The Follow Through Debate

REFERENCES

• ANDERSON, RICHARD B. “The effectiveness of Follow Through: Evidence from the national analysis.” Curriculum Inquiry 7, no. 3 (Fall 1977): 209–226.
   Google Scholar
• ANDERSON, RICHARD B.; ST. PIERRE, ROBERT G.; PROPER, ELIZABETH C.; and STEBBINS, LINDA B. “Pardon us, but what was the question again?: A response to the critique of the Follow Through evaluation.” Harvard Educational Review 48, no. 2 (May 1978): 161–170.
   Google Scholar
• ARCHAMBAULT, FRANCIS X., and ST. PIERRE, ROBERT G. “Quantity and intensity of instruction in title I and non-title I programs.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• BECKER, WESLEY. “Critique of a critique.: The Follow Through data does show that some programs work better than others.” Unpublished paper, University of Oregon, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• BEREITER, CARL, and KURLAND, MIDIAN. “Were some Follow Through models more effective than others?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• BOCK, GEOFFERY; STEBBINS, LINDA B.; and PROPER, ELIZABETH C. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Volume 4-B: Effects of Follow Through models. Report to the U.S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract 300-75-0134. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., 1977.
   Google Scholar
• BOGATZ, GERRY A., and BALL, SAMUEL. The second year of Sesame Street: A continuing evaluation, vols. 1 and 2. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• CAMPBELL, DONALD T. “Reforms as experiments.” American Psychologist 24, no. 4 (1969): 409–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAMPBELL, DONALD T.. “Methods for the experimenting society.” Address presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., 1971.
   Google Scholar
• CAMPBELL, DONALD T., and ERLEBACHER, ALBERT E. “HOW regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful.” In Compensatory education: A national debate, Volume 3: Disadvantaged child, edited by Jerome Hellmuth. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• CICIRELLI, VICTOR, ed. The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children's cognitive and affective development. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University and Westinghouse Learning Corporation, 1969.
   Google Scholar
• CLINE, MARVIN G., ed. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Volume I-A: Early effects of Follow Through. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. OEC-0-72-5221. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., 1974.
   Google Scholar
• CLINE, MARVIN G., ed. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Volume 2-A: Two year effects of Follow Through. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. OEC-0-72-5221. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., 1975.
   Google Scholar
• COOK, THOMAS D.; APPLETON, HILLARY; CONNER, ROSS; SCHAFFER, ANN; TAMKIN, GARY; and WEBER, STEPHEN. Sesame Street revisited: A case study in evaluation research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• COOK, THOMAS D.; APPLETON, HILLARY; CONNER, ROSS; SCHAFFER, ANN; TAMKIN, GARY; and WEBER, STEPHEN., and CAMPBELL, DONALD T. “The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings.” In Handbook of industrial and organizational research, edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Education Daily. “Follow Through is questioned by winners, losers.” June 14, 1977 pp. 4–6.
   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 University, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• ELMORE, RICHARD F. Personal communication to Richard Anderson, January 18, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• FEINBERG, LAWRENCE. “‘Basic’ teaching methods more effective, study says.” Washington Post, June 20, 1977, p. 1.
   Google Scholar
• HANEY, WALT. “The Follow Through experiment: Summary of an analysis of major evaluation reports.” Curriculum Inquiry 7, no. 3 (Fall 1977): 227–258. (a)
   Google Scholar
• HANEY, WALT.. A Technical History Of The National Follow Through Evaluation. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. OEC-0-74-0394. Cambridge, Mass.: Huron Institute, 1977. (b)
   Google Scholar
• HANEY, WALT. “The Follow Through planned variation experiment: Statistical conclusion validity?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• HANEY, WALT., and PENNINGTON, NANCY. Reanalysis of Follow Through parent and teacher data from spring, 1975. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. OEC-0-74-0394. Cambridge, Mass.: Huron Institute, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• HEW Monitor. “Conflicting follow-ups on Follow Through,” July 11, 1977, p. 338.
   Google Scholar
• HODGES, WALTER, and SHEEHAN, ROBERT. “Ten years of evaluation efforts: The work of Follow Through sponsors.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• HOUSE, ERNEST R.; GLASS, GENE V.; MCLEAN, LESLIE D.; and WALKER, DECKER F. “Critiquing a Follow Through evaluation.” Phi Delta Kappan 59, no. 7 (March 1978): 473–474 (a)
   Google Scholar
• HOUSE, ERNEST R.; GLASS, GENE V.; MCLEAN, LESLIE D.; and WALKER, DECKER F. “No simple answer: Critique of the Follow Through evaluation.” Harvard Educational Review 48, no. 2 (May 1978): 128–160. (b)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KENNEDY, MARY M. “The Follow Through program.” Curriculum. Inquiry 7, no. 3 (Fall 1977): 183–208.
   Google Scholar
• KENNEDY, MARY M.. “Findings from the Follow Through planned variation study.” Educational Researcher 7, no. 6 (June 1978): 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• KILPATRICK, JAMES J. “Basics better in education, Cambridge group finds.” Boston Evening Globe, July 1, 1977, p. 19.
   Google Scholar
• LaTOUR, KATHY. “More high marks for the 3 r's: Basic skills found lagging in ‘open’ classrooms.” National Observer, July 4, 1977, p. 6.
   Google Scholar
• MIDDLETON, TERESA, and DURGIN, LAWRENCE. Summary of Follow Through data. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract Nos. OEC-0-522480-4633 (100) and OEC-0-0582. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Newsweek. “Basic is better,” July 4, 1977, p. 76.
   Google Scholar
• STEBBINS, LINDA B., ed. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Volume 3-A, findings: Cohort II. Interim findings: Cohort III. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. 300-75-0134. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., 1976.
   Google Scholar
• STEBBINS, LINDA B., Ed.; ST. PIERRE, ROBERT G.; PROPER, ELIZABETH C.; ANDERSON, RICHARD B; and CERVA, THOMAS R. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Volume 4-A: An evaluation of Follow Through. Report to the U. S. Office of Education pursuant to Contract No. 300-75-0134. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., 1977.
   Google Scholar
• TALLMADGE, G. KASTEN. The joint dissemination review panel ideabook. Report to the National Institute of Education pursuant to Contract No. NIE-IA-7706. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
   Google Scholar
• U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. Follow Through: Lessons learned from its evaluation and need to improve its administration. Report to Congress, MWD-75–34. Washington, D. C.: U. S. General Accounting Office, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• WEILER, DANIEL. “A public school voucher demonstration: The first year of Alum Rock—summary and conclusions.” In Evaluation Studies Review Annual, vol. 1, edited by Gene V. Glass. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• WISLER, CARL E.; BURNS, GERALD P.; and IWAMOTO, DAVID. “Follow Through redux: A response to the critique by House, Glass, McLean, and Walker.” Harvard Educational Review 48, no. 2 (May 1978): 171–185.
   Google Scholar
• WOLFF, MAX, and STEIN, ANN. Six months later, Head Start evaluation project. New York: Yeshiva University, Ferkauf Graduate School of Education, 1966.
   Google Scholar
• WORTMAN, PAUL M., and ST. PIERRE, ROBERT G. “The education voucher demonstration: A secondary analysis.” Education and Urban Society 9, no. 2 (August 1977): 471–492.
   Google Scholar