As far as DI being boring for kids who don’t need the repetition, homogeneous grouping fixes that problem neatly. Once the material is mastered; advance. Heterogeneous grouping and differentiated instruction waste time for everyone and does anyone think that every kid in the class doesn’t know what the groups (however named) mean? I’ve never heard of such a class.

I am concerned about the credulous tone in John McWhorter’s original article. He speaks of Direct Instruction as if it were some kind of miracle cure that would close the achievement gap almost overnight.

The reality is that the What Works Clearinghouse indicates a number of reading programs that seem to show more promise, though none of them come with the inflated claims associated with Direct Instruction.

This statement is incorrect on at least two counts. The WWC did not review any research prior to 1985. Also, it only reviewed the commercially available Reading Mastery curriculum. So, a more accurate statement would be “The What Works Clearinghouse indicates that for Reading Mastery alone there are no studies after 1984 meeting evidence standards.” But that makes a very different point, because 1. most of the Basic DI research occurred before 1985 adn much of the post 1984 research was excluded because the interventions were confounded with other DI programs/techniques.

You should read NIFDI’s criticism of the WWC’s research before making such blanket statement.

But systematic phonics by itself is not enough. Students need to be taught vocabulary. … This finding has been confirmed repeatedly.

That’s probably why no one seriously disagrees with this statement and it’s also probably why vocabulary is extensively taught in DI.

Some students, particularly those from impoverished backgrounds, also need to be taught comprehension.

This is another statement no one seriously disagrees with. Also, comprehension is stressed practically from day one in the DI reading programs and especially in the latter half of the sequence after students have learned to decode proficiently.

John McWhorter is an engaging writer, but like most people without a background in research, he is not able to suss out the difference between “studies” that sound good on paper and those that pass scientific standards.

It does not appear that you are capable of doing that either.

Systematic phonics is an important part of beginning reading instruction, and it can be useful to have it presented in a scripted form. But systematic phonics by itself is not enough. Students need to be taught vocabulary. Jeanne Chall was the first researcher to demonstrate that students who could sound out words perfectly would still have difficulty comprehending a reading passage if they did not know the meaning of the words. This finding has been confirmed repeatedly.

Some students, particularly those from impoverished backgrounds, also need to be taught comprehension. This was brought home to me when I had a student read a passage about Pocahontas. She read fluently, sounding out each word with ease. When I asked her how Pocahontas had helped John Smith, she looked puzzled. I pointed to a sentence which she reread out loud. “Pocahontas saved John Smith’s life.” Once again, I asked her how Pocahontas had helped John Smith. She shook her head. “I don’t know. It doesn’t say.” This is a student whose first, and only, language is English. I was eventually able to teach her how to understand as well as sound out what she reads, and she now reads chapter books with enthusiasm.

John McWhorter is an engaging writer, but like most people without a background in research, he is not able to suss out the difference between “studies” that sound good on paper and those that pass scientific standards.

As long as their little darling learns to read on a timely basis. If he doesn,’t their tune changes very quick.

I would say that there is an increased correlation as you move up parental SES. In my experience, there’s also a large faction of parents at all SES levels that do not like such loosey goosey methods and that dissatisfaction grows as the unfullfilled promises mount.

But, what I mostly see is parents who do not wish to rock the boat, do not want to question the school’s decisions, and do not know the facts.

I’m pretty confident that if our district were to introduce Direct Instruction in our elementary schools there would be a significant exodus to private schools.

You’d have an influx of complaints, but not necessarily an exodus od students. And what about the influx of students from parents who don’t like the current ways of teaching and the perceived lack of rigor. That is a large group as well.

Why take such responsibility and joy away from teachers? Why hand them scripts and say, “Follow DI–it’s a proven success”?

There are many commercially available phonics programs that teachers can use and adapt. The data shows, however, that they are incapable of adapting and/or using these materials to effectively teach a majority of students to grade level norms.

It may be a proven success, but it’s not all there is to reading, literature, teaching, or education.

Based on this comment I can tell you are not personally familiar with the DI ELA curricula above first two levels.

But it would seem to me that scripted instruction requires a certain regimentation of behavior. Teachers aren’t going to be able to follow a fast-paced script if kids are asking tangential questions or wanting to use be excused to use the bathroom.

Rightly or wrongly, I think most middle class parents believe their kids are smart and that their questions (tangential or otherwise) should be respected and encouraged, and that a key part of education is learning to ask questions.

What you call regimentation I call hidden structure. This is laying out a set of guidelines, academic and behavior, from the outset that everyone in the class agrees to abide by. These policies are usually understood by everyone in the room after the first couple of weeks AND they are discussed thoroughly the first few days of school with an opportunity for input from each class member (“This is your room for the year and you’re going to have to live by these rules so speak now or forever…”).

When people are allowed to work together and talk (“inside voices”) or not; the sequence/order of each school day; the ramifications of not completing work; who is out of their seat for day or not and what constitutes this policy; all responsible work due by the end of each day; homework protocol for each night; the acceptable quality of work from everyone in the room (if it looks like trash, that’s probably where it’s going and you’ll have to do it over); what is the rationale for a phone call home and the resulting conference from there; the grading procedure in each subject; acceptable v unacceptable level of noise in the room; the prominence of the “golden rule”; etc.

There’s more and although it might sound like a lot they all get it and usually most KIDS THRIVE ON STRUCTURE. Some of them love it, others crave it. It gives many kids a feeling of security. They know the parameters from a responsible adult and they feel safe knowing where they are and exactly what is expected of them and their classmates.