Direct Instruction: a failed intervention

Issues Direct Instruction: a failed intervention

John Guenther is a senior researcher at the Batchelor Institute who recently co-authored a paper in The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education evaluating the impact of the Direct Instruction (DI) program in remote schools. He spoke to Australian Education Union Northern Territory president Jarvis Ryan about his findings and what they reveal about problems in how governments approach Indigenous education.

Jarvis Ryan: Could you firstly explain the methodology you used to conduct your research into the DI program?

John Guenther: We used data from the My School website that anyone can access. For this study, I looked at the schools that were identified as Direct Instruction schools through the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools program that was funded by the Australian Government with about $30 million.

I looked at the schools classified as “very remote” on My School. They are the ones that struggle the most, particularly those very remote schools that have lots of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. I wanted to see whether or not the introduction of Direct Instruction in some of those schools led to those students doing any better, or similar or worse than schools with a similar student cohort where they hadn’t received that intervention.

I looked at the data three years before the Intervention (2012-2014) and three years after DI was introduced (2015-2017). What I tried to do was establish if the schools that received the Direct Instruction intervention had an improvement in literacy.

I am also aware that there are shifts and patterns over time in the general school population so I wanted to see how comparable schools that didn’t receive that intervention fared over that period.

JR: The important thing here is that you had reasonable sample sizes and you were as far as possible comparing like with like.

JG: That’s right – that’s why I limited my study to those schools that had more than 80 per cent Aboriginal kids in their student population and only in very remote schools. We are not comparing schools that were in more urban areas which had fewer Aboriginal kids.

In the cohort of the Direct Instruction schools there were about 25 we could have chosen from, but not all those schools had NAPLAN scores published, so we had a sample of 18 DI schools. That was enough to do an analysis.

JR: You focused your study just on the reading component of literacy in Direct Instruction. What did you find in terms of its impact over those three years?

JG: I chose reading because it is a measure used by other national reports, and governments tend to take a view that reading is a good proxy for English literacy generally.

What we found was the schools with DI intervention actually did worse post-2015 compared to the 2012-2014 period and worse overall than the non-DI comparison schools. That is a worry for a few reasons. Firstly, because this program was funded significantly by government and then renewed, even though the early signs were that it didn’t work, so there is an accountability issue.

The second concern is that you are putting money into a program that is doing harm to kids, it is not actually benefiting them. Not only did DI not achieve its goals of improved literacy, but the outcomes from the schools involved were worse than the comparative schools. The third finding is also worrying: schools with a DI intervention had a faster rate of decline in attendance than the comparison schools. Average attendance declined quite rapidly for the DI schools. The earlier evaluations treated poor attendance as a factor that contributed to outcomes, but I am not sure that is necessarily right. I think it is more likely the other way around, that because of Direct Instruction and what it does in the classroom, and what it does to the kids, they are less likely to want to attend and their parents probably see that as well.

There were a whole lot of worries that weren’t captured in the evaluation report, and that needed to be addressed. To be honest, after the first round of funding that was effectively a trial for two years, the program should have been stopped. It wasn’t achieving results then.

JR: The attendance issue is really telling. We had many stories about kids getting bored of the program quickly and as you reference in your paper it appears many teachers also got bored of the program. From what I have observed based on the knowledge and experience of AEU NT members, in many of the DI schools we saw close to a turnover of 100 per cent of teaching staff over the three-year period.

JG: I think it is something about the method that is fundamentally flawed, not just the intervention or a program. It dumbs down teaching so that everything has to be to the formula, you have to follow the script all the time and that

takes away the teacher’s professional ability to be able to respond to where their class is at, where the individual children are at and work with them at a student level, not just for a program.

That is possibly what is going on with the teachers getting disenchanted with it, because it takes away their professional ability, their pride and their ability to do what is best for their children and their class. It leaves it up to a scripted program.

JR: I want to end on a slightly more positive note. I picked up in your writing that there is not a lot of evidence to support these silver bullet-type ideas of a magical pedagogy or program. You make some reference in your paper to evidence-based approaches to improving outcomes in remote schools. What kinds of things can we draw on into the future to build a stronger foundation? Teachers who can teach English as a second or other language will do better in the classroom. It is not necessarily an argument about bilingual versus nonbilingual approaches, it is an

argument about the importance of professional development and learning for teachers.

JG: You can’t just run a program for one year and hope that it is going to have an impact for five years. Every year you have got to run these programs to build the professional capacity of teachers. When education departments run professional learning for teachers, (they) will benefit from it and the kids will benefit from it.

Another key area where the evidence is pretty clear is that schools with higher proportions of local people on staff do better in terms of attendance and NAPLAN scores. It is heartening to see that the non-government sector has picked up on this. The trend in recent years, again using My School as an indication, is that non-government schools, particularly in Western Australia and the NT are using the increasing resources that they are getting from the Federal Government to train and support local people into roles within the school.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been taken up as much by the NT Department of Education in public schools. Part of the reason for that, in the Territory at least, is the role that “effective enrolment” has played – the funding model that reduces a school’s funding based on lower student attendance rates.

Schools with lower teacher-student ratios in remote areas do better than schools with higher teacher-student ratios. The claim that the student-teacher ratios make no difference is wrong. It does make a difference in remote schools at least.

One of the reasons I think is that it means kids can get more individual attention and that they have got a combination of small class sizes. With local support and local staff supporting them, they have got a much better chance of grabbing hold of the concepts being taught, the language being taught, and benefit from it.

So, there are a few things that we do know work generally. Of course, it is not a one-size fits all. We have got to take each community on its own. But I think as a principle, having these factors in play, will make a difference to the learning that happens at school.

This interview was first published in the Term 2, 2020 issue of the AEU NT’s Territory Educator magazine. It is reproduced here with permission. John Guenther’s research paper can be accessed for a fee at https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2019.28

TAFE GA 2019 Improved conditions for casual lecturers

When the ballot for the 2019 TAFE General Agreement closed on 30 June, 97 per cent had voted in favour of accepting the new Agreement. The new Agreement will now be registered in the WA Industrial Relations Commission.

Lecturers employed as casuals need to be aware of some key provisions in the Agreement, some of which are new, whilst others were introduced in the last Agreement.

Clause 18.14 is a new provision that stipulates that any break between fixed term contracts of up to six months will not break continuity of service, for the purposes of personal leave and long service leave – but it will not count towards accruing personal leave and long service leave entitlements.

This is an improved provision and that ensures casual TAFE lecturers do not have their leave credits reset to zero when there are breaks of less than six months in between contracts.

Clause 29.1 b) is also a new provision to the Agreement but it existed in the Above Base Grade Policy (ABG). Placing the provision in the Agreement will mean that it easier to enforce.

The provision states: “A lecturer’s prior hours of casual service will be taken into account in determining the commencement salary, in accordance with the provisions of the SSTUWA-TAFE Employee Relations Committee (STERC) Above Base Grade Policy.”

This provision in the Agreement makes it clear to employers that casual service must be taken into consideration when determining the commencement salary of a lecturer being employed in either a fixed term contract or permanent mode.

Lecturers in this situation should read the ABG policy for details but as a general rule, 500 hours of casual lecturing hours equates to one additional grade above the minimum, 1,000 hours equates to two grades and so on. “Anyone being newly employed in either 4. A casual lecturer who elects not a fixed term contract or permanent mode to accept an offer of a FTC must needs to be aware of the ABG policy and acknowledge in writing that they have make an application for an ABG. Where been offered the option of a FTC and they get placed on the grade scale is declined the offer. dependent on the ABG policy,” TAFE organiser Ramona Mitussis said. 5. A college will assume a casual lecturer who declines an offer of “Their casual hours count towards getting FTC under this policy wishes any up higher on the grade scale and if they further offer of employment to be on don’t get a (new) contract for some reason a casual basis only, unless advised they still keep their long service leave otherwise by the casual employee. An and personal leave credits for up to six employee that declines an offer of a months. FTC acknowledges that they will not be offered further FTCs for that year, “So both these provisions work together.” but may be offered further FTCs in An existing clause that TAFE members subsequent years. should be aware of is Clause 19.7, which 6. FTCs entered into may not exceed six relates to conversion of casual work to months' duration unless the lecturer fixed term contracts. has undergone an appropriate merit The clause states that: “Colleges will selection process. offer the option of a fixed term contract, 7. If further work is available after of up to six months, to a casual lecturer the completion of a FTC period, the whose employment is expected to exceed position will be filled in accordance six weeks, consistent with the new STERC with the requirements provided under policy to be developed during the life of Commissioner’s Instruction No. this Agreement.” 2 – Filling a Public Sector Vacancy, Specifically, the policy will work as follows: Clause 18 – Fixed Term Contract of the Western Australian TAFE Lecturers’ General Agreement 2017, 1. Where a casual lecturer’s employment is expected to exceed or its replacement, and the STERC Fixed Term Contract Policy (2019). six weeks and work performed is on a regular and systematic basis in a same or similar role, the college will offer the lecturer the choice of fixed term contract (FTC) appointment The union has consistently campaigned for greater job security for all lecturers and as a result job security has dramatically improved across the sector. for the duration of that period of However, the campaign is ongoing and employment. the changes to the new agreement are 2. 3. A casual lecturer will be offered a FTC as soon as it is operationally viable, following the decision that the work period will exceed six weeks, as per paragraph one above. A casual lecturer is required to indicate acceptance of the FTC offer, in writing, within seven days of receipt of the offer. The FTC will commence from the date of the next pay period on or after acceptance. another set of steps in helping to improve the wages and conditions of casual lecturers. GA 2019 TAFE 2019 GA