by JC Bowman
American education has never lacked new ideas. Each generation brings reforms, teaching methods, or programs that promise better results. Some help. Others waste time, money, and effort.
Some ideas merit a second look when the evidence is strong. Direct Instruction is one of them. Siegfried “Zig” Engelmann and his colleagues developed it in the 1960s. A college professor introduced me to the concept in the 1980s, so I was familiar with Engelmann’s work.
Direct Instruction is one of the most studied approaches in American education. Yet many people misunderstand it. They call it scripted teaching, rote learning, or a teacher talking while students listen. That is not the point.
Engelmann believed educators should first examine how they teach when students struggle. They should not assume students lack ability or motivation. His central idea was simple: nearly all children can learn difficult material when lessons are well designed, organized, taught, and reinforced.
Direct Instruction is not just telling students what to do. It is about designing lessons that help students learn. Lessons follow a clear sequence. Teachers introduce ideas, model skills, guide practice, check understanding, correct errors immediately, and build toward independent work. Students respond frequently. They do not just sit and listen.
Direct Instruction refers to a specific set of programs. It is not the same as the broader practice of explicit instruction, which many effective teachers already use.
Direct Instruction is not lecturing, worksheets, or memorization alone. It is not rigid classroom control, nor does it remove teacher judgment. Its goal is to build the knowledge students need to think for themselves. Critical thinking is sorely lacking in K-16 education. Students who cannot read will struggle with complex texts. Students who lack basic math skills will face unnecessary barriers in advanced problem-solving.
Structure and creativity can work together. Good teaching needs both.
The strongest early evidence on Direct Instruction came from Project Follow Through, a federal education initiative launched in 1968. The federal government should have highlighted the program once it was proven successful. The project served more than 200,000 children across 178 communities. Its national evaluation compared teaching models for disadvantaged elementary students and measured basic skills, cognitive growth, and student self-concept. The results mattered.
Direct Instruction produced positive results across all three areas. In the original evaluation, it was the only model that consistently showed positive outcomes in basic skills, cognitive skills, and self-concept. The findings challenged the notion that structured teaching limits thinking or confidence. Despite the strength and consistency of the findings, the U.S. Office of Education chose not to disseminate them.
Project Follow Through was not perfect. Researchers raised valid concerns about student selection, implementation differences, statistical methods, and interpretation. Still, the results remain important. Later research has also found positive outcomes linked to Direct Instruction.
The question for Tennessee is whether this approach can work with our academic standards. The answer is yes, with important limits. Tennessee’s standards state what students should know and do. Curriculum and teaching methods determine how they get there.
Direct Instruction could support Tennessee’s literacy goals through systematic instruction in phonics, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. In math, its ordered lessons could strengthen basic skills and problem-solving. It may also help special education students and those who need extra support.
But no curriculum should win approval based only on its research record. Each program must meet Tennessee standards, state literacy rules, approved materials requirements, and student needs. Adopting Direct Instruction should not mean giving up teacher professionalism.
Teachers are not machines that deliver a program. They know their students, track progress, provide support, and exercise judgment. Good materials should support that work, not replace it.
Tennessee could start with a voluntary pilot in several interested schools. Select participating schools and give them flexibility in how they implement the program. Teachers would receive strong training. Schools would use carefully chosen programs and measure achievement and student growth against comparable comparison groups. Implementation matters.
An independent evaluation should assess academic outcomes, costs, teacher experiences, and whether students retain their gains. Districts may need support with training, research reviews, and teacher feedback. We would be glad to participate or assist.
The goal should not be another statewide mandate or a sales pitch for a single publisher. It should be to identify practices that help children learn. Engelmann’s lasting lesson was simple: judge teaching by student learning, not by popularity or fad. Tennessee should follow that principle.
Educators deserve more than another promising program. They deserve sound evidence, strong training, and the professional respect needed to do their work well. Above all, children deserve instruction that gives them a real chance to succeed. Direct Instruction deserves the chance to demonstrate whether it works where other programs have failed.
– – –
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee.
