Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant passages that answer the question.
Query: How long did the Follow Through educational program last?
Follow Through was the largest and most expensive experimental project in education funded by the U.S. federal government that has ever been conducted. The most extensive evaluation of "Follow Through" data covers the years 1968–1977; however, the program continued to receive funding from the government until 1995. "Follow Through" was originally intended to be an extension of the federal "Head Start" program, which delivered educational, health, and social services to typically disadvantaged preschool children and their families. The function of "Follow Through", therefore, was to provide a continuation of these services to students in their early elementary years.
Hill writes: "There is seldom anyone at the local level whose commitment to an externally-imposed curricular innovation, planning process, or financial management scheme springs spontaneously from deeply held personal values." House argues that all decision-making that stems from evaluations in education is the result of a compromise. Watkins argues that "Follow Through" resulted in a clash over values based on different beliefs about how children learn, which can be boiled down to "natural growth" or "unfolding" theories versus. theories of "changing behavior". Watkins asserts that most education experts today do not judge programs by their relative effectiveness with different student populations, but rather by their "congruence with prevailing philosophies of education".
The Fletcher Johnson Educational Center, a charter school with 1,500 students in Washington, D.C., introduced the TM program for schools in 1994. Its principal, George H. Rutherford, is a member of the DLF's Board of Advisors. The Ideal Academy Public Charter School began its program with the approval of the Washington, D.C. Board of Education in 1997. The 2005–2006 pilot project at Ideal Academy was conducted along with research to document the effects of the program. The Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse] in Detroit began using the program for students in the fifth through eighth grade in 1996 and was featured on the Today Show in 2003. The school has since been classified by the Skillman Foundation as a "High-Performing Middle School". Over the years, the program at Nitaki Talibah has been funded by various foundations including General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, the Liebler Foundation and the DLF. The program at the school has been researched by Rita Benn of the University of Michigan's Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research Center.
Another experimental-vs-control study compared the effect of the Roots and Shoots humane education program on elementary students in several schools in two cities in the United States. The authors found that "[s]tudents who participated in the humane education program showed stronger growth in both of these outcomes compared with students in the control group". However, they did not find differences in disruptive behaviors between students who participated in the humane education program and the control program (a chess club). Overall, the authors state that "[e]ffects appeared strongest on attitudes; behavioral effects were found to be largely limited to behaviors directly addressed by the humane education program".
At first it was privately operated for high-risk males between the ages of 16-18. These teens were admitted after serving sentences for a range of offenses that included assault, robbery, forcible confinement, escape, and weapons charges, while excluding crimes such as murder, arson, and sexual assault. The 32 teens were subjected to high-intensity daily activities that lasted approximately 16 hours, designed to instill respect, accountability, skill building and educational and vocational programming to those who were predicted to re-offend. This facilitation provided good feedback in 2003, which led Public Security Minister Bob Runciman to further expand these sort of programs around the provinces. Sally Walker, the owner and boss of Project Turnaround also was happy with the results, and wanted to re-portray the perspective of visitors by clarifying that this institution was not a boot camp.
Operation Breakthrough, an anti-poverty movement, was established in Durham, North Carolina in August 1964. It played a prominent and influential role in the expansion of the Civil Rights movement in Durham. Terry Sanford, its founder, managed to develop that through the help and involvement of the North Carolina Fund. A Member of the Democratic Party, Sanford was the former governor of North Carolina and was highly respected for his intervention in the improvement of public education. Indeed, in the 1960s, the education system in place in North Carolina was very poor as one quarter of the adults above 25 years old had received an education inferior to sixth grade, making most of them illiterate. Because of the high success of the program, the concept developed through the North Carolina Fund was mimicked throughout the nation, transforming what initially was a state wide program to a national program. Throughout this movement, activism played a fundamental role as the main aim of the program consisted in changing the economic situation of a state through the use of political and social power.
In 1965 the far-reaching Elementary and Secondary Education Act ('ESEA'), passed as a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty", provided funds for primary and secondary education ('Title I funding') while explicitly forbidding the establishment of a national curriculum. It emphasized equal access to education and established high standards and accountability. The bill also aimed to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing every child with fair and equal opportunities to achieve an exceptional education.
Feedforward, Behavior and Cognitive Science is a method of teaching and learning that illustrates or indicates a desired future behavior or path to a goal. Feedforward provides information, images, etc. exclusively about what one could do right in the future, often in contrast to what one has done in the past. The feedforward method of teaching and learning is in contrast to its opposite, feedback, concerning human behavior because it focuses on learning in the future, whereas feedback uses information from a past event to provide reflection and the basis for behaving and thinking differently. In isolation, feedback is the least effective form of instruction, according to US Department of Defense studies in the 1980s. Feedforward was coined in 1976 by Peter W. Dowrick in his dissertation.
In 1965, the far-reaching Elementary and Secondary Education Act ('ESEA'), passed as a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, provided funds for primary and secondary education ('Title I funding'). Title VI explicitly forbade the establishment of a national curriculum. Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 created the Pell Grant program which provides financial support to students from low-income families to access higher education.
Catholic Missionaries were sent to convert First Nations children to Christianity. By 1891, the first group of students were sent to receive a so-called "formal" education. The program continued for the next six decades until a point when Native children were allowed into the public school system. Ninety years after the start of the Residential School program, the mission school closed circa 1981. Throughout that period, Indian agents were empowered to remove children from homes to attend St. Joseph's Mission school in 150 Mile House. This led some to attempt to hide their children by sneaking out to hunting grounds or fields. Children fled the schools, and within the first 30 years, three investigations on the physical abuse and malnutrition were conducted; however, the Natives were said to be "wild", deserving the treatment.
In September 2004, with the support of parents, the school became the first to introduce random drug tests which commenced in January 2005. The tests could be performed only when parents gave permission for their child to be tested. Students who refused to be available for testing or tested positive would undergo a counselling program. Critics of the program stated an infringement of privacy would lead to legal action. At the school, 20 students were tested weekly and were given a mouth swab for cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Supporters of the program including former Prime Minister Tony Blair who endorsed Walker's efforts and called for the program to be expanded. In 2005, the school reported that the scheme helped to boost examination results to 40% compared with 32% in 2004, and 28% in 2003.
The Foundation’s signature fundraising program, "Walk to End Lupus Now"™, has events in more than 60 communities and 70,000 participants, generating visibility, public understanding and support for people with lupus. Money raised is used to support lupus research, education and advocacy programs that serve to improve the quality of life for all people affected by lupus. The Foundation’s multi-media campaign, KNOW LUPUS, continues to educate people about lupus and its impact, has resulted in more than $31 million in donated media and 839 million impressions.
As of May 2018, the program has graduated 5 cohorts of students. The current cohort or class, "MSF VI", is made up of about 120 students from all over the world, including the surrounding Washington, D.C. area, New York, Dubai and Salt Lake City. Student age average is 28, however the age range is from 21 to 50+ years of age. The cohort students bring a wide-array of professional and personal experience, including enrolment of military veterans, senior management, entrepeneurs, engineers, recent-college graduates and teachers. Application to the program requires completion of an undergraduate degree, the submission of GMAT or GRE scores, 2 recommendations, a completed admissions application and an admissions interview.
Before No Child Left Behind, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 as a part of the "War on Poverty". In hopes of diminishing the achievement gap, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed to create equal opportunity and access to education through high standards and accountability. These standards and accountability techniques came in the form of standardized testing. For the first time, federal money was being sent into local schools and made the production of test-based evidence mandatory for all educators. Standards were being assessed on these state-created exams, and local schools were then accountable to perform on these exams. In 2002, Congress re-examined ESEA and reauthorized it as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
AFC has been criticised for costing three times as much to deliver Phase 1 training to a 16-year-old infantry recruit as the equivalent cost for a recruit aged 17.5 and above at the Infantry Training Centre. The British Army's policy of enlisting from age 16 has also been criticised for leading to lower trainee retention than is found among adult recruits; between 2009–10 and 2013–14, 33% of enlisted minors dropped out of army training (versus 24% of adult recruits).
The act was part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, which sought to eliminate poverty which President Johnson saw as: "... it's wastage of resources and human lives..." The aim was to bring Americans closer, away from "the outskirts of hope." By 1966, the program was under scrutiny from Republicans. They pointed out the waste and inefficiency in local programs and Nixon pledged to "take the profit out of poverty." LBJ was proud of the progress he had made with the passage of his bill, including 9.1 million acres of forestry that was set for harvest, the creation of Medicare, and funding injected into state schools. Funding that was for his poverty legislation were diverted to The Vietnam War. In 1967, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office, then General Accounting Office, to review anti-poverty programs by the federal government. The conclusion was that programs such as Head Start were effective in providing for children, but the primary objective of parent participation was insufficient. Community Action Programs were behind administratively and underachieved given the amount of money designated. Overall, the GAO determined that the poverty programs were working at the time. The act was essentially repealed under the Ronald Reagan administration in 1981, although much of the main features still remain. The remaining pieces of social legislation are reconfigured and adjusted, such as Head Start, which is now under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was replaced by The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) which replaced the funding from direct funding to block grants with over 1200 plus community action agencies.
With the reference to Columbia University’s and University of Missouri’s programs, the School develops a “fundamental but practical” curriculum, with international and practice-oriented features. It adopts the worldwide used curriculum system of “Platform Module” and offers small-group classes, English-immersed, and bilingual courses. It is also developing a four-year discipline in Journalistic English. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett has taught at the school since 2007.
A recent project development was the implementation of bibliotherapy at the library in 2010. The bibliotherapy program used books to assist the children and young teens with coping with social, emotional and physical issues. The program identified the children's needs and used a variety of programs to help eradicate the isolation of people living with HIV/AIDS through education, self-awareness, skill development, and recreation. Some sessions included storytelling, reading aloud, and "The Wall of Happiness Sessions" in which participants openly discussed what made them happy with the facilitator. The program was made available to all residents at Nkosi's Haven, including orphans and those who were free of HIV/AIDS in order to increase overall awareness. Results of the program showed success among residents, with 92% of young participants demonstrating increased knowledge and understanding about HIV/AIDS related issues, 78% demonstrating an increase in comfort and decrease in fear around HIV/AIDS related issues, and 91% of adults demonstrating an improvement in self-esteem and optimistic attitudes.
President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law two days later on April 9, 1965.New Titles Created by Early Amendments to 1965 LawTitle I ("Title One"), a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed in 1965, is a program created by the U.S. Department of Education to distribute funding to schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from low-income families. Funding is distributed first to state educational agencies (SEAs) which then allocate funds to local educational agencies (LEA's) which in turn dispense funds to public schools in need. Title I also helps children from families that have migrated to the United States and youth from intervention programs who are neglected or at risk of abuse. The act appropriates money for educational purposes for the next five fiscal years until it is reauthorized. In addition, Title I appropriates money to the education system for prevention of dropouts and the improvement of schools; these appropriations are carried out for five fiscal years until reauthorization.
As a further example of the government's commitment to nine-year compulsory education, in January 1986 the State Council drafted a bill passed at the Fourteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Sixth National People's Congress that made it illegal for any organization or individual to employ youths before they had completed their nine years of schooling. The bill also authorized free education and subsidies for students whose families had financial difficulties.
The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) (), also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 (), approved by the 90th United States Congress on January 2, 1968, and was the first United States federal legislation recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.
"Follow Through" planners felt that they were responding to an important challenge in the education of disadvantaged students. It was generally hypothesized that the mere provision of specific supports in the form of federal compensatory programs—such as "Head Start" and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—would result in increased academic achievement for disadvantaged children, if implemented faithfully by committed teachers. However, studies had shown that despite its successes, in general any gains that children made from "Head Start" (in measures of academic achievement) "faded out" during the first few years of elementary school. It was unclear to policy makers and others if the elementary school experience itself caused this phenomenon, or if specific approaches to instruction within schools were the problem. "Follow Through" intended to solve the problem by identifying what whole-school approaches to curriculum and instruction worked, and what did not. Subsequently, effective models were to be promulgated by the government as exemplars of innovative and proven methods of raising the academic achievement of historically disadvantaged students.
In 1972, the OE created the Joint Dissemination Review Panel (JDRP) and the National Diffusion Network (NDN) to disseminate information about effective models to schools and districts nationwide. JDRP reviewed programs for effectiveness according to a mixture of empirical and holistic criteria. NDN was responsible for disseminating the results based on the recommendations of JDRP. Watkins (1997) criticizes the dissemination criteria for two reasons. First, the organizations identified programs for dissemination that had not been part of the "Follow Through" experiment and for which there was no empirical validation. Second, JDRP and NDN endorsed programs that showed improvement in areas "such as self-concept, attitude, and mental or physical health (of students) ... (or) if it has a positive impact on individuals other than students, for example if it results in improved instructional behavior of teachers" (p. 47), but did not raise students' academic achievement. Thus, programs "that had been incapable of demonstrating improved academic performance in the "Follow Through" evaluation" were recommended for adoption by schools and districts. Watkins cites the former Commissioner of Education, Ernest Boyer, who wrote with dismay that "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 of the models".
Was "Follow Through" a social or scientific program? After an initial period, new regulations mandated that 80 percent of "Follow Through" funding was to be allocated to the provision of service while 20 percent was to be used for knowledge production. The regulations themselves suggest that "Follow Through" was principally "a federally funded education program which contained a built-in research component". An inevitable conflict exists when one attempts to operationalize a federal program in education that possesses both service delivery and research and development objectives. Rivlin "et al." point out that "the byzantine complexity of the public policymaking process makes the conduct of social experiments extremely difficult". Given the reduction in funding, the decision to engage in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions in an empirical experiment appears appropriate and straightforward. However, if the change is not reflected in Congressional legislation or communicated clearly at the local level, issues of implementation and conflict with deeply held values inevitably result. There is much evidence that indicates confusion about the intent of the "Follow Through" evaluation at the administrative level.
Because of the range of models, a broad range of instruments and analytical methods was selected in order to measure the targeted outcomes of basic skills, affective behavior, and cognitive behavior. Adams and Engelmann wrote, "while critics have complained about test selection and have usually suggested more testing, the assessment effort in this study went well beyond any other educational study conducted before, or since". In all, 14 instruments were selected and administered at various times throughout a student's participation in "Follow Through". Three groups of students, known as Cohorts (i.e., Cohorts I, II, and III) were followed longitudinally from the time they entered "Follow Through" (e.g., Kindergarten or Grade 1) until they exited the program (Grade 3). While the authors of the "Follow Through" report rated the instruments as having high reliability, some sponsors questioned the validity of the instruments in measuring the varied orientations of the models. Other critics, such as House "et al." in a Ford Foundation-funded and widely disseminated analysis, also criticized the instruments. However, the evaluators believed that the instrument battery represented the "best compromise" given the range of models. Despite the relatively large number of students who participated in "Follow Through", the evaluators imposed rigorous restrictions on the sample that was actually in the statistical analysis. The comparison group—students from the community identified as not participating in "Follow Through"—was not subject to precisely the same restrictions as the control group, as long as they entered and exited school in the same districts and at the same time as "Follow Through" students.