Why is the role of the teacher changing in our schools? According to our County Performance Report, teachers are now to become "facilitators of learning."

Read the Mission Statements and Belief Statements from our county and many of our schools and you will see that academic instruction is becoming less "teacher-directed."

What should be the role of teachers in our schools? Should they be "facilitators," as the County Performance Report suggests? Or should they be "imparters of knowledge and skills," as they have been in the past?

Before any answers can be drawn, these roles need to be defined. The definition of a facilitator is: "Someone who makes things easier; who assists the progress of another."

In practice this means someone who sets up, coordinates, and monitors activities. In this new role, which is endorsed by our county school administration, teachers are no longer responsible for educating your children. They simply assist the progress of the children educating themselves.

Here is what the County Performance Report calls for: "The roles of teachers and students in the learning process are being redefined so that teachers become facilitators of learning and that students assume the role of worker in that they are directly participating in their own learning."

Didn't children directly participate in their own learning in the past? Isn't paying attention as the teacher teaches, reading assignments, answering questions, doing the assigned work, getting graded for one's work, all direct participation? The county obviously has another interpretation of that statement.

Teachers are now being called on to "facilitate," which by definition does not mean to teach or educate, but merely to make the progress of another easier. Children become the teachers of themselves and each other, through "cooperative learning," "group learning," "peer tutoring," and "student-directed learning."

These all mean the same thing: The teacher assigns work, either individually or to groups, then monitors the progress and answers the questions. Cooperative learning primarily emphasizes "learning to learn" skills and focuses on attitudes about self and about learning. The secondary emphasis is on academic skills.

Now let's turn to the traditional role of "teacher." The definition of a teacher is: "Someone who imparts knowledge or skill; gives instruction, educates."

In a "teacher- directed classroom" the teacher explains directly what students need to learn, and then instructs and demonstrates those skills, through various means. This style of teaching requires significant structure and lesson planning.

The major difference in this style of classroom is that students learn the core knowledge directly from the teacher. The second difference is that learning and most work is done individually, rather than through group work. Students are graded individually and are responsible for their own behavior and their own work.

The primary emphasis of teacher-directed learning is on academic skills. The differences in these two roles of the teacher is significant. Which role is best to teach our children?

The logical way to answer that is to look at research which has been done, which compares the two styles. One large study, called Project Follow Through, was conducted by the US Dept. of Education over a five-year period in the 1970s. This was the largest educational study ever done, covering 79,000 children in 180 communities. This study examined a variety of programs and educational philosophies.

The results of the study show that the program which gave the best results was Teacher-Directed Instruction. Students receiving Direct Instruction did better than those in all other programs when tested in reading, arithmetic, spelling, and language.

But what about "higher order thinking skills" and self-esteem? Direct Instruction improved cognitive skills dramatically relative to the control groups and also showed the highest improvement in self-esteem scores compared to control groups.

In a review of this study, Dr. Jeffrey M. Jones states: "The inescapable conclusion of Project Follow Through is that kids enrolled in educational programs, which have well-defined academic objectives, will enjoy greater achievement in basic skills, thinking skills, and self-esteem. Self-esteem in fact appears to derive from pride in becoming competent in the important academic skills."

Further research has been done by R. Gersten and T. Keating on the long term effects of students who have received Teacher-Directed Instruction. Their findings have shown that children receiving Direct Instruction were much more likely to graduate from high school and to be accepted into college, and to show long-term gains in reading, language, and math scores.

Actual case studies have been done in a variety of schools using Direct Instruction. One such school in Houston, which is an inner-city, high-risk school, ranks among the best schools in Houston. Their scores for first grade reading tests place them in the 82nd percentile, which is 50 points higher than the expected level for similar at-risk schools.

There are many more studies which validate the superiority of Teacher-directed Instruction, when compared to other forms of instruction, such as Student-directed Learning. These are documented, scientifically researched studies. They clearly show that Teacher-Directed Learning is the most effective way to teach children.

The question needs to be asked: Why is our county school administration encouraging and training teachers to become "facilitators"? Why is our school system moving away from Teacher-Directed Learning and moving toward Student-Directed Learning? Where is the research which shows that Student-Directed Learning is a better way of providing an education?

It is time the county school administration started publicly answering these questions.