Do ‘scripted’ education reform models produce better results than unscripted models?

Education Week reports:

A team of researchers from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, or CPRE, set out 13 years ago to answer such questions with a massive study that involved 115 elementary schools, 300 teachers, 800 school leaders, 7,500 students, and three brand-name models of comprehensive school reform.

Called the Study of Instructional Improvement, the project cost more than $20 million in federal and foundation money. Its aim was to get inside the “black box’’ of school improvement by tracking what teachers do on a daily basis, determining how those practices differed from those in a set of more typical schools, and figuring out if the changes had an impact on academic achievement.

While the work by CPRE eventually generated 40 published papers, the project’s capstone report came out just last month…

Over time, what the researchers found was that, while teachers in the 28 schools using the [less scripted] Accelerated Schools model were most likely to feel a sense of autonomy and trust in their schools, their teaching practices were not significantly different from those used in the 26 comparison schools. The study’s preliminary analyses suggest that students, likewise, did not learn any more than their control-group counterparts did…

In comparison, classes in the [more scripted] 31 America’s Choice schools and the 29 Success for All schools developed their own distinctive looks over time. The different instructional patterns, in turn, led to different, and more successful, student-achievement patterns.

The CPRE report is available here (PDF).

Advertisements

Comments are closed.