Why have the results of the Follow Through evaluation failed to
impact the policies and practices of the educational community? Why
have the most effective approaches for educating children not been
widely disseminated? Why has the knowledge gained from the Follow
Through evaluation not been used to reform education in America? The
answers to these questions may be found in part by looking at how
instruction is viewed by the various elements of the educational
establishment.
Follow Through provides an opportunity for such an analysis because
it revealed how the educational industry collectively conceived of,
planned, conducted, and interpreted a large scale educational
experiment. When I was in graduate school, I wrote a lengthy paper in
which I traced the history of Project Follow Through, looked at its
implications for education, and analyzed the contingencies that
determine educational practices. This article is condensed from the
paper, which will be published this fall by the Cambridge Center for
Behavioral Studies. I made a vow that I would tell the story of
Project Follow Through to anyone who would listen.
History
Many people know the history of Project Follow Through far better
than I, because they lived it. As I understand it, it goes something
like this. In 1964 Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act,
which initiated a range of programs intended to fight poverty. The
federal policy that emerged from the EOA was influenced by a growing
consensus that education would be the antidote to poverty by
providing skills necessary to break out of the exiting cycle. One of
the best known programs to develop from this rationale was Head
Start.
Head Start began in the summer of 1965. It was immediately popular
and continues to enjoy tremendous public support today. It is
commonly believed that Follow Through received impetus from the
success of Head Start and from a study showing that gains made by
Head Start children dissipated when they began school. In reality,
the decision to initiate Follow Through was probably a function of
both conviction and expediency. In any event, in February 1967,
President Johnson requested that Congress establish a program to
"follow through" on Head Start. The outcome was Public Law 90-92,
authorizing Project Follow Through. Although it has been referred to
as the largest and most expensive educational experiment, Follow
Through was not initially conceived as an experiment, but as a
comprehensive social services program. However, before the program
got underway, budget cuts forced a reconceptualization and Follow
Through was converted to a longitudinal experiment aimed at finding
effective methods for teaching disadvantaged children. The Follow
Through experiment involved close to 10,000 children from 120
communities each year from 1968 to 1976. Follow Through continued as
a service program until funding was eliminated in 1995.
Design
The design of the Follow Through experiment was called planned
variation. Based on the notion that a variety of curricula and
instructional methods could be designed, implemented and evaluated,
the planned variation approach was intended to reveal differences in
effectiveness among different teaching approaches.
A plan was devised that made it possible to implement a variety of
educational models in local school districts, while avoiding the
appearance of unwarranted federal intervention. The Office of
Education contracted with developers of educational approaches who
then acted as sponsors of their model and worked cooperatively with
districts to implement the model in Follow Through classrooms.
Each sponsor was responsible for translating the model's particular
approach to education into practice. This included selecting or
developing instructional materials, and training teachers in the
model's instructional method. The Follow Through sponsors' task of
designing a complete curriculum for the entire school day, had never
before been attempted in educational reform.
The selection of sponsors began in January of 1968. Individuals or
groups who were involved in developing new approaches for teaching
young children were invited to present information about their
programs. Sixteen developers subsequently submitted formal proposals,
twelve of which were accepted. The approaches represented the entire
spectrum of assumptions about instruction, ranging from the carefully
controlled approach of the Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis
models to child-centered approaches such as Bank Street and Open
Education. Ten additional sponsors were added over the following
three-year period, not because they offered unique approaches to
compensatory education, but because they offered the possibility of
enlarging the Follow Through constituency.
The selection of sites progressed synchronously with sponsor
selection. From among a group of 225 nominated school districts, a
total 51 were selected, based on their ability to begin a
comprehensive services program before the start of the school year,
their willingness to participate in the planned variation experiment
and their working relationship with local community action
agencies.
Sites and sponsored models were paired during a four day conference
held in Kansas City in February, 1968. In an effort to increase
cooperation in implementing the various models, local representatives
were encouraged to choose the model they believed was most compatible
with the goals and interests of their district. Each model was
implemented in a variety of sites, where children received daily
instruction in the model. Performance data were collected when
children entered the program and at the end of each school year until
they completed third grade.
Evaluation
The evaluation of this enormous project was complex and expensive.
The data were collected by Stanford Research Institute and analyzed
by Abt Associates.
Eleven outcome measures were included in the national evaluation. All
sponsors agreed upon the outcome measures, which were intended to
assess performance in different learning domains including basic
academic skills, general problem-solving skills, and the development
of self-concept.
For evaluation purposes Abt Associates divided models into three
broad categories according to their areas of primary emphasis. The
typology was determined based on the sponsor's own program
description and stated goals and objectives of the models. The Basic
Skills category included models that focused primarily on directly
teaching fundamental skills in reading, arithmetic, spelling and
language. The Cognitive-Conceptual category included that intended to
develop "learning-to-learn" and problem solving skills. Models in the
Affective-Cognitive category emphasized development of self-concept
and positive attitudes toward learning, and secondarily,
"learning-to-learn" skills. Nine of the major models included in the
national evaluation are described by model type in Table 1.
For each outcome subtest, Abt evaluators compared the performance of
a group of Follow Through children at a given site with a comparison
group. This process resulted in more than 2,000 comparisons. The
difference between a Follow Through group and the comparison group
was used as the measure of effect. An effect was judged to be
educationally meaningful if the difference 1) was statistically
significant and 2) was at least one quarter standard deviation. When
Follow Through scores exceeded non-Follow Through scores the outcome
was considered positive. When non-Follow Through scores surpassed
Follow Through scores, the outcome was considered negative. Average
effects were computed for individual models, as well as for model
types.
Abt Associates produced yearly reports, which were published in four
volumes titled Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation
Model. Volume IV (Stebbins, et. al., 1977), provides the most
comprehensive evaluation of the differential effectiveness of the
models. The following findings of average effects for model types are
paraphrased (in italics) from Volume IV-A (pp. 135-148).
Models that emphasized basic skills succeeded better than other
models in helping children gain these skills. Groups of children
in Basic Skills models performed significantly better on measures of
academic skills than did non-Follow Through groups. Abt evaluators
concluded that a Basic Skills model would be preferable if an
educator was concerned with teaching skills such as spelling, math
computation, language, and word knowledge. Note that the Abt report
refers to the superiority of a model type. However, it is not
inclusion in a category that leads to educational effectiveness, but
the particular instructional materials and procedures used. The
Direct Instruction model had an unequivocally higher average effect
on scores in the basic skills domain than did any other model.
Where models emphasized other skills, the children they served
tended to score lower on tests of basic skills than they would have
done without Follow Through. With the exception of the Florida
Parent Education model, all Cognitive-Conceptual and
Affective-Cognitive models had more negative than positive outcomes
on measures in the basic skills domain. That is, performance of
students in the comparison group was superior to that of the Follow
Through students in those models. At the end of third grade, children
taught in these models had achievement scores that were, in fact,
lower than would have been predicted in the absence of "compensatory"
education. Thus, four years spent in the majority of models actually
increased the educational deficits that Follow Through was intended
to remediate.
No type of model was notably more successful than the others in
raising scores on cognitive conceptual skills. No model type had
an overall average positive effect on measures in this domain, which
included reading comprehension and problem solving. One model that
did have considerable impact on cognitive conceptual skills was the
Direct Instruction model. Not one model in the Cognitive-Conceptual
category obtained a positive average effect on these measures,
despite the fact that their instructional programs emphasized
development of these skills. Models that focused on
cognitive-conceptual skills were incapable of influencing
standardized measures of those skills after four years of
instruction.
Models that emphasized basic skills produced better results on
tests of self-concept than did other models. On the average,
children in models the evaluators classified in the Basic Skills
category, performed better on affective measures than did children in
Cognitive-Conceptual or Affective models. All models in the Basic
Skills category had positive average model effects. The only other
model to demonstrate a positive average effect was the University
Florida's Parent Education model. In every case, the models that
focused on affective development had negative average effects on
measures in this domain.
The Direct Instruction and Behavior Analysis models ranked first and
second, respectively, in average effects on affective measures. Both
of these approaches stress careful structuring and sequencing of
curriculum materials that are designed to limit the number of errors
and ensure successful performance. In addition, they both rely on
frequent measurement of the child's progress in order to provide
immediate remediation. These models view positive self-concept as an
outcome of skill acquisition. In other words, rather than considering
self-concept a necessary prerequisite for learning, they contend that
instruction resulting in academic success leads to improved
self-concept. The data uphold this view.
It would be a mistake, however, to claim that instruction in a Basic
Skills model leads to academic success and improved self-concept.
Significant differences on both categories of measures were observed
for only two of the Basic Skills models, Direct Instruction and
Behavior Analysis. In other words, describing the result as a "Basic
Skills" effect does not identify the specific instructional variables
that lead to significantly better performance in both outcome areas.
The fact remains however, that no model classified as "Affective" had
a positive average effect on affective measures.
The average effects for nine individual models are represented in
Figure 1. The centerline of the figure indicates no difference
between students in a Follow Through model and comparison students.
Notice that the Direct instruction model is the only model to show
sizable positive effects on all measures. The majority of models show
considerable negative effects (performance below the level of the
comparison group) on all measures. These findings clearly show the
Direct instruction model to be superior on these measures compared
with traditional programs and with other Follow Through models.
Figure 1: This figure shows the average effects of nine Follow Through models on measures of basic skills (word knowledge, spelling, language, and math computation), cognitive-conceptual skills (reading comprehension, math concepts, and math problem solving) and self-concept. This figure is adapted from Engelmann, S. and Carnine, D. (1982), Theory of Instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Press.
The evaluation was not only costly, but controversial. At least three
other major reanalyses of the data were independently conducted. None
of these analyses show significant disagreement with respect to
achievement data. Results of the national evaluation and all
subsequent analyses converge on the finding that the highest
achievement scores were attained by students in the Direct
Instruction model. The Follow Through experiment was intended to
answer the question "what works" in educating disadvantaged children.
If education is defined as the acquisition of academic skills, the
results of the Follow Through experiment provide a clear answer to
the question.
Dissemination
The purpose of the Follow Through planned variation experiment was
to identify effective educational methods. However, there is little
utility in identifying effective methods if they are not then made
accessible to school districts. The Joint Dissemination Review Panel
and the National Diffusion Network were created to validate and
disseminate effective educational programs. In 1977, Follow Through
sponsors submitted programs to the JDRP. "Effectiveness" was,
however, broadly interpreted. For example, according the JDRP, the
positive impact of a program need not be directly related to academic
achievement. In addition, a program could be judged effective if it
had a positive impact on individuals other than students. As a
result, programs that had failed to improve academic achievement in
Follow Through were rated as "exemplary and effective." And, once a
program was validated, it was packaged and disseminated to schools
through the National Diffusion Network.
The JDRP's validation practices did not go unchallenged. According to
former Commissioner of Education, Ernest Boyer, "Since only one of
the sponsors (Direct Instruction) was found to produce positive
results more consistently than any of the others, it would be
inappropriate and irresponsible to disseminate information on all the
models..." (quoted in Carnine, 1984, p. 87). However, commissioner
Boyer's concerns could not prevent the widespread dissemination of
ineffective instructional approaches. The JDRP apparently felt that
to be "fair" it had to represent the multiplicity of methods in
education. Not only did this practice make it virtually impossible
for school districts to distinguish between effective and ineffective
programs, it defeated the very purpose for which the JDRP and NDN
were established.
Funding Decisions
The effect of the Follow Through evaluation may also be measured
by the extent to which the findings influenced decisions about
funding. While all Follow Through models received budget cuts over
the years, the disbursement of available funds was not based on
effectiveness, but on a non-competitive continuation basis. In fiscal
year 1982, the funding formula was changed so that sponsors with
JDRP-validated programs received the lowest level of funding, while
the highest level of funding went to those sponsors that had not been
validated!
Not surprisingly, funding ineffective programs at a higher level did
not make them effective. Not one additional program was validated
during the following year. Yet the same funding policy continued to
be implemented, favoring ineffective programs. It is clear that
increased financial support by itself does not lead to increased
performance by students. How children are taught is critically
important.
The results of the Follow Through evaluation also failed to influence
decisions about allocation of federal research funds. Planned
variation makes it possible to identify the best performing programs
and then subject them to further analyses. Instead the Office of
Education and National Institute of Education agreed to spend 12
million dollars to develop and study new Follow Through approaches
with the primary concern being "whether or not an approach can be put
in place and maintained, not with the effectiveness of the approach
in improving student outcomes" Proper and St. Pierre, 1980, p. 8)
[emphasis added]. According to Stallings (1975), the Direct
Instruction model was not only most effective, it and the Behavior
Analysis models were the most easily implemented. If information
about implementation was needed, these two models provided a good
starting point. The plan that was pursued shows total neglect of the
findings of the Follow Through evaluation and astonishing disregard
for the academic achievement of students.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that twenty years after the
publication of the Follow Through evaluation, there is little
evidence that the results have altered educational practices in
American classrooms. The majority of schools today use methods that
are not unlike the Follow Through models that were least effective
(and in some cases were most detrimental). Barriers at all levels of
the educational system preclude widespread adoption of the model that
was most effective.
The Educational Establishment
The history of Follow Through and its effects constitute a case
study of how the educational establishment functions. As in other
bureaucracies, it is composed of parochial vested interests that work
to either maintain the status quo or to advance a self-serving
agenda. As a result, the largest educational experiment in history
(costing almost one billion tax payer dollars) has been effectively
prevented from having the impact on daily classroom practices that
its results clearly warranted. Let's look at some factors that
operate at each level of the educational establishment to influence
decisions about teaching methods and materials.
Policymakers. Follow Through demonstrated that public policy is based
on public support, not on empirical evidence. Thus, the position that
officials adopt with respect to teaching methods is most likely to be
congruent with the position of the majority. Because the Direct
Instruction model represents a minority view in education, it was not
surprising that policymakers failed to take a strong position in
support of the Follow Through results.
Although some policymakers may have some formal training in areas of
education, they typically rely on input from education professionals
when developing and supporting programs. The influence of
stakeholders in traditional educational practices can be seen
throughout the history of Project Follow Through. Planning
committees, advisory boards, and task forces were composed of
representatives of universities and research centers. These
professionals usually represent educational philosophies that the
Follow Through results suggest do not, and cannot, lead to the
development of effective teaching methods. For example, the chairman
of the Follow Through National Advisory Committee was the dean of the
Bank Street College of Education, whose model was ineffective in
improving academic achievement or affective measures.
Clearly some professionals with a self-interest have the power to
influence educational policy in a direction that will not necessarily
lead to improved education. In fact, some social policy analysts
assert that in situations where administrators are strongly convinced
of the effectiveness of a program, it is likely that an evaluation
will be disregarded. This is tragically illustrated in California
where policy makers enamored with Whole Language were seemingly
incapable of attending to data showing serious declines in students'
reading performance, including a national assessment on which
California students placed last. By ignoring outcome data, policy
makers continue to make educational decisions that negatively impact
children. And the most vulnerable learners are those who are most
seriously harmed.
An additional problem is that policymakers frequently rely on
information that others provide them. Thus their decisions are often
based on incomplete and inaccurate data that reflect not what
research has revealed, but the biases of program administrators, and
supporters. An Office of Education document that was read at an
appropriations meeting claimed that "when contrasting all Follow
Through children with their non-Follow Through comparisons... there
emerge large differences in achievement, motivation, and intense
effects" (U. S. Congress, 1974, p. 2361), a statement leading
senators to believe that the Follow Through program as a whole was
successful and should be continued. John Evans, OE's Acting Deputy
Commissioner for Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation, explained to
Congress that:
...Follow Through is made up of a different set of alternative ways of approaching alternative education, different models, different programs. And the task and central purpose of that program...is to find out which of those methods or approaches are more or less effective. The evaluation evidence we have compiled indicates just what we would expect from that kind of experiment: namely, that some of those models and approaches are very reassuringly effective, and the kinds of things we would want to see disseminated and used more broadly...other models are not successful and not effective and not the kinds of things we would want to carry on or continue to fund or support indefinitely (U. S. Congress, 1974, p. 2360).
This example illustrates how reports and interpretation of results
may serve as a source of confusion when decision makers are faced
with the task of determining the fate of a program.
It is acknowledged that policy makers are more likely to be
influenced by social and political contingencies than by empirical
data. However, others may be expected to pay more heed to the
findings of major research programs in their field.
Colleges of Education. Project Follow Through was unique
because it examined not only instructional programs, but the
educational philosophies from which they were developed. While the
Follow Through models varied greatly in specific differences, they
may generally be considered to represent one of two general
philosophies of education. The majority of models were based on
philosophies of "natural growth" (Becker and Carnine, 1981) or what
Bijou (1977) referred to as "unfolding." According to these models,
learning involves changes in cognitive structures that are believed
to develop and mature in the same manner as biological organs. Whole
Language is an example of instruction derived from this philosophy.
It is based on the belief that reading develops naturally given
sufficient exposure to a print-rich environment.
The second philosophical position is concerned with principles of
learning or "changing behavior" (Becker and Carnine, 1981). From this
perspective, teaching involves specifying what is to be taught and
arranging the environment in such a way that the desired change in
behavior results.
Although the data from Follow Through support the latter position,
the majority of colleges of education espouse a philosophy of
cognitive restructuring. Thus, the data from Follow Through fail to
support the philosophy that dominates colleges of education. This
obviously made it difficult for educators to accept the Follow
Through findings and they responded by discrediting the evaluation as
well as by voicing specific objections about the Direct Instruction
model or questioning the values of the model. For example, educators
are fond of accusing direct teaching approaches of ignoring the
"whole child" by emphasizing academic achievement at the expense of
affective development. The Follow Through data clearly show that no
such trade-off occurs. The Direct Instruction model was more
effective than any other model on measures of self-esteem. A second
objection is that this Direct instruction is reductionistic and
results in only rote learning of non-essential skills. Yet, the data
show that students in the Direct Instruction model demonstrated
superior performance on measures of complex cognitive skills. In
contrast, not a single model that set out to improve these cognitive
skills was able to do so.
Although effective methods may be rejected simply because of their
philosophical underpinnings, it is possible that they are rejected
for more practical reasons as well. If teachers are to become
competent in the use of effective teaching methods, teacher training
programs must be restructured and those who are responsible for
teacher training must themselves become proficient in those methods.
Effective restructuring will require changes not only in what is
taught, but in how it is taught as well. The training paradigm
underlying most teacher training programs has little to recommend it,
with students spending the majority of their time listening to
lectures about theory and method. Sponsors of Follow Through models
found that lectures about teaching had little impact upon actual
teaching practices. Training was most successful when it included
modeling of the desired behaviors, opportunities for teachers to
practice, and feedback about their performance (Bushell, 1978). This
has important implications not only for preservice training of
teachers, but for how schools provide inservice training.
Teachers. Probably the biggest obstacle is the fact that the
instructional methods a teacher uses are most likely to be those
taught during his or her own training. Although it is assumed that
teachers have acquired the skills necessary to teach their students,
in reality teachers are woefully unprepared. For example, there are
currently thousands of teachers in classrooms who do not know how to
teach beginning reading, because the professors who "taught" them
adhered to a philosophy of "natural growth." One teacher confided to
me, "I do not know how to teach reading to someone who doesn't
already know how to read"! If our teachers do not, by their own
admission, know how to teach, how will our children learn?
Teachers may not seek out empirically validated methods, such as
Direct Instruction, because they fail to recognize that their current
methods are not effective. Student failure is more likely to be
attributed to deficits within the child or to external factors such
as the child's home life, than to ineffective instruction.
Furthermore, many teachers are not even aware that methods exist that
would enable them to be more effective. In many instances, the only
information teachers have about Direct Instruction is misinformation.
And, even if teacher did know there was a better way to teach, how
would they acquire the necessary skills? Surely not by returning to
the schools where they received their initial teacher training.
Teachers who are motivated to look for and use effective methods,
often run into opposition. For example, if Direct Instruction
materials have not been approved for purchase by curriculum
committees, teachers will, in effect, be unable to purchase those
materials. Even if appropriate materials can be obtained, teachers
may be forbidden to use them. In addition, districts often refuse to
provide funds for teachers to attend Direct Instruction conferences
and training sessions, preferring to send them to receive information
about the most current fads.
School Districts. The fact that effective teaching methods are
available does not mean that they will be adopted. According to Alan
Cohen (personal communication, 1992), "We know how to teach kids,
what we don't know is how to get the public schools to do it!"
Because there are no incentives for adopting effective methods or
penalties for adopting ineffective ones, the choice of instructional
programs will be made based on other factors. One factor that
determines whether a particular method will be adopted is how greatly
it differs from existing practices. The best candidates for adoption
are those most similar to ongoing practices, because they are least
disruptive. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974) described the behavior of
teachers in Direct Instruction Follow Through classrooms as "quite
atypical of generally practiced classroom behavior" (p. 220). This
decreases the probability of adoption because it requires so much
change.
Financial incentives may also influence adoption decisions. While
funding may provide the inducement to adopt an innovation, monitoring
is needed to ensure its continued implementation. One way that Follow
Through differed from other federally funded programs was that in
exchange for funding, particular instructional practices were
specified and monitored. This system of supervision resulted in a
higher degree of fidelity of implementation of the model than might
otherwise be expected. However, schools are generally not organized
to provide the level of supervision that Follow Through model
sponsors found necessary to ensure fidelity of implementation.
Publishers. Much, perhaps most, of what a teacher does is
determined by the materials he or she uses. Yet, those who develop
instructional materials typically do not have the skills required to
develop effective materials. Few educational programs are based on
state-of-the-art programming principles. Worse yet, materials are not
field tested to ensure their effectiveness with children. The
publishing industry does not initiate the development of
instructional materials, but instead reacts to the demands of the
educational marketplace. California provides a good illustration of
this dependent relationship. In California the state adopts an
instructional framework. Criteria for instructional materials are
then derived from the framework. Publishers are provided these
criteria and busily get to work developing instructional materials
that conform to them. They submit their materials during the textbook
adoption process and panels evaluate the extent to which the
materials correspond to the specified criteria. Noticeably absent
from these criteria is any mention of measured effectiveness. Given
this process, a program could meet every single criterion and be
recommended for adoption, and not be effective in teaching a single
child! But, field tests are expensive, and the prevailing
contingencies provide absolutely no incentive for publishers to
conduct them in order to provide learner verification data because
such data are not considered in textbook selection and adoption. (See
"Why I sued California, Engelmann, ADI News, Winter, 1991).
The Public. Although the public is not typically considered
part of the educational establishment, it can be included in this
discussion because it supports education. What the public has
supported is a system which has continued to neglect effective
methods of instruction. Of course, the public's support has been
innocent because it is generally unaware of instructional options and
their differential effectiveness. Parents and others have been led to
accept that the failure of a great many students to learn is due to
deficits in the children. The general public has no way of knowing
that children's achievements are largely a function of how they are
taught. However, this may be changing.
Toward the Future
The American public's dissatisfaction with public education is
becoming increasingly clear. The failures of public education have
been well publicized. Endless studies and reports call attention to
important factors such as improving curricula, increasing teacher
salaries, expanding the length of the school day and/or year, and a
variety of other changes. Although some of these changes may be
necessary, they will not be sufficient to produce the substantial
academic improvement that is possible. The critical factor that has
been historically ignored is instructional method. Our educational
problems will not be solved until it is recognized that how well
students learn is directly related to how well they are taught.
Is there any evidence that research is beginning to influence
educational policy and practice? Recent events in California may
point to progress in that direction. The Report of the California
Reading Task Force (1995) stresses effective teaching and recommends
that every school and district implement a "reading program that is
research based" (p. 3). In February of this year, Assembly Bill 3075
(1996) was introduced in the California State legislature. This bill
would amend the minimum requirements for a teaching credential to
include satisfactory completion of comprehensive reading instruction
"that is research-based" and includes "the study of direct,
systematic, explicit phonics." In September of 1995, Governor Wilson
signed Assembly Bill 170, referred to as the ABC bill, requiring the
State Board of Education to "ensure that the basic instructional
materials that it adopts for mathematics and reading...are based on
the fundamental skills required by these subjects, including, but not
limited to systematic, explicit phonics, spelling, and basic
computational skills." It is possible that these documents offer the
promise of hope for the future. I will close with the words of
Leonardo da Vinci: "Tell me if anything ever was done."
References
Becker, W. C. & Carnine, D. (1981). Direct instruction: A
behavior theory model for comprehensive educational intervention with
the disadvantaged. In S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz, (Eds.), Behavior
modification: Contributions to education (pp. 145-210).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bijou, S. W. (1977). Practical implications of an interactional model
of child development. Exceptional Children, 14, 6-14.
Bushell, D. (1978). An engineering approach to the elementary
classroom: The Behavior Analysis Follow-Through project. In A. C.
Catania, & T. A. Brigham (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior
Analysis ( pp. 525-563). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Carnine, D. W. (1983). Government discrimination against effective
educational practices. Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources Hearing on Follow Through Amendments of 198, 99-103.
Wash. D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Carnine, D. W. (1984). The federal commitment to excellence: Do as I
say, not as I do. Educational Leadership, 4, 87-88.
Engelmann, S. (1991). Why I sued California. ADI News, 10,
4-8.
Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction:
Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Every child a reader: The report of the California reading task
force. (1995) Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Proper, E. C., & St. Pierre, R. G. (1980). A search for
potential new Follow Through approaches: Executive summary.
Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 187 809)
Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. H. (1974). Follow Through
classroom observation evaluation (1972-1973). Menlo Park, CA:
Stanford Research Institute.
Stebbins, L. B., St. Pierre, R. G., Proper, E. C., Anderson, R. B.,
and Cerva, T. R. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned
variation model (Volume IV-A: An evaluation of Follow Through).
Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates.
U. S. Congress, Senate. (1974, May 29). Hearings before a
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.