BY: BEANIE GEOGHEGAN
Anyone who has ever tried to help a stubborn three-year-old complete a task more easily and efficiently understands that their insistence on doing it “their way” often overrides their desire to do it a better way. It would seem that many in the K-12 education community share that same level of stubbornness when it comes to doing things “their way” rather than the better way. It is what they have done for decades. The difference is that the stubbornness of the three-year-old only impacts one child, while the obstinacy of those making decisions about K-12 education has negatively impacted millions.
Take the “Reading Wars,” for example. For over a hundred years, people have disagreed over the best way to teach children to read. It wasn’t necessarily a disagreement over what worked best but rather what “felt” best. Although things really started heating up around the mid-1920s with progressive education proponents like John Dewey, the battle truly began in the 19th century when Horace Mann questioned the method of reading instruction that Noah Webster supported.
Since then, those advocating for structured literacy have provided decades of research demonstrating its overwhelming success and effectiveness with most students. Meanwhile, advocates of “whole language” or “balanced literacy” have had to alter and adapt their approach many times over the years and still lack solid research to demonstrate that they work as effectively.
Ironically, up until a few years ago, almost half of the classrooms across the country used some form of the latter two instructional methods. Why wouldn’t schools adopt methods of reading instruction supported by solid research? Some argue that it was due to politics (structured literacy is often viewed as a conservative method), while others believe it has more to do with the worldview of those making the decisions. Maybe Thomas Sowell was correct when he stated, “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”
Another area where K-12 schools have set aside what works best for what “sounded good” is the method of instruction. Since 1977, we’ve known that Direct Instruction is the most effective method for teaching students, yet Inquiry-based learning and Project-based learning have become the norm in most classrooms nationwide. The former views the teacher as the authority and “sage” in the classroom, while the latter places the teacher as a guide or facilitator of student-led or discovery learning.
While it’s impossible to conclude that the method of instruction used in K-12 classrooms is solely responsible for the steady decline in student achievement over the years, it’s worth asking why schools would use less effective methods when time is of the essence and students are struggling so much. There is only so much time in a school day. Schools don’t have the luxury of adopting practices that “might” work for some students. They must use methods that research has proven to work for nearly all students. Images of the stubborn three-year-old demanding to do it “my way” come to mind.
There is currently a movement to educate and train current administrators and teachers on structured literacy and the most effective methods of instruction. However, colleges and universities preparing new teachers are still committed to methods that have been proven less effective. For teachers to teach more effectively, there needs to be a shift in the way they are taught. It can be daunting to think about, but anyone who has ever seen the stubborn three-year-old emerge into a reasonable older child and young adult capable of making wiser decisions knows it is possible.
