It takes a lot of people to make a school work. In many parts of our country, the local school district is the largest employer in town. And, while there are many outstanding, highly trained professional educators operating at the highest levels of teaching performance, the practical reality is that there are others that need help, support and structure to provide their students a quality experience. I remember a professor long ago saying in class, “Education will never be an elite profession. It takes way too many of us to be that selective!” I was somewhat offended by the comment, but years later the statement still has an element of practical truth to it.
Back to the question, “Are scripted programs good or bad for your school?”
A blank piece of canvas is wonderful if you are Picasso or Rembrandt. But, most educators work better with some structure and support. Picasso’s and Rembrandts are not on every street corner. Many of us are “paint by number folks.” We can create a pretty good picture if we have an outline.
This issue came to mind the other day during comprehensive exam week for a doctoral student. Members of the committee asked some questions regarding “scripted” programs. The overall tone of the discussion was that most in the room were opposed to them and found them insulting to professional educators. While I agreed with many things that were discussed, I left the meeting pondering the question, “Under what circumstances would scripted programs be a good choice? When would a scripted program be a bad choice?”
As a former administrator who has dealt with a lot of different skill sets among employees, I was thinking in percentages. What percentage of teachers work best with a blank canvas? How many of them are professional Picasso’s, a virtuoso of talent operating at very high levels with a blank canvas?” Are there circumstances where scripted programs provide a better program for students?
I think the debate is much more complicated than whether or not “scripted” programs are good or whether they are bad. Like most things in life, “It depends…”
My question to you is…
“If you were faced with the decision about whether or not “scripted” programs would be implemented in your school, what would you take into consideration when deciding?” What has been your experience with scripted programs with rigid scope and sequence?
This is one of those questions that truly does depend on the situation. I think, more than anything, it would depend on the thre obvious variables: the kids, the teachers, and the program. While some scripted programs are bad and some good, some kids would respond well and some wouldn’t. With three main variables involved…I bunch of different outcomes could result. If it were my decision, I would definitely look at the need in an area, if the program met that need, and if teachers would be willing. I think a lack in one of the variables could potentially ruin a solid program.
I very much echo the experience and comments of Sheryl, as I too have taught the scripted Reading Mastery intensive reading program through the Reading First grant for 4 years now.
The structure of our scripted program does work for most of our low readers. I have seen confidence in reading come from the student anticipating the type of questioning.
Also, because we have the scripted program and most reading groups are teaching different levels of the curriculum, it is significantly easier on the student who moves up or down a level (and into a different classroom). As a teacher it requires less focus on reconditioning the student to my classroom expectations or line of questioning. I have appreciated that I primarily need to catch a student up on the story themes, instead of the structure, because my lessons are similar to what the child had in his last reading group.
I am apprehensive to say this, but it has made it significantly easier for me to work on a grade level team. We all know what is going on in each other classrooms. We even know, pretty much, what the other grade levels are doing. That is pretty freeing for a lot of my coworkers and helps to relieve the anxiety and insecurity that comes with working together with someone who might have the secret ingredient and isn’t sharing!
In these terms I see the scripted program as a support for the less than confident teacher, like Sheryl noted. Not only does it allow for that teacher to rely of the script for the content, it also provides a commonality amongst a teaching team. In my experience the common language that came from teaching the same script allowed for a better working team, which, in turn, trickled down as an improved learning environment for our students.
In terms of my delivery I do find myself needing to ‘dress it up’ to keep it interesting for them to stay engaged. I teach the high readers at my grade level and have really been encouraged by our district consultants and reading coach to add, add, add as long as I use the script as my guide and structure to present certain content at the prescribed pace. This has allowed me to identify the holes and focus on filling them knowing that I can rely on ‘reading the blue words’ for part of my 150 minute lesson delivery. Where I have found the most need to supplement has been in enrichment, deeper questioning, and higher level thinking skills because our scripted program is designed for intensive reading intervention.
The population I have seen really struggle with our school’s Direct Instruction program is the hyperactive child (diagnosed or not). Specifically, I have had a few boys who have been incredibly challenged by the call to attention our program requires and the behavior expectations it demands. Because most teachers are teaching the same script, but at different levels, it does not allow for us to differentiate the delivery the amount we would like for the learners that need something other than the script. Because, in our case, those students have been few in number as a teacher I have felt confined to make the kid fit the mold because we were relying on that mold to work.
Tom,
I have been teaching for 15 years, certainly not the longest of anyone, but long enough to have noticed trends. Many programs have come and gone, so have many coworkers. I have found that the teachers that have left the schools I have worked in, have fallen into 3 categories:
1. It is time to retire because of lack of enjoyment for what they are doing
2. Their spouse gets a better job elsewhere
3. They want a new “challenge” (another way of saying “WOW! This job is harder than I thought it would be…)
I have known 1 teacher to put up such a fuss about having to teach a scripted program, that she was moved to a grade level that did not have one in place……until the next year. So “it” caught up to her in the end. Guess what???….she stayed.
I do believe that certain people have incredible talent for teaching students and no matter if you give them, 2 sticks and a rock, or the newest high tech system of teaching, they will find a way to accomplish their task. They are dedicated and are constantly thinking of ways to reach their students needs.
Do I think there is Brain Drain?? ABSOLUTELY! I’ve seen it….with teachers that do not see the big picture. They have forgotten why we are all here, or they were never there for the students in the first place….there is that JUNE, JULY, and AUGUST comment we have all heard. Anyway, they are focused on themselves and how it affects them, not focused on the students and what they need.
As a special ed teacher, I think that some scripted programs are successful with some of my students. The predictability and routine of a scripted program enables students to focus on the new skills they are learning. I think you have to look at the students and decide if they would benefit from this type of program or do they need a more unstructured type of program. I don’t think you can take this and expect all students to be successful with it though.
Tom,
I haven’t see the brain drain in the schools that I worked in. But there is attrition in the early years - especially in difficult schools and envirnoments. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that those that leave were usually at the top of their game. Many of them leave because they are struggling - not because their creativity is hampered.
I would assume that in many cases people just find they didn’t really enjoy it and in some cases I found young teachers not willing to wait 10 years before their salaries become decent enough.
I think the frustration is far more basic then we think. I think 20 years of not being able to go to the bathroom when you want takes a toll!!!!
Seriously, the lack of “freedom” is often driven more by the bell and the minute by minute stress of the schedule than just curricular freedom.
I can remember very clearly the first year as a teacher when my schedule allowed me to drive like a mad man to McDonald’s and grab a burger. I thought I was “free as a bird.”
We don’t realize how confining the educational environment can become for teachers. In most professions when you are having a really, really bad day you can get out of your cubicle or vehicle and take a walk around to cool your head. Not us.
So - I guess to answer your question again - No - I don’t see brain drain for the reasons of scripted, confining curriculum as much as for other reasons.
As a teacher who has taught in many different school settings and faced many different types of rigid curriculum structures, I wanted to respond to part of Sheryl’s earlier comment:
“I have come to find over the last 5 years, that no matter what program a teacher uses, if he/she is a “Picasso”, a scripted program does not take that ability away. Some are just natural born teachers, no matter what the system chooses to teach. The creative teacher finds a way to engage his/her students no matter what is required by district mandates.”
I think you’re right, but I wonder how many innovative teachers are actually given the freedom to stretch within these limits or break out of them. More importantly, this is incredibly difficult and frustrating for those great teachers, and it is one of the reasons many of us leave the profession in just a few years or at the very least find a school that allows the complete freedom they need.
I wonder if there are any administrators out there who have seen this Picasso brain drain as a result of these kinds of curricula?
As an administrator, I get the privilege of walking through classrooms every day. I am amazed at what I see happen in the very best classrooms. In the best classrooms you will see engaged and motivated students, and engaged and entertaining teachers, (Yes - the best teachers aren’t afraid to admit that they HAVE to entertain today’s students to get the best out of them.) Yet they maintain high expectations and high standards.
But…. there are some classrooms (maybe a third) that really do appreciate a sense of structure. Pacing guides, curriculum guides, assessment protocols and even grading and belief systems that are institutionalized to the point that the teacher knows what it means to “work here.
These are actually good teachers but they cannot devote the time it takes to create and implement original classroom lessons on a weekly basis.
My guess is that a third of the profession would actually be upgraded if they utilized a scripted program with a proven track record.
Our school has been a part of this very issue for the last 5 years. We were a district that qualified for Reading First funding due to our very low reading scores.
At the time that we qualified, we were a part of the Early Literacy program. We had training in all of the aspects of that program, had consultants in classrooms, Literacy coordinators and people from Wyoming and other states visiting our classrooms. We were happy teachers coming up with our own materials daily.
However, our test scores showed we were not accomplishing what we thought we were.
The staff became a part of Reading First, with resistance. It was a major shift in thinking. We adopted a reading series, and began training. Since that time, we have adopted supplemental and intervention programs based on our students needs, and we have seen dramatic results.
Through 5 years of training and a deeper understanding of how “most” students learn to read, our staff has learned a tremendous amount. We often comment about how it would be if we could video ourselves teaching now, and show it to ourselves 5 years ago. We have grown and learned so much, professionally and educationally through this process.
We use scripted programs, Houghton Mifflin (with additional materials that make it more scripted), Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading. However, these scripted programs, while at times boring for the teacher, are predictable in their delivery for the students. Our most naive learners respond best in a scripted program. We have found that they are comforted by the predictability of it. This allows the student to focus on the content, not the delivery.
Do I think that scripted programs take away a teachers ability to be creative?
I have come to find over the last 5 years, that no matter what program a teacher uses, if he/she is a “Picasso”, a scripted program does not take that ability away. Some are just natural born teachers, no matter what the system chooses to teach. The creative teacher finds a way to engage his/her students no matter what is required by district mandates.
I have also seen where a scripted program can support the new or less than confident teacher through parts of teaching language and reading skills that they may have swept under the rug in earlier years. Because they themselves are not comfortable with the subject matter, they do not teach it as well or as clearly as it should be.
I have seen positives emerge from a process that was not looked upon as positive in the beginning. Our students have been allowed an opportunity to have individualized “prescriptions” in reading skills needs that we were certainly not doing in the past. They have become more confident stronger readers.
I absolutely do not believe that learning to read with a scripted program is the only way in which to have success in reading. With a focus on student needs and a knowledgeable teacher any program will work for most of their students. However, the results that our district has gotten with scripted programs has been a positive experience for many teachers. Our teachers have commented on how much they have learned through trainings and observations of other classrooms. We have learned to change our focus from our own learning to students learning.
It seems that scripted programs leave out the creativity that many of us strive for. These canned programs appear to create an environment that is not totally flexible or able to adapt to the individual needs of our students. Often these are curriculums that are developed in urban environments that may not always be suitable for students outside of that setting. For a teacher who is already successfully meeting the needs of the students and the district’s expectations of raising test scores, such a program would probably be met with resistance.
However, having a research based program is the push for education and could be met with open arms for a new or struggling teacher who is just not getting the job done academically for the students. The structure of the program creates a situation that students can come to rely on on a daily basis and is transferable from school to school or grade to grade. Teachers can save time by knowing ahead of time what they will teach the next day and allow time to plan other activities that will further meet the students needs.
What I think staff need to ask themselves is whether creativity and flexibiliity s something they are willing to give up and put their faith in the hands of someone else’s curriculum. This seems too much of a black and white scenario with little room for gray areas. Do they want to become a Geiko commercial and start believing even a caveman can teach their classroom?
In a school like mine where there is no set curriculum, a scripted program would be appreciated. It creates intentionality with lessons and also the structure many of the classrooms lack. Additionally, there should be no overlap with specific lessons that can take place when no set curriculum exists. I would totally be in favor of this until the school got on board with curriculum mapping that takes into account the student individual needs and cultural values.
I think that scripted programs would be great if you had a young staff still trying to get comfortable with the whole teaching profession. Those teachers that are more experienced and have the skills to branch out, allow them to do so. If you have it, all can benefit from it, however, if your don’t have it, the students could be missing out.
In twelve years of teaching English, I’ve never experienced a scripted program with a rigid scope and sequence. This has left me to my own blank canvas of teaching English, and, unfortunately, I’m not a Picasso. I think I’m an effective teacher, but I’m left to question my isolation in the classroom. Oftentimes, I wonder if what I’m doing is developmentally appropriate for the students I teach. Can they handle this content? Is this too basic? Am I preparing them for the next level? What is the next level? These are just a few of the questions that I’m constantly asking. Yet, at this point in my career I don’t know if I’d want it the other way. A middle road would be nice–direction from the administration, yet enough freedom to creatively present this material.