Success for All (SFA): Real Lessons for Open Source Advocates
Success for All (SFA) is a research-based reading program that was developed at Johns Hopkins University.
The program is popular, expensive, and it increases student reading levels!
The SFA Program relies on structured teaching and no-child-dropped-through-the-cracks tutoring. The focus is on teaching students to read on their instructional level, rather than their frustration level. (Note: the “instructional level” is the level where the students can read at least 80% of the words without struggling or making mistakes. The “frustration level” is reading material that is more difficult than this.)
The SFA Program is pretty much non-technological, or at least it was when I saw it in action. So, how does the SFA Program relate to advocating Open Source Solutions?
- The goals of both Open Source advocates and SFA are to enhance, promote and support quality and effective instruction…and to drive successful teaching and learning reforms
- Both Open Source advocates’ and SFA focus upon basic, no frills, cost-effective approaches
- Both Open Source advocates’ recommendations and SFA’s recommendations are “expensive” to implement
- In the case of SFA’s recommendations, hiring the extra tutoring staff is “expensive”
- In the case of Open Source advocates’s recommendations, providing the requisite professional development, professional development follow-up support, training, and technical support is “expensive”
- Both Open Source advocates’ packages and SFA offer a viable solution. Neither offers an exclusive solution, and neither offers a solution that precludes the integration of competitor’s products.
- Both Open Source advocates’ packages and SFA require teacher and campus administrator buy-in before the program will be effective
- Both Open Source advocates’ Technology Integration initiatives and SFA encounter school district executive balking at the cost of their programs (done right). But, in both cases, the real question is whether the district can afford to continue on their current path. Can the district afford not to establish quality teaching and improved instructional outcomes by maintaining the status quo?
It is “penny wise and pound ton foolish to skimp on programs with a proven track record, in favor of the low-cost or no-additional-cost status quo, or “free or cheap” alternatives. And, SFA has the wisdom (and clout) to refuse to allow its program to be implemented in any school district that lacks the commitment to implement the program correctly.
However, there is one distinction between the two approaches that Open Source advocates might consider adopting (once our movement gains enough momentum), i.e., when Open Source becomes self-sustaining. We might want to “pre-qualify” campuses or school districts before we allow them to adopt our packages.
For example, SFA requires that all staff attend pre-adoption briefings, that a campus send leaders to another school that is successfully implementing the SFA Program, and that at least 80% of the campus staff vote on implementing the program.
The wisdom and beauty of this strategy is that the program is implemented only where the key staff (that must make the program work) want it. That way, the subtle stonewalling, subversive subterfuge, and sneaky slacking don’t intervene to sink the program’s success.
Nothing is worse for pushing a program that aggravates teacher, who then tell all their friends that a program “stinks.”
Nothing can be worse for promoting Open Source Solutions than for ill-defined projects that are stuffed up (and into) teachers’ bodily orifices (because of district budget shortfalls or executive decision-maker knowledge shortfalls).
In the long run, Open Source advocates, like SFA, will probably find that our long-term success is better served in pre-screening potential clients; and ensuring that these clients have the wherewithal and the buy-in to give the project a fair chance of success.
On the other hand, Open Source advocates might also look for failed Open Source projects around the nation, and offer our packages and expertise to turn these projects into success showcases.
Open Source advocates might also adopt a formula that communicates realistic costs for any Open Source Solution.
For example, program costs might break out (in descending level of importance) as…
- 30% professional development
- 10% technical staff training
- 30% technical support
- 30% hardware/ software/ infrastructure
- ___
- 100%
Plus: an additional
- 20% for contingencies and emergencies
The confusion that needs to be cleared up with school district decision-makers is that “division by zero is an undefined” error.
This error creeps in because Open Source advocates often view the project as a “software” initiative. Of course, the project is an instructional/ teaching and learning project…not a software project. (Software is chosen only after applications and outcomes are identified, and we know what work is to be completed.) So, instead of calculating the project budget based upon 30% for professional development (the most crucial piece of the project), the advocate and uninformed district executive decision-makers fixate on the “0% cost of software” myth.
Here is how the project plays out on a $100,000.00 budget…
- $30,000 for professional development
- $10,000 for technical staff training
- $30,000 for technical support – Salaries and Overtime to support a Service Level Agreement (SLA)
- $30,000 for hardware. software and infrastructure (wiring, access points, switch ports, directory services, portfolio storage, etc.)
- _______
- Total $100,000.00
The unwise technology strategy (often typical) is to try to buy as many computers as possible, and handle the other budget items elsewhere, i.e., professional development, such as it is, out of Title I Part D program funds, and support from the IT Department budget.
This shortsighted approach also narrows perception to the current budget year, failing to account for multiple-year professional development requirements and multi-year computer purchasing cycles and reasonable computer refresh rates.
(Note: The strategy of extending the life of three year old computer systems by installing labs of Linux computers also may also represent a long-term detriment to our Open Source movement.)
The “resuscitate and salvage old computers” strategy leads to…
- A perception that Open Source is for old computers, maybe not ready for “prime time”
- That a five year refresh cycle instead of a reasonable, industry-standard three year cycle is satisfactory
- That labs represent a viable strategy for enhancing student learning by bypassing the need for teacher professional development
- That easy of use desktops metaphors can substitute for professional development
- That old computers can be sent to elementary school where they need less “computing power”
What is needed is the understanding that changing how teachers teach and how teachers use technology for instruction is the crucial (independent) variable, and that the operating system that is installed is a minor player (dependent variable) in the technology integration game.
As long as the computer solutions are scalable, interoperable, are easy to use and are available at both home and school; professional development is the key variable (and the budget item that must be funded and calculated first.
So, Open Source advocates can learn a lot from the SFA program. Perhaps current Open Source advocates can provide other parallels and other distinctions.
It may be true that quality instructional programs are expensive, but our students (and their future wellbeing) are worth the cost. It is great the Open Source advocates and SFA have so much to offer to student programs.
