Reading · Paul’s Substack of Useful Information

boy in green sweater writing on white paper

In 2007 Siegfried Engelmann wrote, Teaching Needy Kids In Our Backward System: 42 Years of Trying. The book is an autobiographical account of Engelmann’s efforts to provide effective instruction to kids “at risk,” particularly children of poverty. Much of the book is spent on Project Follow Through (1968–1977), which involved 180 communities and over 200,000 children in grades kindergarten through third grade where he tested the efficacy of Direct Instruction curricula. His results were compared to 22 other models of teaching, from discovery learning to behavioral approaches. Direct Instruction ranked first in every measured category. It beat every other model tested. Yet his approach was not adopted by many school districts.

So I thought, there must be some elementary schools that use DI curriculum in both general education and special education. I decided to locate a few of them and report back.

Direct Instruction refers to curriculum developed in the 1960s by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley Becker, initially at the University of Illinois and subsequently further developed at the University of Oregon. Its commercial programs include Reading Mastery, Connecting Math Concepts, Spelling Mastery, Language for Learning, Corrective Reading, and Reasoning and Writing, among others. All are published today by McGraw-Hill and supported by the National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI) at nifdi.org.

DI has three defining features. First, every lesson is carefully scripted. Second, students are grouped by skill level rather than age or grade, and they move through the sequence only when they demonstrate mastery. Third, teachers ask frequent questions, students respond in unison, and the pace is designed to keep every child engaged.

John Hattie's 2009 synthesis of educational research, Visible Learning, examined four meta-analyses of DI covering 304 studies and more than 42,000 students. The average effect size of 0.59 means the typical DI student outperformed roughly 72 percent of students in conventional classrooms, the strongest result Hattie found for any curriculum. The American Federation of Teachers named DI one of six promising schoolwide reform programs. The American Institutes for Research gave it its highest rating among whole-school reform models.

The Baltimore Curriculum Project (BCP) started in 1996. Today BCP operates six neighborhood charter schools serving more than 3,000 students in Pre-K through 8th grade.

Direct Instruction is used primarily for reading and language arts. BCP academic coaches meet weekly with school leaders to review student data, identify students who need additional support, and accelerate those who are ready to move ahead. The DI programs assess students every five to ten lessons.

Baltimore City Public Schools ranks among the lowest-performing in Maryland, with approximately 23 percent of students proficient in reading and 11 percent proficient in math across the district. Within that same city, Hampstead Hill Academy reports reading proficiency rates of 63 to 69 percent and math proficiency of 44 to 47 percent. In 2025, Hampstead Hill was the only Baltimore City Public School to receive a five-star rating on the Maryland State Report Card. It ranks in the top 30 percent of all elementary schools in Maryland and fourth among all elementary schools in Baltimore.

BCP has been candid about uneven results, particularly in mathematics. In recent years, BCP acknowledged that while DI has driven consistent gains in reading, math outcomes varied by school. BCP has been transitioning to a new mathematics program called Reveal Mathematics while keeping DI for reading.

For more information: baltimorecp.org

Arthur Academy operates six tuition-free public charter elementary schools in the greater Portland area. The school was founded on the principle that Direct Instruction, properly implemented, can serve every child, not just those falling behind. Bonnie Grossen, a long time DI researcher and advocate, chairs the board of directors. The schools serve students in kindergarten through fifth grade.

The six campuses are David Douglas Arthur Academy (Portland), Portland Arthur Academy, Gresham Arthur Academy (Gresham), Reynolds Arthur Academy (Troutdale), St. Helens Arthur Academy, and Woodburn Arthur Academy. Each uses DI programs as the core curriculum for all students across all academic levels.

The test score data across the network is mixed but generally positive, particularly when student demographics are taken into account. Portland Arthur Academy, serves a student body that is 49 percent economically disadvantaged. They reported a reading proficiency of 67 percent and math proficiency of 37 percent. Both are above Oregon state averages (44 percent reading, 33 percent math). In the 2024–2025 school year, Portland Arthur Academy’s 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade English Language Arts proficiency rates reached 77, 60, and 71 percent, compared to 55, 59, and 60 percent for the Portland public school district. Gresham Arthur Academy reported a 77 percent reading proficiency and a 44 percent math proficiency, above the Gresham-Barlow district averages of 39 percent reading and 22 percent math. Reynolds Arthur Academy, serving a population that is 71 percent economically disadvantaged, consistently outperforms its local district in both reading and math, and its 5th grade ELA proficiency rate of 54 percent compares to the district’s 27 percent.

Arthur Academy’s commitment to DI is not without criticism. Some parents and observers objected to the emphasis on repetition, choral responding, and to the discipline required to maintain the instructional pace. Others are emphatic in their support. “This school is amazing,” one David Douglas Arthur Academy parent wrote online. “It’s a small public charter school that excels in teaching kids to read, write, and do math all before leaving kindergarten.” Another Portland Arthur Academy parent wrote: “This school has changed my son’s life. The teachers and staff care deeply about every single student.” The contrast in perceptions reflects a genuine disagreement that surrounds Direct Instruction: the method produces measurable results, but the experience of being in a scripted, fast-paced classroom does not appeal to all teachers.

For more information: arthuracademy.org

Morningside Academy occupies a unique place in the DI universe. Founded in 1980 by Kent R. Johnson, Ph.D., it is a small private school in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood serving students in grades 1 through 9. Tuition runs approximately $25,400 per year. The school is accredited and has never been replicated at scale, but it has influenced thousands of educators through its Morningside Teachers’ Academy, which has trained professionals in more than 150 schools and agencies across North America and Europe.

What makes Morningside distinctive is its use of Direct Instruction and the way it combines DI with two other systems: Precision Teaching, developed by Ogden Lindsley, and Think-Aloud Problem Solving (TAPS), based on the work of Arthur Whimbey. Together, these form what Johnson calls the Morningside Model of Generative Instruction.

Direct Instruction is used to build skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. Once students have mastered those skills to fluency, (a concept central to Precision Teaching) instruction shifts toward reasoning and problem solving using TAPS protocols. The goal is what Morningside calls generativity: the ability to apply learned skills in novel contexts that were never explicitly taught.

Most of Morningside’s students have normal intelligence yet arrive having failed in conventional school settings. Many carry diagnoses of dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, or ADHD. Some simply arrived in the wrong classroom at the wrong time and fell behind. The school does not serve students with significant behavioral or developmental disabilities.

The outcomes are among the most thoroughly documented of any small private school in the country. An 11-year study of standardized achievement test gains found that reading averaged 2.5 grade levels of growth per school year, language arts approached 4 grade levels of growth per year, and mathematics exceeded 3 grade levels of growth per year. Over more than 40 years, less than one percent of tuition has ever been refunded under Morningside’s standing guarantee: any student who does not gain at least two grade levels in their area of greatest deficit within one school year receives a full tuition refund.

Parent responses to Morningside tend toward the emphatic. “After third grade in public schools with an IEP and during the pandemic, he was far behind and hated school,” one parent wrote. “He has been at Morningside for two years now and has progressed from one to two years behind grade level to grade level or better in all areas.” There is an intensive data tracking system. Students learn to plot their own data on Standard Celeration Charts, which provides a measure of their performance. Students and parents receive daily progress reports.

For more information: morningsideacademy.org

Mt. Helix Academy is a private, non-sectarian school in the La Mesa area of San Diego County, operated by The Institute for Effective Education (TIEE). It was acquired by TIEE in 1994 and is located at 5955 Severin Drive, La Mesa, California. The school serves students from transitional kindergarten through 8th grade and is one of the very few schools in the country that uses full schoolwide Direct Instruction for both general education and special education students.

The curriculum includes Reading Mastery, Connecting Math Concepts, Spelling Mastery, and Language for Learning. The school also integrates Precision Teaching and Applied Behavior Analysis. TIEE also operates four other San Diego-area schools: Children’s Workshop, Mission Valley Academy, COOK Education Center, and Urban Skills Center. Those schools serve students with IEPs through contracts with local public school districts. Mt. Helix Academy is the only TIEE school that teaches general education students alongside its special education program.

Academic performance is as follows:

Reading Performance (Spring 2024) — Median National Percentile Rank by Grade Level

Math Performance (Spring 2024) — Median National Percentile Rank by Grade Level

Middle School

The academy reports that for their junior high cohort, 63% of students scored in the top quartile (the top 25% nationally) on at least one SAT-10 subtest, and 32% scored in the top decile (the top 10% nationally).

This data also mirrors the “3rd Grade Cliff” phenomenon acknowledged by IDEA Public Schools. At Mt. Helix, the median national percentiles normalize in the middle grades (dropping closer to the 50th and 60th percentiles). This reflects the inherent shift in educational demands: early grades test foundational decoding and computation, where DI excels at building rapid fluency, while upper grades test broader comprehension, vocabulary, and abstract reasoning. Nevertheless, the median student at Mt. Helix still consistently performs at or above the national average in every grade and subject.

Both schools are featured by NIFDI in their documentary Helping Kids Soar.

Emerson Elementary is a small public school in Alliance, a rural town in western Nebraska. Fickett Elementary is a public school in Atlanta, Georgia. Both implemented the full schoolwide DI model with NIFDI support and both documented significant academic gains across their student populations, including students who were already performing at or above grade level when the program began.

At Emerson, student performance improved substantially. By 2002, 100 percent of its fourth graders met or exceeded state standards in reading and 92 percent did so in math. Teachers and parents reportedly liked the program. However, DI is no longer used in the district. Emerson moved away from DI following changes in district leadership and the expiration of a grant. Based on the district’s recent Title I Schoolwide Plans, Emerson Elementary currently uses Amplify CKLA (Core Knowledge Language Arts) for its core reading curriculum across its K–2 classrooms. They also use mCLASS Burstand Amplify Reading for their reading interventions. For mathematics, they recently transitioned to a new series called Reveal Math.

Principal Cheryl Twyman transformed Fickett Elementary from one of the lowest-performing schools in Atlanta to a “School of Excellence.” Student proficiency in reading and math improved, and the school received national attention for closing the achievement gap. For example, 75 percent of all students met second grade reading mastery criteria.

The administration eventually transitioned Fickett away from Direct Instruction toward an International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme, which heavily emphasizes inquiry-based learning and discovery methods, a departure from DI. for example, they use HMH Into Reading and the Primary Years Program (PYP) curricula. However, because of the new state laws forcing districts back toward the "Science of Reading," Fickett is now having to integrate structured, systematic phonics back into that inquiry based IB framework.

Today, the school’s academic performance is struggling. Based on the most recent state testing aggregations for the 2024–2025/2025–2026 reporting cycles, Fickett Elementary’s scores are: Reading/Language Arts Proficiency: 16 percent; Math Proficiency: 16 percent.

I note the 16 percent proficiency data to provide a quantifiable contrast between the outcomes of the school’s historical, structured DI program and its current inquiry based model.

IDEA Public Schools is a large, well regarded charter network serving more than 76,000 students across 125 campuses in Texas. Its population is predominantly Hispanic and economically disadvantaged. IDEA partnered with NIFDI to implement Direct Instruction in all Pre-K through 2nd grade classrooms across its elementary schools.

IDEA has integrated DI into a hybrid model that combines scripted instruction with computer-based instruction. Computer-based curricula include DreamBox Math, Imagine Math, The ARZone, Renaissance Accelerated Reader, and MyOn.

In grades K–2, DI is the primary core curriculum for reading, language, and math. All students in these grades participate in DI groups daily. The district specifically utilizes Reading Mastery Transformations to ensure students are fluent readers by the end of 2nd grade. IDEA also uses Direct Instruction Spoken English (DISE) for English Language Learners and Direct Instruction Decoding for students identified as dyslexic.

According to IDEA’s most recent District Improvement Plan (published for the 2024–2025 school year, reflecting Spring 2024 data): 85% of all 2nd graders ended the year reading on grade level. In specific high performing regions, like the Rio Grande Valley and Permian Basin, over 90% of 2nd graders ended the year reading on grade level. For students who are two or more grade levels behind, IDEA reported that 42% grew two full reading years or reached grade level reading by the end of the year.

Once students transition out of the K–2 DI block, they begin taking the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). Based on Spring 2024 district-wide aggregations: approximately 73 to 75% of all tests reached grade level (passing); approximately 46 to 47% met the proficient standard; and approximately 18% mastered grade level. IDEA consistently sees stronger performance in English Language Arts and Reading than in mathematics. This pattern mirrors the math struggles noted at the Baltimore Curriculum Project.

An instructive data point emerged in IDEA’s internal review. In their Improvement Plan, district leaders formally noted a gap between their K–2 successes and upper-elementary testing: “There is not a correlation between the end of year 2nd grade reading proficiency and 3rd grade reading STAAR performance.” This illustrates a consequence of DI implementations. Even when a DI program successfully teaches 85 to 90 percent of children to decode and read fluently by age 8, maintaining those gains requires an equally rigorous, knowledge-building curriculum when state testing begins in 3rd grade.

For more information: ideapublicschools.org

The experience of Direct Instruction is polarizing in a way that other evidence-based reforms generally are not. The scripted lessons, the choral responding, the fast pace, and the regrouping of students based on data, all depart significantly from what most teachers were trained to do and what most parents expect.

Teachers who resist DI most often describe the scripted lessons as deprofessionalizing. They feel that the script takes away their judgment and reduces them to a delivery mechanism. Some teachers who have worked through that initial resistance describe a different experience: that once students have the foundational skills that DI instills, the classroom becomes richer, not poorer, because students can actually engage with content at a meaningful level. Teachers who participated in a multi-school DI implementation in Broward County, Florida, noted that while some initially felt the repetition was boring for faculty, over time they found ways to innovate within the structure and became drawn into the model.

Parents who choose DI schools tend to be persuaded by outcomes. The consistent testimony at Arthur Academy, Morningside, BCP schools, and Mt. Helix is that their children learned to read with speed and accuracy in ways that had not happened in previously attended schools. Parents and professionals who are unhappy with DI schools tend to look for project-based learning, creative discovery, and child-led inquiry.

Administrators who sustained DI implementations over years emphasize two things consistently. First, training matters. DI materials sold commercially without the accompanying coaching and data systems may produce mediocre results; DI with full NIFDI implementation support produces the results described in the research literature. Second, DI implementations may become upended when principals change, when district leadership shifts, or when budget pressure forces cuts to coaching. The quality of implementation may worsen. The schools that have sustained excellent DI outcomes over decades have tended to have stable leadership and an institutional culture that protects the model from the pressures that erode school reforms.

Several school districts have transitioned from Direct Instruction to newer curricula like Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA), a shift often driven by budget constraints. While both programs require purchasing physical materials, DI demands a much steeper upfront and ongoing financial investment. According to the Institute of Education Sciences, initial DI student materials run $100 to $150 per student, with teacher presentation sets costing $600 to $1,000 per grade level. However, the true financial differentiator is the cost of maintaining instructional fidelity. A full implementation contract with the National Institute for Direct Instruction (NIFDI)—which includes remote coaching at $121 per hour, data review at $62.50 per hour, and multi-day leadership academies at $2,750 per session—can easily cost a mid-sized school $50,000 to over $100,000 just for coaching and monitoring in its first year. In contrast, CKLA operates on a more standard pricing model. Student consumables typically cost $35 to $50 per student, and while teacher kits range from $1,500 to $2,500 per classroom, the associated training costs are significantly lower. Instead of year-round, weekly behavioral coaching, CKLA relies on standard professional development workshops priced between $2,500 and $5,000 per day for the entire staff, making it a considerably cheaper model to adopt and maintain.

If Direct Instruction remains rare in American classrooms, the reason is unlikely to be lack of evidence. More often, it reflects the difficulty of changing institutional habits: how universities prepare teachers, how administrators are trained, and how schools provide instruction. Most Colleges of Education have a developmental, cognitive, constructionist orientation which is at odds with the learning principles behind Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction principles were developed through the scientific method and applied to produce DI curricula. That is, they developed and tested the lessons empirically, with curricula revised until student mastery data confirmed they worked Not all curricula are developed this way. Frequently curricula are determined by theory with the research to follow afterward.

The poster child for bad curricula is the whole language approach to reading. The nationwide abandonment of the whole-language approach and the acceptance of curriculum based on the ‘science of reading’ is, one hopes, a step in the right direction.

PS. Perhaps one way to increase DI popularity would be to recreate a Morningside School type of school with a large enough budget, to be in a beautiful building in an affluent neighborhood instead of a low income neighborhood. When the student’s academics become stellar, publish news about the school, bring some publicity. Charge a substantial tuition so costs can be covered and make a decent profit. Perhaps other schools would follow suit.

Direct Instruction in American Classrooms

Comments