Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewce | Hacker News Reader

Most do, yes. It doesn't matter if you're in a private charter school or a large public school, with large classes or small classes, if all that is going on is the lecture-then-test that limits itself to rote recall.

If that's all that we're doing as teachers, it doesn't matter a single bit where it happens, so long as students can be made to comply.

View on HN

Some school districts aren't moving towards this methodology even though that's what's being pushed at the national level. The district my wife teaches in doesn't do this however the school she's stuck at this year is doing it to an extreme. They use a scripted curriculum. The teachers read from the script, the children provide a choral response and they repeat until every student gets it right. There's no need for teachers in that kind of a system since they aren't allowed to deviate from the scripts or supplement the scripts with other methods or resources. It's really depressing to see what some schools are resorting to to make AYP.

While that method of teaching (direct instruction) is boring for teachers, and makes them easily replaceable, it is highly effective.

Some info: http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml

Remember, the goal of schools is to educate children, not provide enjoyable high-wage employment for teachers. Or at least, that is the stated goal.

This argument ignores the question of whether direct instruction is valuable across the entire curriculum, or primarily for basic core reading / spelling / language / arithmatic; it also ignores the fact that many DI results are generated on special ed cohorts. It's also phrased in a way that suggests that anyone who opposes a k-12 direct instruction regime must be opposed because they want to make teachers lives more interesting.

I phrased it that way on purpose, in response to this part of ktsmith's post:

"There's no need for teachers in that kind of a system since they aren't allowed to deviate from the scripts ...It's really depressing to see what some schools are resorting to to make AYP."

If DI isn't improving student achievement in some categories of student, I agree we should scrap it. If we don't know if it is doing so, we should conduct randomized trials to determine that. But that isn't the critique ktsmith is making.

I agree with you that 'ktsmith's argument is irrelevant; it is not really depressing to see students achieve in school simply because it turns the teacher's day into a drudgery.

I am wary of silver-bullet solutions like DI, though; not only might they not work, but they could also be just as damaging to classroom performance as teach-to-the-test standardized testing has been.

> simply because it turns the teacher's day into a drudgery.

Those words were put into my mouth by yummyfajitas. My complaint with DI is that it focuses on repetition and memorization rather than comprehension. It's great that a child can see a word on a test and recognize it then bubble in the correct answer because then we have "achievement." It's result though is meaningless if the child doesn't know what the word means.

Direct instruction papers almost universally focus on test scores and not comprehension which is a serious issue. It's great that test scores shoot up at schools that use direct instruction but it'd be even better if the kids actually understood what it was they are doing.

I didn't speak to the enjoyment of the job as all I can provide is anecdotal evidence from seven years of observing the classes that I've volunteered in and comments from my wife's time as a teacher. Even this year I have observed that the children and the instructors seem to get more enjoyment out of less scripted and more creatively structured lesson plans, but that's as you said, not the stated goal of education. I would however argue that the rote memorization of facts and formulas isn't education either, the ability to solve problems and think critically in addition to knowing facts and formulas is. That's where I feel direct instruction really fails.

As to easily replaceable teachers... Well, if we are only going to allow scripted lessons, prevent the instructor from using their training to detect which students aren't understanding or incorporate supplemental instruction and alternative methods for those students then why even have teachers? Trained monkeys should do just fine.

Direct instruction papers almost universally focus on test scores and not comprehension which is a serious issue.

If you are asserting that the standardized tests are not properly measuring achievement, then why are you critiquing the education method rather than poorly designed tests? It seems as if your problem is not that DI is failing to achieve the goals of the school, but that you disagree with the school's goals.

... the ability to solve problems and think critically in addition to knowing facts and formulas is.

Could you explain what this means, and how I could measure it?

if we are only going to allow scripted lessons...then why even have teachers? Trained monkeys should do just fine.

This is probably why teachers unions oppose DI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com