International Association for Learning Alternatives
Startling/Disturbing Research on School Program Effectiveness

Startling/Disturbing Research on School Program Effectiveness
Wayne Jennings and Joe Nathan
REPRINTED FROM THE MARCH, 1977 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This summary of research dating back to the Eight Year Study argues that experimental programs embodying Deweyan concepts have enormous advantages over the traditional. It raises further questions about the so-called back-to-basics movement.

For more than 50 years now, studies have been documenting the effectiveness of nontraditional school programs in the United States. This research should cause us to question 95% of current educational practice.

Much of this research is not well known. Until recent years, neither was the history of certain ethnic groups and of women in America. Just as history books must be revised to reflect more accurately the experiences of different groups, so must education histories be changed to include the startling, disturbing research which we summarize here.

We have divided the studies into two categories. The first describes results of experimental programs. The second presents research on the effects of traditional schools.

Experimental Practices

The Eight-Year Study. One of the most extraordinary experiments ever conducted in American education was the Eight-Year Study, once widely cited in the literature but neglected in recent years. This study occurred during the l930s. Thirty high schools signed an agreement with 300 colleges to exempt their graduates from the usual college entrance requirements. This meant that the high schools did not have to use grades, class rank, required courses, credits, etc. They were free to experiment with curriculum and organization.

Some 1,500 students from the experimental schools were paired with 1,500 students from similar but non-experimental schools and were matched by sex, age, intelligence, family background, race, and other factors. The students from experimental schools did as well as the others or were better at college in grades, participation, critical thinking, aesthetic judgment, knowledge of contemporary affairs, etc.1

Further analysis yielded some startling results: When students from the six most experimental schools were compared with those from traditional schools, there were great differences in college attainment. Finally, the two most experimental schools (where practices were indeed different, e.g., extensive learning in the community; outside volunteers working with students; advisor-advisee systems; students teaching other students; inter-disciplinary, problem solving curricula; etc.) were selected. Graduates of these two schools were found to be "strikingly more successful."2

The Eight-Year Study was one of the most significant and exciting studies in the history of American education. Subsequent studies of a similar type have yielded essentially the same results.

One of the schools in the Eight-Year Study was the Ohio State University Lab School. The students who graduated in 1938 wrote a book called Were We Guinea Pigs? In general, they liked their school, but of course had little to compare it with, since most of them had gone to the Lab School throughout their high school careers. Many years later a thorough follow-up study of the "guinea pigs" was reported in Guinea Pigs 20 Years Later (1961).3 The Lab School graduates were then between 35 and 40 years old. The study found that the "guinea pigs" had been strikingly successful in life. They were compared with subjects in the Lewis Terman study of genius and with graduates of Princeton University, where a similar follow-up had been conducted. The experimental school graduates came out ahead. They more often expressed satisfaction with life, were judged leaders in their professions, had more stable family lives, possessed better self-accepting attitudes, and were mentioned more frequently in Who's Who.

Today's Alternative Schools. Since 1970 a number of schools have been established which make use of curriculum and organization ideas developed either by the experimental schools in the thirties or even earlier by John Dewey and other progressive educators. Virtually every evaluation of these contemporary alternative schools shows students doing as well as or better than students in traditional schools, when standardized tests are the evaluation instrument. Perhaps more importantly, they feel better about themselves and are confident of their ability to accomplish things for themselves. They also demonstrate more positive attitudes toward school and learning. These results come from alternative schools in various cities--Cambridge, Chicago, Hartford, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Providence, Philadelphia, and St. Paul, for example.

One might wonder if alternative schools have atypical populations. Educators associated with the National Alternative Schools Program studied 300 public alternative schools and found that the average student body was more diverse racially and economically than the country's population. They also reported an average of two applicants for every alternative school opening.

A number of schools work specifically with students who are rejects of traditional schools. Harlem Prep in New York City was established for dropouts of other schools, yet 95% of its graduates go on to college. Most of them complete college.

The Career Study Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, was created for students who are unsuccessful in the city's traditional high schools, where they are typically truant half the time. Some 70% of CSC candidates are in trouble with the law, and schools and parents are at their wits' end. After some time in the progressively designed program at CSC, attendance rises to 80%. Youngsters then get out of trouble and their parents can hardly believe the change in attitude toward schooling. Ninety percent graduate, although the original prognosis was that only 10% would do so. Career Study Center I was so successful that a second has been established.

It is too early to tell whether these alternative programs will yield long-term results as satisfactory as those of the experimental schools in the Eight-Year Study. However, there is reason to believe that today's alternative schools will produce effective, competent, and stable adults.

Predictive Studies. Recent studies challenge traditional notions about how one predicts success in later life. Consider, for example, the national mania for graduation from high school. Is graduation important to later success? One study reports on students enrolled in California colleges which accepted anyone who applied, disregarding high school diplomas.4 Seven percent of 32,000 whose records were examined (2,240 students) had not received a diploma. The grade-point average for these students was 2.56; for all students it was 2.51. The data were then corrected for age, sex, marital status, veteran status, family income, etc. Results remained the same: The non-graduates were doing as well as or better than the graduates.

Even more startling is a pair of studies which question even the value of grades and test scores in predicting success. The American College Testing Service recently completed a study of itself which compared the value of four factors in predicting success (as measured by self-satisfaction and participation in a variety of community activities two years after college). The factors were: 1) major achievement in what most high schools call extra-curricular activity (debate, speech, journalism, etc.), 2) high grades in high school, 3) high grades in college, 4) high scores on the ACT. Three of the four factors were found to have no predictive value. The only factor which could be used to predict success in later life was achievement in "extracurricular" activities.5

The College Entrance Examination Board's Scholastic Aptitude Test was examined for its accuracy in predicting how successful a person might be at a chosen career upon graduation from college. Results show that "the SATs offered virtually no clue to capacity for significant intellectual or creative contributions in mature life."6 That is, there was virtually no correlation between high scores on the SAT and success in life. This study also found that the best predictor of creativity in mature life was a person's performance, during youth, in independent self-sustained ventures. Those youngsters who had many hobbies, interests, and jobs, or were active in extracurricular activities, were more likely to be successful in later life. This study also found that admissions officers relied increasingly upon SAT scores. In other words, they were making serious mistakes.

Both studies show that test scores predict who will get good grades in college but that such academic success has almost nothing to do with success in later life.

Many other studies reveal nearly a zero correlation between college grades and later success in such fields as medicine, law, education, engineering, etc.7

For Project TALENT, one thousand 30-year olds were interviewed in one of our most nationally representative follow-up studies. Robert Gagne summarized the findings in one terse sentence "The evidence of these interviews suggests that high school education as a whole serves no very useful purpose."8

New Ways of Organizing Schools. There is ample evidence that organizing total schools in very different ways makes sense. The studies we have mentioned were made where alternative schools are "total sys-tems." But it is important to look at results of studies which deal only with parts of a program.

An international study of mathematics achievement is of particular interest. Ordinarily, the beginning age for studying math is 6. The study shows that in some countries math instruction is delayed until age 7, and in a few instances to age 8. The study found that students who are taught math late quickly catch up with those who are taught earlier. Differences of as much as two years of instruction made no difference in math achievement. Moreover, those who have the latest initial math instruction have fewer negative attitudes toward school and themselves.9

In the area of remedial reading, a number of studies indicate a substantial gain in achievement after remedial instruction. Within a year these gains disappear and the child appears to have made only the progress one would expect without the remedial instruction.10

It has been known for a long time that scores on standardized achievement tests are very stable. Considerable reductions in time spent on reading, math, and spelling (the basics!) did not reduce achievement scores, according to a 1932 review of studies.11 This result has been affirmed many times since.

The Plowden Report in England found that the integrated-day approach became increasingly prevalent in English primary schools after World War II. Students who did not have the usual long, thorough, carefully graded and sequenced reading, math, and writing instruction did as well as students where lesson hearing and workbooks were emphasized.12 That stunning finding led to much interest in the open classroom in the U.S.

Numerous studies indicate that children can be very effective at teaching other students in a one-to-one situation. Typically, the studies show that the student being taught (usually younger) learns better than would be expected and that the older student or tutor learns a good deal more, even when initially weak in the subject. Teaching what one has learned to another appears to be a very effective learning reinforcement.13

There is a growing acceptance of different organizations for learning. Public alternative schools have increased from fewer than 10 in 1970 to more than 1,200 by 1975. Parents and students who have participated in these programs are often their best advocates. The research done on alternatives indicates that hopes have been fulfilled.14 At least one regional accreditation association (the North Central Association) has developed new standards so that alternative schools could be evaluated and accredited. Three alternatives in the Midwest received accreditation last year under these standards. Thus the people who are pushing for new kinds of learning have strong support.

In a recent review, Robert A. Horwitz compared the performance of about 75 studies of open classroom and traditional classroom students in these areas: academic achievement, self-concept, attitudes toward school, creativity, adjustment and anxiety, locus of control, and cooperation.15 In every area the open school children did as well as or better than the traditional school students. If the open schools cost no more (and the researchers say they don't), and if the parents and children like them better (the researchers say they do), then why shouldn't the open schools have the right to exist as an alternative?

Traditional Schools/Learning

Myths About Effectiveness. Many commonly held beliefs about the effectiveness of our traditional schools are questionable. Among those beliefs are that children need to be in school five days per week, that increased expenditures to do more of the same thing will make a significant difference, that schools prepare students well for our society, and that the environment of most schools is conducive to learning.

Two little-known studies pose major questions about the necessity of much formal school time. The Unity (Maine) School District found itself in financial trouble four years ago and decided to institute a four-day week for students to save money on busing and cafeteria costs. The staff continued with a five day week, devoting one day to in-service training. The Maine Department of Education was upset and gave its approval for the plan only with the stipulation that extensive tests be given to compare student achievement with previous years. These tests were conducted by the University of Maine. The evaluation director's conclusion was that, with the four-day student week, "gains clearly outweighed losses when considering the grade-equivalent scores of all students tested." The Maine commissioner of education congratulated the district on its "foresight and initiative."16

Similar results were obtained from a study following the Philadelphia teachers strike in 1972-73. The strike lasted eight weeks. Some schools were closed and others were open the entire time. At the end of the year, scores of students who attended full time during the strike were compared with those of students who were out the entire eight weeks. No significant differences in achievement were found between the two groups.17

Behind the Classroom Door. Attitude investigations show that by late elementary school age nearly 20% of children dislike school; the remaining majority "do not feel strongly about their classroom experience one way or another." One study found that even children classified as satisfied with their school experience describe it with such adjectives as "boring," "dull, or inadequate." The children themselves feel "uncertain" or "restless."18

Such results lead to questions about what is happening in traditional schools "behind the classroom door." A study which used that phrase as its title listed well-known principles of learning. Researchers went into the schools to see to what extent these principles of learning were practiced. The answer was, to put it succinctly, "Inadequately."19 This study's findings are similar to others in which teachers have been questioned about their knowledge of modern principles of learning, i.e., students should be actively involved in their own learning, students can learn from a variety of people, success leads to future success, etc. In each case, teachers appeared to know little about such principles. Even when teachers can verbalize them, the principles are rarely applied in their classrooms.

Given such facts, it is not surprising that observers entering the average U.S. classroom find a good deal of boring activity and a sense of program dullness. In one recent study, researchers found that attitudes toward most school subjects became measurably more negative in the course of a single year.20 Other studies have shown that, with each advancing year in school, children's evaluations of teachers and curricula, as well as of themselves as people, became increasingly less favorable.21

This finding reminds us of mental health studies which indicate that about one-third of U.S. adults are seriously ill, while another third need some attention. Only about one-third have good mental health.22 It's not a happy record for our society--or for the schools, which are supposed to help people achieve their potential.

Clearly, people's learning and achievement capabilities are not being realized. A recent U.S. Office of Education study asked 7,500 adults questions to see if they were competent at tasks the researchers considered necessary for survival in our society. The tasks included knowing where to apply for social security benefits; how to figure which is a better bargain: one-half gallon of milk for 79 cents or a gallon for $1.10; how to read a sample ballot; etc. The study found that from 20-33% of adults could not achieve minimum levels (depending on the tasks) and that another 20-30% functioned but without proficiency.23

Numerous studies have looked behind adults' skills to assess their attitudes toward society. Philip Jacob tested for open-mindedness and political literacy. He found that only 20-30% of college graduates possess these characteristics of a liberal education. There was no difference in these qualities between liberal arts college graduates and those of technical colleges. Nor was there any difference between freshmen and seniors. The college experience had simply made no difference--except in the case of a very few progressive colleges.24

Studies of youth of high school age indicate that rather high numbers have seriously undemocratic views and tend to reject typical American ideals of liberty and opportunity for all.25 This finding seems related to experiences of people who have used the Bill of Rights disguised as a petition to be signed. They found few takers; some people commented that it looked like a Communist document. This should not be a surprising finding, in view of the systematic denial of democratic decision making which characterizes virtually every public school in the U.S.

In some localities, expensive efforts have been made to improve the schools. A few years ago, John Henry Martin became superintendent of an affluent suburb near New York City. He persuaded the school board to increase the budget by 35% in order to make many school improvements. Class size was reduced, various specialists were hired, training programs were started for staff, new materials were purchased, and so on. In all, some 60 improvements were made; but the basic organization and curriculum methods of traditional schools were retained. After two years psychometricians were hired to see what difference these expenditures had made in student achievement. They found no difference.26

The Concern with Reading. It is hard to understand why schools go to such lengths to make excellent readers out of all students. One might as well try to make all students excellent musicians. The effort would be better spent in developing good learners, for there are many ways to learn. Unfortunately, schools concentrate almost solely on literary and academic achievement. Reading is a talent or aptitude distributed on a normal curve, just as music or art talent is distributed, and the beginning age for reading ranges from 3 to 14. In a valuable article, Neil Postman points out the highly political nature of reading instruction in this country.27 Fortunes continue to be made by companies which produce massive quantities of reading curriculum material. In fact, the reading instruction materials industry is the single largest sub-industry in education. But learning to read is not nearly as difficult as it has been made out to be in this country. Cynthia Brown documents the fact that Paulo Freire helped Brazilian adults learn to read in 30 hours or less with extraordinarily simple, low-cost materials.28

Freire's work suggests that learning to decode or learning to change symbols into words, i.e., the act of reading, amounts to a few hours of actual teaching or learning. The acts of learning addition, subtraction, and other basic arithmetic functions may require only a few hours if we work with children when they are interested, have the capacity, and have a background of concrete experiences that make that learning a simple, final conceptualization of some earlier intuitive learnings. William Rohwer says that the timing on instruction is probably inappropriate for 40-50% of the students who attend our schools. This seems conservative.29 Rohwer suggests that the prime time for most formal kinds of learning might be adolescence. Informal learning--interaction with materials, experimentation, observation, trial and error, and interaction with older and younger people will provide an enormously potent background of intuitive learnings for the time when formal instruction begins.

Fundamental Questions. These studies raise fundamental questions about the relationship between what is known about learning and what schools are doing. Perhaps we should consider the kind of learning that occurs before age 5. By the time average American children enter kindergarten, they have learned two of the most complex tasks to be confronted during a lifetime: to walk and to talk. Every child learns without lesson plans, grades, extensive curriculum materials, certified teachers, etc. In fact, if these things had been used, the above-mentioned research indicates that there would have been serious learning problems. Instead, the child has role models of different ages, receives encouragement, and has people around who really care about him. The child learns!

Two extensive and ambitious studies suggest that schools might best try harder to become warm and friendly places. The Coleman Study examined 600,000 students in the U.S. in an effort to find out what factors make a difference in achievement. Only two factors were found. They were not class size, teacher preparation, per-pupil expenditures, or any of the usual factors that one would suspect. Instead, they were 1) children's sense of control over their own fate or destiny, or their sense of self-worth, and 2) the socio-economic background the children came from.30

A second study duplicated the Coleman work by examining 258,000 students in 9,700 schools in 20 countries and came up with essentially the same findings.31 Obviously, schools cannot control their students' backgrounds. However, they clearly can help the child develop a better sense of control over life, at least during the hours between 8:30 and three o'clock. Schools can do a much better job of helping students experience success. They can certainly simulate the kind of families high achievers come from: warm, friendly, stimulating, encouraging, etc.

Schools and Society Out of Phase. Many studies have criticized schools for being seriously out of phase with the rest of society. James Coleman believes that at the turn of the century schools performed a valuable function of information sharing/dispensing. At that time our society was information poor and responsibility rich for youth. The mass media did not exist; newspapers were scarce or came out as weeklies. Few people subscribed to them or to magazines. On the other hand, children of that era had many important responsibilities in the home, family business, or on the farm as workers and could see the direct relationship of their efforts to the well-being of the family. Coleman sees the current situation as a reversal; society is now information rich and responsibility poor for children. However, Coleman says schools act as though society were the same--that is, information poor and responsibility rich. The schools should reexamine their character, he argues, and provide diverse experiences with opportunities for youth to learn how to handle responsibility. Schools should not worry so much about information giving, since information will flow to students through many sources.32

Coleman's recommendations are consistent with those of six major studies completed by national groups between 1972 and 1975, studies which provide sweeping suggestions for change in our schools. Though the studies was conducted independently, there is a remarkable similarity in their final recommendations. In general, they conclude that schools are inflexible (students who know a subject still have to take a course in it); most activities in school are done in lock step, group-paced fashion; the products of high school are not very competent as citizens, consumers, parents, and workers, and seem poorly informed about the current world while possessing troubling undemocratic attitudes.33

The six studies include many recommendations. They suggest what has come to be known as "action learning," which requires students to be engaged in reality projects involving payoff in terms of a better life in the school or society. The studies recommend that students become deeply involved in the community--i.e., in business, internships, social service experiences, and the like. A second recommendation is that schools operate on an extended day and year basis, so that learning is increasingly seen as a lifelong process. The studies recommend competency-based graduation, which requires students to perform specific acts related to life skills. (They are not required to take courses learning skills they already have.) A fourth recommendation is that secondary school be combined with college or vocational programs. Finally, these studies insist that students and parents should have a variety of programs from which to choose--i.e., alternatives.

No Help from Professors. Reformers pushing for change in public schools have had remarkably little help from professors of education. Most of the startling research mentioned in this article is never discussed or even cited in college and university classes. Harold Taylor studied a representative cross section of college and universities where teachers are educated and concluded that the typical teacher education graduate is expected to "learn what he is taught from texts which raise few fundamental questions, by teachers who are older versions of himself and what he will some day be."34 Taylor also found that college educational experiences typically encourage teachers to function within a simple concept of curriculum: a prescribed pattern of courses distributed among various subjects supposedly covering specific topics which are prerequisite for courses to follow.

With few exceptions, college people offer little help to those trying to make fundamental changes and improvements in learning systems. Indeed, scholars often frustrate changes within their own institutions as well as in schools.35

Yet change must come. The research summarized in this article suggests that we should not be upset by experiments in education but should welcome them. We should support program and curriculum experimentation. We should not be afraid to be open to ideas. Each of us should try our own experiments.

It may be that current practice is the close to the worst possible arrangement for the education of the young. Research suggests that scores on standardized achievement tests are not likely to drop in school experiments. To us, these findings suggest that the state of educational research is primitive and that our schools resemble factories turning out identical products. We need programs to help individuals reach their unique potential.

Educators should view the curriculum not only as those experiences which the schools control for youth; the curriculum is all of life, irrespective of time and place. It needs to be recognized that learning is a lifelong process, best when self-directed.

Understanding Change. Change is difficult to understand. People who visit experimental programs or alternative programs are frequently prisoners of their paradigms. They often find the visit to experimental or alternative schools a mind-boggling experience. They cannot imagine that the results would be improved people or more responsible citizens. The conventional thinking in many regular schools is that experimental schools are places of great permissiveness, little learning, rude behavior, etc. This does not coincide with the facts but makes for interesting gossip.

These attitudes suggest that most educators are not serious students of learning and may be unable to recognize when or how it occurs. Instead, they go on with the same dry-as-dust teach, recite, lesson hearings that they themselves find boring.

Alternative school staffs and parents sometimes become disheartened or discouraged. Often they expect all problems to be solved by establishing a new structure or organization. It is vital that people not confuse the value of the ideas and techniques they are using with difficulties they have in actually carrying them out. Working with young people is hard work, and we always know more than we are able to do at any particular moment. Still, most surviving experimental or alternative schools find that their programs get better and better and that student/parent satisfaction increases steadily.

There is a tendency in these days of "back to the basics" for educators and journalists to regard alternative schools as a passing fad. However, a number of alternative schools have increased their respectability and have responded to demands for accountability by developing and implementing competency-based graduation requirements. The St. Paul Open School, the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Metro School, the Alternative Learning Project in Providence (Rhode Island), and the Minneapolis Free School are but a few alternatives with such requirements. Alternative school competency requirements generally include success in both paper-and-pencil tests and "real world" tasks.

The Obstructionist Carnegie Unit. These schools also recognize the source of most present-day high school graduation requirements: the Carnegie Unit (120 hours of instruction equal one unit; 14-16 units are required for graduation). The history behind the Carnegie Unit is amusing. With the help of a $10 million grant, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching spent several years investigating ways to provide pensions for college professors. Inadvertently, the foundation discovered that the average secondary school course lasted, on the average, 120 clock hours. The foundation decided to assign the name Carnegie Unit to successful completion of one such course. Furthermore, the foundation stipulated that any college wanting some of its money would have to require that applicants show successful completion of 14 Carnegie Units. The system spread like wildfire. It was almost universal within five years, and it has lasted pretty much intact for another 50 years.36 Many school practices have histories equally unrelated to what we know about learning and teaching. Like the Carnegie Unit, they need to be rethought.

Change is justified. It is justified because there are problems in public schools, because research says experimentation has good results, because it can be accomplished quickly, because parents and students want choices.

The real barriers to educational change are states of mind among leaders in American education. Despite these barriers, many people have been able to get exemptions from state regulations or interpret new practices to fit the state regulations--or simply confront them as obsolete.

Changes can be made in public schools. There are models, customers, and support. Those who want public schools to survive but refuse to help make major changes should think about the dinosaurs' experience. The dinosaurs did not change to meet new requirements. They became extinct.

1. Wilford Aikin, Story of the Eight-Year Study (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942).

2. Ibid., p. 113.

3. Margaret Willis, Guinea Pigs 20 Years Later (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1961).

4. Donald Feldstein, "Who Needs High School," Social Policy, May/June, 1974, p. 20.

5. L.A. Munday and J. C. Davis, Varieties' of Accomplishment After College: Perspectives' on the Meaning of Academic Talent, ACT Research Report No. 62 (Iowa City, Ia.: American College Testing Service, 1974).

6. Michael Wallach, "Psychology of Talent and Graduate Education," paper presented at International Conference on Cognitive Styles and Creativity in Higher Education sponsored by the Graduate Record Examinations Board, Montreal, November, 1972.

7. D. P. Hoyt, Relationship Between College Grades and Adult Achievement: A Review of the Literature, ACT Research Report No. 7 (Iowa City, Ia.: American College Testing Service, 1965).

8. Reported in The School Administrator, American Association of School Administrators, February, 1976, p. 2.

9. Torsten Husen, International Study of Achievement in Mathematics, vol. 2 (Uppsala, Sweden: Almquist & Wilseils, 1967).

10. Margaret Silberburg and Norman Silberburg, "Myths in Remedial Education," Journal of Learning Disabilities, April, 1969, pp. 209-17.

11. Bancroft Beatly, Achievement in Junior High School (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932).

12. Central Advisory Council for Education (England), Children and Their Primary Schools. two volumes (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967).

13. Alan Gartner, Mary Kohler, and Frank Riesman, Children Teach Children (New York: Harper and Row, 1971).

14. Robert D. Barr, "Growth of Public Alternative Schools," Changing Schools, no. 12, 1975, p. 3.

15. Robert A. Horwitz, Psychological Effects of Open Classroom Teaching on Primary School Children: A Review of the Research, a North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation publication (Grand Forks, N.D.: University of North Dakota Press, 1976).

16. Robert Drummond, "Preliminary Report - Research and Evaluation Team," University of Maine, Orono Achievement Testing Program for MSAD No. 3, mimeographed,1972.

17. James H. Lytle and Jay M. Yanoff, "The Effects (if Any) of a Teacher Strike on Student Achievement," Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1973, p. 270.

18. P. W. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston, 1968).

19. John I. Goodlad, Behind the Classroom Door (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1970).

20. D. C. Neale, H. Gill, and W. Tismer, Relationship Between Attitudes Toward School Subjects and School Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, vol. 63, 1970, pp.232-37.

21. D.C. Neale and J. M. Proshek, "School-Related Attitudes of Culturally Disadvantaged Elementary School Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 58, 1967, pp. 238.

22. August B. Hollingshead and Frederick C. Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness (New York: Wiley, 1958).

23. Norvell Northcutt, Adult Functional Competency: A Summary (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975).

24. Philip E. Jacob, Changing Values in College (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957).

25. N.H. Remmers and D. H. Radler, American Teenager (Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1957).

26. John Henry Martin and Charles Harrison, Free To Learn (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972).

27. Neil Postman, "The Politics of Reading," Harvard Educational Review, May, 1970.

28. Cynthia Brown, Literacy in 30 Hours (London: Expression Printers, Ltd., 1975). Available from the Center for Open Learning and Teaching, Berkeley, Calif.

29. William Rohwer, "Prime Time for Education: Early Childhood or Adolescence" Harvard Educational Review, August, 1971.

30. James S. Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Public Documents, 1967).

31. William Platt, "Policy Making and International Studies in Educational Evaluations," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1974, p. 451.

32. James S. Coleman, "The Children Have Outgrown the Schools," Psychology Today, February, 1972, pp. 72-76.

33. Panel on Youth of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Youth: Transition to Adulthood (Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973); National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education, Reform of Secondary Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973); Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Continuity and Discontinuity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973); National Association of Secondary School Principals, American Youth in the Mid-Seventies (Reston, Va.: NASSP, 1972); California Commission for Reform of Intermediate and Secondary Education, RISE Report (Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1975).

34. Harold Taylor, The World as Teacher (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1969).

35. Gail Thain Parker, "While Alma Mater Burns," Atlantic, September, 1976.

36. Ellsworth Tompkins and Walter Gaumnitz, Carnegie Unit. Its Origin, Status, and Trends. Education and Welfare Bulletin No. 7 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951).

WAYNE JENNINGS (University of Minnesota Chapter) is director of the St, Paul (Minnesota) Open School. JOE NATHAN (University of Minnesota Chapter) is program coordinator for the same school, which has received a USOE Pacesetter Award as an "outstanding innovation worthy of replication" and is using USOE grants to help other school districts establish and improve alternative programs.

This article appeared in slightly different form as the appendix to Herbert Kohl's On Teaching published by Schocken in November, 1976.