Donna Dwiggens

"There was a point where people jumped on the whole language bandwagon and thought it was going to be the 'be-all and end-all'of teaching kids to read," says Donna Dwiggens, principal of the Christopher Columbus Elementary School in Chester, Penn. "Meanwhile, the people that knew Direct Instruction and taught it continued to do so because they knew that the whole language model was not sufficient for a lot of kids."

Dwiggens' own experience with the program began some 25 years ago when she was a research assistant for Project Follow Through."Direct Instruction was being used primarily in programs like Title I or special education, because those groups weren't required to adhere to the state-adopted textbook lists."

When the government cut funding for Project Follow Through, she says, they made the cuts across the board despite the kind of progress being made."It didn't matter that Direct Instruction or other programs could clearly show they were head-and-shoulders above the other models.They didn't look at performance of the models."

Then a funny thing happened."People began to see that although these kids were special ed or Title I students, they were starting to outperform kids in regular classrooms," Dwiggens says.

"Now whole language has started to burn itself out and doesn't have the data to support all the claims it has made," she says.
...
Dwiggens and her assistant, Rosella Givens, were recruited specifically because they had Direct Instruction experience.
...
At press time administrators were awaiting the decision of what private vendors would operate the school, although Dwiggens has been assured that Direct Instruction will continue.)

In the short time the program has been in place, the school has shown steady academic improvement."We collect data three times a year, and we are already showing some real success with the program, especially with the young kids that came into it with kindergarten and first grade," says Dwiggens."For example, of our returning students who took Direct Instruction in kindergarten, where it is not mandatory, we have 10 percent already reading at an advanced first grade level.In first grade, we have about 25 kids, out of 120, who are reading at beginning third grade level."

That success has inspired teachers, who were initially reluctant to implement the program, to fight for its continuation.

"The program was not voted in by the faculty, rather it was imposed from above by the board," says Dwiggens."The teachers felt the blame was being laid at their feet because the children weren't doing well academically.The first thing we did was to get past that and make them understand that in no way did we blame them, but that we thought the missing piece was the curriculum."

There were some teachers who asked for transfers to go elsewhere because they didn't want to do the program, but others were willing to try.Now, says Dwiggens, the teachers are the ones fighting for Direct Instruction.
...
"So were Shakespeare's plays," replies Dwiggens.

There was a point where people jumped on the whole language bandwagon and thought it was going to be the 'be-all and end-all'of teaching kids to read , says Donna Dwiggens , principal of the Christopher Columbus Elementary School in Chester , Penn.Meanwhile , the people that knew Direct Instruction and taught it continued to do so because they knew that the whole language model was not sufficient for a lot of kids..

Dwiggens' own experience with the program began some 25 years ago when she was a research assistant for Project Follow Through.Direct Instruction was being used primarily in programs like Title I or special education , because those groups weren't required to adhere to the state-adopted textbook lists..

When the government cut funding for Project Follow Through , she says , they made the cuts across the board despite the kind of progress being made.It didn't matter that Direct Instruction or other programs could clearly show they were head-and-shoulders above the other models.They didn't look at performance of the models..

Then a funny thing happened.People began to see that although these kids were special ed or Title I students , they were starting to outperform kids in regular classrooms , Dwiggens says.

Now whole language has started to burn itself out and doesn't have the data to support all the claims it has made , she says.But all along Direct Instruction has continued to accumulate that database to show how effective it is across the wide range of ability levels , ethnic groups , ages and so on..

Out of 501 districts in Pennsylvania , the Chester Upland district ranks last.The Columbus School was at the bottom of the district's list , with 86 percent of the kids falling in the bottom quartile.The state , armed with a Read to Succeed grant , recruited Dwiggens to implement the Direct Instruction program in its Columbus School.

...
Dwiggens and her assistant , Rosella Givens , were recruited specifically because they had Direct Instruction experience.

( The Columbus School was taken over by the state last July because of academic failure.At press time administrators were awaiting the decision of what private vendors would operate the school , although Dwiggens has been assured that Direct Instruction will continue. ).

In the short time the program has been in place , the school has shown steady academic improvement.We collect data three times a year , and we are already showing some real success with the program , especially with the young kids that came into it with kindergarten and first grade , says Dwiggens.For example , of our returning students who took Direct Instruction in kindergarten , where it is not mandatory , we have 10 percent already reading at an advanced first grade level.In first grade , we have about 25 kids , out of 120 , who are reading at beginning third grade level..

That success has inspired teachers , who were initially reluctant to implement the program , to fight for its continuation.

The program was not voted in by the faculty , rather it was imposed from above by the board , says Dwiggens.The teachers felt the blame was being laid at their feet because the children weren't doing well academically.The first thing we did was to get past that and make them understand that in no way did we blame them , but that we thought the missing piece was the curriculum..

There were some teachers who asked for transfers to go elsewhere because they didn't want to do the program , but others were willing to try.Now , says Dwiggens , the teachers are the ones fighting for Direct Instruction.They've been out lobbying the vendors to keep the program , because they know it is successful.They know the kids are learning , and they've seen a significant improvement in just one year..

Working for all students
...
So were Shakespeare's plays , replies Dwiggens.But when someone learns that script , how they present it is a very individual thing.Two actors can memorize the same script , but it will come off very differently because of what they put into it of themselves..

The other thing is that the scripts are there for a reason.It doesn't limit one's ability to be creative.Yes , you have to teach by that script but that script is all research based ; it is based on how kids have performed in field-testing and what research has shown to be the most efficient way to teach a concept..

There was a point where people jumped on the whole language bandwagon and thought it was going to be the 'be-all and end-all'of teaching kids to read , says Donna Dwiggens , principal of the Christopher Columbus Elementary School in Chester , Penn. Meanwhile , the people that knew Direct Instruction and taught it continued to do so because they knew that the whole language model was not sufficient for a lot of kids..

Dwiggens' own experience with the program began some 25 years ago when she was a research assistant for Project Follow Through.Direct Instruction was being used primarily in programs like Title I or special education , because those groups weren't required to adhere to the state-adopted textbook lists..

When the government cut funding for Project Follow Through , she says , they made the cuts across the board despite the kind of progress being made.It didn't matter that Direct Instruction or other programs could clearly show they were head-and-shoulders above the other models.They didn't look at performance of the models..

Then a funny thing happened.People began to see that although these kids were special ed or Title I students , they were starting to outperform kids in regular classrooms , Dwiggens says.

Now whole language has started to burn itself out and doesn't have the data to support all the claims it has made , she says.But all along Direct Instruction has continued to accumulate that database to show how effective it is across the wide range of ability levels , ethnic groups , ages and so on..

Out of 501 districts in Pennsylvania , the Chester Upland district ranks last.The Columbus School was at the bottom of the district's list , with 86 percent of the kids falling in the bottom quartile.The state , armed with a Read to Succeed grant , recruited Dwiggens to implement the Direct Instruction program in its Columbus School.

...
Dwiggens and her assistant , Rosella Givens , were recruited specifically because they had Direct Instruction experience.

( The Columbus School was taken over by the state last July because of academic failure.At press time administrators were awaiting the decision of what private vendors would operate the school , although Dwiggens has been assured that Direct Instruction will continue. ).

In the short time the program has been in place , the school has shown steady academic improvement.We collect data three times a year , and we are already showing some real success with the program , especially with the young kids that came into it with kindergarten and first grade , says Dwiggens.For example , of our returning students who took Direct Instruction in kindergarten , where it is not mandatory , we have 10 percent already reading at an advanced first grade level.In first grade , we have about 25 kids , out of 120 , who are reading at beginning third grade level..

That success has inspired teachers , who were initially reluctant to implement the program , to fight for its continuation.

The program was not voted in by the faculty , rather it was imposed from above by the board , says Dwiggens.The teachers felt the blame was being laid at their feet because the children weren't doing well academically.The first thing we did was to get past that and make them understand that in no way did we blame them , but that we thought the missing piece was the curriculum..

There were some teachers who asked for transfers to go elsewhere because they didn't want to do the program , but others were willing to try.Now , says Dwiggens , the teachers are the ones fighting for Direct Instruction.They've been out lobbying the vendors to keep the program , because they know it is successful.They know the kids are learning , and they've seen a significant improvement in just one year..

Working for all students
...
So were Shakespeare's plays , replies Dwiggens.But when someone learns that script , how they present it is a very individual thing.Two actors can memorize the same script , but it will come off very differently because of what they put into it of themselves..

The other thing is that the scripts are there for a reason.It doesn't limit one's ability to be creative.Yes , you have to teach by that script but that script is all research-based ; it is based on how kids have performed in field-testing and what research has shown to be the most efficient way to teach a concept..