I was reading an Education Week article this morning about tutoring and how the provision on tutoring is playing out with NCLB renewal. The article cites a study that demonstrates how students’ test scores grew faster in years in which they had received tutoring than in years they hadn’t. I don't even understand how that's a surprise.
While politicians and educrats are squabbling over how much money this is costing, I'm wondering why no one is asking why tutoring is effective? How are they doing it? Why aren't we transfering some of these (dare I say it?) methods of direct and guided instruction to the classroom?
And yes, I do realize that there is a significant difference between teaching a class of 24 students and tutoring one or a few children. However, is that the only variable creating the chasm in learning? Could it possibly be that the type of instruction (DIRECT) is making a difference? Isn't the point of education having the child actually learning something or are we ready to admit that the pedagogical theory takes precedence over the objective of actually teaching our children?
Maybe I just don't get it.