What is individualized instruction?

Individualized instruction is aphylum rather than aspecies of approaches to teaching. Problems of definition, usage, and shifting point of view contribute to the increasingly indiscriminate use of the term. One way of analyzing the collection of individualized programs, practices, and materials is to sort outfamilies of approaches and to organize them into a simple classification system according to their distinguishing characteristics. The differentspecies within families can be more precisely described in profiles that outline the treatment given to each major element of instruction. The ideal implicit in the programs seems to be separate, appropriate instruction for each student, but the ideal program has yet to be developed.

---

Résumé L'Instruction individualisée est unphylum plûtot qu'uneespèce d'approche à l'enseignement. Les problèmes de définition, d'usage, et de point de vue changeant contribuent au fait qu'on emploie ce terme de plus en plus sans discrimination. Une méthode d'analyser la collection des programmes et des matériaux individuels est de classer par catégories desfamilles d'approches selon leurs caractéristiques spécifiques. On peut décrire les divers genres dans les familles de façon plus précise en esquissant la méthode de traiter chaque élément d'instruction. II semble que l'idéal implicite des programmes est l'instruction séparée et propre à chaque étudiant, mais on n'a pas encore développé le programme idéal.

---

---

This article is based on a monograph in preparation at Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University. It will appear in the seriesTheory and Research in Teaching, A. A. Bellack, general editor.     

Spoken language development in oral preschool children with permanent childhood deafness

This article documented spoken language outcomes for preschool children with hearing loss and examined the relationships between language abilities and characteristics of children such as degree of hearing loss, cognitive abilities, age at entry to early intervention, and parent involvement in children's intervention programs. Participants were evaluated using a combination of the Child Development Inventory, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Preschool Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals depending on their age at the time of assessment. Maternal education, cognitive ability, and family involvement were also measured. Over half of the children who participated in this study had poor language outcomes overall. No significant differences were found in language outcomes on any of the measures for children who were diagnosed early and those diagnosed later. Multiple regression analyses showed that family participation, degree of hearing loss, and cognitive ability significantly predicted language outcomes and together accounted for almost 60% of the variance in scores. This article highlights the importance of family participation in intervention programs to enable children to achieve optimal language outcomes. Further work may clarify the effects of early diagnosis on language outcomes for preschool children.     

Why are there proportionately more poor pupils enrolled in non-state schools in urban Kenya in spite of FPE policy?

One of the conundrums of free primary education (FPE) policy in several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa is the ‘mushrooming’ of fee-paying private schools. Several researchers have become interested in studying this phenomenon and have raised the question—does free primary education meet the needs of the poor? Emerging voices among this group of researchers suggest that the impact of FPE, particularly in meeting the educational needs of the poor may be over-stated in situations where the poor still utilize what is referred to as ‘private schools for the poor’. The concerns expressed by those voicing this point of view point to the question of why the poor choose fee-paying [low quality] private schools when there is, presumably a free state school? To respond to this question and to contribute to this debate, this paper adopts the excess demand and differentiated demand frameworks to analyse how slum (poor) and non-slum (non-poor) parents utilize education in Nairobi, Kenya following the implementation of free primary education policy in 2003. We conclude that the answer to the ‘mushrooming’ of private schools for the poor is ‘excess demand’. As to whether free primary education meets the needs of the poor, we argue that where supply does not match demand excess demand is likely to arise in the initial stages. We recommend that what is required is greater and possibly differentiated and better targeted investment in education whereby unequals are treated unequally in order for the Kenyan government not to under-invest in the education of the poor.