
I never said I rejected DI. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I think aspects of it are great. However, as a program, it is probably not for me. Does that mean I shouldn't teach? I don't think so. Does it mean I'm doing something immoral? I doubt it.
You say: "But DI is now the benchmark. If you're not achieving results at least that good, you are failing your students."
I don't buy those absolute terms. Some kids and some teachers would be unhappy in a scripted program--just as some people will be unhappy in any system, be it free-market capitalism, communism, Catholic socialism, or what have you. It's one thing to say a system "works." It's another to say that if you don't subscribe to it, you're failing your students, or failing your country, or what have you.
Diana, exactly what results are you getting with your, or your school's, non-DI programme?
My apologies for saying you rejected DI. What are your results that justify you in saying that as a programme it is probably not for you?
It would not be fair for me to talk about my school here. It's not my point, and it could cause misunderstandings.
I find it extremely puzzling that someone would ask me to justify my preferences in terms of exact results, though. DI is a small, relatively recent, movement in education. To the extent that it has offered something to students that they wouldn't have had otherwise, I commend it. But it is odd that a DI advocate would act as though it were already the status quo and that any skeptic should have the burden of proof.
I do not want to read from a script. I could make use of a script and adapt it to my lessons. But the day I am forced to read from a script, I will likely leave teaching. It goes against my grain, even if it has "proven" successful in some places.
I am not the best teacher for everyone. Some of my students flourish in my classes. Some of my students might be better off with DI. That does not mean that my approach is less successful or less valuable than DI. I haven't once claimed to have the best method. Some of my favorite teachers were not effective for everyone, but if they had been forced to change to suit everyone, we would have had a great loss. We need more variety, not less.
I'm sorry, Tracy, that I can't offer you more, but my point was never to push a program or recommend one over another. My arguments are simple to the point of absurdity. I'm not calling for an end to DI, just for alternatives to it. That's all I have to say on this thread.
Diana, if you indeed "find it extremely puzzling that someone would ask me to justify my preferences in terms of exact results", I agree with you that there is no point in continuing this conversation. We clearly are operating from entirely different world views.
Commenting by HaloScan
