I really appreciate this article! When I was in graduate school, I got a grant from Direct Instruction- to run a study comparing the use of Direct Instruction (Corrective Reading) to teacher-developed reading lessons. I thought it was going to be great for the school district - it was going to be about $20,000 worth of curriculum that was being given to us to conduct the study. The curriculum had to then sit in the office for a good 6 months while certain school administrators tried to interfere with the approved research (that had been district-approved). I remember thinking it was such a shame, because in the end, the students who received Corrective Reading made more gains than the students using the teacher-developed reading lessons. If the decisions were truly about helping students, then the school administrators wouldn't have let the curriculum sit unused for over six months.
Good point. Jennifer. "Implementation" has at least two meanings in regard to this context: (a) was the program used and (b) was the use faithful to its design.
BTW, with some pals I studied Corrective Reading back in the 1970s.
I am a new follower of your work David. I appreciate how you advocate direct instruction. Directing my small non profit, Educational Guidance Institute, I have developed a curriculum that aims for teaching today's young people about human nature and the world through classic films like It's A Wonderful Life and 12 Angry Men and through direct instruction is the goal. As a great grandmother who grew up in the 50s and early 60s, with all my heart I want to help this rising generation recover truth, goodness and beauty - and I think but do not know - that a possible research project could be done and more: help get back to reality and away from the messes of social media - test out whether seeing for example, from 12 Angry Men that true justice is not just a hopeless ideal. each of us can play a role - bridging political divides. Check out at Educationalguidanceinstitute.com thank you for all you do.
Thank you David, it is refreshing to see a more thorough analysis of the official reports rather than the uncritical promotion of DI that seems to be popular at the moment.
I think it is important to mention the details of other important analysis from the Anderson report, which showed the comparison with similarly disadvantaged students NOT in PFT (which was one of the major aims of PFT): only 1 out of 16 DI sites achieved the same or above National Norms compared to similarly disadvantaged groups for spelling, only 4/16 for reading & 5/16 for Maths.
It's one of the reasons Mary Kennedy (1977) who oversaw the whole project concluded:
"As a social experiment, then, the Follow Through study has failed. It has not varied treatments which were designed to achieve the same outcome, there was no national policy which has been influenced by it, and it was not designed to achieve the experimental rigor needed for a conclusive social experiment. But more important, no study like Follow Through can ever be a conclusive social experiment, for all of these same reasons. Because of the tremendous complexities inherent in our society, and because of the ways in which a central feature of our society, its education, reflects its multiple values..."
Thanks David, she referenced Richard Elmore's PhD (on PFT) as does the Watkins paper you cited. Elmore was big here in Victoria & many leaders went to Harvard to study under him. Unfortunately he passed away unexpectedly ~2020 & I've been trying to get a copy of his PhD, if by any chance you come across it please let me know.
Professor Didau, thanks for this analysis. It's refreshing to see one that is objective and adheres to the data reasonably closely. I tire of reading analyses for FT that seem to be predicated on gloss and image.
I'd like to hear your more detailed explanation about the variability across sites within a model. Jennifer Weber's comment on this post reveals a feature that I think was evident in the data (not Anderson's report of those data): One of the local education agencies that initially agreed to use the DI model simply did not implement it, but it got counted as a DI site. (I think the superintendency changed after the LEA said it would be a DI site, and the new super refused to employ the model...but SRI still collected the data and Abt included the data from that LEA as if it had implemented.)
Also, I have logical problems with arguments advanced about the variance within a model being greater than the variance between models. I'll have to leave that for a fuller post of my own, as I shall need to develop it in detail and illustrate it. Sigh.
I really appreciate this article! When I was in graduate school, I got a grant from Direct Instruction- to run a study comparing the use of Direct Instruction (Corrective Reading) to teacher-developed reading lessons. I thought it was going to be great for the school district - it was going to be about $20,000 worth of curriculum that was being given to us to conduct the study. The curriculum had to then sit in the office for a good 6 months while certain school administrators tried to interfere with the approved research (that had been district-approved). I remember thinking it was such a shame, because in the end, the students who received Corrective Reading made more gains than the students using the teacher-developed reading lessons. If the decisions were truly about helping students, then the school administrators wouldn't have let the curriculum sit unused for over six months.
Good point. Jennifer. "Implementation" has at least two meanings in regard to this context: (a) was the program used and (b) was the use faithful to its design.
BTW, with some pals I studied Corrective Reading back in the 1970s.
I am a new follower of your work David. I appreciate how you advocate direct instruction. Directing my small non profit, Educational Guidance Institute, I have developed a curriculum that aims for teaching today's young people about human nature and the world through classic films like It's A Wonderful Life and 12 Angry Men and through direct instruction is the goal. As a great grandmother who grew up in the 50s and early 60s, with all my heart I want to help this rising generation recover truth, goodness and beauty - and I think but do not know - that a possible research project could be done and more: help get back to reality and away from the messes of social media - test out whether seeing for example, from 12 Angry Men that true justice is not just a hopeless ideal. each of us can play a role - bridging political divides. Check out at Educationalguidanceinstitute.com thank you for all you do.
Really interesting blog! Thanks,
Thank you David, it is refreshing to see a more thorough analysis of the official reports rather than the uncritical promotion of DI that seems to be popular at the moment.
I think it is important to mention the details of other important analysis from the Anderson report, which showed the comparison with similarly disadvantaged students NOT in PFT (which was one of the major aims of PFT): only 1 out of 16 DI sites achieved the same or above National Norms compared to similarly disadvantaged groups for spelling, only 4/16 for reading & 5/16 for Maths.
It's one of the reasons Mary Kennedy (1977) who oversaw the whole project concluded:
"As a social experiment, then, the Follow Through study has failed. It has not varied treatments which were designed to achieve the same outcome, there was no national policy which has been influenced by it, and it was not designed to achieve the experimental rigor needed for a conclusive social experiment. But more important, no study like Follow Through can ever be a conclusive social experiment, for all of these same reasons. Because of the tremendous complexities inherent in our society, and because of the ways in which a central feature of our society, its education, reflects its multiple values..."
Thanks George. I hadn’t read the Kennedy paper. Have now downloaded and will dig in.
Thanks David, she referenced Richard Elmore's PhD (on PFT) as does the Watkins paper you cited. Elmore was big here in Victoria & many leaders went to Harvard to study under him. Unfortunately he passed away unexpectedly ~2020 & I've been trying to get a copy of his PhD, if by any chance you come across it please let me know.
Love this - really thoughtful and considered.
Professor Didau, thanks for this analysis. It's refreshing to see one that is objective and adheres to the data reasonably closely. I tire of reading analyses for FT that seem to be predicated on gloss and image.
I'd like to hear your more detailed explanation about the variability across sites within a model. Jennifer Weber's comment on this post reveals a feature that I think was evident in the data (not Anderson's report of those data): One of the local education agencies that initially agreed to use the DI model simply did not implement it, but it got counted as a DI site. (I think the superintendency changed after the LEA said it would be a DI site, and the new super refused to employ the model...but SRI still collected the data and Abt included the data from that LEA as if it had implemented.)
Also, I have logical problems with arguments advanced about the variance within a model being greater than the variance between models. I'll have to leave that for a fuller post of my own, as I shall need to develop it in detail and illustrate it. Sigh.
Thanks for the prompt!
Professor 😂 - I’m just a teacher :)
Nothing works for everyone, if it did the mountains of educational research that are printed each year would make a difference.
Nice article, and as a sports shooter I liked the gun metaphor.