Project Follow Through

Project Follow Through ( FT) was an educational program of the U.S. government for disadvantaged preschoolers. With more than 100,000 participating students in 180 school communities and cost about a billion dollars, it remains the world's largest educational experiment today. It began in 1967 as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty and lasted until 1995.

History

The U.S. 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 academic performance directly correlated with poverty. Poor education led to lower economic opportunities in later working life, thus ensuring poverty in the next generation.

Follow Through, originally planned as a social plan for the expansion of the Head Start program for pre-school age, became the educational experiment with the aim to find effective methods for teaching underprivileged children. The project became the National Training Laboratory and provided a unique opportunity to the efficiency of different teaching methods to study.

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

The preliminary results of the study from 1974 showed that only two models, direct instruction, and the Kansas Behavioral Analysis model, showed positive results. 1977 mandated the Ford Foundation, which has financed several unsuccessful models, the Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation at the University of Illinois to conduct an additional, unofficial evaluation of Follow Through results. The resulting therefrom Glass House Report. criticized, instead of the question " Which is the most successful model? " would have questions like "What makes that the models work? " or "How can you improve the effectiveness of the models? " need to be investigated. The study should cause the results of the Follow Through evaluation not found their way into educational policy.

The evaluation of the follow-through data lasted from 1968 until 1977. The program was funded by the government until 1995. The results showed that the model Direct teaching and to a lesser degree the Behavior Analysis model provided useful solutions for teaching disadvantaged children. Nevertheless, the results of the Follow Through project - evaluation of Bildungsestablishment were virtually ignored. Education policy used the results of the project not to encourage those teaching methods specifically that could improve the disadvantage of poor children has been proven, what was the real goal of the follow -through program.

1981, the U.S. Senate introduced a note in order to increase the funding of successful follow-through models. The Ministry of Education decided, however, in 1982, the finances of the successful models in favor of to cut less or not at all successful. Models with poor results were - among other names - for legal education policy in many U.S. states.

In a study by the American Institutes for Research's Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center in 1999 was the direct teaching is one of two programs of 22, which showed positive effects in the development of the students.

Target and arrangement of the study

The study wanted to find out whether the economically and educationally poorest schools would be raised in the United States on the American average. The three main objectives of the project were to improve basic knowledge and skills (basic skills), cognitive and problem solving skills ( cognitive skills) as well as a 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 in disadvantaged schools throughout the U.S. in order to achieve the three main objectives for the disadvantaged children in the U.S. can. It formed a cornerstone in the war against poverty.

The actual performance of children should be used to determine success. Representatives of various theories and approaches that believed their methods could alleviate the negative effects of poor education, were invited to apply to sponsor their teaching models. After the list of selected models, it was clear parents could choose the groups involved in the project disadvantaged schools one of these models, in which they pledged to maintain this method for several years. The direct instruction model was the most sought-after model, it has been implemented in more places than any other model.

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

Evaluation and Results

The evaluation of the follow-through data lasted nine years. The evaluation cost 30 million dollars and was carried out by two independent institutes. The Stanford Research Institute collected the data and Abt Associates, she analyzed. The preliminary annual results 1974 brought a surprise to most sponsors. Only two models, direct instruction, and the Kansas Behavioral Analysis model showed positive results.

The final report from Abt Associates ( Bock, Stebbins, & Proper, 1977) showed that the agreggierten follow-through models showed no positive effects, because with the exception of one model, none achieved the desired result. The most popular models were not only unable to achieve positive effects, most of them produced a variety of negative effects.

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