OC Register  Monday, March 10, 2008

Ari Kaufman: Parenting with heart in the heartland

Families and teachers make sure the kids behave

By ARI KAUFMAN

Freelance Writer, Former Los Angeles Public School Teacher

Growing up in a coastal “liberal” family, most of my friends shared similar, ignorant views on what those strict parents in the so-called “heartland” were all about. After my brief teaching career in Los Angeles, I moved to that heartland, where I now work as a freelance writer and full-time researcher for Indiana’s War Memorials. I am the only Jewish employee in my office and the only transplant from either coast.

Unlike most state agencies, and because patriotic military folks run the show, office politics are predominantly conservative. My co-workers are warm, family-oriented Christians who like basketball and fly the flag on their porches. They invoke the lord’s name, denounce Islam and support Israel. While this behavior might irk some, I revel in it.

Many pregnant military moms and other small-town families walk through our building each day. I give tours to aging veterans and respectful schoolchildren when requested. The families and teachers make sure the kids behave, which contrasts sharply with what I’ve observed with Europeans, Americans from more-affluent suburbs and inner-city folks (including here in Indianapolis) where parents and teachers exercise little control over their children.

Too many parents and teachers seem ill-equipped or unwilling to discipline their children. Instead of reprimanding misbehavior like in the “old days,” they have been instructed by seminars and school psychologists that children should be allowed to let their feelings out so they don’t fester. Teachers and parents are told that “whatever makes a child feel comfortable is the right answer.” When I occasionally sent a poorly behaved student to the office at an L.A. public school, the kid would come back smiling as my principal, fearing a lawsuit or hurt feelings, rewarded him or her with candy.

Parents and teachers are told that, “If kids aren’t allowed to freely express themselves, they won’t develop proper self-esteem.” Self-esteem? In this era of Facebook and YouTube, esteem is the last thing that needs augmenting. Say what you will about parochial or other “antiquated” schools of discipline, they work – and most inner-city parents who send their uniformed children to well-funded charter schools enthusiastically agree.

Today, many of America’s esteem-fortified children spout profanity or even try to kill their parents. This casual back talk carries over into the classroom, where teachers, paralyzed by 40-year-old pop psychology, tolerate assaults and abuse because “whatever makes children feel comfortable inside” is the basic rule. Parents struggle against the same propaganda.

I’m no psychologist, but it seems that insecure 21st century parents want to be friends with their children first. Yet, as I learned during my early days as an inner-city schoolteacher, if you don’t set strict limits, children, feeling confused about who’s the boss, will rebel. This then devolves into our current dysfunctional social order, where no one teaches students how to behave, to dress, or what is appropriate to say and do.

These people also have busy schedules, but they’re more likely to schedule time with their children than their kids’ preschool consultant. Many instill conservative values in their children, who then join the military and become some of our most noble and selfless folks. Many accomplish more with less than residents of our inner cities.

I never believed a word of this until I began traveling across our great land six years ago, moving to its interior three years ago. Political speeches and media anecdotes about the people in “flyover country” and their lives are a disservice because other Americans, who haven’t spent the time to get to know the reality, believe what they hear.

It may take a village to raise a child. Normally I’d rightly scoff at such communal balderdash, but it’s true in the sense that in small communities, where everybody may know just about everybody else, misbehaving children would be reported to their parents, and neighbors often would intervene directly to correct behavior.

Those kind of villages aren’t named Westwood or Greenwich.

 

Nothing new under the Sun

My Turn: Forget the Fads—The Old Way Works Best

What will fix public education? A teacher, a chalkboard and a roomful of willing students

By Evan Keliher
NEWSWEEK

9/30/2002 — I’ve never claimed to have psychic powers, but I did predict that the $500 million that philanthropist Walter Annenberg poured into various school systems around the country, beginning in 1993, would fail to make any difference in the quality of public education. Regrettably, I was right.

BY APRIL 1998, it was clear that the much-ballyhooed effort had collapsed on itself. A Los Angeles Times editorial said, “All hopes have diminished. The promised improvements have not been realized.” The program had become so bogged down by politics and bureaucracy that it had failed to create any significant change.

How did I know this would be the result of Annenberg’s well-intentioned efforts? Easy. There has never been an innovation or reform that has helped children learn any better, faster or easier than they did prior to the 20th century. I believe a case could be made that real learning was better served then than now.

Let me quote Theodore Sizer, the former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, which received some of the grant money. A few years ago a reporter asked him if he could name a single reform in the last 15 years that had been successful. Sizer replied, “I don’t think there is one.”

I taught in the Detroit public-school system for 30 years. While I was there, I participated in team-teaching, supervised peer-tutoring programs and tussled with block scheduling plans. None of it ever made a discernible difference in my students’ performance. The biggest failure of all was the decentralization scheme introduced by a new superintendent in the early 1970s. His idea was to break our school system into eight smaller districts—each with its own board of education—so that parents would get more involved and educators would be more responsive to our students’ needs. Though both of those things happened, by the time I retired in 1986 the number of students who graduated each year still hadn’t risen to more than half the class. Two thirds of those who did graduate failed the exit exam and received a lesser diploma. We had changed everything but the level of student performance.

What baffles me is not that educators implement new policies intended to help kids perform better, it’s that they don’t learn from others’ mistakes. A few years ago I read about administrators at a middle school in San Diego, where I now live, who wanted a fresh teaching plan for their new charter school and chose the team-teaching model. Meanwhile, a few miles away, another middle school was in the process of abandoning that same model because it hadn’t had any effect on students’ grades.

The plain truth is we need to return to the method that’s most effective: a teacher in front of a chalkboard and a roomful of willing students. The old way is the best way. We have it from no less a figure than Euclid himself. When Ptolemy I, the king of Egypt, said he wanted to learn geometry, Euclid explained that he would have to study long hours and memorize the contents of a fat math book. The pharaoh complained that that would be unseemly and demanded a shortcut. Euclid replied, “There is no royal road to geometry.”

There wasn’t a shortcut to the learning process then and there still isn’t. Reform movements like new math and whole language have left millions of damaged kids in their wake. We’ve wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and forced our teachers to spend countless hours in workshops learning to implement the latest fads. Every minute teachers have spent on misguided educational strategies (like building kids’ self-esteem by acting as “facilitators” who oversee group projects) is time they could have been teaching academics.

The only way to truly foster confidence in our students is to give them real skills—in reading, writing and arithmetic—that they can be proud of. One model that incorporates this idea is direct instruction, a program that promotes rigorous, highly scripted interaction between teacher and students.

The physicist Stephen Hawking says we can be sure time travel is impossible because we never see any visitors from the future. We can apply that same logic to the subject of school reforms: we know they have not succeeded because we haven’t seen positive results. But knowing that isn’t enough. We should stop using students as lab rats and return to a more traditional method of teaching. If it was good enough for Euclid, it is good enough for us.
Keliher is the author of “Guerrilla Warfare for Teachers: A Survival Guide.”

© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Male Teachers Hits 40-Year Low

By Tamar Snyder

When Dan Brown began teaching fourth grade at Public School 85 in the Bronx as an NYC Teaching Fellow, he quickly realized he was one of the few male teachers at the school. The gender discrepancy worked to his advantage, he said. “As a rookie, I was given my own classroom, in part because there weren’t any male teachers for that grade.”

But his role came with an added responsibility not many female teachers face. “Only two kids out of the 26 had parents who were married,” he said. “Most of these kids had no father figure at home. To come to school and have that male authority figure who was treating them respectfully made a huge difference.”

Brown spent the better part of the year trying to connect with his students and serve as a role model. “I had to be an agent of good with them,” he said. “Many of them lead exceptionally difficult lives. They’ve been abandoned. I’m not claiming I was any kind of savior, but I went to great lengths to prove they could trust me.”

Brown recently published “The Great Expectations School: A Rookie Year in the New Blackboard Jungle” (Arcade Publishing, 2007), in which he recounts what he terms a “brutal” year as a Teaching Fellow. He’s currently teaching at DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx and studying for a master’s degree at Columbia University’s Teachers College.

Although gender doesn’t matter in most regards, “some kids, especially boys, connect more with male teachers,” Brown said. Many of his students had never had a male teacher before. “It made a difference that I was a man,” he said. “It was just a different kind of classroom environment, a different vibe. Some female teachers are maternal toward their students; I wasn’t. I expected a lot from them.”

Wanted: A few good men

It’s not just New York City’s P.S. 85 that’s experiencing a shortage of male teachers. Male teachers are in the minority across the country. And although this isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s getting worse.

According to statistics recently released by the National Education Association (NEA), men made up just 24.4 percent of the total number of teachers in 2006. In fact, the number of male public school teachers in the U.S. has hit a record 40-year low. Arkansas, at 17.5 percent, and Mississippi, with 17.7 percent, have the lowest percentage of male teachers, while Kansas, at 33.3 percent, and Oregon, with 31.4 percent, boast the largest percentage of men leading the classroom.

This is an iframe of a ClassesUSA Article Box

Why the downward trend in male teaching? According to Bryan Nelson, founder of MenTeach, a nonprofit organization dedicated to recruiting male teachers, research suggests three key reasons for the shortage of male teachers: low status and pay, the perception that teaching is “women’s work,” and the fear of accusation of child abuse.

Many men once in the profession say they quit because of worries that innocuous contact with students could be misconstrued, reports the NEA.

“There’s a lack of support for male teachers, a lack of respect, and a lack of being able to be involved in decision-making,” said Reg Weaver, president of the NEA. “And I can’t say it’s getting better.”

Low salary levels have also proved to be a deterrent, especially for those men who value being the breadwinners of the family. The average U.S. public school teacher salary for 2005-2006 was $49,026, according to the NEA. “There’s a long-entrenched idea that males are supposed to make lots of money and be a big-time breadwinner,” Brown said. “But teaching won’t make anyone rich.”

Historically, a majority of teachers have been male; that began to change in the 1880s, when women pushed for their own education and the opportunity to teach. In the 1930s, after the stock market crashed, a big surge of men returned to education, as they did after World War II, said Nelson. “In tough economic times, men looking for work returned to education,” since there were always teaching jobs available, he said.

Of the men who currently choose to pursue a career in education, many are promoted to administrative positions, often more quickly than their female colleagues, said Steve Peha, president of Teaching That Makes Sense, Inc., an education consulting company. “Even if men start out in the classroom, they often don’t stay there for long,” said Peha.

And then there are gender stereotypes to contend with. “Particularly in the younger grades, women are seen as nurturers,” said Brown. “Men, not so much.”

Recruiting men into the classroom

What can be done to stem the tide and attract male teachers? Increase recruitment efforts, for starters, say experts. “We’ve seen efforts to recruit minorities into teaching,” said Peha, “and efforts to recruit adults looking for alternative careers, but we’ve never seen a coordinated effort to recruit men.”

To be effective, recruiting must begin while men are still in school, he says. “We won’t see more male teachers if we don’t see more young men pursuing teaching degrees,” Peha said.

Focusing on quality

The key to solving the gender gap in education is to focus on recruiting quality teachers, regardless of sex, said Nelson of MenTeach.

But once quality is assured, it’s important to focus on bringing in more males at the head of the classroom. “Children are no dummies,” Nelson said. “What message do they get when they see no men in schools? The message they get is that education is not important to males.”

For men thinking of heading into education, Nelson offered hard-won advice: Be persistent. Get practical experience first. Look for resources to help you get through school, and, when applying for a job, make sure you have thick skin.

“People will ask you inappropriate questions,” he said, recalling a recent e-mail he received from an aspiring male teacher who was asked during a job interview, “Why would any healthy male want to work with kids?”

In such situations, Nelson suggests stressing the positive aspects of having a man in the classroom. “When kids see [a man] in front of them on a daily basis, it helps to contradict negative stereotypes,” Nelson said.

But turning the tide and recruiting more male teachers won’t be simple, said Weaver. “Everyone’s talking about how important this is. But I don’t want to see rhetoric, I want to see action,” he said.

 

 

Why Math Always Counts

Respect   Responsibility   Readiness

 

The following article was published in the Los Angeles Times   12/20/2004

Why Math Always Counts

By Arthur Michelson

American middle school students don’t care that they’re worse at math than their counterparts in Hong Kong or Finland. “I don’t need it,” my students say. “I’m gonna be a basketball star.” Or a beautician, or a car mechanic, or a singer.
It’s hard to get much of a rise out of adults over the fact, released earlier this year, that the United States ranked 28th out of 41 countries whose middle school students’ math skills were tested by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. So what if we tied with Latvia, while nations like Japan and South Korea leave us in the dust? After all, when was the last time you used algebra?
But math is not just about computing quadratic equations, knowing geometric proofs or balancing a check book. And it’s not just about training Americans to become scientists.
It has implicit value. It is about discipline, precision, thorough-
ness and meticulous analysis. It helps you see patterns, develops your logic skills, teaches you to concentrate and to separate truth from falsehood. These are abilities that distinguish successful people.
Math helps you make wise financial decisions, but also informs you so you can avoid false claims for advertisers, politicians and others. It helps you determine risk. Some examples.

It can open our minds to logic and beauty

* If a fair coin is tossed and eight heads come up in a row, most adults would gamble that the next toss would come up tails. But a coin has no memory. There is always a 50-50 chance. See you at the casino?
* If you have no sense of big numbers, you evaluate the consequences of how government spends your money. Why should we worry? Let our kids deal with it…
* Enormous amounts of money are spent on quack medicine. Many people will reject sound scientific studies on drugs or nutrition if the results don’t fit their preconceived notions, yet they might leap to action after reading news stories on the results of small, inconclusive or poorly run studies.
* After an airplane crash, studies show that people are more likely to drive than take a plane despite the fact that they are much more likely to be killed or injured while driving. Planes are not more likely to crash because another recently did. In fact, the most dangerous time to drive is probably right after a plane crash because so many more people are on the road.
The precision of math, like poetry, gets to the heart of things. It can increase our awareness.
Consider the Fibonacci series, in which each number is the sum of the preceding two.(0,1,1,3,5,3,13……..). Comparing each successive pair

yields a relationship known as the Golden Ratio, which often shows up in nature and art. It’s the mathematical underpinning of what we consider beautiful. You’ll find it in the design of the Parthenon and the Mona Lisa, as well as in human proportion; for instance, in the size of the hand compared to the forearm and the forearm to the entire arm. Stephen Hawking’s editor warned him that for every mathematical formula he wrote in a book he would lose a big part of his audience. Yet more than a little is lost by dumbing things down.
It is not possible to really understand science and the scientific method without understanding math. A rainbow is even more beautiful and amazing when we understand it. So is a lightning bolt, an ant, or ourselves.
Math gives us a powerful tool to understand our universe. I don’t wish to overstate. Poetry, music, literature and the fine and performing arts are always gateways to beauty. Nothing we study is a waste. But the precision of math helps refine how we think in a very special way.
How do we revitalize the learning of math? I don’t have the big answer. I teach middle school and try to find an answer one child at a time. When I can get one to say, ”Wow, that’s tight.” I feel the joy of a small victory.

Arthur Michelson teaches at the Beechwood School in Menlo Park, California.

How do I help my child be successful?

 

ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO PREVIEW THE MATERIAL TO BE LEARNED

It is critical that we know what we are to supposed to learn if we are actually

going to learn it. A student can cut study time in half by using any one of several preview techniques. They have these steps in common:

1. Get the big picture.

Read the preface, introduction, and table of contents. Read section headings and sub­headings. Look for key words that are in bold face print, italics, or are underlined. Read each summary carefully. Find out if the book has an index and a glossary to help find information easily. Look for charts, tables, and diagrams.

1. Ask questions.

Turn each heading, subheading, and summary into a question. This not only makes reading easier, it also makes anticipating test questions much easier.

1. Read the assignment.

Now that you know the big picture, what you are reading will make more sense. Look for the answers to the questions you’ve made up while you read.

1. Take notes.

Whether you do this while reading or after reading, it is essential to get facts and ideas on paper in your own words.

1. Recite.

Say out loud the facts you’re learning. Ask questions and answer them. List the main ideas and draw conclusions aloud. If you read it, write it, and say it aloud in your own voice, you will be much more likely to remember it. This process will increase the amount you remember by 25% to 100%.

1. Review the Assignment.

Look back over the headings, sub­headings, key words and your notes to reinforce what you’ve learned.

ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO BECOME AN ORGANIZED LEARNER

Even a simple thing like where we study is important. One study moved students from a noisy area to a quiet area. In less than three hours they accomplished as much as they had needed ten hours to do before. Here are some other tips:

1. Set reasonable and specific short and long, term goals.

It is very difficult to get someplace if we don’t know where we’re going. “Reasonable” means to establish goals that can be accomplished­ – like learning three new words a day. Unrealistic and unaccomplishable goals only reinforce failure.

2 Have a good study environment,

It should be quiet, well-lighted, have lots of room for study materials, and should be used only for studying. All supplies, such as paper, pencils, pens and a good dictionary, should be at hand. A desk is best; a table is good; a chair is a must. Never should we try to study in bed or on an easy-chair.

3. Plan a study schedule and stick to it.

A sample time schedule is provided. It should include time for recreation and should use daytime study hours as much as possible. It should also make use of study time during the school day and should include time for long term projects like term papers and book reports.

 

4. Get to school and to class on time and with the proper materials every day.

 

The five minutes he or she may be tardy might be either the teacher’s review of yesterday’s material or the teacher’s preview of today’s material. Either way, it is valuable time lost.

 

5. Eat a good, well-balanced breakfast, lunch and dinner every day:

 

Good health is an extremely important factor if we are going to succeed on the job and it is just as important for students who want to succeed on their job.

6. Get help fast when something is not understood.

The teacher will be happy to schedule time for further explanation after class. The school provides special programs in reading, math and grammar. The School Improvement Program provides a tutorial center in the library. Help is there if the student will take advantage of it.

7. Develop an attitude for success.

This seems so difficult, but is really so easy.

IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN SUCCEED AND WE WANT TO SUCCEED AND WE WORK TO SUCCEED­

WE WILL SUCCEED!!

ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS AND WORK CAREFULLY

Failure to follow directions is one of the most common reasons given by teachers for poor performance on assignments and tests. Closely related is not copying problems correctly.

1. Go over the directions on homework assignments with your child. Look for key words like name, list, describe, compare, prove, and so on, to be certain they are understood.
2. Make certain he or she does exactly what is expected- underline, circle, write in ink, use complete sentences, and so on.
3. Check to be certain that math problems have been copied correctly. 20% of all compu­tation errors are the result of not copying the problem correctly.
4. Make certain that he or she works all the sample problems and understands them. The purpose of these sample problems is to provide practice in using the idea to be learned. Skipping this step is skipping the most essential part of the assignment.
5. Go over the assignment to be certain that all work is neat and legible. If the teacher cannot read it, it will probably be marked incorrect.

 

ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO PAY ATTENTION

 

A common reason for poor grades is that the student does not pay attention in

Class or in study sessions. There are several ways to improve this most necessary skill.

Using positive self-talk and images

Athletes often use this method to succeed in a sporting event by telling themselves ” I’ll hit a homerun if I just concentrate and keep my eye on the ball.” They encourage themselves. A runner halfway through a race encourages herself by imagining herself crossing the finish line.

A student can also do this. When images of next week’s football game interrupt history class, he can say to himself, “I know I’m getting distracted. I’ll listen to the teacher now and I’ll think about the game after school.” When she sees herself at Saturday’s band review, she can instead imagine herself taking the math test calmly and confidently because she has studied the material.

This kind of self-talk really works and will soon become a habit so that paying attention will be much easier.

Asking questions in class and when studying

This will serve two purposes. It brings the student’s attention back when it’s started to wander and it keeps his or her attention to the task at hand.

Some general questions are: What is this paragraph about? What point is the teacher trying to make today? What are the main points in this chapter? How does this information relate to what we studied yesterday?

Listening to the teacher and to classmates

In one study, students who took notes did much better on tests weeks later-even without reviewing their notes-than students who did not take notes. This applies to homework assignments as much as to lectures and discussions. Clearly, the best way to listen is to take notes. It accomplishes three things:

1. It forces the student to pay attention to the teacher or the discussion.
2. It reinforces learning because the student is using his or her own mind and muscles to work to learn instead of passively sitting back and letting someone else do all the work.
3. It gives the student written material to review during study sessions instead of trying to depend only on memory.

Eliminating distractions

Study time must be quiet time, whether in class or someplace else. We will say more about good study conditions later, but for now it need only be said that the mind must be able to concentrate on the task at hand. Television, music or any other such distractions get in the way of efficient use of our minds for schoolwork.

Another type of distraction that is not so easily done away with is personal problems. We have all had times when personal concerns and worries made us less efficient on the job, but as adults we have learned to set them aside during work hours. Help your child learn how to do this.

The Domino Effect: Why Middle School Math Really Matters

Like all parents, you want your child to develop a lifelong love of learning that continues right through college and beyond – and for good reason. You know that tomorrow’s jobs and careers will require education beyond high school, so a college education will mean more opportunities as well as higher lifetime earnings.

What many families don’t realize is that preparing for college starts long before their child’s junior or senior year in high school – both financially and academically. Taking steps to make sure your child is academically ready for college when the time comes begins early in life, with you encouraging and supporting learning activities. However, it is in grades 7 and 8 when academic preparation for college takes on the greatest significance. Coursework in grades 7 and 8, especially in math and science, forms the foundation for college and initiates a “domino effect” that is vital to your child’s college preparedness.

What Is the Domino Effect?
Most college admission requirements have in common a core group of courses, and these courses typically make up the basis of a college-preparatory curriculum. Typically included in this core group are at least three – and preferably four – years of math, and two to four years of science.

Algebra and geometry form the foundation for advanced math and science courses in high school and give students the skills they need to succeed on college entrance exams, in college math classes, and in their future careers. Research shows that students who complete algebra and geometry by the end of ninth grade are more likely to go to college than those who do not (71% versus 26%). By taking algebra early, your child is then prepared to take geometry in ninth grade, and trigonometry, calculus, and advanced science courses later in high school.

Conversely, when students postpone algebra until high school, they may find that they are unable to fit in as many advanced math and science courses as required by the college they had hoped to attend. If that is the case, the student will have to take the additional course(s) independently and reapply for college upon completion. On occasion, students may be admitted to a college and required to take the remedial courses there. Colleges do not typically offer credit for these courses, and students may have to spend extra time in college in order to earn their degrees – and that means more tuition!

Some Final Thoughts on Academic Preparation for College
The number of high school graduates who are college-bound is higher than ever before, and the college admission process is also more highly competitive than ever before. Research shows that a rigorous academic program in high school is a greater predictor of college completion than any other factor – so encourage your child to take challenging courses now and throughout high school.

How to Motivate an Unmotivated Learner

 

Counselor’s Corner

By Nancy Wilburton, M.S.

Dana Hills High School

 

How to Motivate an Unmotivated Learner

 

The scenario usually goes something like this; “Honey do you have your homework done?” “Yes, mom….we did it in class today”.  And then out the door he/she goes.  Unfortunately for many parents, after checking their child’s web grades or receiving their progress report, things just don’t seem to add up, literally (how did those zero’s get on the web grade?).  Sooner or later parents in this scenario realize they have been dooped into thinking homework is getting done when if fact it is not.  If your child is receiving poor grades and is telling you they have no homework, think again, they are probably following the path of least resistance.  Poor motivation is a very common problem among teenagers.  When you think about it, if you were 13 years old wouldn’t you rather be out socializing with your friends than doing homework?  So often parents are working late and return home exhausted hoping that their precious child has at least done their job (homework).  Teenagers inherently have more interest in working on their social life then working on academics.  Boys tend to mature at a slower rate than girls and often do not have the maturity level to manage their time and commitments without some guidance.  Motivating an unmotivated learner is not an easy task but can be accomplished by following some simple guidelines:

 

• Establish a routine at home for completing homework, every day, at the same time. Most students who are missing assignments do not have a set time or routine where they do homework and are not being held accountable at home.  Establish a daily study routine and allow short breaks as needed.
• Require a daily planner.  If your child does not have a daily planner you may purchase one through our activities office or your local office supply store.  The daily planner is crucial in ensuring homework is completed.  If your child frequently misses assignments, require that he/she show you the daily planner when they come home with an entry beside every class.  Even if there is “no homework” that should be written down (have teacher initial this).  If your child does not have the assignment written down, there is no way you will know what homework they should be doing for the evening (accountability).  Conveniently students do not write down assignments because in their mind if it’s not written down it doesn’t exist. Once you know what the homework is, your child can begin to tackle each assignment then show you the completed work.
• Establish a behavior modification system at home.  Teenagers need to earn their privileges.  Many students are allowed to have access to cell phones, computers, socializing, television, etc. without earning it.  It is your child’s job to complete their homework and subsequently be rewarded by offering those things that are important to them.  You may incorporate a contract that spells out exactly what it expected of them and what they will earn as a result.  If your child is not completing their homework on a consistent basis, they should not be allowed access to privileges.  Conversely, if they do what they are suppose to, they need to be rewarded appropriately and immediately.
• Don’t make consequences/rewards too long term. It is common for parents to implement rewards or consequences that are weeks down the road (long term rewards).  However, this is an eternity for a teenager who basically lives for today.  Although long term rewards are good, they must be preceded with rewards that are on a daily or weekly basis.  When reinforcing positive behavior you must provide an immediate reward or run the risk that your child gives up all together.
• Be consistent and follow through.  If you do not follow through on what you say you are teaching your child not to believe you.  If you say you are going to reward their good behavior then you must follow up on those agreements.  If you say there will be consequences for not doing their homework, etc. then you must hold the line.
• Both parents must be on the same page.  Parents must communicate with each other ahead of time regarding what the rewards/consequences will be.  Many students will play one parent against the other to get what they want or seek out the parent they know they can manipulate.
• Remember your child is an adolescent.  For most teenagers school work is not as important to them as it is to you.  Most students are not inherently motivated and have not established long term goals. It is very difficult for most adolescence to incorporate the delayed gratification adults learn to incorporate into their lives.  Parents serve as an integral part of making sure their child establishes daily study and organizational skills.
• Support your child’s interests and talents.  Although most teenagers don’t know what they want to be when they grow up, now is a good time to encourage them to start thinking about it.  I always tell students to think about what they are good at and love then figure out a way to get paid for it.  If your child is interested in creative and artistic endeavors, forcing them to choose a career in the math and sciences will only breed resentment and is likely to put a stop to any motivation they may have to succeed.  Help your child research a career by allowing them to job shadow or talk with someone who can give them guidance in that field.
• Don’t allow your child to wear you down.  This is the underlying plan of many teens who think that if they argue often and hard enough they’ll wear you out and you will get off their case.  You must not allow your child to think it is okay not to do their work.  Holding them accountable at home in a loving and consistent manner will teach them responsibility and eventually lead to better grades.
• Don’t set unrealistic expectations.  If your child truly struggles in school or is not on a college track, requiring exceptional grades will only lead to a power struggle, oppositional behavior, and possibly giving up on school all together.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

What a difference two years makes

Teacher sees the reality of the choice of friends.

By JAKE SCHWARTZBERG

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

I have a young man in class this year who I also had when he was a sophomore. This year he’s a senior and I’m now seeing what a difference a couple of years can make.

He was just outstanding in every way that sophomore year. In class, he lived on every word I said, and every time my eyes wandered to him during a lecture, he was always with me. He laughed at the right times, kept his mouth shut during lecture so I could do my job, and did his homework about 95% of the time.

He was so bright and seemed to soak up the information easily. He really took his education seriously. He was always on time, never whined about anything, and when lectures were over, he started doing his class work. Straight A kid. He told me he was going to be a pediatrician. Outside of the classroom he was respectful and classy. I loved having him in class and when I saw his name on my roles this year, his senior year, I was really happy.

I’m still really happy, but he has really changed. He could care less about school now. He’s way more interested in girls, beer pong, and pot. I’m not speculating. He told me. I took him for a walk one day and he was pretty straight with me.

He ditches school about once every two weeks, seldom does his homework and is absolutely “too cool for school.” His eyes don’t have the same fire. He’s disrespectful in class, late most of the time, and I swear I think he showed up stoned to a football game. His overall GPA has tumbled, and he hasn’t yet applied to college. He thinks he “might go to Saddleback or something.”

How does it happen? It happened because of the friends he chose. There is recent research that indicates that the friends one chooses is the leading indicator of their amount of drug and alcohol use. Amount of use is then tied to college graduation rates. Therefore, the friends one choose are directly tied to in whether or not a student will graduate from college.

My student? The kids he chose as friends led him down a bad path and he just followed right along. He didn’t have the guts to go to class when they tempted him. He didn’t have the guts to say no to drugs when they were offered. He didn’t have the guts to put his future ahead of his present.

As a sophomore, he was going to be a doctor. Today I’m not sure he’ll graduate from high school. What a difference a couple of years can make.

Jake Schwartzberg is a teacher at Dana Hills High School. He can be reached at: mathnerd2001@yahoo.com

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Dear Parents

Let your kids face the music and learn that actions have consequences.

By JAKE SCHWARTZBERG

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

It’s pretty easy to stand on the sidelines and question the decisions made by the players who are actually in the game. But, that is exactly what I am going to do here.

I’m not a parent but I’m about to do a little “backseat driving”. As a teacher, while I don’t see parents very often, I see the products they have produced; their children.

Parents, with all due respect, get a clue.

I listen to parents blatantly lie to “save” their child from consequences they should incur for poor behavior or attendance or grades. I listen to my student’s mother as she looks me right in the eye and explains it was a dental appointment. Nope. I saw your child sneak off campus to the ditch behind school. I listen to parents scream and holler about school policies only after their child has violated them.

The funny thing is, the consequences aren’t really that stiff. Maybe a few hours of Saturday school. I might understand if we were talking death penalty, but come on. Here’s a bold new idea. If your child does something wrong, let he or she face the music. Who knows? They might even begin to learn that actions have consequences. They might decide to do the right thing because the wrong thing leads to a consequence they don’t want to endure.

I watch parents host parties for their underage children and ALLOW alcohol. They all say the same thing. “Well, they’re going to drink anyway so it should be in a safe environment.” What a train wreck. Kids simply learn that it is OK to drink at their age.

Here’s another idea. Tell your child that drinking laws are in place to help guarantee their safety. That at the age of 15 or 16, they may not be mature enough to stop when they should. They may not be emotionally mature enough to match what they drink to where they drink to when they drink. You want to have a beer with your son or daughter so the mystique is off? Go for it. But underage drinking should be discouraged, and punished. Too many kids die every year. Too many kids learn that drinking is a big part of their lives. Drinking is rampant among underage teens and parents need to “drop the hammer” on their children to insist that they wait until they are of age. Children will never learn important lessons until their parents hold them accountable.

I watch parents abdicate their parental responsibilities as they try to be “friends” with their children. Newsflash. They don’t need more friends. They need parents. And parents should stand for something. Quit worrying if your child will be mad at you. Quit worrying if they like you. Worry about whether or not they are safe. Worry about where they are and who they are with.

I watch parents take away a child’s cell phone for a week and then give it back after a few hours of whining. I watch parents allow their children to have other kids in their car even though the law prohibits this.

When I was growing up, I had a good healthy fear of my father. If I got in trouble at school, I got in trouble at home. My dad and mom never ran to rescue me. They let me face my punishment and one of their own too. It was good for me that I had a fear of my father’s wrath. It kept me from doing some bad things. My students? They fear nothing. They don’t fear principals, teachers, the police, and certainly not their parents. Maybe I’m wrong, but a little bit of fear of consequence can go a long way.

Lastly, I had a parent come to my room and say to me, “There is nothing more I can do, he’s 16.” To all of the parents who think their children are too old to learn or change or grow or mature, I say this; you need to parent your child every day of his or her life. You need to model appropriate behavior. You need to let them know that in your home, they are expected to meet your expectations and if they don’t, there will be consequences. You need to teach them to be honest and to “own” their actions. You need to show them how to be adults, not how to beat the system.

Schools don’t build character, parents do. It is time for our parents to remember what good character looks like.

Jake Schwartzberg is a high school math teacher at Dana Hills High School. He lives in San Clemente and is currently pursuing his Ed.D.

 

 

 

Let them go

By Jake Schwartzberg

 

Every educational journal that I read seems to have an article that bemoans the student dropout rates in our high schools.  I’ve developed a slightly different outlook on the dropout rate.  I don’t think it is high enough.  I wish it were higher.

 

I wish all of the students who don’t want to be there would drop out.

 

Unfortunately, they can’t.  The law won’t allow it.  Well, I think it’s time for a change in the law.  I’m calling for the end of mandatory education.  I’m calling for education as an opportunity, not a requirement.

 

Maybe I’m the exception to the rule, but when I’m told I have to do something, I rarely put forth my best effort.  My best efforts are reserved for the things I choose to do.  I’m also kind of a jerk when I’m told what I have to do, and I don’t think I’m the only one.  I remember when the seat belt law came out.  I remember not wearing my seat belt for a few weeks because “you can’t tell me what to do.”  There is something in my psyche that when I’m ordered to do something I instinctively try to resist.  Our students are the same.  We have to develop a system where kids choose to be there.

 

How stupid do we look trying to teach kids who don’t want to learn?  We have to have hall monitors to hustle kids into class after the late bell has rung.  We have to control kids daily from disrupting the educational opportunities of the others.  We have to beg and plead and threaten and implore and encourage many of our kids to put forth any kind of effort.  How stupid do we look trying to teach kids who don’t want to learn?  I don’t think you can teach anyone anything who doesn’t really want to learn.

 

I would like to work in a school where all who walk through the doors are making education a choice, not a requirement.  When that day occurs, when the level of desire to become more knowledgeable is paired with good teaching, we will have something special.  As long as we force all of our kids to go to school, we’re going to have to deal with all the cheeseballs too.

 

Let them drop out.  Let them have parents with the guts to let them fail.  Go to work for a year.  Like it?  Stay out there.  But if you figure out that with a good education comes better employment opportunities, come on back.  We won’t turn anyone away.  We just won’t make anyone stay.  When students choose to be educated instead of being forced to be educated, our schools will become what they can be: institutions of higher learning.

 

Our Failure To Follow ThroughBilly TashmanReprinted from New York Newsday, November 15, 1994, with permissionProject Follow Through, America’s longest, costliest and perhaps, most significant study of public school teaching methods quietly concluded this year. The good news is that after 26 years, nearly a billion dollars, and mountains of data, we now know which are the most effective instructional tools. The bad news is that the education world couldn’t care less.

Started in 1968, Follow Through was intended to help kids, from kindergarten through the third grade, continue the progress they had made in Head Start. But the Feds also wanted the find out which instructional methods delivered the most bang for the bucks. So they funded 22 vastly different educational programs in 51 school districts with a disproportionate number of poor children. Standardized test results were collected from almost 10,000 Follow Through children, as well as from kids not in the Follow Through program.

Abt Associates in Cambridge, Mass., analyzed the numbers, then issued the verdict. When it came to academic performance, children who participated in the Direct Instruction method blew their peers out of the classroom. More important, later evaluations of 1,000 Direct Instruction graduates showed that they were still ahead of their cohorts in their senior year of high school.

If something works this well, why aren’t public schools using it? One reason is that Direct Instruction, at first glance, looks dated. Indeed, teachers who treat their jobs as a cross between stand-up comedy and the Superbowl halftime show might, after peeking into a Direct Instruction classroom, disappear faster than a spare textbook at the Board of Ed.

To make matters worse, these methods owe a lot to the late B. F. Skinner, the Harvard behaviorist some recklessly called a fascist. That’s unfortunate and unfair, because Skinner demanded a scientific approach to classroom instruction, which is lacking from almost every hot reform idea du jour.

Direct Instruction stresses basic skills, breaking them down into mini-components. Children learn to read, for example, by learning the sounds of the letters before the letter names. They master each skill before moving onto the next one. Teachers track each student’s progress on daily charts. They also track behavior, encouraging good conduct with praise, while ignoring bad behavior for the most part. In short, if you can’t measure it, you probably shouldn’t teach it. This kind of micro-management is almost unheard of in most classrooms.

But Direct Instruction’s most controversial feature is a script from which teachers conduct lessons. Picture this: A first-grade teacher, reading from her script, makes the “m” sound. The pupils respond in unison. After a word of praise, the teacher, prompted by her script, tells them to repeat the sound.

This may sound a bit like a “Road to Wellville” approach to education, but Direct Instruction has had stunning success at scores of schools. One of the original sites in the early ’70s was P.S. 77 in the South Bronx. After five years, DI “significantly raised the reading, writing and arithmetic performance and scores of the participating children,” said one report. Federal budget cuts eventually gutted the program but, interestingly, P.S 77 old-timers still cling lovingly to the teaching methods.

It may come as a shock to the layperson, but school policymakers haven’t adopted Direct Instruction because they have an aversion to scientific research. Educators throw their weight behind the latest fad, then refuse to abandon it when it doesn’t work. In fact, the federal oversight panel for Follow Through cut the Direct Instruction program even as it continued other models that were spectacular flops. Eschewing basic skills, the failed programs tried to teach kids how to learn on their own, or tried to raise students’ self-esteem (both categories, by the way, in which Direct Instruction students excelled). In these failed programs, students had even lower reading and math scores than the control groups that had no Follow Through program. Yet these failed programs have spread through America like fire through dry corn.

Follow Through demonstrated that scientific research and the classroom are still strangers to one another. Until they join forces, American schoolchildren will continue to receive a second-class education.

Follow Through: Why Didn’t We?

Cathy L. Watkins
California State University, Stanislaus

Why have the results of the Follow Through evaluation failed to impact the policies and practices of the educational community? Why have the most effective approaches for educating children not been widely disseminated? Why has the knowledge gained from the Follow Through evaluation not been used to reform education in America? The answers to these questions may be found in part by looking at how instruction is viewed by the various elements of the educational establishment.

Follow Through provides an opportunity for such an analysis because it revealed how the educational industry collectively conceived of, planned, conducted, and interpreted a large scale educational experiment. When I was in graduate school, I wrote a lengthy paper in which I traced the history of Project Follow Through, looked at its implications for education, and analyzed the contingencies that determine educational practices. This article is condensed from the paper, which will be published this fall by the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. I made a vow that I would tell the story of Project Follow Through to anyone who would listen.

History

Many people know the history of Project Follow Through far better than I, because they lived it. As I understand it, it goes something like this. In 1964 Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act, which initiated a range of programs intended to fight poverty. The federal policy that emerged from the EOA was influenced by a growing consensus that education would be the antidote to poverty by providing skills necessary to break out of the exiting cycle. One of the best known programs to develop from this rationale was Head Start.

Head Start began in the summer of 1965. It was immediately popular and continues to enjoy tremendous public support today. It is commonly believed that Follow Through received impetus from the success of Head Start and from a study showing that gains made by Head Start children dissipated when they began school. In reality, the decision to initiate Follow Through was probably a function of both conviction and expediency. In any event, in February 1967, President Johnson requested that Congress establish a program to “follow through” on Head Start. The outcome was Public Law 90-92, authorizing Project Follow Through. Although it has been referred to as the largest and most expensive educational experiment, Follow Through was not initially conceived as an experiment, but as a comprehensive social services program. However, before the program got underway, budget cuts forced a reconceptualization and Follow Through was converted to a longitudinal experiment aimed at finding effective methods for teaching disadvantaged children. The Follow Through experiment involved close to 10,000 children from 120 communities each year from 1968 to 1976. Follow Through continued as a service program until funding was eliminated in 1995.

Design

The design of the Follow Through experiment was called planned variation. Based on the notion that a variety of curricula and instructional methods could be designed, implemented and evaluated, the planned variation approach was intended to reveal differences in effectiveness among different teaching approaches.

A plan was devised that made it possible to implement a variety of educational models in local school districts, while avoiding the appearance of unwarranted federal intervention. The Office of Education contracted with developers of educational approaches who then acted as sponsors of their model and worked cooperatively with districts to implement the model in Follow Through classrooms.

Each sponsor was responsible for translating the model’s particular approach to education into practice. This included selecting or developing instructional materials, and training teachers in the model’s instructional method. The Follow Through sponsors’ task of designing a complete curriculum for the entire school day, had never before been attempted in educational reform.

The selection of sponsors began in January of 1968. Individuals or groups who were involved in developing new approaches for teaching young children were invited to present information about their programs. Sixteen developers subsequently submitted formal proposals, twelve of which were accepted. The approaches represented the entire spectrum of assumptions about instruction, ranging from the carefully controlled approach of the Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis models to child-centered approaches such as Bank Street and Open Education. Ten additional sponsors were added over the following three-year period, not because they offered unique approaches to compensatory education, but because they offered the possibility of enlarging the Follow Through constituency.

The selection of sites progressed synchronously with sponsor selection. From among a group of 225 nominated school districts, a total 51 were selected, based on their ability to begin a comprehensive services program before the start of the school year, their willingness to participate in the planned variation experiment and their working relationship with local community action agencies.

Sites and sponsored models were paired during a four day conference held in Kansas City in February, 1968. In an effort to increase cooperation in implementing the various models, local representatives were encouraged to choose the model they believed was most compatible with the goals and interests of their district. Each model was implemented in a variety of sites, where children received daily instruction in the model. Performance data were collected when children entered the program and at the end of each school year until they completed third grade.

Evaluation

The evaluation of this enormous project was complex and expensive. The data were collected by Stanford Research Institute and analyzed by Abt Associates.

Eleven outcome measures were included in the national evaluation. All sponsors agreed upon the outcome measures, which were intended to assess performance in different learning domains including basic academic skills, general problem-solving skills, and the development of self-concept.

For evaluation purposes Abt Associates divided models into three broad categories according to their areas of primary emphasis. The typology was determined based on the sponsor’s own program description and stated goals and objectives of the models. The Basic Skills category included models that focused primarily on directly teaching fundamental skills in reading, arithmetic, spelling and language. The Cognitive-Conceptual category included that intended to develop “learning-to-learn” and problem solving skills. Models in the Affective-Cognitive category emphasized development of self-concept and positive attitudes toward learning, and secondarily, “learning-to-learn” skills. Nine of the major models included in the national evaluation are described by model type in Table 1.

For each outcome subtest, Abt evaluators compared the performance of a group of Follow Through children at a given site with a comparison group. This process resulted in more than 2,000 comparisons. The difference between a Follow Through group and the comparison group was used as the measure of effect. An effect was judged to be educationally meaningful if the difference 1) was statistically significant and 2) was at least one quarter standard deviation. When Follow Through scores exceeded non-Follow Through scores the outcome was considered positive. When non-Follow Through scores surpassed Follow Through scores, the outcome was considered negative. Average effects were computed for individual models, as well as for model types.

Abt Associates produced yearly reports, which were published in four volumes titled Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model. Volume IV (Stebbins, et. al., 1977), provides the most comprehensive evaluation of the differential effectiveness of the models. The following findings of average effects for model types are paraphrased (in italics) from Volume IV-A (pp. 135-148).

Models that emphasized basic skills succeeded better than other models in helping children gain these skills. Groups of children in Basic Skills models performed significantly better on measures of academic skills than did non-Follow Through groups. Abt evaluators concluded that a Basic Skills model would be preferable if an educator was concerned with teaching skills such as spelling, math computation, language, and word knowledge. Note that the Abt report refers to the superiority of a model type. However, it is not inclusion in a category that leads to educational effectiveness, but the particular instructional materials and procedures used. The Direct Instruction model had an unequivocally higher average effect on scores in the basic skills domain than did any other model.

Where models emphasized other skills, the children they served tended to score lower on tests of basic skills than they would have done without Follow Through. With the exception of the Florida Parent Education model, all Cognitive-Conceptual and Affective-Cognitive models had more negative than positive outcomes on measures in the basic skills domain. That is, performance of students in the comparison group was superior to that of the Follow Through students in those models. At the end of third grade, children taught in these models had achievement scores that were, in fact, lower than would have been predicted in the absence of “compensatory” education. Thus, four years spent in the majority of models actually increased the educational deficits that Follow Through was intended to remediate.

No type of model was notably more successful than the others in raising scores on cognitive conceptual skills. No model type had an overall average positive effect on measures in this domain, which included reading comprehension and problem solving. One model that did have considerable impact on cognitive conceptual skills was the Direct Instruction model. Not one model in the Cognitive-Conceptual category obtained a positive average effect on these measures, despite the fact that their instructional programs emphasized development of these skills. Models that focused on cognitive-conceptual skills were incapable of influencing standardized measures of those skills after four years of instruction.

Models that emphasized basic skills produced better results on tests of self-concept than did other models. On the average, children in models the evaluators classified in the Basic Skills category, performed better on affective measures than did children in Cognitive-Conceptual or Affective models. All models in the Basic Skills category had positive average model effects. The only other model to demonstrate a positive average effect was the University Florida’s Parent Education model. In every case, the models that focused on affective development had negative average effects on measures in this domain.

The Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis models ranked first and second, respectively, in average effects on affective measures. Both of these approaches stress careful structuring and sequencing of curriculum materials that are designed to limit the number of errors and ensure successful performance. In addition, they both rely on frequent measurement of the child’s progress in order to provide immediate remediation. These models view positive self-concept as an outcome of skill acquisition. In other words, rather than considering self-concept a necessary prerequisite for learning, they contend that instruction resulting in academic success leads to improved self-concept. The data uphold this view.

It would be a mistake, however, to claim that instruction in a Basic Skills model leads to academic success and improved self-concept. Significant differences on both categories of measures were observed for only two of the Basic Skills models, Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis. In other words, describing the result as a “Basic Skills” effect does not identify the specific instructional variables that lead to significantly better performance in both outcome areas. The fact remains however, that no model classified as “Affective” had a positive average effect on affective measures.

The average effects for nine individual models are represented in Figure 1. The centerline of the figure indicates no difference between students in a Follow Through model and comparison students. Notice that the Direct instruction model is the only model to show sizable positive effects on all measures. The majority of models show considerable negative effects (performance below the level of the comparison group) on all measures. These findings clearly show the Direct instruction model to be superior on these measures compared with traditional programs and with other Follow Through models.

 

Figure 1: This figure shows the average effects of nine Follow Through models on measures of basic skills (word knowledge, spelling, language, and math computation), cognitive-conceptual skills (reading comprehension, math concepts, and math problem solving) and self-concept. This figure is adapted from Engelmann, S. and Carnine, D. (1982), Theory of Instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Press.
The evaluation was not only costly, but controversial. At least three other major reanalyses of the data were independently conducted. None of these analyses show significant disagreement with respect to achievement data. Results of the national evaluation and all subsequent analyses converge on the finding that the highest achievement scores were attained by students in the Direct Instruction model. The Follow Through experiment was intended to answer the question “what works” in educating disadvantaged children. If education is defined as the acquisition of academic skills, the results of the Follow Through experiment provide a clear answer to the question.

Dissemination

The purpose of the Follow Through planned variation experiment was to identify effective educational methods. However, there is little utility in identifying effective methods if they are not then made accessible to school districts. The Joint Dissemination Review Panel and the National Diffusion Network were created to validate and disseminate effective educational programs. In 1977, Follow Through sponsors submitted programs to the JDRP. “Effectiveness” was, however, broadly interpreted. For example, according the JDRP, the positive impact of a program need not be directly related to academic achievement. In addition, a program could be judged effective if it had a positive impact on individuals other than students. As a result, programs that had failed to improve academic achievement in Follow Through were rated as “exemplary and effective.” And, once a program was validated, it was packaged and disseminated to schools through the National Diffusion Network.

The JDRP’s validation practices did not go unchallenged. According to former Commissioner of Education, Ernest Boyer, “Since only one of the sponsors (Direct Instruction) was found to produce positive results more consistently than any of the others, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to disseminate information on all the models…” (quoted in Carnine, 1984, p. 87). However, commissioner Boyer’s concerns could not prevent the widespread dissemination of ineffective instructional approaches. The JDRP apparently felt that to be “fair” it had to represent the multiplicity of methods in education. Not only did this practice make it virtually impossible for school districts to distinguish between effective and ineffective programs, it defeated the very purpose for which the JDRP and NDN were established.

Funding Decisions

The effect of the Follow Through evaluation may also be measured by the extent to which the findings influenced decisions about funding. While all Follow Through models received budget cuts over the years, the disbursement of available funds was not based on effectiveness, but on a non-competitive continuation basis. In fiscal year 1982, the funding formula was changed so that sponsors with JDRP-validated programs received the lowest level of funding, while the highest level of funding went to those sponsors that had not been validated!

Not surprisingly, funding ineffective programs at a higher level did not make them effective. Not one additional program was validated during the following year. Yet the same funding policy continued to be implemented, favoring ineffective programs. It is clear that increased financial support by itself does not lead to increased performance by students. How children are taught is critically important.

The results of the Follow Through evaluation also failed to influence decisions about allocation of federal research funds. Planned variation makes it possible to identify the best performing programs and then subject them to further analyses. Instead the Office of Education and National Institute of Education agreed to spend 12 million dollars to develop and study new Follow Through approaches with the primary concern being “whether or not an approach can be put in place and maintained, not with the effectiveness of the approach in improving student outcomes” Proper and St. Pierre, 1980, p. 8) [emphasis added]. According to Stallings (1975), the Direct Instruction model was not only most effective, it and the Behavior Analysis models were the most easily implemented. If information about implementation was needed, these two models provided a good starting point. The plan that was pursued shows total neglect of the findings of the Follow Through evaluation and astonishing disregard for the academic achievement of students.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that twenty years after the publication of the Follow Through evaluation, there is little evidence that the results have altered educational practices in American classrooms. The majority of schools today use methods that are not unlike the Follow Through models that were least effective (and in some cases were most detrimental). Barriers at all levels of the educational system preclude widespread adoption of the model that was most effective.

The Educational Establishment

The history of Follow Through and its effects constitute a case study of how the educational establishment functions. As in other bureaucracies, it is composed of parochial vested interests that work to either maintain the status quo or to advance a self-serving agenda. As a result, the largest educational experiment in history (costing almost one billion tax payer dollars) has been effectively prevented from having the impact on daily classroom practices that its results clearly warranted. Let’s look at some factors that operate at each level of the educational establishment to influence decisions about teaching methods and materials.

Policymakers. Follow Through demonstrated that public policy is based on public support, not on empirical evidence. Thus, the position that officials adopt with respect to teaching methods is most likely to be congruent with the position of the majority. Because the Direct Instruction model represents a minority view in education, it was not surprising that policymakers failed to take a strong position in support of the Follow Through results.

Although some policymakers may have some formal training in areas of education, they typically rely on input from education professionals when developing and supporting programs. The influence of stakeholders in traditional educational practices can be seen throughout the history of Project Follow Through. Planning committees, advisory boards, and task forces were composed of representatives of universities and research centers. These professionals usually represent educational philosophies that the Follow Through results suggest do not, and cannot, lead to the development of effective teaching methods. For example, the chairman of the Follow Through National Advisory Committee was the dean of the Bank Street College of Education, whose model was ineffective in improving academic achievement or affective measures.

Clearly some professionals with a self-interest have the power to influence educational policy in a direction that will not necessarily lead to improved education. In fact, some social policy analysts assert that in situations where administrators are strongly convinced of the effectiveness of a program, it is likely that an evaluation will be disregarded. This is tragically illustrated in California where policy makers enamored with Whole Language were seemingly incapable of attending to data showing serious declines in students’ reading performance, including a national assessment on which California students placed last. By ignoring outcome data, policy makers continue to make educational decisions that negatively impact children. And the most vulnerable learners are those who are most seriously harmed.

An additional problem is that policymakers frequently rely on information that others provide them. Thus their decisions are often based on incomplete and inaccurate data that reflect not what research has revealed, but the biases of program administrators, and supporters. An Office of Education document that was read at an appropriations meeting claimed that “when contrasting all Follow Through children with their non-Follow Through comparisons… there emerge large differences in achievement, motivation, and intense effects” (U. S. Congress, 1974, p. 2361), a statement leading senators to believe that the Follow Through program as a whole was successful and should be continued. John Evans, OE’s Acting Deputy Commissioner for Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation, explained to Congress that:

…Follow Through is made up of a different set of alternative ways of approaching alternative education, different models, different programs. And the task and central purpose of that program…is to find out which of those methods or approaches are more or less effective. The evaluation evidence we have compiled indicates just what we would expect from that kind of experiment: namely, that some of those models and approaches are very reassuringly effective, and the kinds of things we would want to see disseminated and used more broadly…other models are not successful and not effective and not the kinds of things we would want to carry on or continue to fund or support indefinitely (U. S. Congress, 1974, p. 2360).

This example illustrates how reports and interpretation of results may serve as a source of confusion when decision makers are faced with the task of determining the fate of a program.

It is acknowledged that policy makers are more likely to be influenced by social and political contingencies than by empirical data. However, others may be expected to pay more heed to the findings of major research programs in their field.

Colleges of Education. Project Follow Through was unique because it examined not only instructional programs, but the educational philosophies from which they were developed. While the Follow Through models varied greatly in specific differences, they may generally be considered to represent one of two general philosophies of education. The majority of models were based on philosophies of “natural growth” (Becker and Carnine, 1981) or what Bijou (1977) referred to as “unfolding.” According to these models, learning involves changes in cognitive structures that are believed to develop and mature in the same manner as biological organs. Whole Language is an example of instruction derived from this philosophy. It is based on the belief that reading develops naturally given sufficient exposure to a print-rich environment.

The second philosophical position is concerned with principles of learning or “changing behavior” (Becker and Carnine, 1981). From this perspective, teaching involves specifying what is to be taught and arranging the environment in such a way that the desired change in behavior results.

Although the data from Follow Through support the latter position, the majority of colleges of education espouse a philosophy of cognitive restructuring. Thus, the data from Follow Through fail to support the philosophy that dominates colleges of education. This obviously made it difficult for educators to accept the Follow Through findings and they responded by discrediting the evaluation as well as by voicing specific objections about the Direct Instruction model or questioning the values of the model. For example, educators are fond of accusing direct teaching approaches of ignoring the “whole child” by emphasizing academic achievement at the expense of affective development. The Follow Through data clearly show that no such trade-off occurs. The Direct Instruction model was more effective than any other model on measures of self-esteem. A second objection is that this Direct instruction is reductionistic and results in only rote learning of non-essential skills. Yet, the data show that students in the Direct Instruction model demonstrated superior performance on measures of complex cognitive skills. In contrast, not a single model that set out to improve these cognitive skills was able to do so.

Although effective methods may be rejected simply because of their philosophical underpinnings, it is possible that they are rejected for more practical reasons as well. If teachers are to become competent in the use of effective teaching methods, teacher training programs must be restructured and those who are responsible for teacher training must themselves become proficient in those methods. Effective restructuring will require changes not only in what is taught, but in how it is taught as well. The training paradigm underlying most teacher training programs has little to recommend it, with students spending the majority of their time listening to lectures about theory and method. Sponsors of Follow Through models found that lectures about teaching had little impact upon actual teaching practices. Training was most successful when it included modeling of the desired behaviors, opportunities for teachers to practice, and feedback about their performance (Bushell, 1978). This has important implications not only for preservice training of teachers, but for how schools provide inservice training.

Teachers. Probably the biggest obstacle is the fact that the instructional methods a teacher uses are most likely to be those taught during his or her own training. Although it is assumed that teachers have acquired the skills necessary to teach their students, in reality teachers are woefully unprepared. For example, there are currently thousands of teachers in classrooms who do not know how to teach beginning reading, because the professors who “taught” them adhered to a philosophy of “natural growth.” One teacher confided to me, “I do not know how to teach reading to someone who doesn’t already know how to read”! If our teachers do not, by their own admission, know how to teach, how will our children learn?

Teachers may not seek out empirically validated methods, such as Direct Instruction, because they fail to recognize that their current methods are not effective. Student failure is more likely to be attributed to deficits within the child or to external factors such as the child’s home life, than to ineffective instruction. Furthermore, many teachers are not even aware that methods exist that would enable them to be more effective. In many instances, the only information teachers have about Direct Instruction is misinformation. And, even if teacher did know there was a better way to teach, how would they acquire the necessary skills? Surely not by returning to the schools where they received their initial teacher training.

Teachers who are motivated to look for and use effective methods, often run into opposition. For example, if Direct Instruction materials have not been approved for purchase by curriculum committees, teachers will, in effect, be unable to purchase those materials. Even if appropriate materials can be obtained, teachers may be forbidden to use them. In addition, districts often refuse to provide funds for teachers to attend Direct Instruction conferences and training sessions, preferring to send them to receive information about the most current fads.

School Districts. The fact that effective teaching methods are available does not mean that they will be adopted. According to Alan Cohen (personal communication, 1992), “We know how to teach kids, what we don’t know is how to get the public schools to do it!” Because there are no incentives for adopting effective methods or penalties for adopting ineffective ones, the choice of instructional programs will be made based on other factors. One factor that determines whether a particular method will be adopted is how greatly it differs from existing practices. The best candidates for adoption are those most similar to ongoing practices, because they are least disruptive. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974) described the behavior of teachers in Direct Instruction Follow Through classrooms as “quite atypical of generally practiced classroom behavior” (p. 220). This decreases the probability of adoption because it requires so much change.

Financial incentives may also influence adoption decisions. While funding may provide the inducement to adopt an innovation, monitoring is needed to ensure its continued implementation. One way that Follow Through differed from other federally funded programs was that in exchange for funding, particular instructional practices were specified and monitored. This system of supervision resulted in a higher degree of fidelity of implementation of the model than might otherwise be expected. However, schools are generally not organized to provide the level of supervision that Follow Through model sponsors found necessary to ensure fidelity of implementation.

Publishers. Much, perhaps most, of what a teacher does is determined by the materials he or she uses. Yet, those who develop instructional materials typically do not have the skills required to develop effective materials. Few educational programs are based on state-of-the-art programming principles. Worse yet, materials are not field tested to ensure their effectiveness with children. The publishing industry does not initiate the development of instructional materials, but instead reacts to the demands of the educational marketplace. California provides a good illustration of this dependent relationship. In California the state adopts an instructional framework. Criteria for instructional materials are then derived from the framework. Publishers are provided these criteria and busily get to work developing instructional materials that conform to them. They submit their materials during the textbook adoption process and panels evaluate the extent to which the materials correspond to the specified criteria. Noticeably absent from these criteria is any mention of measured effectiveness. Given this process, a program could meet every single criterion and be recommended for adoption, and not be effective in teaching a single child! But, field tests are expensive, and the prevailing contingencies provide absolutely no incentive for publishers to conduct them in order to provide learner verification data because such data are not considered in textbook selection and adoption. (See “Why I sued California, Engelmann, ADI News, Winter, 1991).

The Public. Although the public is not typically considered part of the educational establishment, it can be included in this discussion because it supports education. What the public has supported is a system which has continued to neglect effective methods of instruction. Of course, the public’s support has been innocent because it is generally unaware of instructional options and their differential effectiveness. Parents and others have been led to accept that the failure of a great many students to learn is due to deficits in the children. The general public has no way of knowing that children’s achievements are largely a function of how they are taught. However, this may be changing.

Toward the Future

The American public’s dissatisfaction with public education is becoming increasingly clear. The failures of public education have been well publicized. Endless studies and reports call attention to important factors such as improving curricula, increasing teacher salaries, expanding the length of the school day and/or year, and a variety of other changes. Although some of these changes may be necessary, they will not be sufficient to produce the substantial academic improvement that is possible. The critical factor that has been historically ignored is instructional method. Our educational problems will not be solved until it is recognized that how well students learn is directly related to how well they are taught.

Is there any evidence that research is beginning to influence educational policy and practice? Recent events in California may point to progress in that direction. The Report of the California Reading Task Force (1995) stresses effective teaching and recommends that every school and district implement a “reading program that is research based” (p. 3). In February of this year, Assembly Bill 3075 (1996) was introduced in the California State legislature. This bill would amend the minimum requirements for a teaching credential to include satisfactory completion of comprehensive reading instruction “that is research-based” and includes “the study of direct, systematic, explicit phonics.” In September of 1995, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 170, referred to as the ABC bill, requiring the State Board of Education to “ensure that the basic instructional materials that it adopts for mathematics and reading…are based on the fundamental skills required by these subjects, including, but not limited to systematic, explicit phonics, spelling, and basic computational skills.” It is possible that these documents offer the promise of hope for the future. I will close with the words of Leonardo da Vinci: “Tell me if anything ever was done.”

References

Becker, W. C. & Carnine, D. (1981). Direct instruction: A behavior theory model for comprehensive educational intervention with the disadvantaged. In S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz, (Eds.), Behavior modification: Contributions to education (pp. 145-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bijou, S. W. (1977). Practical implications of an interactional model of child development. Exceptional Children, 14, 6-14.

Bushell, D. (1978). An engineering approach to the elementary classroom: The Behavior Analysis Follow-Through project. In A. C. Catania, & T. A. Brigham (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis ( pp. 525-563). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Carnine, D. W. (1983). Government discrimination against effective educational practices. Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Human Resources Hearing on Follow Through Amendments of 198, 99-103. Wash. D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Carnine, D. W. (1984). The federal commitment to excellence: Do as I say, not as I do. Educational Leadership, 4, 87-88.

Engelmann, S. (1991). Why I sued California. ADI News, 10, 4-8.

Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Every child a reader: The report of the California reading task force. (1995) Sacramento: California Department of Education.

Proper, E. C., & St. Pierre, R. G. (1980). A search for potential new Follow Through approaches: Executive summary. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 187 809)

Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. H. (1974). Follow Through classroom observation evaluation (1972-1973). Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.

Stebbins, L. B., St. Pierre, R. G., Proper, E. C., Anderson, R. B., and Cerva, T. R. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model (Volume IV-A: An evaluation of Follow Through). Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates.

U. S. Congress, Senate. (1974, May 29). Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

Back to Table of Contents