Recent poor ITBS scores among Cedar Rapids Elementary schools have been blamed in part on poverty. While poverty is known to be strongly correlated with poor performance on standardized tests, schools can have a profound impact on the effects of poverty by changing the type of instruction provided.

In the United States, the theory of Constructivism dominates the way schoolchildren are currently taught. The underlying principle of Constructivism is that there is no such thing as external knowledge, and that all knowledge must be created by the individual. Advocates argue that children must "learn to learn" by the use of hands-on activities and cooperative learning, with teachers "guiding" or "facilitating" rather than teaching content or facts. As an extension of this "progressive" education we see such notions as "child-centered learning" and "developmentally appropriate practices". The goal is to create "lifelong learners" with "higher order" and "critical thinking" skills. It must be emphasized that with rare exceptions, the vast majority of American schools are based on the theory of Constructivism.

At the other end of the spectrum are Instructivists, who believe that external knowledge does exist, and that teachers are the "expert" and have the duty to impart this valuable information to their students. An example is "Direct Instruction", a specific technique using whole group instruction, structured lessons, and a high degree of interaction with the teacher, often in the form of choral response. Children are grouped by ability so the pace is appropriate.

Given the widespread adoption of Constructivism, it is natural to assume that there must be a reasonable scientific body of evidence to support its use. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Remarkably, there is no mainstream, plausible quantitative data to support the implementation of Constructivism. On the contrary, there is excellent evidence that Instructivism is the markedly superior approach to teaching.

School administrators frequently talk about a "research based" curriculum and commonly tell us that their methods are "in accordance with what we know about how children learn." But these claims are enormously misleading. High quality, quantitative, meaningful research in the field of education is scarce. The majority of what is claimed to be research is actually opinion, guesswork and inferences.

However, one study does stand out. Project Follow Through was the largest educational research study ever performed, costing over a billion dollars. This federally funded study, targeted at disadvantaged youth, followed schoolchildren for over 20 years, measuring outcome with many different measures. The teaching methods studied included both Constructivist and Instructivist techniques. The results showed clearly that Instructivist approaches were far superior on every measure, including achievement, problem solving, and self esteem. In addition, children receiving Instructivist teaching were less likely to drop out of school and more likely to attend college. Schools that adopt Instructivist techniques have reported fewer behavior problems and a decrease in the number of students diagnosed as learning disabled. On the other hand, every single Constructivist method tested performed more poorly, on every measure studied, than the control groups!

Although originally targeted at disadvantaged children, Direct Instruction has been tested extensively in diverse groups of students, such as the middle class and the gifted, and have been shown to be highly successful in each. However, the most dramatic gains are seen in the most impoverished groups. When stories are reported in the media about the exceptional performance of an inner city school, it is almost always due to the implementation of some form of Instructivism. Critics scorn instructivist methods, disparaging them as "drill and kill" and rote memorization. This is a gross misrepresentation and only reveals their ignorance of the technique. There is not a shred of plausible evidence that direct instruction is anything but highly beneficial. In fact, "progressive" education is actually highly regressive, having hurt low-income children most of all.

A new paradigm for determining how and what our children are taught in public schools is long overdue. Decisions about curricula and teaching methods must be made based on quantitative, high quality, mainstream research, rather than solely on ideology. We must insist that schools of education cease teaching future teachers as if Constructivism is the only valid instructional method.

The school district should abandon it's unsubstantiated ideology and take immediate steps to convert some of the worst performing local schools to those that offer Direct Instruction. Give parents the ability to make choices for our children and our community can once again be proud to send our children to Cedar Rapids schools.