Project Follow Through

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project Follow Through (FT) was a US government education program for disadvantaged preschoolers. With over 100,000 students participating in 180 school communities and costing around a billion dollars, it remains the world's largest educational experiment to this day. It began in 1967 as part of President Johnson's war on poverty and lasted until 1995.

history

The US Department of Education (DOE) and the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969) wanted to break the cycle of poverty through better education. It was known that poor school performance was directly related to poverty. Poor education led to fewer economic opportunities in later working life and thus created poverty in the next generation.

Follow Through, originally planned as a social plan to expand the Head-Start program for preschoolers, became an educational experiment with the aim of finding effective methods for teaching disadvantaged children. The project became a national training laboratory and offered a unique opportunity to study the effectiveness of different teaching methods.

The models approved by the Department of Education were developed by educationalists. The only exception was the Direct Instruction model , a special form of class teaching developed by the preschool teacher Siegfried Engelmann from Illinois , who had no formal training in educational methods. While the educationalists relied on the pedagogical theories of John Dewey and Jean Piaget , Engelmann developed the Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading (DISTAR or Direct Instruction) model in collaboration with fellow teachers , which was based on practical experience. Engelmann had developed careful teaching with his own children at an early age from 1963, with which he believed that he could also reach children from poor backgrounds, since they would not learn differently from his children. In 1970, the University of Oregon took over the patronage of the Engelmann-Becker team for direct instruction .

The preliminary results of the 1974 study indicated that only two models, Direct Instruction and the Kansas Behavioral Analysis Model , showed positive results. In 1977 the Ford Foundation, which financed several unsuccessful models, commissioned the Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation at the University of Illinois to conduct an additional, unofficial evaluation of the follow-through results. The resulting Glass House Report . criticized that instead of the question “Which is the most successful model?”, questions such as “What makes the models work?” or “How can the effect of the models be improved?” should be examined. The aim of the study was to ensure that the results of the follow-through evaluation did not flow into educational policy.

The evaluation of the follow-through data lasted from 1968 to 1977. The program was funded by the government until 1995. The results showed that the direct instruction model and, to a lesser extent, the behavior analysis model provided useful solutions for teaching disadvantaged children (both models are based on behavioral analysis ). Nevertheless, the results of the follow-through project evaluation were practically ignored by the educational establishment. The educational policy did not use the results of the project to specifically promote those teaching methods which were proven to improve the disadvantages of poor children, which was the actual aim of the follow-through program.

In 1981 the US Senate introduced a note to increase funding for successful follow-through models. However, the Ministry of Education decided in 1982 to cut the finances of the successful models in favor of the less or not at all successful. The models with the poor results became - under different names - legal education policy in many US states.

In a 1999 study by the American Institutes for Research's Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center , direct instruction was one of two programs out of 22 that showed positive effects on student development.

Aim and arrangement of the study

The aim of the study was to find out whether the economically and educationally poorest schools in the USA could be raised to the American average. The three main goals of the project were the improvement of basic knowledge and skills ( basic skills ), cognitive and problem-solving skills ( cognitive skills ) and positive self-esteem (affective skills) for all participating children. The purpose of the project was to find the most effective practical teaching methods and introduce them to disadvantaged schools across the United States in order to achieve the three main goals for disadvantaged children in the United States. It formed a cornerstone in the war on poverty .

The children's actual performance should serve to determine success. Proponents of various theories and approaches who believed their methods could alleviate the negative effects of educational poverty were invited to apply to sponsor their teaching models. Once the list of selected models was established, groups of parents from the disadvantaged schools involved in the project were able to choose one of these models and committed to maintaining this method for several years. The direct instruction model was the most sought-after model, implemented in more locations than any other model.

Each participating school was compared with an equivalent but non-participating school in order to be able to measure progress. As a general standard for all schools, normalized metrics were used to determine whether the participating schools had achieved the goal of the 50th percentile (American average level). Preliminary grades showed that schools with economically disadvantaged students only reached the 20th percentile without any special measures. The 20th percentile was therefore the planned starting point.

Evaluation and results

FT Evaluation: Results of the nine main models. Percentile 20: achievement level of disadvantaged students, percentile 50: average American level

The evaluation of the follow-through data took nine years. The evaluation cost $ 30 million and was carried out by two independent institutes. The Stanford Research Institute collected the data and Abt Associates analyzed them. The preliminary annual results for 1974 came as a surprise to most sponsors. Only two models, Direct Instruction and the Kansas Behavioral Analysis Model, showed positive results.

The final report by Abt Associates (Bock, Stebbins, & Proper, 1977) showed that the aggregated follow-through models showed no positive effects because none, with the exception of one model, achieved the desired result. Not only were the most popular models incapable of producing positive effects, most of them produced a variety of negative effects.

The model of direct instruction placed first in reading, arithmetic, spelling, language, basic skills, school cognitive abilities and positive self-esteem . It was the only one of the 22 models evaluated to show positive results at the 50th percentile.

literature

  • Egbert, RL (1981). Some thoughts about Follow Through thirteen years later. Lincoln, NB: Nebraska University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED244733)
  • Engelmann, S. (1992). Was Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse . Portland, OR: Halcyon House
  • Stebbins, LB, St. Pierre, RG, Proper, EC, Anderson, RB, & Cerva, TR (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model (Vol IV-A). Cambridge, MA: Abbot Associates.
  • Gary L. Adams, Siegfried Engelmann: Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTAR . Educational Achievement System Publisher, Seattle WA 1996
  • Cathy L. Watkins: Project Follow Through: A case study of contingencies influencing instructional practices of the educational establishment. Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Cambridge MA 1997. (Kindle Edition 2009)

See also

Web links

swell

  1. ^ [1] The Story Behind Project Follow Through
  2. ^ A b Cathy L. Watkins: Project Follow Through, a case study of contingencies influencing instructional practices of the educational establishment, Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Cambridge, MA 1997, ISBN 1-881317-04-8 , 103 p.
  3. ^ House, E., Glass, G., McLean, L., & Walker, D. (1978): No simple answer: Critique of the FT evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48 (2), 128-160
  4. ↑ [2] "Follow through: Why didn't we?" Cathy L. Watkins of California State University-Stanislaus, Effective School Practices, Volume 15, Number 1, Winter 1995
  5. ^ [3] Direct Instruction author earns award
  6. ↑ [4] Follow Through Evaluation
  7. ↑ [5] Ernest Boyer, US commissioner for education during the introduction of the most important follow-through study: "The evaluation found that only one (Direct Instruction) of the 22 models which were assessed in the evaluation consistently produced positive outcomes."
  8. ↑ [6] National Institute for Direct Instruction NIFDI: Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTAR (Engelmann & Adams, 1996)