EDUCATIONrnThe Successrnof DirectrnInstructionrnby Marian Kester CoombsrnWhat if the federal governmentrnspent a billion tax dollars overrnnearly three decades to study thoroughlyrnthe question of which teaching methodrnbest instills knowledge, sharpens cognitivernskills, and enhances self-esteem inrnyoung children? And what if such arnstudy were able to determine exactlyrnwhich method best accomplishes allrnthree? Would American parents like tornknow about it?rnThe study and its conclusion both exist.rnProject Follow Through, initiated inrn1968 under Lyndon Johnson’s War onrnPoverty to “follow through” on ProjectrnHead Start, spent an estimated one billionrndollars through the Office (now Department)rnof Education, the Office ofrnEconomic Opportunity, and dozens ofrnprivate sponsors to test and evaluate anrnarray of very different educational methods.rnDespite Project Follow Through’srnexperimental nature, it was also a fullyrnfunded and comprehensive social servicesrnprogram. A total of 700,000 studentsrnin 170 poor communities aroundrnthe nation were involved. Parents werernallowed to decide which method orrnmodel would be adopted at their localrnschool; the government then funded thernmodel through such sponsors as universitiesrnand private research institutes.rnThe last funds for the study, which wasrnthe largest educational experiment everrnconducted, were disbursed in 1995.rnWhat happened then is worthy of anotherrnstudy—this one in the politics of bureaucracy.rn”The education professionrnhas never been particularly interestedrnin results, especially if they run counterrnto the prejudices of the profession,” saysrnDouglas Carnine, a professor of educationrnat the University of Oregon who wasrninvolved with Project Follow Throughrnwhen his university was one of itsrnsponsors.rnBy the mid-1970’s, Stanford ResearchrnInstitute had gathered data on the project,rnwhich it then handed over to Abt Associatesrnof Cambridge, Massachusetts,rnfor analysis. Nine educational methodsrnwere compared. Of these, three each fellrninto one of three general types: basicrnskills, a behavioristic approach similar tornthe Suzuki Method; cognitive, a learning-rnto-learn approach that stresses thernchild’s discovery or “construction” ofrnknowledge on his own; and affective, arn”whole-child” approach that aims tornboost student self-esteem on the theoryrnthat a higher sense of self-worth promotesrnacademic achievement.rnA battery of five tests were administeredrnto more than 9,000 Project FollowrnThrough students in kindergartenrnthrough third grade. They were matchedrnwith a control group of 6,500 studentsrnfrom other school sites. The 11 “outcomernmeasures” assessed by these testsrnconsisted of basics like spelling and computation,rnproblem-solving ability or cognition,rnand self-concept or self-esteemrn(“affective development”).rnThe results? “Direct Instruction,” onernof the basic skills approaches, workedrnbest with these children in all three areasrnof development. Disadvantaged childrenrnwho ordinarily would have been expectedrnto achieve in the 20th percentilernrange performed at or near the 50th percentilern(the norm) in math, reading,rnspelling, and language usage. HowardrnN. Sloane, professor emeritus at the Universityrnof Utah, states that the outcome ofrnProject Follow Through proves thatrn”stressing basic skills produces the greatestrngains in problem solving and analyticalrn[cognitive] skills,” as well.rnThe results also showed that thosernmethods aimed specifically at improvingrncognition or boosting self-esteem had norneffect, or even a negative effect, on allrnthree types of measured development.rnFor example, writes researcher CathyrnWatkins,rnModels [like Direct Instruction]rnthat emphasized basic skills producedrnbetter results on tests of selfconceptrnthan did other models. .. .rnThe models that focused on affectiverndevelopment had negativernaverage effects on measures in thisrndomain.rnDirect Instruction (DI or DISTAR)rnwas devised by Siegfried Engelmannrnback in the early 1960’s, when he wasrnteaching his own young sons. Accordingrnto researcher James Baumann, in a DIrnclassroom,rnthe teacher, in a face to face, reasonablyrnformal manner, tells,rnshows, models, demonstrates andrnteaches the skill to be learned.rnThe key word is teacher, for it isrnthe teacher who is in command.rnCary Adams, author of a recent evaluationrnof DI, is quick to add thatrnthe difference is the curriculum,rnnot just the method. It’s the sequencernof concepts presented thatrnreally matters. Not one other modelrnhas been field tested to the extentrnthis one has.. . with very goodrnteachers and very difficult kids.rnSkills such as reading, spelling, andrncomputation are presented step by step,rnwith reinforcement ensuring that eachrnchild has mastered one step before progressingrnto the next.rnIn 1975, Thaddeus Lott became principalrnof Wesley Elementary, part of anrninner-city Houston school district wherernevery pupil qualified for Title I assistance.rnAt that time, only 18 percent ofrnpupils scored at grade level on the IowarnBasic Skills Test. By 1980, 85 percentrndid so. Why the dramatic change? Lottrnhad purchased DI materials (mostlyrnwithout the district’s financial help,rnsince DI was not—and is sfiU not—officiallyrnapproved by the state board of education)rnand trained Wesley teachers inrnthe method. Those teachers unwillingrnto be accountable to Lott’s new regimernwere transferred.rnAcademic improvement was so dramaticrnthat the district superintendent,rnwho had resented Lott and tried to drivernhim out, was herself removed, and Lottrnwas named head of what essentially becamerna charter district. Successes multiplied;rnby 1996, 100 percent of Wesleyrnthird-graders passed the Texas Assessmentrnof Academic Skills in reading, andrnthe other schools in the charter districtrnwere beginning to follow the samernupward curve. Lott is now in demandrnacross Texas to “turn our schoolrnaround.”rnSuccesses like Wesley Elementary didrnnot guarantee good press for DI, however.rnIn 1977, the Ford Foundation hiredrnfour researchers to re-evaluate Abt Associates’rndetermination that Direct Instructionrnwas the superior method. Publishedrnas “No Simple Answer” in the presti-rn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn