Dr. John J. Russell tag:educationupdate.com,2010-01-29:/johnrussell/16 2012-02-05T07:35:34Z Movable Type Pro 4.34-en A tragedy brings a school together as family tag:educationupdate.com,2012:/johnrussell//16.499 2012-02-04T18:29:57Z 2012-02-05T07:35:34Z The fire that took the lives of Lily, Sarah and Grace Badger was an unimaginable tragedy for everyone blessed to have known and love them. First and foremost, of course, is the Badger family. Losing a child is every parents... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell The fire that took the lives of Lily, Sarah and Grace Badger was an unimaginable tragedy for everyone blessed to have known and love them. First and foremost, of course, is the Badger family. Losing a child is every parents worst nightmare and as we awoke Christmas morning to learn of this unthinkable event, millions grieved with them. For another family, the loss of these three beautiful young girls also left a hole that will never be filled. Their classmates, teachers and the entire Windward School family, we too lost three of our own.

How do you explain death to children who have just started to live? How do explain that a friend, who played with them just last week, is gone forever? How do you provide answers to questions without creating more questions?

It is something virtually every school leader will eventually have to face - how to help children and their families, teachers and staff members, deal with sudden, unexplainable loss. While thankfully, this has only been necessary a few times in my over 40 years in public and private education, each time I am reminded that a school is more than classrooms and curriculum, it is in so many ways a family. And, it is how we come together as a family, particularly at a time like this, that can make all the difference.

It is essential to bring the entire school together immediately and approach the issue with openness, honesty and compassion.
While the initial tendency might be to protect and shield a child, it is important to deal with the issue head-on, recognizing that each child is different. Some will want to talk about what they are feeling even if it is to ask questions. Others will withdraw. Teachers and parents need to allow each child to decipher things in their own way on their own schedule, while providing continuous love and support.  

It is also important to reach out to experts. In our case, Dr. Harold Koplewicz, the founding psychiatrist at The Child Mind Institute, provided information on how parents can talk with children about the loss of a friend on the Institutes website.  Patty Donovan-Duff, the Director of the Bereavement Center of Westchester, created access to their counselors and our own school psychologists and counselors were on call for any child or family that needed guidance.

As we returned from the holiday break, it was clear that the world had changed. I saw it in the eyes of our teachers and felt it in the hallways. While everyone did a wonderful job to get everyone back into the classrooms, it will be a long, slow healing process. As it should be. Everyone at Windward will always carry Lily, Sarah and Grace in their hearts. They are a part of what makes us who we are - a school, a community, a family.
]]> When Better is not Good Enough tag:educationupdate.com,2011:/johnrussell//16.341 2011-09-13T21:19:06Z 2011-09-13T21:25:27Z On August 8th the New York State Education Department released the results of the Math and English Language Arts (ELA) testing taken last May by students in grades 3 through 8. Given the overwhelming influence that English Language Arts has... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell
On August 8th the New York State Education Department released the results of the Math and English Language Arts (ELA) testing taken last May by students in grades 3 through 8. Given the overwhelming influence that English Language Arts has on students future success in school, it is absolutely essential that students perform at least at the proficient level on the English Language Arts (ELA) exams.

Across the state, 52.8 percent of students in grades 3 through 8 met or exceeded the proficiency standard. For students with disabilities the results were far more distressing with only 14.5 percent of these students meeting or exceeding the proficiency standard. In New York City, only 43.9 percent of all students and 14.2 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 met or exceeded the standard. 

Responding to these results, Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch stated, "These results underscore the urgent need for New York to continue to aggressively move forward with the implementation of the Regents' reform agenda. Echoing the Chancellors concerns, New York State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr. said, "Student outcomes have been stubbornly flat over time. The Regents reform agenda is designed to change that, by driving long-term gains in student performance.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg focused his comments on the gains that the New York City public schools made. This year 43.9 percent of students in grades 3-8 met or exceeded the English proficiency standard compared to 42.4 percent last year.  All of our students, teachers and principals should be very proud of their progress and the fact that we continue to raise achievement levels and outpace the rest of the state, said Mayor Bloomberg. But as much progress as we have made, we know we have much more work to do. We are fully committed to ensuring that all of our students are prepared for a successful future.

Mayor Bloomberg appropriately offered encouragement to pupils, teachers and principals for the gains that have been achieved. The results for New York City students are, however, nothing short of alarming: over 56 percent of city students do not have the skills to be considered merely proficient and over 85 percent of the students with disabilities do not possess the language arts skills necessary for future school success. These students do not have the luxury of waiting for the Mayors promise of being fully committed to ensuring that all of our students are prepared for a successful future to become a reality. Nor can the students of New York State wait for the Regents reform agenda to produce the promised long-term gains in student performance.  Based on the predictive power of the English Language Arts exams, if you are currently a student in New York State, your chances for future success in school are a little better than 50/50 and if you are student with a disability your prospects for school success are virtually non-existent.  

It does not have to be this way. First, educational leaders need to admit the truth about these results they are unacceptable. Second, as Chancellor Tisch admonished, there must be a sense of urgency in increasing the number of students who are proficient in English Language Arts. Third, schools can provide students with direct instruction in research-based reading and writing programs that have proven records of success. Finally, dedicated teachers and principals must have the professional development and resources necessary to deliver these programs.

]]> An Open Letter in response to The "Burden" of Special Education tag:educationupdate.com,2011:/johnrussell//16.257 2011-04-19T19:51:48Z 2011-04-19T20:03:23Z In his "FROM the FOUNDERS" editorial in the March 2011 issue of Greenwich Magazine, Jack Moffly, the founder and editor emeritus, of the magazine states: "There should be no mystery why our public school system is struggling to improve its... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell
In his "FROM the FOUNDERS" editorial in the March 2011 issue of Greenwich Magazine, Jack Moffly, the founder and editor emeritus, of the magazine states: "There should be no mystery why our public school system is struggling to improve its test scores even as it spends $4,500 more per student than the state average. This can be attributed in part, but not entirely, to the burden of special ed." Unfortunately, Mr. Moffly is not alone in his mistaken notion that special education is a "burden" to be endured. Professionals, who should know better, also have very disturbing misconceptions about students who require special education services. At a recent CSE meeting for a student at the Windward School, a school for students with language-based learning disabilities, the chairperson of the meeting blurted out her belief that learning disabled students do not respond to intervention. In essays written by students who attend Windward School, we find equally alarming reports of misunderstandings by teachers who worked on a daily basis with these students in their former schools. One student commented, "Imagine going to school every day and praying that you won't be called up to read. Now imagine knowing that you try your best in school every day but still have report cards that say you are failing, not trying and need to start making an effort in school." 

In response to Mr. Moffly's editorial comments, I sent the following letter to him.
While it is addressed to Mr. Moffly, its real audience is all those who under-value the potential of students who receive special education services and consider special education a "burden."
 
Dear Mr. Moffly, 
 
I am the Head of the Windward School which serves students with language-based learning disabilities. I am disturbed by your statement: "There should be no mystery why our public school system is struggling to improve its test scores even as it spends $4,500 more per student than the state average. This can be attributed in part, but not entirely, to the burden of special ed." Contrary to your assertion, being identified as a student in need of special education services does not preclude attaining high levels of achievement.
 
In his book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell contends that the extraordinarily successful individuals he studied did not reach their level of achievement by pure merit. He posits that "the outliers in a particular field reached their lofty status through a combination of ability, opportunity, and utterly arbitrary advantage." Gladwell' thesis has serious implications for educational institutions like Windward, where admission to the school can be the difference between educational success and failure. 
 
Part of Windward's unique mission is to return students to the mainstream as soon as they are ready. Research conducted at the University of Oregon indicates that students scoring in the lowest 20 percent on a standardized reading test should be considered at significant risk for poor reading and language outcomes (Good et al, 2002). Between 2005 and 2010, 729 Windward students have returned to public and independent schools. When these students first entered Windward, their performance on standardized reading tests put 30 percent of them at significant risk of not achieving the literacy benchmarks. Simply stated, the research indicated that 220 of these 729 students were at risk of not being successful in school.
 
In spite of this dire prediction, the teaching methods employed at Windward allowed these children to make huge strides in reading as demonstrated by the Schools cohort analysis of the performance of students who leave the school. When the 2005-2010 cohorts left Windward, 95 percent of the students scored in the "average to above average" range in vocabulary and 97 percent scored in the same range for reading comprehension. 
 
In addition, Windward continues to monitor our students' progress once they have returned to mainstream schools. When a student has been at a new school for at least two years, administrators and guidance counselors are asked to complete a survey evaluating their performance. Approximately half of the students attend independent schools after leaving Windward and half go on to public schools. Results indicate that over 90 percent of Windward graduates are performing academically at or above the average of their grade-level peers. 
 
Unfortunately, while Windward students are making the most of what Gladwell might call an "arbitrary advantage," other equally deserving students do not get this opportunity. Gladwell's work and the experiences of countless families reinforce the need to provide more students with instructional programs that allow them to reach their full potential. Through its outreach efforts and the Teacher Training Institute, Windward is committed to making the "utterly arbitrary advantage" of research-based instruction the norm for all students rather than the rare exception that it is today. In the absence of effective instructional practices that address their learning needs, it is the special education students who are burdened -- not the school or school district.
 
Sincerely,
Dr. John J. Russell, Head of School
 
The reality is that special education students who receive research-based instruction are capable of achieving academic success. With real accomplishment, they are able to restore their confidence and self-esteem, which all too often have been damaged by the careless comments of those who consider special education a "burden." A seventh-grade student summed it up this way, "Have you ever had serious trouble in school? Teachers yelling at students can really hurt self-esteem. I know because it happened to me; however thanks to Windward, I have improved not only my academic performance, but how I feel about myself as well!"

]]> The Necessity of Professional Development tag:educationupdate.com,2010:/johnrussell//16.177 2010-11-09T20:37:44Z 2010-11-09T20:42:11Z The American Association of School Administrators (AASA), which represents school superintendents from across the country, recently published A Cliff Hanger: How America's Public Schools Continue to Feel the Impact of the Economic Downturn (AASA, 2010). The report glumly predicted that... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell The American Association of School Administrators (AASA), which represents school superintendents from across the country, recently published A Cliff Hanger: How America's Public Schools Continue to Feel the Impact of the Economic Downturn (AASA, 2010). The report glumly predicted that 50 percent of the superintendents who responded to the survey that was the basis of this report will reduce or eliminate funds for professional development in 2010‐11, up from 22 percent in 2009‐10 and 9 percent in 2008‐09. Budget cuts in areas that directly impact student learning and achievement, like lack of funds for professional development for teachers, are detrimental to all students and especially for students with learning disabilities. Plans to drastically reduce professional development stand in stark contrast to the recommendations of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) that are found in the new Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2010).

The IDA report begins by stating that reading difficulties are the most common cause of academic failure and underachievement. The National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently finds that about 36% of all fourth graders read at a level described as "below basic." According to the IDA between 30 and 50% of students are at risk for inadequate reading and writing development. The report posits that most of these at-risk students are ineligible for special education services and are dependent on the instruction given in the regular classroom.

The IDA report goes on to describe the scope of the problem and clearly states the reason why professional development is so important in supporting classroom teachers and the at-risk students they teach:

"Teaching language, reading, and writing effectively, especially to students experiencing difficulty, requires considerable knowledge and skill. Regrettably, the licensing and professional development practices currently endorsed by many states are insufficient for the preparation and support of teachers and specialists. Researchers are finding that those with reading specialist and special education licenses often know no more about research-based, effective practices than those with general education teaching licenses. The majority of practitioners at all levels have not been prepared in sufficient depth to prevent reading problems, to recognize early signs of risk, or to teach students with dyslexia and related learning disabilities successfully." (IDA, 2010)

The IDA standards identify professional competencies that are necessary for teaching students with reading disabilities and learning differences. It is important to note that these standards are applicable for all teachers of reading, general educators as well as specialists (Spear-Swerling, 2010). The IDA standards are built on the large body of research documenting that teachers must be knowledgeable of the oral and written language concepts as well as the most effective research-based instructional practices (Budin, Mather, & Cheesman, 2010).

As stated previously, there is a significant disconnect between the preparation teachers need in order to meet these standards and what they actually get in their pre-service education courses. In one of many studies that confirm the lack of teacher knowledge of the structure of language, Cheesman et al. (2009) found that only 18% of first-year teachers could distinguish between phonemic awareness and phonics instruction.

Deficiencies in teacher preparation can be addressed through professional development, but only if school budgets provide the funds. If schools are going to reduce academic failure and underachievement, comprehensive professional development is a necessity.


Enhanced by Zemanta
]]> A Call for Alternate Paths to Teacher Certification tag:educationupdate.com,2010:/johnrussell//16.114 2010-08-17T21:08:55Z 2010-08-17T21:12:11Z In May 2008, Mark McQuillan, the Connecticut Commissioner of Education, issued a memorandum outlining the requirements for early childhood and elementary education certification that the State Board of Education had recently enacted. As of July 1, 2009, in order to... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell In May 2008, Mark McQuillan, the Connecticut Commissioner of Education, issued a memorandum outlining the requirements for early childhood and elementary education certification that the State Board of Education had recently enacted. As of July 1, 2009, in order to obtain certification in either of these critical areas, teachers in Connecticut have to demonstrate their knowledge of foundations of reading development, development of reading comprehension, and reading assessment and instruction. 

Teachers applying for these certifications in Connecticut are now required to pass tests in each of these disciplines. In order to pass the test of reading development, teachers have to demonstrate their understanding of phonological and phonemic awareness, concepts of print and the alphabetic principle, the role of phonics in promoting reading development, and word analysis skills and strategies. For the section on development of reading comprehension, teachers must display their understanding of vocabulary development, how to apply reading comprehension skills and strategies to imaginative/literary texts and informational/expository texts. For the test on reading assessment and instruction, teachers need to show that they understand formal and informal methods of assessing reading development and multiple approaches to reading instruction. 

Connecticut's actions were newsworthy even though these instructional competencies were contained in the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (2000) that were published years earlier. The reason that the change to Connecticut's certification was still noteworthy is depressingly simple. Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of instruction delivered by teachers well-informed in these areas, few states have made significant changes to their certification requirements in response to the recommendations of the National Reading Panel. As a result of the failure of states and schools to require teachers to be knowledgeable of evidence-based reading instruction practices, up to 40 percent of students in the United States are struggling or failing readers (Lyon, 1998). To the casual observer, the root causes of this disastrous disconnect between scientific knowledge and actual practice are not at all obvious, but the very troubling results are: 8 million American students in grades 4 to 12 are not fluent readers (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), and 3,000 students drop out of high school every day because of poor reading and writing skills (Partnership for Reading, 2003).

Inadequate certification requirements are only part of the problem. Teacher preparation programs simply do not sufficiently prepare new teachers. In the Journal of Learning Disabilities (2009), Louisa Moats cites research by Walsh, Glaser and Dunne-Wilcox (2006) in which they found that: "Courses provided in teacher licensing programs are often insufficient in content and design to enable the students to learn the subject matter and apply it to the teaching of reading." Moats' observations are confirmed by an analysis of the results of the Connecticut certification test in which "about one in three test-takers in teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities across the state have failed the exam since the state began using it last year as a licensing requirement" (The Connecticut Mirror, February 10, 2010), and failure rates exceeded 40 percent at some of the state's largest teacher preparation programs.

Joshi et al. writing in the Journal of Learning Disabilities (September, 2009) confirmed the deficiencies in teacher education programs, stating: "The National Council on Teacher Quality (Walsh, Glaser and Wilcox, 2006) concluded that many schools of education may not be teaching their pre-service teachers the basic knowledge required to teach literacy skills." An earlier study (Moats and Lyon, 1996) also demonstrated that teachers have "insufficiently developed concepts about language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the very skills that are needed for direct, systematic, language-focused reading instruction, such as the abilities to count phonemes and to identify phonic relationships." In what can only be considered an understatement, Joshi (September, 2009) summarized his findings: "It would seem ... that we need to turn our attention to improving teacher education and teacher development at the early grade levels by providing intensive instruction on the linguistic features of the English language."

Based on these studies and the poor performance on the Connecticut certification test, it is clear pre-service teachers are not getting the content they need to be effective teachers of reading. Unfortunately, that is only part of the problem. Remarkably, Joshi and his colleagues also found that many instructors who teach reading are not themselves equipped to teach pre-service teachers about the structure of language. In Joshi's study the Survey of Language Constructs Related to Literacy Acquisition was administered to 78 college and university instructors who were responsible for teaching reading education classes to prospective reading teachers. Of the instructors, 68 had doctoral degrees and 10 were working on their doctoral degrees; all had previously taught in elementary schools. They came from 30 different colleges from the southwest United States. Their scores on the various domains tested were: phonology 78.97 percent, phonics 56.47 percent, morphology 34.36 percent, and comprehension 57.5 percent. 

Given this worrisome condition of traditional teacher preparation programs, states are now turning to alternate paths to master's degrees and certification. The New York State Board of Regents recently approved a pilot program that will allow alternative organizations to create their own master's degree programs (New York Times, May 14, 2010). Organizations like Windward School applaud this initiative. At Windward, we have long recognized the deficits that smart, conscientious teachers bring with them simply because they did not receive proper training at their colleges and universities. To address this problem, Windward created the Teacher Training Institute (WTTI) in 1988. The WTTI is dedicated to providing the type of training that enables professionals to have the expertise needed to teach children of all abilities in both mainstream and remedial classrooms. It offers professional development based on the most current, scientifically validated research in child development, learning theory and pedagogy. WTTI courses, workshops and lectures translate this research into practical classroom applications. In spring 2007, Windward Teacher Training Institute became an accredited IMSLEC training center, enabling the WTTI to offer national certification in Multisensory Structured Language Education. 

Before a teacher is given full teaching responsibility at Windward, the teacher must complete courses in scientifically validated strategies for teaching reading, writing and language that are offered by the WTTI. In addition to completing these courses, teachers new to Windward are typically required to work under the direct supervision of a master teacher for two years. This commitment to professional development continues throughout a teacher's career at Windward where each Friday afternoon is devoted to professional development. Windward's program for professional development is consistent with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (2000) and produces results that are in stark contrast to national data. At Windward, students who come to the school as struggling readers and writers leave with the skills and competencies that consistently place 90 percent of them at or above their grade level peers on standardized tests.

Connecticut has taken the first step in a long overdue reform of the teacher certification process; the New York State Board of Regents' recent approval of alternate paths to master's degrees is also laudable. Windward has a proven program of professional development that makes it well positioned to support these much-needed changes.

Enhanced by Zemanta
]]> A Kafkaesque Proposal tag:educationupdate.com,2010:/johnrussell//16.89 2010-06-10T17:18:16Z 2010-07-20T20:12:53Z In an article titled "For City Schools, A Mainstreaming on Special Needs," which appeared in the April 29 edition of The New York Times, Jennifer Medina reported that in New York City approximately 17 percent of the students are classified... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell In an article titled "For City Schools, A Mainstreaming on Special Needs," which appeared in the April 29 edition of The New York Times, Jennifer Medina reported that in New York City approximately 17 percent of the students are classified as needing special education services and that only 25 percent of these students received a regular diploma last year. The Bloomberg administration's response to these abysmal results is to propose placing these special-needs students in regular education classrooms, where an equally appalling 50 percent of the general education students graduate. While paying lip service to increasing accountability and educational opportunity, the Department of Education's real motivation is to cut funding to special education. In the end, the Department of Education would like to dramatically accelerate the integration of special education with general education to save money. 

This proposal could have been written by Kafka himself. The twisted logic of the city's education department goes something like this. In order to help special-needs students, we will return them to the general education program that failed them in the first place. This, it is alleged, will give principals and local districts more flexibility in how to educate these special-needs students. In yet another Kafka-like twist, the proposal does not provide any professional development for the teachers who will have these special-needs students in their classes. It is difficult to image how anyone could consider this a recipe to improve educational outcomes; in fact it sounds like a formula for disaster.

The net effect of these recommendations is to give local districts and principals a great deal of discretion in providing special-education services, much as districts had 30 years ago before the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As deplorable as the current results are for special-education students, the situation was far worse prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975. With increasing pressure to reduce budgets, it is reasonable to assume that these recommendations will result in far fewer funds being available for educating classified students who need additional support to succeed or for training the regular-education teachers who will have them in their classrooms.

These proposals should be of grave concern to every parent and educator committed to having each student reach his or her full potential.

Enhanced by Zemanta
]]> Instructional Time: The Case for Direction Instruction tag:educationupdate.com,2010:/johnrussell//16.56 2010-02-07T08:17:18Z 2010-02-09T23:03:04Z In an article titled, "The Under-Worked American: Children Are the Exceptions to the Country's Work Ethic," the June 13, 2009 edition of The Economist reports significant differences in the length of the school year in various countries around the globe.... Dr. John J. Russell http://www.educationupdate.com/johnrussell In an article titled, "The Under-Worked American: Children Are the Exceptions to the Country's Work Ethic," the June 13, 2009 edition of The Economist reports significant differences in the length of the school year in various countries around the globe. The 180-day school year that is the average for American students is among the shortest in the world. The article goes on to chronicle that the six and a half hours that American students spend in school per day is one of the shortest school days in the world. As disconcerting as these statistics may be, The Economist misses the most salient, and in my opinion the most disturbing, point about the American educational system. While American students clearly spend less time in the classroom than their counterparts around the world, the real issue is how this precious, short instructional time is spent in American classrooms.

The September 2, 2009 edition of The New York Times described in vivid terms a new educational trend that exemplifies how time is used in American classrooms. The article reports that in middle school classrooms across the United States teachers are turning over all the decisions about which books to read to the students: "Students choose their own books, discuss them individually with their teacher and one another, and keep detailed journals about their reading." The author goes on to say that while there is no clear consensus among teachers, variations on the approach, known as reading workshop, are catching on. Some schools are setting aside as much as 40 minutes of instructional time every other day for students to read books of their own choosing. While the teachers and schools that are adopting this approach may be well intended, they are nonetheless misguided. There is a large body of research that thoroughly evaluates the effectiveness of various instructional strategies and confirms that this type of "student centered" approach to teaching reading is not a particularly effective strategy, especially for at-risk students.

With the goal of maximizing the impact of instructional time, the National Research Council, the National Reading Panel, and a host of other researchers have identified scientifically verified effective instructional practices. Among the many instructional strategies used in American classrooms, one methodology stands out among all others: direct instruction. The term "direct instruction" refers to a rigorously developed, highly structured method of teaching that requires teachers to develop specific learning objectives and provides constant interaction between students and the teacher.

Support for direct instruction comes from a plethora of research studies, but none more important than Project Follow Through, which was the most extensive educational experiment ever conducted. This study, which began in 1968 and continued through 1977, was designed to identify the best way of teaching at-risk children from kindergarten through third grade. Thousands of children in over a hundred different communities were included in the study, and 22 different models of instruction were compared. The programs were implemented over a five-year period and the results were analyzed by two different independent research institutes. The 22 programs studied were grouped into the three classes (Basic Skills, Cognitive-Conceptual, and Affective-Cognitive). The program that produced the best results in general was direct instruction, a subset of Basic Skills. The other program types, which would include current instructional methodologies such as student-centered learning and whole language, produced inferior results. Students receiving direct instruction did better than those in all other programs when tested in reading, arithmetic, spelling and language. Contrary to assertions of proponents of whole language and other student-centered approaches, direct instruction improved cognitive skills (higher order thinking skills) dramatically relative to the control groups and also showed the highest improvement in self-esteem scores compared to control groups.

Since this groundbreaking work, Jeanne Chall, John Hollingsworth and Silvia Ybarra, and other researchers have reached the same conclusion: direct instruction works not only for at-risk students, but for all students. Since it produces rapid improvement in skills and knowledge and these gains persist over time, direct instruction optimizes precious instructional time. Year after year at Windward, we see the positive effects of direct instruction. Our analysis of student achievement data confirms the rapid acquisition of skills and knowledge reported in the literature. On average, students leave Windward after a stay of 3.5 years with 90 percent scoring at the average to above-average range on standardized tests. We also find that these gains persist over time. Windward surveys the schools that our alums attend after they leave. Administrators and guidance counselors at these independent and public schools consistently report that after two years at their new schools, Windward graduates are academically at or above their grade level peers.

Despite a preponderance of evidence supporting the use of direct instruction, especially with at-risk students, far too few teachers make use of this strategy. At Windward, direct instruction is used in every classroom by every teacher. The significant and long-lasting academic gains that our students make, and the improvement to their self-esteem that accompanies real achievement, are further evidence of the value of direct instruction. If American students are going to compete with students in other countries that have longer school days and longer school years, our schools will have to maximize every minute of instructional time. Research-proven strategies such as direct instruction will need to be part of every teacher's repertoire.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
]]>