The Follow Through Experiment: Summary of an Analysis of Major Evaluation Reports

REFERENCES

• ANDERSON, RICHARD B. “Follow Through: Testing one model of evaluation and several models of compensation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1976. (ERIC #120–238).
   Google Scholar
• BECKER, WESLEY C.; ENGLEMANN, SIEGFRIED; AND THOMAS, DON R. Teaching: A course in applied psychology. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• CLINE, MARVIN G., ET AL. Final report. Education as experimentation: Evaluation of the Follow Through planned variation model. Vols. 1-A and 1-B. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, 1974. (ERIC ED 094–890 and 094–891).
   Google Scholar
• CLINE, MARVIN G., ET AL.. Final Report. Education as experimentation: Evaluation of the Follow Through planned variation model. Vols. 2-A and 2-B. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, 1975. (ERIC #108–768 and 108–769).
   Google Scholar
• COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. Follow Through: Lessons learnedfrom its evaluation and need to improve its administration. Washington, D.C.: Comptroller General, 1975. (ERIC #118–587).
   Google Scholar
• CROOKS, J., and BURNES, D. “Consolidated review of September 17 deliverables.” Memorandum to F. Bresnick, Acting Chief, Research and Evaluation Section, Follow Through program, October 1971.
   Google Scholar
• EGBERT, ROBERT L. “Planned variation in Follow Through.” Paper delivered before the Brookings Institution Panel on Social Experimentation, Washington, D.C., April 1973.
   Google Scholar
• ELMORE, RICHARD F. “Follow Through: Decisionmaking in a large-scale social experiment.” Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• EMRICK, JOHN A.; SORENSON, PHILIP; AND STEARNS, MARIAN S. Interim evaluation of the national Follow Through program 1969–1971. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute, 1973. (ERIC #o86–371).
   Google Scholar
• GUTTERMAN, DANIEL, and WILLNER, BARRY. The shadow government. New York: Pantheon Books, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• HANEY, WALT. The Follow Through planned variation experiment, vol. 5. Cambridge, Mass.: Huron Institute, 1977.
   Google Scholar
• HARNISCHFEGER, ANNEGRET, and WILEY, DAVID E. “The teaching-learning process in elementary schools: A synoptic view.” Curriculum Inquiry 6, no. 1 (Fall 1976): 5–43.
   Google Scholar
• JESSE, RONALD N. “The Follow Through program, 1971–72 regular 1972 and summer school terms.” Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1975. (ERIC #124–610).
   Google Scholar
• KURFEERST, MARVIN, and STEPHENS, THOMAS M. The national evaluation of project Follow Through: 1967–68. Penn.: Pittsburgh University Office of Research and Field Services, 1969. (ERIC #078–923).
   Google Scholar
• MCLAUGHLIN, MILBREY W. Evaluation and, reform: The elementary and secondary education act of 1965, title I. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. Cost analysis study of Follow Through projects, proposal no. 279. Bethesda, Md.: RMC Research Corporation, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• RIVLIN, ALICE M. Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• RIVLIN, ALICE M., eds. Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• ROGERS, DONALD D., ET AL. A cost analysis of Follow Through projects. Bethesda, Md.: RMC Research Corporation, 1977.
   Google Scholar
• SHALVELSON, RICHARD J.; HUBNER, JUDITH J.; AND STANTON, GEORGE C. “Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.” Review of Educational Research 46, no. 3 (Summer 1976): 407–441.
   Google Scholar
• SOAR, ROBERT S. Final report: Follow Through classroom process measurement and pupil growth 1970–71. Gainesville: College of Education, University of Florida, 1973.
   Google Scholar
• STALLINGS, JANE A., ET AL. Follow Through program classroom observation evaluation 1971–72. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute, 1973. (ERIC #085–100).
   Google Scholar
• STALLINGS, JANE A., ET AL.. Follow Through classroom observation evaluation 7972–73. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute, 1974.
   Google Scholar
• STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Administrative history of the Follow Through evaluation 1968–72. Appendix F, draft version. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research Institute, 1972.
   Google Scholar
• STEBBINS, LINDA B., ET AL. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Vols. 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-D, and The Non-Follow Through Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, 1977.
   Google Scholar
• SUCHMAN, EDWARD A. Evaluative research. New York: Russell Sage, 1967.
   Google Scholar
• SULLIVAN, THOMAS F. “Health care delivery in project Follow Through.” Cambridge, Mass.: Bio-Dynamics, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. CONGRESS, 93RD CONG., 2ND s ESS. Hearings on extension of certain programs under the Economic Opportunity Act 1964 (February 21, 1974): 108.
   Google Scholar
• UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION. “Follow Through rules and regulations.” Federal Register 40, no. 77 (April 1975): 17711–21.
   Google Scholar
• UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION.. Second report of the Follow Through evaluation review panel. United States Office of Education, March 1973.
   Google Scholar
• WEIKART, DAVID P., and BANET, BERNARD A. “Model design problems in Follow Through.” In Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder? edited by Alice M. Riviin and P. Michael Timpane. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• WILEY, DAVID E. “Another hour, another day: Quality of schooling, a potent path for policy.” In Evaluation Studies Review Annual, edited by Marcia Guttentag. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar