Literacy loses to philosophy
Or: the triumph of a story
Teaching people how to read is a problem that has long been solved.
Certain schools, school systems, and even entire countries are able to teach the majority of their population to read. Looking just at UN member states by adult literacy rate – and ignoring authoritarian liars like North Korea, at 100% literacy – certain countries reliably teach 99% of their population to read. Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Italy are just a few.
America sits just below the global average of 86.7% – below Zimbabwe and Syria.
Meanwhile, as reported by Emily Hanaford in the ongoing series Sold a Story, schools in relatively impoverished Steubenville, Ohio consistently have 93-100% of 3rd graders reach “proficient” in state reading exams.
Isn’t it possible to improve literacy rates by learning the lessons of Steubenville?
No. And the reason is philosophy.
Robert Pondiscio is a pundit for AEI, which leads us to a real stopped-clock situation. He has written a basic but very good Substack post about Zig Engelmann, Direct Instruction, and curriculum design. It is worth reading in full, but to summarize: Zig (and some other curriculum designers) was brilliant, created very carefully considered lessons over long periods of time, and teachers cannot hope to design a full curriculum in their spare time. However, they often try, using websites like Teachers Pay Teachers, or by finding free resources online. As for why, they typically do not receive guidance or training on curriculum development; this is the fault of administrators and teacher training programs.
The result: teachers cobble together a mess of a curriculum based on what they personally like, as opposed to an evidence-based curriculum. (Meanwhile, an evidence-based literacy curriculum can cost as little as $70)
The Substack post got quite a bit of engagement, with over 30 comments. And we begin to see why evidence is not enough.
The very first comment sets the stage for those to come:
“Japanese lesson study” sounds interesting; here is American Public Media reporting on it in 2015. It’s when teachers get together to solve a teaching problem, then develop a lesson plan.
“Teachers come together to identify a problem they want to solve. Then they spend months doing research and planning a lesson.”
This is proposed as an alternative to simply adopting an effective curriculum, because the commenter dislikes scripted lessons.
The commenter also suggests they can outperform something like Direct Instruction by…doing what, exactly? Ad-libbing?
Pondiscio and another commenter reply as such: we currently have the evidence that American teachers can’t outperform Canada, or Italy, or Steubenville.
This commenter suggests that scripted curriculum makes sense…as long as you know which parts to ignore. Again, an attempt to use a complex curriculum as but one source, next to whatever the teacher finds for free on the internet.
The same commenter suggests that the real problem is overteaching phonics (???).
This commenter starts with a great point: leadership is ostensibly buying the curriculum, but may not be able to evaluate it. That is to say, they may be buying a curriculum that teaches “three-cueing,” without an understanding of how to evaluate the curriculum itself or the progress of their students.
How does an administrator know that, for example, the curriculum from Morningside Academy is better than something worse but with ten times the marketing budget?
But then we wade into the same territory as before. “[...] harassing good teachers who try to modify the curriculum to be better [...]” – we are again suggesting that average classroom teachers can outmaneuver the best curriculum designers. That is evidentially untrue.
This teacher believes that accumulating materials they like is more important than proven effectiveness of a curriculum. “I got it from other teachers” is the root of bad classroom management, bad teaching practices, and apparently bad curriculum.
The same commenter as above. This is entirely incorrect. Again, the evidence for ignoring aspects of curriculum is nonexistent.
In fact, Direct Instruction groups learners by level and utilizes small group instruction. It is used in special education.
This is a mysterious situation where kids can technically read, but not understand what they read. Perhaps the inverse is where kids understand what they cannot read?
Is it because of the scripting? It’s because of the scripting.
It’s clear that Direct Instruction sequences basic skills through the primary grades. It also carefully scripts lessons, designed in a way that minimizes errors for learners.
Both of these points present philosophical stumbling blocks.
Teachers like to believe that, through their own excitement and energy, they can inspire children to be lifelong learners. But this is often presented in backwards fashion: inspire kids, and they will want to jump into reading complex novels. The reality is that you teach kids to read, they access stories they like, and inspiration follows.
It’s akin to teaching kids basketball by having them heave “inspiring” full-court shots, or teaching painting by setting up an easel in front of a sunset. Those are fun things! But they do not teach the skills necessary to be successful at those very activities.
The scripting presents an obvious problem to some of the commenters.
Engelmann himself suggests that “freedom” in scripted lessons is akin to the freedom of an actor on stage. Kids need to learn letter sounds before they can read, which sounds tedious to adults, but a good teacher makes this experience fun. This is where the teacher can bring excitement, enthusiasm, and a unique performance – all within the script.
Beyond the “on-book flexibility,” it’s difficult to argue against the sheer efficacy. You see, in previous excerpts, how strained some of the arguments end up: yes they can read, yes their test scores are high, but they’re not learning!
These arguments – a limited type of flexibility, plus efficacy – aren’t going to convince too many people.
The way to adopt a better teaching system is stories.
Teachers trust other teachers (hence the bizarre reliance on the site Teachers Pay Teachers). Stories of efficacy, of time saved, of successful students – that kind of dissemination will make an impact. Additionally, students who’ve passed through the programs, like those in Steubenville, who have gone on to be creative, or teach, or lead: their stories will matter.
Sold a Story is a great start; frankly, it appears to be almost entirely responsible for a current American societal push for “The Science of Reading.”
As for the well-written post where we started: at the time of publication, 18 commenters composed 35 comments. By informal estimation: 10 commenters had a negative comment; 6 had a positive comment (including the original author); and 2 had a neutral comment. The commenters appeared to be mostly teachers, and mostly opposed to DI.
Of the comments, one in particular stands out. The poster asks how they can identify programs and advocate for Direct Instruction in their district.
Nobody posts how. A single reply:
