DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 056 500 EM 009 357 TITLE Individualized Instruction; Abbreviated Proceedings of Two Conferences. INSTITUTION Suffolk County Regional Center, Patchogue, N.Y. PUB DATE 71 NOTE 02p.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *Conference Reports; *Individualized Instruction; Nongraded System; State Programs; Teaching Methods IDF1%7TIFIERS *New York ABSTRACT Two conferences brought tLygether educators in the state of New York with an interest in individualized instruction. The conferences report consists of five maior papers. Ind1vidua1ized teaching practices are compared with those of non-individualized education. A list of the characteristics ofan ideal individualized school is given. Seventeen assumptions basic to individualized instruction are presented. The state of individualized instruction in New York is reviewed. A description of individualized instruction in nongraded schools and a summary of the plans for the future in individualized edtication in New York are also included. An appendix contains the background information about the conference itself: the program, a directory of conference leaders, brief summaries of group discussions, and a list of conference participants. WO DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 056 500 EM 009 357 TITLE Individualized Instruction; Abbreviated Proceedings of Two Conferences. INSTITUTION Suffolk County Regional Center, Patchogue, N.Y. PUB DATE 71 NOTE 02p.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *Conference Reports; *Individualized Instruction; Nongraded System; State Programs; Teaching Methods IDF1%7TIFIERS *New York ABSTRACT Two conferences brought tLygether educators in the state of New York with an interest in individualized instruction. The conferences report consists of five maior papers. Ind1vidua1ized teaching practices are compared with those of non-individualized education. A list of the characteristics ofan ideal individualized school is given. Seventeen assumptions basic to individualized instruction are presented. The state of individualized instruction in New York is reviewed. A description of individualized instruction in nongraded schools and a summary of the plans for the future in individualized edtication in New York are also included. An appendix contains the background information about the conference itself: the program, a directory of conference leaders, brief summaries of group discussions, and a list of conference participants. WO OR 5UPPLEMINTARY*pu 20.Chtirch Street, Patchogue,' New Ydi-lci 1 17 OR 5UPPLEMINTARY*pu 20.Chtirch Street, Patchogue,' New Ydi-lci 1 17 INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
f`.
Cr) A report from conferences &". conducted by the office of Regional Education Planning for Suffolk County dqc INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
f`.
Cr) A report from conferences &". conducted by the office of Regional Education Planning for Suffolk County dqc U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATIONA WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HASBEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIG- INATING IT, POINTS OF VIEWOR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OFEDU- CAlION POSITION OR POLICY.
INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
Abbreviated Proceedings ofTwo Conferences
This document was processed for the ERICDocument Reproduction Service by the ERIC Clearinghouse at Stanford.Ve are aware that some pages probably 'will not be readable in microficheor in a hardcopy enlargement. However, this is the best availablecopy, and we feel that the document should not be withheld from interested readerson the basis of these unreadable pagesalone.1 =='12D:rte sea wrs-asar.aba... goau-seexuarima
at
Gurney's Inn, Montauk,Long Island
from
February 8 to 9, 1971 andMarch 29 to 30, 1971
conducted by
Office of RegionalEducational Planning forSuffolk County
lir Dr. John J. Keough, Director 201 Sunrise Hwy., Patdhogue,N.Y. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATIONA WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HASBEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIG- INATING IT, POINTS OF VIEWOR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OFEDU- CAlION POSITION OR POLICY.
INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
Abbreviated Proceedings ofTwo Conferences
This document was processed for the ERICDocument Reproduction Service by the ERIC Clearinghouse at Stanford.Ve are aware that some pages probably 'will not be readable in microficheor in a hardcopy enlargement. However, this is the best availablecopy, and we feel that the document should not be withheld from interested readerson the basis of these unreadable pagesalone.1 =='12D:rte sea wrs-asar.aba... goau-seexuarima
at
Gurney's Inn, Montauk,Long Island
from
February 8 to 9, 1971 andMarch 29 to 30, 1971
conducted by
Office of RegionalEducational Planning forSuffolk County
lir Dr. John J. Keough, Director 201 Sunrise Hwy., Patdhogue,N.Y. office of
REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
for Suffolk County
Joint ManacipmentLam
James Hj William F. Phe.Lan Gordon A. Wheaton Dist. Superintendent Dist. Superintendent Dist. Superintendent BOCES I BOCES II BOCES III
Professional Staff
Dr. John J. Keough Dr. Michael R. Talty Dr. John A. De Silva Dr. Gerald P. LaMantia Mrs. Lucille Bandes Dr. Michael Spina Mr. John F. Walsh
t office of
REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
for Suffolk County
Joint ManacipmentLam
James Hj William F. Phe.Lan Gordon A. Wheaton Dist. Superintendent Dist. Superintendent Dist. Superintendent BOCES I BOCES II BOCES III
Professional Staff
Dr. John J. Keough Dr. Michael R. Talty Dr. John A. De Silva Dr. Gerald P. LaMantia Mrs. Lucille Bandes Dr. Michael Spina Mr. John F. Walsh
t z TABLE OF CONTENTS An Introduction
Summary of the Conferences 1
A Comparison: Individualized and'Non- Individualized Teaching Practics 7
Nine Characteristics Observed in the "Ideal" Individualized School 8 - Dr. Donald Nasca
Seventeen Assumptions to be Accepted before Switching to Individualized Instruction 9 - Edward J. Eaton
Individualizing Instruction in New York State 11 - Dr. Donald Nasca
Individualized Instruction in the Non- Graded School (with brief bibliography) 91 - Dr. William McLoughlin
Future Action and Programs. 50 - Dr. Ted Grenda
APPENDIX
Programs for the Two Conferences 57
Who's Who on Conference Leaders 61
Outcomes of Group Discussions 63
Participants' Reaction Sheets Summarized 75
List of Conference Participants 76 z TABLE OF CONTENTS An Introduction
Summary of the Conferences 1
A Comparison: Individualized and'Non- Individualized Teaching Practics 7
Nine Characteristics Observed in the "Ideal" Individualized School 8 - Dr. Donald Nasca
Seventeen Assumptions to be Accepted before Switching to Individualized Instruction 9 - Edward J. Eaton
Individualizing Instruction in New York State 11 - Dr. Donald Nasca
Individualized Instruction in the Non- Graded School (with brief bibliography) 91 - Dr. William McLoughlin
Future Action and Programs. 50 - Dr. Ted Grenda
APPENDIX
Programs for the Two Conferences 57
Who's Who on Conference Leaders 61
Outcomes of Group Discussions 63
Participants' Reaction Sheets Summarized 75
List of Conference Participants 76 11 AN INTRODUCTION
"Learning is personal, unique,unstandardized." - Ronald C. Doll
"I look, too, fora more flexible system of education in this State withincreased pro- vision of opportunity forstudents to par- ticipate inany program at any level at which they are capable of performing,and of in- creased opportunity forstudents to proceed at their ownpace. ...A good question is: If the abilities, incentives,and learning system of students vary widely,why are most of them taught in thesame way over the same period of time?" - Ewald B. Nyquist
"Traditionally, instructionhas been oriented toward a groupor class. Common assignments are given to all members ofthe group and if individual projectsare assigned all students are expected to complete theirprojects on the same specifieddate. Thas, these student learning experiencesare group oriented, teacher paced, and scheduledat a time convenient to the teacher and the school.
In contrast, individualizedinstruction is oriented toward thechild. Appropriate learn- ing experiencesare assigned each student. In order to determinewhat is "appropriate" for eadh learner some typeof diagnostic procedure is used. Once these learning experiencesare identified, instructionis mainly self-directed, self-administered, andscheduled, within the school's broad timeconstraints, at a timecon- venient tc the learner." - Jack V. Edling 11 AN INTRODUCTION
"Learning is personal, unique,unstandardized." - Ronald C. Doll
"I look, too, fora more flexible system of education in this State withincreased pro- vision of opportunity forstudents to par- ticipate inany program at any level at which they are capable of performing,and of in- creased opportunity forstudents to proceed at their ownpace. ...A good question is: If the abilities, incentives,and learning system of students vary widely,why are most of them taught in thesame way over the same period of time?" - Ewald B. Nyquist
"Traditionally, instructionhas been oriented toward a groupor class. Common assignments are given to all members ofthe group and if individual projectsare assigned all students are expected to complete theirprojects on the same specifieddate. Thas, these student learning experiencesare group oriented, teacher paced, and scheduledat a time convenient to the teacher and the school.
In contrast, individualizedinstruction is oriented toward thechild. Appropriate learn- ing experiencesare assigned each student. In order to determinewhat is "appropriate" for eadh learner some typeof diagnostic procedure is used. Once these learning experiencesare identified, instructionis mainly self-directed, self-administered, andscheduled, within the school's broad timeconstraints, at a timecon- venient tc the learner." - Jack V. Edling SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCES
Two conferenceson individualized Instruction (I.I.),jointly
sponsored by the StateEducation Department andSuffolk County's Office of Regional Educational Planning, both playedto packed houses. Over
400 educators attendedthem.
This high interest inI.I. owes much to Dr. JackEdling from
Oregon's State System ofHigher Education. In the late 1960's, Edling
trekked across America to visit 46 out ofan original list of 600 schools, all of which had reported use of 1.1. Edling's journey produceda report that included case studies of the 46 schoolsand important generalcon- clusions on the nature of I.I., its objectives,its procedures, its effects, its problems.
At Palo Alto inFebruary of 1970, Edling'sreport was disseminated. Personnel from StateEducation Departmentsacross the country heard it, and thiswas the event that triggeredNew York into action. In Suffolk, educatorscame to find out what had beenhappening in the State sincethen.
They learned a New York State IndividualizedInstruction Council had been established. Dr. Ted Grenda, Directorof General Education chairs it, with RogerMing, Supervisor of Educationfor the Gifted, at his right hand. A college professor, a-scienceteadher, an industrialist, a bureau chief, and an I.I. expert from the RegionalOffices round out a compact but broad-based group whose purpose is todevelop strategies to spread I.I. through theState. 7 SUMMARY OF THE CONFERENCES
Two conferenceson individualized Instruction (I.I.),jointly
sponsored by the StateEducation Department andSuffolk County's Office of Regional Educational Planning, both playedto packed houses. Over
400 educators attendedthem.
This high interest inI.I. owes much to Dr. JackEdling from
Oregon's State System ofHigher Education. In the late 1960's, Edling
trekked across America to visit 46 out ofan original list of 600 schools, all of which had reported use of 1.1. Edling's journey produceda report that included case studies of the 46 schoolsand important generalcon- clusions on the nature of I.I., its objectives,its procedures, its effects, its problems.
At Palo Alto inFebruary of 1970, Edling'sreport was disseminated. Personnel from StateEducation Departmentsacross the country heard it, and thiswas the event that triggeredNew York into action. In Suffolk, educatorscame to find out what had beenhappening in the State sincethen.
They learned a New York State IndividualizedInstruction Council had been established. Dr. Ted Grenda, Directorof General Education chairs it, with RogerMing, Supervisor of Educationfor the Gifted, at his right hand. A college professor, a-scienceteadher, an industrialist, a bureau chief, and an I.I. expert from the RegionalOffices round out a compact but broad-based group whose purpose is todevelop strategies to spread I.I. through theState. 7 Several strategieswere found to be already underway. This
State Council intends to blanketNew York with a Network of local councils.
Local c..luncils will consistof actual practitioners of I.I. Through the
Network, practitioners willshare information withore another. As was made very clear at theMontauk Conference, sharing is most importantin
I.I. because itsvery nature produces and even demands multiplevariations.
Besides benefiting the veteransof individualized instruction,
the Network also plansto encourage new entries into it. Thie would be done by coordinating activitieswhich will directnewcomers to places where ongoing programs couldbe seen and judged in actual practice.
Of course, the State NetWorkidea depended on locating and describing I.I. practicesactually in use. Dr. Donald Nasca from the
State University at Brockport didthis initial task. The next step was to ask the Regicnal EducationCenters for help in disseminating the
Nasca survey. To date, the Centers inWestchester, the Genessee Valley,
Nassau, and Suffolk have beenable to assist.
The Suffolk Center, directed byDr. Jdhn Keough, used the Nasca
Survey to begin its I.I. Conferencesat MontaUk. Then, in alternating large and small-group sessionsthat went on for two days, local educators learned at least these three pointsabout I.I.:
Firste the term "Individualized Instruction"means many things to many men. One school sees 1.1.as a remedial tool for pushing "slow" learners up to group standards. Another uses I.I. only for 'bright" students by giving them added enrichmentopportunities after they finish the
11 -2- Several strategieswere found to be already underway. This
State Council intends to blanketNew York with a Network of local councils.
Local c..luncils will consistof actual practitioners of I.I. Through the
Network, practitioners willshare information withore another. As was made very clear at theMontauk Conference, sharing is most importantin
I.I. because itsvery nature produces and even demands multiplevariations.
Besides benefiting the veteransof individualized instruction,
the Network also plansto encourage new entries into it. Thie would be done by coordinating activitieswhich will directnewcomers to places where ongoing programs couldbe seen and judged in actual practice.
Of course, the State NetWorkidea depended on locating and describing I.I. practicesactually in use. Dr. Donald Nasca from the
State University at Brockport didthis initial task. The next step was to ask the Regicnal EducationCenters for help in disseminating the
Nasca survey. To date, the Centers inWestchester, the Genessee Valley,
Nassau, and Suffolk have beenable to assist.
The Suffolk Center, directed byDr. Jdhn Keough, used the Nasca
Survey to begin its I.I. Conferencesat MontaUk. Then, in alternating large and small-group sessionsthat went on for two days, local educators learned at least these three pointsabout I.I.:
Firste the term "Individualized Instruction"means many things to many men. One school sees 1.1.as a remedial tool for pushing "slow" learners up to group standards. Another uses I.I. only for 'bright" students by giving them added enrichmentopportunities after they finish the
11 -2- 1: prescribedprogram. A third feels it has achieved I.I.by acquiringa well-stocked mediaand material center, even though thematerials of the center havenot been actually fused with theschool's ongoingprogrPms. Nasca grouped I.I. variations ona scale conceived byEdling. At one end,the teacher controls studentobjectives and activities;at the other, thestudent is free to set hisown objectives andchoose activities to gethim there. New York State'sIndividual Instruction Council wantsto move I.I. deeper into the sectorof studentfreedom. Second, participants learned practicalessentials forstarting an I.I. program andmaking it succeed. Administrativesupport isnecessary. Parents must beinvolved and informed. A wide supply ofself-teaching
1,9 /ES Z-s .-c.a..%..a.arAvsm 4 1 =1-.1 a v - 1J. a. Cr% 0,-t1 Iear% 4- rt-,=
conferences withstudents. Newcomers to 1.1. must study veteranpractitioners should be startedin a small way with a handful ofcommitted teachers. Curriculumareas should be chosen where thoseteachers arestrong. Kits already prepared bycommercial companiesalso make a good beginning. 1he kits usuallyhave four common components: Objectives, diagnostic test,activities, evaluation. .Experiencewith suchstructured kits soon leadsto personal adaptations andcreativity.
The best settingsfor I.I. have informality andlarge openspaces. Here, studentscan watch others learning andso learn themselves. Also, a constant flow ofinformation between students andteadhers isfacilitated. 1: prescribedprogram. A third feels it has achieved I.I.by acquiringa well-stocked mediaand material center, even though thematerials of the center havenot been actually fused with theschool's ongoingprogrPms. Nasca grouped I.I. variations ona scale conceived byEdling. At one end,the teacher controls studentobjectives and activities;at the other, thestudent is free to set hisown objectives andchoose activities to gethim there. New York State'sIndividual Instruction Council wantsto move I.I. deeper into the sectorof studentfreedom. Second, participants learned practicalessentials forstarting an I.I. program andmaking it succeed. Administrativesupport isnecessary. Parents must beinvolved and informed. A wide supply ofself-teaching
1,9 /ES Z-s .-c.a..%..a.arAvsm 4 1 =1-.1 a v - 1J. a. Cr% 0,-t1 Iear% 4- rt-,=
conferences withstudents. Newcomers to 1.1. must study veteranpractitioners should be startedin a small way with a handful ofcommitted teachers. Curriculumareas should be chosen where thoseteachers arestrong. Kits already prepared bycommercial companiesalso make a good beginning. 1he kits usuallyhave four common components: Objectives, diagnostic test,activities, evaluation. .Experiencewith suchstructured kits soon leadsto personal adaptations andcreativity.
The best settingsfor I.I. have informality andlarge openspaces. Here, studentscan watch others learning andso learn themselves. Also, a constant flow ofinformation between students andteadhers isfacilitated. Newness of the building is irrelovant. Magma ated that the ideal 1.1. setting was recognizable by the following: it difficult t.o find or
each individual; there identify the teacher; teachers are responsive t ' is much movement which is free but purposef..a; ;tudents are excited,
happy, friendly; a variety of tasks are underwa ; students take the initiative in choosing from a variety of readily available school and non-school learning resources including materialt media, people.
Above all, the Suffolk conferees heardepeatedly that success with La. depends on altering attitudes and gosh: Dr. Grenda said teachers must move from being-dispensers of infor ation" to "humanizers in the classroom". Keynote speaker, Dr. William tcLioughlin from St. John's
University, said the teacher mustno longer be re-arded as the sole source of learning; emphasis should shift to matriOs n learning. Dr. McLoughlin warned that restrictive boxing of studnts into f ed grade levels can cause "emotional and psychological damage." Dr.I isca made the provocative suggestion that good "instruction"may not necessl :ily be equated with good
"learning". Instruction focuses on teachers: lea: lingfocuses on students, said Nasca. I.I. requires that eacb 1(irner be treated as unique; to do this teachers must reiinquish somec' their controls over the learning process. Finally, student progrssbiould no longer be considered in terms of grade-level norms, but inr dation to each student's special potential, interests, talents. 10 Newness of the building is irrelovant. Magma ated that the ideal 1.1. setting was recognizable by the following: it difficult t.o find or
each individual; there identify the teacher; teachers are responsive t ' is much movement which is free but purposef..a; ;tudents are excited,
happy, friendly; a variety of tasks are underwa ; students take the initiative in choosing from a variety of readily available school and non-school learning resources including materialt media, people.
Above all, the Suffolk conferees heardepeatedly that success with La. depends on altering attitudes and gosh: Dr. Grenda said teachers must move from being-dispensers of infor ation" to "humanizers in the classroom". Keynote speaker, Dr. William tcLioughlin from St. John's
University, said the teacher mustno longer be re-arded as the sole source of learning; emphasis should shift to matriOs n learning. Dr. McLoughlin warned that restrictive boxing of studnts into f ed grade levels can cause "emotional and psychological damage." Dr.I isca made the provocative suggestion that good "instruction"may not necessl :ily be equated with good
"learning". Instruction focuses on teachers: lea: lingfocuses on students, said Nasca. I.I. requires that eacb 1(irner be treated as unique; to do this teachers must reiinquish somec' their controls over the learning process. Finally, student progrssbiould no longer be considered in terms of grade-level norms, but inr dation to each student's special potential, interests, talents. 10 Third, the SuffolkRegional Center'sConference did not minimize the difficulties of establishingI.I. There is teacher in- security; time will have to be set asidefor staff training. There is money; self-study materials must be procured andteacher aidesmay have to be hired. Further, there isevidence thatsome students find it difficult to adaptto I.I. Some parents willbe disturbedover the new "freedom". And, it was noted that even proceduresin suchareas as record keeping, scheduling, anddiagnosis were stillvery "unstable". Neverthele3s, weighted against difficultieswas the vision of exponents whosaw I.I. as a way toward higherstudent achievementthrough the enthusiasmand love for learning it couldgenerate. Barry Kane said it could"unleash the maximum of our students'potential." . Grenda closed the Sukfolk Conference withseven signs of the times: His Individualized Instruction Councilis determinedto establish astatewide I.I. Network. The State EducationDepartment is ready toease regulations. Universitiesare re-evaluating theirpresent teacher-trainingprograms. Interest in theBritish system ofopen class- rooms is soaring. Commercial instructionalmaterialsare proliferating. Systems whichcontinuously monitor achievementare being perfected. On the horizontechnical advances promise computersthat will providesuperb delivery systems.
So, the fieldsseem ripe foran I.I. harvest. 11 Third, the SuffolkRegional Center'sConference did not minimize the difficulties of establishingI.I. There is teacher in- security; time will have to be set asidefor staff training. There is money; self-study materials must be procured andteacher aidesmay have to be hired. Further, there isevidence thatsome students find it difficult to adaptto I.I. Some parents willbe disturbedover the new "freedom". And, it was noted that even proceduresin suchareas as record keeping, scheduling, anddiagnosis were stillvery "unstable". Neverthele3s, weighted against difficultieswas the vision of exponents whosaw I.I. as a way toward higherstudent achievementthrough the enthusiasmand love for learning it couldgenerate. Barry Kane said it could"unleash the maximum of our students'potential." . Grenda closed the Sukfolk Conference withseven signs of the times: His Individualized Instruction Councilis determinedto establish astatewide I.I. Network. The State EducationDepartment is ready toease regulations. Universitiesare re-evaluating theirpresent teacher-trainingprograms. Interest in theBritish system ofopen class- rooms is soaring. Commercial instructionalmaterialsare proliferating. Systems whichcontinuously monitor achievementare being perfected. On the horizontechnical advances promise computersthat will providesuperb delivery systems.
So, the fieldsseem ripe foran I.I. harvest. 11 A COMPARISON OF PRACTICES
Individualized Instruction Non Individualized Instruction
Student Behavior gljectives
The pupils pursue objectives whichtheyThe pupils have themselveshave established. pursue objectives which the teacher hasestablished. klanning_AMI_EntaLrAljan The pupil's planning andpreparation The pupil's have been unique planning andpreparatic in that theyare have been by engaged in teadher's directionix independent work,study, that all pupils practice, are engaged in the or demonstration. same activity. Communication-Direction
The pupils are engaged in smallgroup The pupil's activity in which participati,m inclass discussion iscon- is restrictedto asking sidered a functionof learning. or answerir questions of theteadher. Communication-Message
The pupilsare encouraged to manifest The pupilsare restricted to originality, creativeproductivity, reci- and purposeful tation ofpredigested materialand divergence. to conformity. Function
The pupilsare active participants in learning The pupilsare passive recipients activities, of knowledge. Evaluation
The pupilevaluates hisown growth and development, The pupil makesno self-evaluation but acceptsteacher's opinion.
Excerpt from "Danowski's IndividualizedVariables"
IAR - ResearchBulletin, 1965 Institute ofAdministrativeResearch Teachers College,Columbia University 12 A COMPARISON OF PRACTICES
Individualized Instruction Non Individualized Instruction
Student Behavior gljectives
The pupils pursue objectives whichtheyThe pupils have themselveshave established. pursue objectives which the teacher hasestablished. klanning_AMI_EntaLrAljan The pupil's planning andpreparation The pupil's have been unique planning andpreparatic in that theyare have been by engaged in teadher's directionix independent work,study, that all pupils practice, are engaged in the or demonstration. same activity. Communication-Direction
The pupils are engaged in smallgroup The pupil's activity in which participati,m inclass discussion iscon- is restrictedto asking sidered a functionof learning. or answerir questions of theteadher. Communication-Message
The pupilsare encouraged to manifest The pupilsare restricted to originality, creativeproductivity, reci- and purposeful tation ofpredigested materialand divergence. to conformity. Function
The pupilsare active participants in learning The pupilsare passive recipients activities, of knowledge. Evaluation
The pupilevaluates hisown growth and development, The pupil makesno self-evaluation but acceptsteacher's opinion.
Excerpt from "Danowski's IndividualizedVariables"
IAR - ResearchBulletin, 1965 Institute ofAdministrativeResearch Teachers College,Columbia University 12 A COMPARISON OF PRACTICES
Individualized Instruction Non Individualized Instruction
Teacher Behavior
Ob-lectives
The teacher pursueq multiple objec- The teacher pursues a single pre- tives, eadh objectives related to a selected objective applying it specific pupil or small group of pupi without variation to all pupils in the class.
Planning_and Preparation
The teacher's planning an::4 prepara- The teacher's planning and prepara- tion are in terms of individual tion are in terms of some single students. class norm. (This norm may be the average of the three or four"best" students.)
Communication-Direction
The teacher communicates with indi- The teacher communicates with all viduals in the class while other pupils in the entire class at one individuals of the class remain en- and the same time (i.e., "out loud" gaged in different activities. even when addressing oneyoungster.
Communication-Message
The teacher used feedback information The teacher's preselected communi- from individual pupils as a basis for cation is unmodified by circum- modifying the message being communica-stances other than his own Objec- ted. tives, or by variations in its reception by individual pupils.
Function
The teacher's function is primarily The teacher functions primarily observation of evidences of learning, as a purveyor ofinformation. or the lack of it, and themotivation . and guiding of students to independent learning activity.
Evaluation
The teacher's evaluation of each pupil The teacher evaluates the pupils en is based on the latter's growth and masse with a preOetermined stan- development. 4% dard as the measure of success. :06- A COMPARISON OF PRACTICES
Individualized Instruction Non Individualized Instruction
Teacher Behavior
Ob-lectives
The teacher pursueq multiple objec- The teacher pursues a single pre- tives, eadh objectives related to a selected objective applying it specific pupil or small group of pupi without variation to all pupils in the class.
Planning_and Preparation
The teacher's planning an::4 prepara- The teacher's planning and prepara- tion are in terms of individual tion are in terms of some single students. class norm. (This norm may be the average of the three or four"best" students.)
Communication-Direction
The teacher communicates with indi- The teacher communicates with all viduals in the class while other pupils in the entire class at one individuals of the class remain en- and the same time (i.e., "out loud" gaged in different activities. even when addressing oneyoungster.
Communication-Message
The teacher used feedback information The teacher's preselected communi- from individual pupils as a basis for cation is unmodified by circum- modifying the message being communica-stances other than his own Objec- ted. tives, or by variations in its reception by individual pupils.
Function
The teacher's function is primarily The teacher functions primarily observation of evidences of learning, as a purveyor ofinformation. or the lack of it, and themotivation . and guiding of students to independent learning activity.
Evaluation
The teacher's evaluation of each pupil The teacher evaluates the pupils en is based on the latter's growth and masse with a preOetermined stan- development. 4% dard as the measure of success. :06- NINE CHARACTERISTICS OBSERVABLE IN THE "IDEAL"INDIVIDUALIZED SCHOOL
1. Learners (all ages) workingat different tasks.
2. Learners selecting learningmaterial.
3. Learners selecting media.
4. Difficult to find and/oridentify 'teacher'.
5. Learners are excited,hanpy and friendly.
6. Learners using non-schoolresources.
7. Learners using teadhers,children, adults and widevariety of physicalresources as learning referents.
8. Learners move freely withobvious purpose.
9. Adults are responsiveto learner needs anddesires.
- Dr. Donald Nasca NINE CHARACTERISTICS OBSERVABLE IN THE "IDEAL"INDIVIDUALIZED SCHOOL
1. Learners (all ages) workingat different tasks.
2. Learners selecting learningmaterial.
3. Learners selecting media.
4. Difficult to find and/oridentify 'teacher'.
5. Learners are excited,hanpy and friendly.
6. Learners using non-schoolresources.
7. Learners using teadhers,children, adults and widevariety of physicalresources as learning referents.
8. Learners move freely withobvious purpose.
9. Adults are responsiveto learner needs anddesires.
- Dr. Donald Nasca SEVENTEEN ASSUMPTIONS TO BEACCEPTED
BEFORE SWITCHING TO INDIVIDUALIZED
INSTRUCTION
1. Teaching and learningare not svnonomous. As teachers youmay teach to your hearts content allday long and not effecta change in children. The most important thingthat can happen inyour school is learning.
2. Each student is capableof learning and wantsto learn. (Maybe he doesn't learn whatwe want td teach him.) We as educators should provide materials anda good learning environment.
3. Boys and girls (children)are different (individuals). When we start treating all childrenthe same we are rejectingthe idea that each child is an individual. Individualization is not justputting all students through thesame material at different rates.
4. Educators do not andcannot motivate children. The only worthwhile motivation is the child'sinner drive.
5. Only a flexible, changing programcan stay current. (You never will have THE PROGRAM.)
6. If you are goingto change, youare going to be frustrated at times. Some of our best ideasfollow a period offrustration.
7. If we really want to change what childrenare learning we must change what they are doing.
8. Success breedssuccess and failure breeds discontent,poor self- concept, learning blocks,and failure.(Bruner says the only justifi- cation for a teadherwith knowledge ina classroom is that she mini- mize the chanceof failure for thechild.)
9. The role of th:ateacher ia to structureenvironment not be the environment.
10. Not all teachers are equally competent in allareas. If we believe this then we must believe that teachersplanning as a team willpro- vide a better program for boys and girls. Tread slowly. If you believe in alternatives don't close the doorfor children. Collecting data, interpreting data, definingdata should not be deniedany child. Is SEVENTEEN ASSUMPTIONS TO BEACCEPTED
BEFORE SWITCHING TO INDIVIDUALIZED
INSTRUCTION
1. Teaching and learningare not svnonomous. As teachers youmay teach to your hearts content allday long and not effecta change in children. The most important thingthat can happen inyour school is learning.
2. Each student is capableof learning and wantsto learn. (Maybe he doesn't learn whatwe want td teach him.) We as educators should provide materials anda good learning environment.
3. Boys and girls (children)are different (individuals). When we start treating all childrenthe same we are rejectingthe idea that each child is an individual. Individualization is not justputting all students through thesame material at different rates.
4. Educators do not andcannot motivate children. The only worthwhile motivation is the child'sinner drive.
5. Only a flexible, changing programcan stay current. (You never will have THE PROGRAM.)
6. If you are goingto change, youare going to be frustrated at times. Some of our best ideasfollow a period offrustration.
7. If we really want to change what childrenare learning we must change what they are doing.
8. Success breedssuccess and failure breeds discontent,poor self- concept, learning blocks,and failure.(Bruner says the only justifi- cation for a teadherwith knowledge ina classroom is that she mini- mize the chanceof failure for thechild.)
9. The role of th:ateacher ia to structureenvironment not be the environment.
10. Not all teachers are equally competent in allareas. If we believe this then we must believe that teachersplanning as a team willpro- vide a better program for boys and girls. Tread slowly. If you believe in alternatives don't close the doorfor children. Collecting data, interpreting data, definingdata should not be deniedany child. Is ASSUMPTIONS continued
11. We do want to developautonomous learners. We do want to develop children with critical mimis. How do we do fhis if childrenare not allowed to attack problems?
12. Each student isa social being. Many of us have not been helping children learn socialroles. As educators we must helpeach child develop social characteristics.
13. An inductive divergentapproach is best. (It is hard to do 'chis if the class is teachercentered.) How can we talk about divergence if ellery child is putthrough the same steps?
14. The most important roleof the teacher is to lighta spark. He must be interested in thingshimself. You don't light fires with dead matches.
15. We are training childrentoday for life ina future world and we have no idea what itwill be like. The best preparation isa focus on real-life problems today.
16. Each teacher iseager to be considered professionalbut this also includes keepingcurrent, being receptive, keepingan open mind, etc. The statement, "Some teachera are not cut out forthis `...ype of teadhing" isnot true. The same characteristicsare applicable to a successful teadher.
17. Your change had betterbe dramatic. What you do the first day will set the pace. Slow but sure usuallydigs the ruts deeper.
- Edward J. Eaton ASSUMPTIONS continued
11. We do want to developautonomous learners. We do want to develop children with critical mimis. How do we do fhis if childrenare not allowed to attack problems?
12. Each student isa social being. Many of us have not been helping children learn socialroles. As educators we must helpeach child develop social characteristics.
13. An inductive divergentapproach is best. (It is hard to do 'chis if the class is teachercentered.) How can we talk about divergence if ellery child is putthrough the same steps?
14. The most important roleof the teacher is to lighta spark. He must be interested in thingshimself. You don't light fires with dead matches.
15. We are training childrentoday for life ina future world and we have no idea what itwill be like. The best preparation isa focus on real-life problems today.
16. Each teacher iseager to be considered professionalbut this also includes keepingcurrent, being receptive, keepingan open mind, etc. The statement, "Some teachera are not cut out forthis `...ype of teadhing" isnot true. The same characteristicsare applicable to a successful teadher.
17. Your change had betterbe dramatic. What you do the first day will set the pace. Slow but sure usuallydigs the ruts deeper.
- Edward J. Eaton Individualizing Instruction in New York State
by Dr. Donald Nasca
An individualized instruction inventory was distributed in August 1970 to schools in New 'fork State through the sixteen Title III (ESEA) Regional Centers. Returns -dere analyzed and follow-up visits to a geographically distributed sample was carried on during October and November of 1970. Visits were brief and attempts vmre made to verify administrator descrip- tions through visits with both teachers and children.
Introduction
Individualized education begins with an attitude that is manifested by a desire to treat learners as unique individuals. It is operationalized by providing a variety of learning ex- periences for learners and it is based on either a recognition that group instruction has limitations or a realization that process and affect are more critical needs for future roles than facts and skills.
Individualized education may be defined broadly within the context of a four-celled matrix developed by Jack Edling as a result of his recent national survey of individualized instruc- tion. This framework (Fig. 1) is based on an assumption that control of direction and control of means for learning are the two components of learning most frequently taken into considera- tion. Either learner (student) or institutional (school) con- trol of objectives and media may then be exercised to account for existing individualized instructional strategies.
Fig. I
Control of Objectives
Control of Media School Student
SChool
Student
Both school control of objectives and media, in an individualized format, provides for a high degree of structure and appears to be an initial step in the individualizationof education. 'lost aptly described as 'individualizedinstruction', this extrinsically controlled environment is representedby the Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) program develoPed
-11- Individualizing Instruction in New York State
by Dr. Donald Nasca
An individualized instruction inventory was distributed in August 1970 to schools in New 'fork State through the sixteen Title III (ESEA) Regional Centers. Returns -dere analyzed and follow-up visits to a geographically distributed sample was carried on during October and November of 1970. Visits were brief and attempts vmre made to verify administrator descrip- tions through visits with both teachers and children.
Introduction
Individualized education begins with an attitude that is manifested by a desire to treat learners as unique individuals. It is operationalized by providing a variety of learning ex- periences for learners and it is based on either a recognition that group instruction has limitations or a realization that process and affect are more critical needs for future roles than facts and skills.
Individualized education may be defined broadly within the context of a four-celled matrix developed by Jack Edling as a result of his recent national survey of individualized instruc- tion. This framework (Fig. 1) is based on an assumption that control of direction and control of means for learning are the two components of learning most frequently taken into considera- tion. Either learner (student) or institutional (school) con- trol of objectives and media may then be exercised to account for existing individualized instructional strategies.
Fig. I
Control of Objectives
Control of Media School Student
SChool
Student
Both school control of objectives and media, in an individualized format, provides for a high degree of structure and appears to be an initial step in the individualizationof education. 'lost aptly described as 'individualizedinstruction', this extrinsically controlled environment is representedby the Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) program develoPed
-11- throughResearch for Better by Schools (RES) andnow distributed Appleton-Century-Crofts. IPI provides for thediagnosis of individual studentcapabilities and materials for presents appropriatelearning each objectivedefined in thesystem. At the otherend of the 'individualized education'continuum is an intrinsicallycontrolled environment control over both whel'e a student has objectives and media. This individualized strategy might beclassified asan 'individualized learning° environment and isbest represented bythe Village School in Great Neck whereforty-eight llth and12th graders at random from were drawn a district wide pool ofapplicants. These students now participatein a totally oriented open ended/ learner program. Students are excusedfrom all standard curricular andattendance requirementsin order to provide freedom neededfor pursuit ofindividual objectives. A similar environmenthas been providedbv the 'Alternate Junior High School`in Ithaca/ N.Y. Placing this polar continuumover the Fdling matrix (Fig.2) leads to thesuggestion ofa developmental from a focus sequence that precedes on instruction towarda focus on learning. This developmentalsequence appears to bedesirable and discrete stages along the continuum have beenobserved throughout the state. Particularlyapparent have been those a structured instances where 'individualized instructional'strategy was ini- tiated throughpurchase of a commercially staff have attemoted available product and to modify thecanned program and thereby illustratesmovement along thecontinuum. Fig. 2 Polar Continuum
Objectives
Individualized Group Instruction Instruction
Media
Individualized Learning
ifelonq Learners` throughResearch for Better by Schools (RES) andnow distributed Appleton-Century-Crofts. IPI provides for thediagnosis of individual studentcapabilities and materials for presents appropriatelearning each objectivedefined in thesystem. At the otherend of the 'individualized education'continuum is an intrinsicallycontrolled environment control over both whel'e a student has objectives and media. This individualized strategy might beclassified asan 'individualized learning° environment and isbest represented bythe Village School in Great Neck whereforty-eight llth and12th graders at random from were drawn a district wide pool ofapplicants. These students now participatein a totally oriented open ended/ learner program. Students are excusedfrom all standard curricular andattendance requirementsin order to provide freedom neededfor pursuit ofindividual objectives. A similar environmenthas been providedbv the 'Alternate Junior High School`in Ithaca/ N.Y. Placing this polar continuumover the Fdling matrix (Fig.2) leads to thesuggestion ofa developmental from a focus sequence that precedes on instruction towarda focus on learning. This developmentalsequence appears to bedesirable and discrete stages along the continuum have beenobserved throughout the state. Particularlyapparent have been those a structured instances where 'individualized instructional'strategy was ini- tiated throughpurchase of a commercially staff have attemoted available product and to modify thecanned program and thereby illustratesmovement along thecontinuum. Fig. 2 Polar Continuum
Objectives
Individualized Group Instruction Instruction
Media
Individualized Learning
ifelonq Learners` Commercially availableprograms cover a broad range and include the singleclassroom type of 'laboratory'from Educa- tional Progress Corporation(EPC) starting near $100per lab to PLAN from Westinghouse ina $100 per student neighborhood for a complete service. Use of these vrograms with theircarefully prepared 'instructional systems'components has in many in- stances had transfer affects. Teachers using theprograms have begun developing theirown individualized or independent environ- ments in other academicareas soon after mastering use of the commercial product.
Commercially availableprograms have tended to be paper and pencil oriented while publicschool personnel have showna ten- dency to build multi-medialearning environments. Teacher made programs have tended to evolve aroundavailable and existing resources and generally includemore media variety than canned programs. This tendency tc adapt 'packageprograms' for existing situations, observed inseveral settings, wouldseem to indicate that the 'instructional system'inherent in most commercially available packages hasvaluable transfer effects.
Development of IndividualizedStrategies
The process of developingindividualized strategiesappears to follow an identifiablepath with merationallv definedstages existing along the path. This path is compatable with the 'individualized instruction'-- 'individualized learning' con- tinuum presented earlier. In fact, the two linear setsrepresent a single developmental trend.
Stages in the developmentalsequence are presented below and summarized in Fig.3. Individualized Instruction
1. Materials are varied inlevel in any one content area (i.e., different levels of readingmaterial are available and generally all childrenprogress through the same material but at differentrates. Secondary schools use 'tracks' for different ability levels. T!ost remedial programs would fall in this category.)
2. Available materialsare varied in both level and apnroach in any one contentarea but do not form an integral part of the curricularstructure. (I.e., multi-media countersnro- vide a variety ofresource materials designed to compliment traditional curricular structures.)
3. A variety of activitiesare available for voluntary involve- ment by studentson an enrichment basis (i.e., classrooms contain activityareas for student participation after 'regular' work has beencompleted). iS -13- Commercially availableprograms cover a broad range and include the singleclassroom type of 'laboratory'from Educa- tional Progress Corporation(EPC) starting near $100per lab to PLAN from Westinghouse ina $100 per student neighborhood for a complete service. Use of these vrograms with theircarefully prepared 'instructional systems'components has in many in- stances had transfer affects. Teachers using theprograms have begun developing theirown individualized or independent environ- ments in other academicareas soon after mastering use of the commercial product.
Commercially availableprograms have tended to be paper and pencil oriented while publicschool personnel have showna ten- dency to build multi-medialearning environments. Teacher made programs have tended to evolve aroundavailable and existing resources and generally includemore media variety than canned programs. This tendency tc adapt 'packageprograms' for existing situations, observed inseveral settings, wouldseem to indicate that the 'instructional system'inherent in most commercially available packages hasvaluable transfer effects.
Development of IndividualizedStrategies
The process of developingindividualized strategiesappears to follow an identifiablepath with merationallv definedstages existing along the path. This path is compatable with the 'individualized instruction'-- 'individualized learning' con- tinuum presented earlier. In fact, the two linear setsrepresent a single developmental trend.
Stages in the developmentalsequence are presented below and summarized in Fig.3. Individualized Instruction
1. Materials are varied inlevel in any one content area (i.e., different levels of readingmaterial are available and generally all childrenprogress through the same material but at differentrates. Secondary schools use 'tracks' for different ability levels. T!ost remedial programs would fall in this category.)
2. Available materialsare varied in both level and apnroach in any one contentarea but do not form an integral part of the curricularstructure. (I.e., multi-media countersnro- vide a variety ofresource materials designed to compliment traditional curricular structures.)
3. A variety of activitiesare available for voluntary involve- ment by studentson an enrichment basis (i.e., classrooms contain activityareas for student participation after 'regular' work has beencompleted). iS -13- 4. Students are assig-d specifictasks based on diagnostic test results (i.e., 'individualizedinstruction' where in- dividual student prescriptionsare based on specific diag- nostic tests. Because recent instructionalsystems are based on behaviors,most new systems requirea diaqnostic test package directli correlated withobjectives in the system. Seldom can existing standardizedtests 11)e adapted for use in these instructionalsystems. Informal teacher evaluation via weeklyor daily conferences are common at this level of individualizingeducation.) EL5Ej Development Sequence of IndividualizedStrategies Remedial and enrichment materials
A-V Centers
Enrichment activities
Individual perscriptions
Ob4^ctives selected by learners
Aftivities selected by learners Ohjectives & activities selected bv learners
A re-evaluation of educationalgoals is apparently required to move beyond this point. The content oriented curriculum with mastery of predetermined skills has beenrev5scad to accommodate a wide variety of behaviors tith broader imrlications. Processes replace products and means toan end freguentlY become the most significant components of learningenvironments. Quasi Individualized Learning
5. Students may select fromamong a variety of objectives and will then engage ina predetermined set of experiences designed to accomplish those objectives (Le.,student 20
-14.- 4. Students are assig-d specifictasks based on diagnostic test results (i.e., 'individualizedinstruction' where in- dividual student prescriptionsare based on specific diag- nostic tests. Because recent instructionalsystems are based on behaviors,most new systems requirea diaqnostic test package directli correlated withobjectives in the system. Seldom can existing standardizedtests 11)e adapted for use in these instructionalsystems. Informal teacher evaluation via weeklyor daily conferences are common at this level of individualizingeducation.) EL5Ej Development Sequence of IndividualizedStrategies Remedial and enrichment materials
A-V Centers
Enrichment activities
Individual perscriptions
Ob4^ctives selected by learners
Aftivities selected by learners Ohjectives & activities selected bv learners
A re-evaluation of educationalgoals is apparently required to move beyond this point. The content oriented curriculum with mastery of predetermined skills has beenrev5scad to accommodate a wide variety of behaviors tith broader imrlications. Processes replace products and means toan end freguentlY become the most significant components of learningenvironments. Quasi Individualized Learning
5. Students may select fromamong a variety of objectives and will then engage ina predetermined set of experiences designed to accomplish those objectives (Le.,student 20
-14.- contracts, learning activityPackets, contract activity packets, etc., frequentlyinclude several objectives and suggested strategies forachieving each objective. Each student may selector be advised to pursueone or nore objectives via a routeidentified in the contractor packet.)
6. Students move freelyamong a varietn of activities designed to promote specific skillsand abilities (e.g.: thisactivity centered anproach stillassumes a certain amount of extrinsic control over objectivesand provides for learner freedom along the media dimension).
Individualized Learning
7. Students develop theirown objectives and devise plans for achieving those objectives(e.g., this individualized learning level isa goal of individualized education and will most likelyproduce 'lifelong' learnersrequired for future roles).
It will be noted thatexamles of individualizedinstruction are more specific and variedprimarily because these environments are more numerous. E:mmples at the individualizedlearning ex- treme are more general primarilybecause of their scarcity. It must be recalled at thispoint that thispager is based on an empirical survey and doesnot present theoretical levelsof development. Instructionpl_asI2m
Basically, individualizedinstructicnal environments contain a series of steps identifiedas an instructional system. An in- structional system isgenerally a closed environmentand may in- clude anywhere fromone or two very specific behaviors toseveral broad behaviorsor even hundreds of behaviors. Instructional systems generally includethe following components.
1. Terminal behaviors-- might be stated as general goals.
2. Sub-objectives-- the specific behaviors required as discrete pieces of the terminalbehavior.
3. Kinds of learning-- soecific behaviors may be defined in terms of a taxonomy ofobjectives (i.e., Bloom,et al, Krathwohl, et al)or Gagne's levels of learning.
4. Conditions for acquiringbehaviors-- the environment within which specific behaviorsidentified may be acquired is described.
5. Instructional product-- an instructional package that will provide a learner with theenvironment required to promote specified behaviors. -15- contracts, learning activityPackets, contract activity packets, etc., frequentlyinclude several objectives and suggested strategies forachieving each objective. Each student may selector be advised to pursueone or nore objectives via a routeidentified in the contractor packet.)
6. Students move freelyamong a varietn of activities designed to promote specific skillsand abilities (e.g.: thisactivity centered anproach stillassumes a certain amount of extrinsic control over objectivesand provides for learner freedom along the media dimension).
Individualized Learning
7. Students develop theirown objectives and devise plans for achieving those objectives(e.g., this individualized learning level isa goal of individualized education and will most likelyproduce 'lifelong' learnersrequired for future roles).
It will be noted thatexamles of individualizedinstruction are more specific and variedprimarily because these environments are more numerous. E:mmples at the individualizedlearning ex- treme are more general primarilybecause of their scarcity. It must be recalled at thispoint that thispager is based on an empirical survey and doesnot present theoretical levelsof development. Instructionpl_asI2m
Basically, individualizedinstructicnal environments contain a series of steps identifiedas an instructional system. An in- structional system isgenerally a closed environmentand may in- clude anywhere fromone or two very specific behaviors toseveral broad behaviorsor even hundreds of behaviors. Instructional systems generally includethe following components.
1. Terminal behaviors-- might be stated as general goals.
2. Sub-objectives-- the specific behaviors required as discrete pieces of the terminalbehavior.
3. Kinds of learning-- soecific behaviors may be defined in terms of a taxonomy ofobjectives (i.e., Bloom,et al, Krathwohl, et al)or Gagne's levels of learning.
4. Conditions for acquiringbehaviors-- the environment within which specific behaviorsidentified may be acquired is described.
5. Instructional product-- an instructional package that will provide a learner with theenvironment required to promote specified behaviors. -15- 6. Evaluation-- a set of conditions &mimed10 del.:ermine both a learner's need forthe specified objectiv.s,(dlagriosis) and/or his level ofranters, of the behavior' Lo'iowing interaction with the learninaonvironment. Fig. 4 Instructional Svntem
Terminal hehavior 4 Suh-otliectives 4 Evaluation Tyro of learning 4 Conditions for learntna 4 Instructional aroduct
These components are generallyfound in co tmercially available packagesas %Pell as teacher made law/ling activity packages and/or studentcontracts. Teachers /2arn how to apply components of the system to theirown level ,d/or academic content area either directly through1.41crksho.s and/or 'courses' or indirectly through use of commerciellvr4.-epared packages.
both situations have hepen ohAervet, one setting where IPI mathematics servedas fmmercial package and one setting where staff develonment0",e became part ofa school building program) anAe.09 1.,:l.sonnelappear to be at the LevJ. VL ueveiopment in both settinas after threeyears of focus on individualizededucation. Teacher attitudes in both situations developedslowly, administrative insight aided in providing appropriatematerials and resource personnel and now a variety of alternativelearning environments are available for learners inboth school settings. physical Conditions
Although manynew buildings have been designed specifically to accomodate a variety of learningenvironments for individual- ized education, sucha building is far from being an essential prerequisite. Self-contained classrooms in twenty-year old, egg crate' buildings in Rye Neck and Plainedge have highly individualizedPrograms. Classrooms contain sufficient activity centers to provide for pursuit ofa multitude of needs by in- dividual children.
Also observed, at the otherextreme, was a brand new building with avery attractive central multi-media core surrounded by openspaces in which teachers had erected
-16- 6. Evaluation-- a set of conditions &mimed10 del.:ermine both a learner's need forthe specified objectiv.s,(dlagriosis) and/or his level ofranters, of the behavior' Lo'iowing interaction with the learninaonvironment. Fig. 4 Instructional Svntem
Terminal hehavior 4 Suh-otliectives 4 Evaluation Tyro of learning 4 Conditions for learntna 4 Instructional aroduct
These components are generallyfound in co tmercially available packagesas %Pell as teacher made law/ling activity packages and/or studentcontracts. Teachers /2arn how to apply components of the system to theirown level ,d/or academic content area either directly through1.41crksho.s and/or 'courses' or indirectly through use of commerciellvr4.-epared packages.
both situations have hepen ohAervet, one setting where IPI mathematics servedas fmmercial package and one setting where staff develonment0",e became part ofa school building program) anAe.09 1.,:l.sonnelappear to be at the LevJ. VL ueveiopment in both settinas after threeyears of focus on individualizededucation. Teacher attitudes in both situations developedslowly, administrative insight aided in providing appropriatematerials and resource personnel and now a variety of alternativelearning environments are available for learners inboth school settings. physical Conditions
Although manynew buildings have been designed specifically to accomodate a variety of learningenvironments for individual- ized education, sucha building is far from being an essential prerequisite. Self-contained classrooms in twenty-year old, egg crate' buildings in Rye Neck and Plainedge have highly individualizedPrograms. Classrooms contain sufficient activity centers to provide for pursuit ofa multitude of needs by in- dividual children.
Also observed, at the otherextreme, was a brand new building with avery attractive central multi-media core surrounded by openspaces in which teachers had erected
-16- portable barriers to enclose theirintact groups where each ard every child turned to page 21 at thesnap of a finger.
Two considerations are apparently takenunder advisement when arranging physical environmentsfor learners. First, 'knowing' the child by at leastone teacher and second, sufficient flexibility in the environmentto allow for all individuals to interact withapnropriate learning environments.
Because knowledge of learner ability andlearning styles is a key to success for efficientteacher placement of individ- ual learners in appropriate environments,it follows that the fewer teachers a /earnerencounters, the greater will be his chances of being 'knownpby at leastone teacher. It also follows that if knowledge ofa learner is so critical; if the learner is passed fromone teacher to another, it is in- cumbant that as part of that transferall knowledge about the learner also be transferred. This could obviously result in an extremely inefficient use of time. (Placement of children in an environment forany Purpose other than meeting his needs is usually done to accomodatean administratively devised organization pattern suchas team teaching.) However, small spaces found in classrooms of older buildings,even though they contribute to 'knowingeach child by a teacher, are also far from ideal because ofthe limited space in which to establish alternative learningenvironments.
A compromise between learneraccess to different learning environments and opportunityfor that learner to be 'known' are now being sought. Variations of just sch a comoromise may be observed in the Kirk Road School inr;reece with 300 children in one openenace, Dansville Primary School TYith 120 children in a cluster andthe nates-Chili 'gait Disney School with sixty to eightychildren per area. Organization
Tlio basic levels of organizationappear to be evolving in individualized settings. Self-contained classrooms or similarly defined unitsserve as focal points of individuali- zation at one level while totalschool participation in a coordinated planappears to form a second level.
Within self-containedor similarly defined units, the emphasis is on teacher familiaritywith individual learners. Limited space necessitatesa verbally oriented program with some manipulative activities introduced at varying points in the day or seasonas appropriate. Coordination between rooms and/or units is maintainedeven though ar.tonomy witnin units predominates.
The total schoolprogram can be either verbally or manipulatively oriented witha verbal emphasis in greater evidence. A centrally located facilityor resource generally
2.-17- portable barriers to enclose theirintact groups where each ard every child turned to page 21 at thesnap of a finger.
Two considerations are apparently takenunder advisement when arranging physical environmentsfor learners. First, 'knowing' the child by at leastone teacher and second, sufficient flexibility in the environmentto allow for all individuals to interact withapnropriate learning environments.
Because knowledge of learner ability andlearning styles is a key to success for efficientteacher placement of individ- ual learners in appropriate environments,it follows that the fewer teachers a /earnerencounters, the greater will be his chances of being 'knownpby at leastone teacher. It also follows that if knowledge ofa learner is so critical; if the learner is passed fromone teacher to another, it is in- cumbant that as part of that transferall knowledge about the learner also be transferred. This could obviously result in an extremely inefficient use of time. (Placement of children in an environment forany Purpose other than meeting his needs is usually done to accomodatean administratively devised organization pattern suchas team teaching.) However, small spaces found in classrooms of older buildings,even though they contribute to 'knowingeach child by a teacher, are also far from ideal because ofthe limited space in which to establish alternative learningenvironments.
A compromise between learneraccess to different learning environments and opportunityfor that learner to be 'known' are now being sought. Variations of just sch a comoromise may be observed in the Kirk Road School inr;reece with 300 children in one openenace, Dansville Primary School TYith 120 children in a cluster andthe nates-Chili 'gait Disney School with sixty to eightychildren per area. Organization
Tlio basic levels of organizationappear to be evolving in individualized settings. Self-contained classrooms or similarly defined unitsserve as focal points of individuali- zation at one level while totalschool participation in a coordinated planappears to form a second level.
Within self-containedor similarly defined units, the emphasis is on teacher familiaritywith individual learners. Limited space necessitatesa verbally oriented program with some manipulative activities introduced at varying points in the day or seasonas appropriate. Coordination between rooms and/or units is maintainedeven though ar.tonomy witnin units predominates.
The total schoolprogram can be either verbally or manipulatively oriented witha verbal emphasis in greater evidence. A centrally located facilityor resource generally
2.-17- serves as the focal point for individualizationat this level of organization. IPI and instructional mediacenters are illustrative of thisorganizational arrangement. Behavioral Objectives
Most individualizedprograms are vased on behavioral objectives. Although some educators feelthey have content ,.....oxiented individualizedprograms, such programs usually turn out to be remedial and/or enrichmentorientez for a few child- ren at either extreme with the bulkof each class participating in a traditionalgroup oriented structure.
It has been interestingtc, note that recent developments in instructional materials(i.e., Man-k-Course-of-Study)cannot be accomodated ina content oriented approach butare rapidly absorbed by behaviorists. Diagnosis
Content oriented approachesare easily served by a number of traditional standardizedachievement tests. However, in- structional systems basedon behavioral objectives almost uni- versally requirea set of diagnostic measures uniquelyadapted for that system. So critical is this compatabilitybetween objectives and diagnosisthat rarely doesone see either in isolation.
Diagnosis in small settings(i.e., self-contained classrooms) tend to be highly informaland tends to increase in formality directly proportionalto the increase in size ofgroups and number of personnel responsiblefor the group. Scheduling
Individualizedprograms have generally retained scheduling as an essential element but doso at an individual level as compared with thegroup schedule in traditional structures. Each learner inan individualized environment hasa unique schedule preparedon either a daily or weekly basis. Four individualized elemental-yprograms have been observed where the structure of individualschedules has been completelyre- moved and eachprogram can be singularly classified as 'chaotic'. Structure is not abandonedin viable individualized settings although it is apparentthat learners possess more controlover the structure and cae, 4ndividualhas a unique structure. Conclusion
A meeting with public schoolofficials identified as individualized educationalleaders and Title III Centerrepre- sentatives was heldto present findings to thissurvey and clarify next steps. While this group of educationalleaders concluded that New YorkState is still in early stages of 24 -18- serves as the focal point for individualizationat this level of organization. IPI and instructional mediacenters are illustrative of thisorganizational arrangement. Behavioral Objectives
Most individualizedprograms are vased on behavioral objectives. Although some educators feelthey have content ,.....oxiented individualizedprograms, such programs usually turn out to be remedial and/or enrichmentorientez for a few child- ren at either extreme with the bulkof each class participating in a traditionalgroup oriented structure.
It has been interestingtc, note that recent developments in instructional materials(i.e., Man-k-Course-of-Study)cannot be accomodated ina content oriented approach butare rapidly absorbed by behaviorists. Diagnosis
Content oriented approachesare easily served by a number of traditional standardizedachievement tests. However, in- structional systems basedon behavioral objectives almost uni- versally requirea set of diagnostic measures uniquelyadapted for that system. So critical is this compatabilitybetween objectives and diagnosisthat rarely doesone see either in isolation.
Diagnosis in small settings(i.e., self-contained classrooms) tend to be highly informaland tends to increase in formality directly proportionalto the increase in size ofgroups and number of personnel responsiblefor the group. Scheduling
Individualizedprograms have generally retained scheduling as an essential element but doso at an individual level as compared with thegroup schedule in traditional structures. Each learner inan individualized environment hasa unique schedule preparedon either a daily or weekly basis. Four individualized elemental-yprograms have been observed where the structure of individualschedules has been completelyre- moved and eachprogram can be singularly classified as 'chaotic'. Structure is not abandonedin viable individualized settings although it is apparentthat learners possess more controlover the structure and cae, 4ndividualhas a unique structure. Conclusion
A meeting with public schoolofficials identified as individualized educationalleaders and Title III Centerrepre- sentatives was heldto present findings to thissurvey and clarify next steps. While this group of educationalleaders concluded that New YorkState is still in early stages of 24 -18- individualized developmentthey werevery effective in contributing to theidentification ofa goal for individual- ization. Their goal, definedin terms of visible in observable events an individualized setting,is summarized below. Observable events
1. Learners (all ages) workingat different tasks. 2. Learners selecting learningmaterial. 3. Learners selecting media. 4. Difficult to find and/oridentify 'teacher'. 5. Learners are excited,happy and friendly. 6. Learners using non-schoolresources. 7. Learners using teachers,children, adults andwide variety of physicalresources as learning referents. 8. Learners move freelywith obviouspurpose. 9. Adults are responsiveto learner needs anddesires. Recommendations, needsand next stepswere also defined by this group of educators andsteps are now beingtaken to move in directions outlinedbelow. Recommendations
1. Secure SEM support formodel programs servingas visitation and trainingsites.
2. Provide inservicetraining opportunities.
3. Devise a generalstrategy for schooldevelopment of individualized instructionalprograms to meet local constraints suchas buildings, physicalresources, staffing, etc.
4. Devise generalstrategies for educatingparents and community grouns.
5. Identify key changeagents in the state. 6. Validate effectivenessof individualizedinstruction. Needs
1. Disseminate informationabout: a. ongoing programs, b. available individualizedinstruction materials, C. individualized instructiondiagnostic strategies, d. progress record keepingsystems.
2. Conferences, demonstrationsand inservicecourses to develop teachercompetency in individualizedstrategies. gq individualized developmentthey werevery effective in contributing to theidentification ofa goal for individual- ization. Their goal, definedin terms of visible in observable events an individualized setting,is summarized below. Observable events
1. Learners (all ages) workingat different tasks. 2. Learners selecting learningmaterial. 3. Learners selecting media. 4. Difficult to find and/oridentify 'teacher'. 5. Learners are excited,happy and friendly. 6. Learners using non-schoolresources. 7. Learners using teachers,children, adults andwide variety of physicalresources as learning referents. 8. Learners move freelywith obviouspurpose. 9. Adults are responsiveto learner needs anddesires. Recommendations, needsand next stepswere also defined by this group of educators andsteps are now beingtaken to move in directions outlinedbelow. Recommendations
1. Secure SEM support formodel programs servingas visitation and trainingsites.
2. Provide inservicetraining opportunities.
3. Devise a generalstrategy for schooldevelopment of individualized instructionalprograms to meet local constraints suchas buildings, physicalresources, staffing, etc.
4. Devise generalstrategies for educatingparents and community grouns.
5. Identify key changeagents in the state. 6. Validate effectivenessof individualizedinstruction. Needs
1. Disseminate informationabout: a. ongoing programs, b. available individualizedinstruction materials, C. individualized instructiondiagnostic strategies, d. progress record keepingsystems.
2. Conferences, demonstrationsand inservicecourses to develop teachercompetency in individualizedstrategies. gq 3. Develop evaluation strategies for use in individualized instruction nrograms.
4. Provide for increased teacher tine to develon individ- ualized instruction strateaies.
Stens
State
1. Estahlis1a dissemination network
(SUC at Brockport will serve as a clearing- house for information -- see attached form for specific items currently being sought,)
2. Identify resources available for developing training strategies identified under recommenda- tions and prepare a schedule of anticipated develonments.
(Individualized Instruction Council Meeting in Decemb.c will attack this task.)
3. Develop strategies for evaluating individualized instruction.
(A. research design is now being developed and will require your assistance in carrying it to completion.) Local
1. Prepare aeneral awareness tyne conferences with available resources
2. Develon action oriented programs.
(See attached two-day nrogram scheduled Zor Suffolk County and three-day prograr for west- chester County.)
3. Secure administrative support from local schools notentially canable of serving as model visitation sites.
26 3. Develop evaluation strategies for use in individualized instruction nrograms.
4. Provide for increased teacher tine to develon individ- ualized instruction strateaies.
Stens
State
1. Estahlis1a dissemination network
(SUC at Brockport will serve as a clearing- house for information -- see attached form for specific items currently being sought,)
2. Identify resources available for developing training strategies identified under recommenda- tions and prepare a schedule of anticipated develonments.
(Individualized Instruction Council Meeting in Decemb.c will attack this task.)
3. Develop strategies for evaluating individualized instruction.
(A. research design is now being developed and will require your assistance in carrying it to completion.) Local
1. Prepare aeneral awareness tyne conferences with available resources
2. Develon action oriented programs.
(See attached two-day nrogram scheduled Zor Suffolk County and three-day prograr for west- chester County.)
3. Secure administrative support from local schools notentially canable of serving as model visitation sites.
26 STRUCTION IN THE NONGRADEDSCHOOL
by Dr. William McLoughlin
Discussions of individual differences andindividualization of in- struction frequently mislead one intobelieving theseare new'educational problems. Of course they are not. They are virtuallyas old as education itself. Nearly every prominent educator from Platodown to the present has commented on the implications ofhuman variabilityfor instruction. By 1961, three short decades afterits first publication,the Education Index listedover six hundred entries for individualdifferences and
more than 250 underindividualized instruction. Similarly, we are prone to forget Americanschools prior to 1850 were maraata schools. Children of differentages met in one room with one teacher andprogressed at their own rate through the fewinstructional materials available. I do not mournthe passing ofthe one-room school- house nor opt forits return. Its' numerousinadequacies make sucha position untenable. I merely wish topoint out thateven in the one- room school the instructional implicationsof individualdifferenceswere recognized. But as enrollments grew, the inability of theone-room school to dealeffectively with individual differencesbecame increasingly apparent. As early as 1830 Horace Mann andHenry Bernard were endorsing the graded school as a more effectiveway of dealing with individual differences and individualizinginstruction. In contemporary discussions of school organizationand individual differences, the gradedschool is rarely creditedwirh attempting to resolve theinstructional prdblems stemming fromindividual learner differences. Yet it was possiblythe 27 STRUCTION IN THE NONGRADEDSCHOOL
by Dr. William McLoughlin
Discussions of individual differences andindividualization of in- struction frequently mislead one intobelieving theseare new'educational problems. Of course they are not. They are virtuallyas old as education itself. Nearly every prominent educator from Platodown to the present has commented on the implications ofhuman variabilityfor instruction. By 1961, three short decades afterits first publication,the Education Index listedover six hundred entries for individualdifferences and
more than 250 underindividualized instruction. Similarly, we are prone to forget Americanschools prior to 1850 were maraata schools. Children of differentages met in one room with one teacher andprogressed at their own rate through the fewinstructional materials available. I do not mournthe passing ofthe one-room school- house nor opt forits return. Its' numerousinadequacies make sucha position untenable. I merely wish topoint out thateven in the one- room school the instructional implicationsof individualdifferenceswere recognized. But as enrollments grew, the inability of theone-room school to dealeffectively with individual differencesbecame increasingly apparent. As early as 1830 Horace Mann andHenry Bernard were endorsing the graded school as a more effectiveway of dealing with individual differences and individualizinginstruction. In contemporary discussions of school organizationand individual differences, the gradedschool is rarely creditedwirh attempting to resolve theinstructional prdblems stemming fromindividual learner differences. Yet it was possiblythe 27 MAIM* though byno means the last, attempt to resolve the instructional
dilemma caused by individual learner differencesthrough organizational (- changes.
But the instructional problems associated with individualdifferences
are so vast that they defy simplistic solutions. Children, even of the
same dhronological age, differ so greatly in learning abilitiesthat the
graded school was scarcelyan adequate solution to the instructional
prdblems eminating from individuallearner differences. The tota/ vo-
cabulary of first graders, forexample, ranges from 6,000 words to 1 48,800 words. In an effort to control these and simi:Uu:differences
and to facilitate instructionthe well-known and often-castigatedsystem
of retentions and double promotionsemerged as another attempt atre- ducing learner variability.
For over a century educato.:s have triedone desperate solution after
another in their futileefforts to correct the weaknessesof the graded
school for dealing withindividual_differences. Each of these attempts
at perfecting grade-levelgroup instruction as the method for dealing
with the instructionalproblems produced by indirlduallearner differ-
ences added to our knowledge ofindividual differences and learning. We know, for example:
1. Children of the same chronologicalage are prObably alike on few other traits.
2. The achievement of childrenin the same grade varies greatly. 2 Less than 20% of the 4thgraders in most schools acbieveat grade level ( jand only about 5% of the 5thgraders have readingscores between 5.1 and
5.5. In fact, the best estimate ofthe variation in achievement ina 28-22" MAIM* though byno means the last, attempt to resolve the instructional
dilemma caused by individual learner differencesthrough organizational (- changes.
But the instructional problems associated with individualdifferences
are so vast that they defy simplistic solutions. Children, even of the
same dhronological age, differ so greatly in learning abilitiesthat the
graded school was scarcelyan adequate solution to the instructional
prdblems eminating from individuallearner differences. The tota/ vo-
cabulary of first graders, forexample, ranges from 6,000 words to 1 48,800 words. In an effort to control these and simi:Uu:differences
and to facilitate instructionthe well-known and often-castigatedsystem
of retentions and double promotionsemerged as another attempt atre- ducing learner variability.
For over a century educato.:s have triedone desperate solution after
another in their futileefforts to correct the weaknessesof the graded
school for dealing withindividual_differences. Each of these attempts
at perfecting grade-levelgroup instruction as the method for dealing
with the instructionalproblems produced by indirlduallearner differ-
ences added to our knowledge ofindividual differences and learning. We know, for example:
1. Children of the same chronologicalage are prObably alike on few other traits.
2. The achievement of childrenin the same grade varies greatly. 2 Less than 20% of the 4thgraders in most schools acbieveat grade level ( jand only about 5% of the 5thgraders have readingscores between 5.1 and
5.5. In fact, the best estimate ofthe variation in achievement ina 28-22" grad. in. obtained by taking 2/3 of thechronological age forthe grade. 3 Fourth grade:wee generally are 9years old and 2/3 of 9 issix. Usuallye then, one would expect a range of sixyears in achievement in the typical fourth grade.
3. Additional schooling doesnot lessen the initialdifferences found among Children. Rather, the magnitudeof these differencesin-
creases with added schoolilIg. This finding,as you know, has distressed members of minority groups and caused them toquestion both the quality and equality of educational opportunitiesavailable to children 4 in our schools.
4. The range of differences in achievement foreadh child in the subjects traditionally taught in theelementary school isapproximately as great as the range of differences forthe entire class. 5. In any subject, like arithmetic, there isconsiderable variation in the achievement of each child. That is, a childmay have 5th grade addition skills,3rd grade division skills, and 6th gradeskills with fractions. Achievement for any individual,even within a subjectarea, is not even andmonolithic.
6. Retention in grade is a very poor procedurefor reducing in- dividual differences. As a matter offact, the accomplishmentsof grade retention forreducing individual differences are sufficientlyundis- tinguished to warrant calling it intoserious questionas a workable procedure for individualizing instruction. For every child retainedin grade showinga gain in achievement, for elcample, thereare two who show Cno gain and two who showlosses in achievement.
-23- grad. in. obtained by taking 2/3 of thechronological age forthe grade. 3 Fourth grade:wee generally are 9years old and 2/3 of 9 issix. Usuallye then, one would expect a range of sixyears in achievement in the typical fourth grade.
3. Additional schooling doesnot lessen the initialdifferences found among Children. Rather, the magnitudeof these differencesin-
creases with added schoolilIg. This finding,as you know, has distressed members of minority groups and caused them toquestion both the quality and equality of educational opportunitiesavailable to children 4 in our schools.
4. The range of differences in achievement foreadh child in the subjects traditionally taught in theelementary school isapproximately as great as the range of differences forthe entire class. 5. In any subject, like arithmetic, there isconsiderable variation in the achievement of each child. That is, a childmay have 5th grade addition skills,3rd grade division skills, and 6th gradeskills with fractions. Achievement for any individual,even within a subjectarea, is not even andmonolithic.
6. Retention in grade is a very poor procedurefor reducing in- dividual differences. As a matter offact, the accomplishmentsof grade retention forreducing individual differences are sufficientlyundis- tinguished to warrant calling it intoserious questionas a workable procedure for individualizing instruction. For every child retainedin grade showinga gain in achievement, for elcample, thereare two who show Cno gain and two who showlosses in achievement.
-23- 7. Though the vhances of improvingacademic achievementthrough retention in grade are minimal the eqlancesof:ziscsingcerootionalprOblems in children, anti-social behavior and earlytermination of formaleduca- tion are greatlyimproved.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE GRApEDSCHOOL:
Essentially, then, grade-levelgroup instruction and retentionin grade, while honest efforts at coping withindividual differences,are clearly ineffective instructional practices. In fact, the emotionaland psychological carnage left in the wake of relentlessconformity to these
procedures for reducinglearner variability wlthina class screamed out for more viable and humane alternativesto individualiiinginstruction. Response to this pleawas not wanting.
The graded school you will recall, first appearedin America about the middle of the 19th century. To be exact, the firstgraded school 5 opened in the Quincy Grammar Schoel in Boston,Mass. in 1848. By 1871 virtually every school in America,even the one-room ruralschoolhouse, was a graded school. But by the end of the 19thcentury efforts were underway to "break the lozk-step" approachto education found in the graded school. In 1888, for example,Preston Search was developingpro- cedures for the individualization of instructionin the schools ofPueblo, Colorado, and by 1911 Frederick L. Burke andhis associates at theSan
Francisco State CollegeTraining Schoolwere individualizing instruction in all curriculum areas requiring the leastamount of group contact. This, as some of you doUbtlessly recognize,was ehe precursor cf a uMber of "laboratory approaches to education"like the Winnetka Plan.
-24- 7. Though the vhances of improvingacademic achievementthrough retention in grade are minimal the eqlancesof:ziscsingcerootionalprOblems in children, anti-social behavior and earlytermination of formaleduca- tion are greatlyimproved.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE GRApEDSCHOOL:
Essentially, then, grade-levelgroup instruction and retentionin grade, while honest efforts at coping withindividual differences,are clearly ineffective instructional practices. In fact, the emotionaland psychological carnage left in the wake of relentlessconformity to these
procedures for reducinglearner variability wlthina class screamed out for more viable and humane alternativesto individualiiinginstruction. Response to this pleawas not wanting.
The graded school you will recall, first appearedin America about the middle of the 19th century. To be exact, the firstgraded school 5 opened in the Quincy Grammar Schoel in Boston,Mass. in 1848. By 1871 virtually every school in America,even the one-room ruralschoolhouse, was a graded school. But by the end of the 19thcentury efforts were underway to "break the lozk-step" approachto education found in the graded school. In 1888, for example,Preston Search was developingpro- cedures for the individualization of instructionin the schools ofPueblo, Colorado, and by 1911 Frederick L. Burke andhis associates at theSan
Francisco State CollegeTraining Schoolwere individualizing instruction in all curriculum areas requiring the leastamount of group contact. This, as some of you doUbtlessly recognize,was ehe precursor cf a uMber of "laboratory approaches to education"like the Winnetka Plan.
-24- THIRTY-FIVE MAJOR EDUCATIONAL PLANS .:.1/4)A WZ21
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Upgraded groups 21. Split grade or nhyphenated"
2. Primary-intermediate grouping Groups
3. Grade-level group:ng 22. Intraclassroom grouping
4. Heterogeneous grouping 23. Interclassroom grouping
5. Homogeneous grouping 24. Intergrade ability grouping
6. XYZ grouping 25. Grouping within the classroom
7. Intra-subject-field gruping through teacher-pupil planning
8. Departmental grouping 26. Self-selection grouping
9. "VestEbule" grouping 27. Extracurricular activity
10. Hosic's Co-operative GroupPlan grouping
11. Winnetka Plan grouping 28. Special grouping for the
12. Dalton Plan grouping gifted
13. Multiple-track grouping 29. "Opportunity Room" grouping 14. Platoon grouping for the slow-learningor 15. Social maturity grouping mentally handicapped 1. Developmental grouping 30. "Self-realization Room" 17. Organismic-age grouping grouping for the gifted 18. Social maturity-teacherpersonal 31. Ungraded four-and five-year grouping old kindergarten grouping
19. Ungraded Primary grouping 32. The Woodring Proposal 20. Ungraded intermediate plan 33. The Trump Proposal
34. The Newton Plan
35. The Rutgers Plan THIRTY-FIVE MAJOR EDUCATIONAL PLANS .:.1/4)A WZ21
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Upgraded groups 21. Split grade or nhyphenated"
2. Primary-intermediate grouping Groups
3. Grade-level group:ng 22. Intraclassroom grouping
4. Heterogeneous grouping 23. Interclassroom grouping
5. Homogeneous grouping 24. Intergrade ability grouping
6. XYZ grouping 25. Grouping within the classroom
7. Intra-subject-field gruping through teacher-pupil planning
8. Departmental grouping 26. Self-selection grouping
9. "VestEbule" grouping 27. Extracurricular activity
10. Hosic's Co-operative GroupPlan grouping
11. Winnetka Plan grouping 28. Special grouping for the
12. Dalton Plan grouping gifted
13. Multiple-track grouping 29. "Opportunity Room" grouping 14. Platoon grouping for the slow-learningor 15. Social maturity grouping mentally handicapped 1. Developmental grouping 30. "Self-realization Room" 17. Organismic-age grouping grouping for the gifted 18. Social maturity-teacherpersonal 31. Ungraded four-and five-year grouping old kindergarten grouping
19. Ungraded Primary grouping 32. The Woodring Proposal 20. Ungraded intermediate plan 33. The Trump Proposal
34. The Newton Plan
35. The Rutgers Plan The floodgatesfor "Plans" to individualizinginstructionwere now opened and Americaneducation wassoon to become inundated withsuch propositions. The St. LouisPlan, the Dalton Plan, the BataviaPlan, the Elizabeth Plan and "Plans"far too numerous to listbecame theedu- cationalinnovations ofthe late 19th and early 20thCentury. Shane for example, lists 35-- (cllart) suchattewpts at 6 individualizinginstruction. Each oJ! these plans had itsmoment of glory and waseventually discarded for little use or considerableabuse.
All theseefforts hadtwo things in common. First, theywere not thorough-goingrejections ofthe basic approach of thegraded schoolfor individualizinginstructionthrough group teaching ofchildren assumedto be similar. At best theywere meaningful but faultyattempts at vul- canizing the wholes insuch anapproach for coping withindividual dif- ferences. Second, eachof these "Plans" soughtnew organizational devices for adjusting thechild to the instructionalofferings of the school but never once lookedfor ways of adjusting theinstructional offering ofthe schoolto the child.
ThE NONGRADEDSCHOOL AND INDIVIDUALIZATIONOF INSTRUCTION Perhaps the most viablealternative to the gradedschool toemerge from this movement wasthe nongradeä school. Unlike theother educational propositionspurporting to recognizeindividualdifferences and individu- alize instructionaccordingly, the nongraded schooldoes not seekto bolster the sagging gradedschool. Rather it beginsby denouncingthe graded school with all itsworks and pomps and suggestschildren's progress throughschool should be continuousand devoidof artificially The floodgatesfor "Plans" to individualizinginstructionwere now opened and Americaneducation wassoon to become inundated withsuch propositions. The St. LouisPlan, the Dalton Plan, the BataviaPlan, the Elizabeth Plan and "Plans"far too numerous to listbecame theedu- cationalinnovations ofthe late 19th and early 20thCentury. Shane for example, lists 35-- (cllart) suchattewpts at 6 individualizinginstruction. Each oJ! these plans had itsmoment of glory and waseventually discarded for little use or considerableabuse.
All theseefforts hadtwo things in common. First, theywere not thorough-goingrejections ofthe basic approach of thegraded schoolfor individualizinginstructionthrough group teaching ofchildren assumedto be similar. At best theywere meaningful but faultyattempts at vul- canizing the wholes insuch anapproach for coping withindividual dif- ferences. Second, eachof these "Plans" soughtnew organizational devices for adjusting thechild to the instructionalofferings of the school but never once lookedfor ways of adjusting theinstructional offering ofthe schoolto the child.
ThE NONGRADEDSCHOOL AND INDIVIDUALIZATIONOF INSTRUCTION Perhaps the most viablealternative to the gradedschool toemerge from this movement wasthe nongradeä school. Unlike theother educational propositionspurporting to recognizeindividualdifferences and individu- alize instructionaccordingly, the nongraded schooldoes not seekto bolster the sagging gradedschool. Rather it beginsby denouncingthe graded school with all itsworks and pomps and suggestschildren's progress throughschool should be continuousand devoidof artificially induced skipsor lagfc. Furthermore, suchan educational goalcan only be realized byadapting instruction to the child'slearning needsand not, as previousproposals for the individualization ofinstructionsug- gested, moldingthe child to fit the school'sinstructionalprogram. Though this approach was first tried inBronxville, New Yorkin 1925 it did not receive criticalacclaim until theappearance of the 7 Goodlad and Andersonbook on the nongraded school in 1959. While well- intended, themessage of the nongraded school is at bestvague and its translation into practice leavesmuch to be desired.Almost without exception converts to the nongradedschool relyon one or more of the organizational schemes mentioned by Shaneto individualizedinstruction. Also, and againvirtually without exception, nosubstantial chanwsin instrttionalp_ENeduresaccompanycontempprary_plagaradtthe_ mded_Rgh221. Reliance is placed on group instructionas the method of of ministeringto individual differences. Viewed from thisvantage point most effortsmade to nongrade the elementary schoolare little more than tired re-runs of inefficient andineffective administrative gaMbits at grouping away the influence ofindividual differenceson in- struction.
A casual analysis or; the characteristicsof most effortsat non- grading revealsa hierarch, not of quality but organizationalcomplexity, in the schemes developed to individualizeinstruction. 1. Without altering so much as a grade label,some schools simply announce they are henceforth nongraded. Teachers are instructedto accept Children where they findthem and bring themas far as they can 33 -27- induced skipsor lagfc. Furthermore, suchan educational goalcan only be realized byadapting instruction to the child'slearning needsand not, as previousproposals for the individualization ofinstructionsug- gested, moldingthe child to fit the school'sinstructionalprogram. Though this approach was first tried inBronxville, New Yorkin 1925 it did not receive criticalacclaim until theappearance of the 7 Goodlad and Andersonbook on the nongraded school in 1959. While well- intended, themessage of the nongraded school is at bestvague and its translation into practice leavesmuch to be desired.Almost without exception converts to the nongradedschool relyon one or more of the organizational schemes mentioned by Shaneto individualizedinstruction. Also, and againvirtually without exception, nosubstantial chanwsin instrttionalp_ENeduresaccompanycontempprary_plagaradtthe_ mded_Rgh221. Reliance is placed on group instructionas the method of of ministeringto individual differences. Viewed from thisvantage point most effortsmade to nongrade the elementary schoolare little more than tired re-runs of inefficient andineffective administrative gaMbits at grouping away the influence ofindividual differenceson in- struction.
A casual analysis or; the characteristicsof most effortsat non- grading revealsa hierarch, not of quality but organizationalcomplexity, in the schemes developed to individualizeinstruction. 1. Without altering so much as a grade label,some schools simply announce they are henceforth nongraded. Teachers are instructedto accept Children where they findthem and bring themas far as they can 33 -27- go during the year. Visitors to these nongradedprograms frequently
dbserve that they are doing nothingin these schools not beingdone in
the typical graded school. The reason visitors havedifficulty ob-
serving differences is becausethere are none to beseen. Class
organization, teadher assignment andpupil assignmentsare unchanged
and so, lamentably,are the instructional practices. This approadh, I
suppose, simply verifies the adage thata graded school by any other name surely smells.
There is, however, somethinginherently reprehensible insuch an
approach to educational change. Essentially it maintains thatteachers
all along have the abilityto individualize instructionunder the
present educational arrangementbut simply wlthhold thistype of in-
struction until they receiveadministrative approval. I simply do not
believe this to be thecase any more than I believeprograms founded on
this approach to theindividualization of instructionare effective.
2. The next procedure usedfor nongrading a school andindividual-
izing instruction isonly modestly more complex. The basic design of
the graded school is retained- one teacher for one self-contained class
for one year- except nay: Children of similar achievement and/or
ability are grouped forinstruction. Utilizers of this procedure,by
the way, never refer to itas homogeneous grouping, either, andare
vehement in their denials thattheir nongraded plan ishomogeneous
grouping revisited. They jilstify suchan arrangement of children by
dbserving that it greatlyreduces the range of differenceswithin the (- class; eases the teacher'sjob and makes individualizationof instruction 34 go during the year. Visitors to these nongradedprograms frequently
dbserve that they are doing nothingin these schools not beingdone in
the typical graded school. The reason visitors havedifficulty ob-
serving differences is becausethere are none to beseen. Class
organization, teadher assignment andpupil assignmentsare unchanged
and so, lamentably,are the instructional practices. This approadh, I
suppose, simply verifies the adage thata graded school by any other name surely smells.
There is, however, somethinginherently reprehensible insuch an
approach to educational change. Essentially it maintains thatteachers
all along have the abilityto individualize instructionunder the
present educational arrangementbut simply wlthhold thistype of in-
struction until they receiveadministrative approval. I simply do not
believe this to be thecase any more than I believeprograms founded on
this approach to theindividualization of instructionare effective.
2. The next procedure usedfor nongrading a school andindividual-
izing instruction isonly modestly more complex. The basic design of
the graded school is retained- one teacher for one self-contained class
for one year- except nay: Children of similar achievement and/or
ability are grouped forinstruction. Utilizers of this procedure,by
the way, never refer to itas homogeneous grouping, either, andare
vehement in their denials thattheir nongraded plan ishomogeneous
grouping revisited. They jilstify suchan arrangement of children by
dbserving that it greatlyreduces the range of differenceswithin the (- class; eases the teacher'sjob and makes individualizationof instruction 34 not only feasible but attainable.
It may be graceless to Observe thatthe major purposes of.nongrad-
ing and other respectable effortsto individualize instructionare not
(1) to ease the job ofinstruction for the teacherbut facilitate
learning for the child;are not (2) designed to mask individualdifl.
ferences among children bybringing children of assumedlikenesses to-
gether for instructionbut to create an instructionalsetting which will
magnify each individual'suniqueness bigger than lileso something may
be done to capitalizeon those differences; and (3) theseefforts,
which are at best thinlydisguised homogeneous groupingschemes despite
the protestations of theirsupporters to the contrary, havebeen
exquisitely distinguishedin the past by their failureto influence 8 either student achievementor adjustment Even more discouraging,
however, is the factthat those espousing this brandof nongrading seem marvellously unaware thatwhat they have done isintroduce into their
schools in thename of nongrading an organizationalscheme developed to preserve the graded school fromcomplete collapse.
3. Large schools frequentlyuse "cross-class grouping" topro- duce nongrading andindividualize instruction. Essen4-ially the grade structure is preserved andchildren "on thesame grade level" are re- grouped for instruction inreading and sometimes inarithmetic on the basis of their past adhievementin these subjects. Obviously these procedures are more concernedwith 21.2Lki learning needsthan with individual learning needsfor it is simply anothereffort to individu- alize instruction withinthe framework ofgroup instruction. not only feasible but attainable.
It may be graceless to Observe thatthe major purposes of.nongrad-
ing and other respectable effortsto individualize instructionare not
(1) to ease the job ofinstruction for the teacherbut facilitate
learning for the child;are not (2) designed to mask individualdifl.
ferences among children bybringing children of assumedlikenesses to-
gether for instructionbut to create an instructionalsetting which will
magnify each individual'suniqueness bigger than lileso something may
be done to capitalizeon those differences; and (3) theseefforts,
which are at best thinlydisguised homogeneous groupingschemes despite
the protestations of theirsupporters to the contrary, havebeen
exquisitely distinguishedin the past by their failureto influence 8 either student achievementor adjustment Even more discouraging,
however, is the factthat those espousing this brandof nongrading seem marvellously unaware thatwhat they have done isintroduce into their
schools in thename of nongrading an organizationalscheme developed to preserve the graded school fromcomplete collapse.
3. Large schools frequentlyuse "cross-class grouping" topro- duce nongrading andindividualize instruction. Essen4-ially the grade structure is preserved andchildren "on thesame grade level" are re- grouped for instruction inreading and sometimes inarithmetic on the basis of their past adhievementin these subjects. Obviously these procedures are more concernedwith 21.2Lki learning needsthan with individual learning needsfor it is simply anothereffort to individu- alize instruction withinthe framework ofgroup instruction. 4. Smaller schools use an adaptation of cross-classgrouping to
nongrade their schools and individualize instruction.Typically, the
primary grades are viewedas a single instructional unit. During the
day children from these classesare regrouped for instruction in reading
and sometimes in arithmetic. Again, the single requirement for inclusion
in any group is similarity ofadhievement in reading and/or arithmetic.
It goes without saying amere willingness to transgress established
grade lines to form classes for instructionin reading is a poor
guarantee that instruction in these classeswill be individualized.
Even if this were an effectiveway of organizing children for in-
dividualized instruction few sch(solswould be willing to undertake the massive re-assignments of childrensuch a plan dictates. If, in the 5th grade, for example, a class of 34pupils is to be formedso the range of reading achievement fallsbetween 5.1 and 5.4 the class would 9 probably contain:
8 - second graders
8 - third graders
7 - fourth graders
9 - fifth graders
2 - sixth graders
Furthermore, it is educationalfolly to pretend such re-arrangements of children accomplish anything, About the only way a homogeneously grouped class can be kepthomogeneous is to teach them nothing for dif- ferences in learning rates aloneassures us that children will differ greatly after instruction isbegun. 4Z8 -30- 4. Smaller schools use an adaptation of cross-classgrouping to
nongrade their schools and individualize instruction.Typically, the
primary grades are viewedas a single instructional unit. During the
day children from these classesare regrouped for instruction in reading
and sometimes in arithmetic. Again, the single requirement for inclusion
in any group is similarity ofadhievement in reading and/or arithmetic.
It goes without saying amere willingness to transgress established
grade lines to form classes for instructionin reading is a poor
guarantee that instruction in these classeswill be individualized.
Even if this were an effectiveway of organizing children for in-
dividualized instruction few sch(solswould be willing to undertake the massive re-assignments of childrensuch a plan dictates. If, in the 5th grade, for example, a class of 34pupils is to be formedso the range of reading achievement fallsbetween 5.1 and 5.4 the class would 9 probably contain:
8 - second graders
8 - third graders
7 - fourth graders
9 - fifth graders
2 - sixth graders
Furthermore, it is educationalfolly to pretend such re-arrangements of children accomplish anything, About the only way a homogeneously grouped class can be kepthomogeneous is to teach them nothing for dif- ferences in learning rates aloneassures us that children will differ greatly after instruction isbegun. 4Z8 -30- 5. Lastly, interage grouping- assigning children of different
-Aironological ages to one teacher ina self-contained classroom for more
than one year of instruction- is also found in non-graded schools. It
is asserted such groupings permitsteachers to really get to know child
ren and see that vast differences in abilityand attainment existamong
children of the same chronologicalage. This, of course, is thecon-
dition that prompted theconversion of the pre-1850 ungradedschools
Lnto graded schools. RemeMber, while this organization ofchildren may
teach teachersa considerable amount about child growthand development
it in r,o way providesthem with additional instructionalresources for
coping with thesedifferences. At best, such procedures do littlemore
than complicate theinatructional problems faced bymost teachers.
THE NONGRALED SCHOOLAS A STEP ALONG THE WAY TOINDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
The -ffinity for the gradedstructure of those who would nongradeis
reminiscent of the problemfaced by the Australian bushmanwho bought a
new boomerang - he couldn't throwthe old one away. Some of you may feel the presentation so far is a senseless "over-kill" ofthe graded and the
nongraded schoolor a short course in methods andmaterials to he used in
the relentless healingof a dead horse. There are, however, several reasons for such information saturation. First, the nongraded school- ata_2KgAgptly practiced- can hardly be credited with being an unequivocal
success in providing for individuallearning differences. Perhaps the reason for this is the nongradedsdhool, while an agreeable enoughedu- cational idea, isso vague and chameleon that itmakes a poor blueprint for building a thoroughly new instructionalprogram. Second, the answers 5. Lastly, interage grouping- assigning children of different
-Aironological ages to one teacher ina self-contained classroom for more
than one year of instruction- is also found in non-graded schools. It
is asserted such groupings permitsteachers to really get to know child
ren and see that vast differences in abilityand attainment existamong
children of the same chronologicalage. This, of course, is thecon-
dition that prompted theconversion of the pre-1850 ungradedschools
Lnto graded schools. RemeMber, while this organization ofchildren may
teach teachersa considerable amount about child growthand development
it in r,o way providesthem with additional instructionalresources for
coping with thesedifferences. At best, such procedures do littlemore
than complicate theinatructional problems faced bymost teachers.
THE NONGRALED SCHOOLAS A STEP ALONG THE WAY TOINDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION
The -ffinity for the gradedstructure of those who would nongradeis
reminiscent of the problemfaced by the Australian bushmanwho bought a
new boomerang - he couldn't throwthe old one away. Some of you may feel the presentation so far is a senseless "over-kill" ofthe graded and the
nongraded schoolor a short course in methods andmaterials to he used in
the relentless healingof a dead horse. There are, however, several reasons for such information saturation. First, the nongraded school- ata_2KgAgptly practiced- can hardly be credited with being an unequivocal
success in providing for individuallearning differences. Perhaps the reason for this is the nongradedsdhool, while an agreeable enoughedu- cational idea, isso vague and chameleon that itmakes a poor blueprint for building a thoroughly new instructionalprogram. Second, the answers to the instructional prOblemsproduced by individualvariabilities are
not to be found in uniquegroupings of students butin unique instruc-
tional practices. Finally, the presentationshould suggest the banning of innovations that simply re-discover pasteducational failures. Too
many innovators are littlemore t..lan educational archeologistswho delight in resurrecting moldy plans for individualizinginstruct Without a doubt education would be better off ifthese schemes had been left to rust inpeace.
PLANNING FOR INDIVIDUALIZEDINSTRUCTION
Hastily conceivedprograms for individualizedinstruction will probably rediscover many of the ineffectual educationalpractices de- tailed above. Viable individualizedinstructional programs eminatefrom
carefully planned strategiesfor educating eachindividual to the fullness of his potential. Basic to such planningare:
1. The individualinstructionalprograms developed deal with individual differences,not group similarities.
2. The individualizedinstructionalprogram is at least a school- wide program, but hopefully a district-wideprogram. Most home-grow- educational innovationsare under planned andover sold and eventuaftly die from an acute attack of administrativejitters. Apparently adminis- trators fear direct confrontations withincompetent instruction and justify their "hands off" approach toeducational improvement bypointing to anticipated adverse teacher reactions. More often than not they simply meet the instructional prdblemsproduced by ind4viduallearner differences by pledging support to any teacherwilling to try to indi- 32 -32- to the instructional prOblemsproduced by individualvariabilities are
not to be found in uniquegroupings of students butin unique instruc-
tional practices. Finally, the presentationshould suggest the banning of innovations that simply re-discover pasteducational failures. Too
many innovators are littlemore t..lan educational archeologistswho delight in resurrecting moldy plans for individualizinginstruct Without a doubt education would be better off ifthese schemes had been left to rust inpeace.
PLANNING FOR INDIVIDUALIZEDINSTRUCTION
Hastily conceivedprograms for individualizedinstruction will probably rediscover many of the ineffectual educationalpractices de- tailed above. Viable individualizedinstructional programs eminatefrom
carefully planned strategiesfor educating eachindividual to the fullness of his potential. Basic to such planningare:
1. The individualinstructionalprograms developed deal with individual differences,not group similarities.
2. The individualizedinstructionalprogram is at least a school- wide program, but hopefully a district-wideprogram. Most home-grow- educational innovationsare under planned andover sold and eventuaftly die from an acute attack of administrativejitters. Apparently adminis- trators fear direct confrontations withincompetent instruction and justify their "hands off" approach toeducational improvement bypointing to anticipated adverse teacher reactions. More often than not they simply meet the instructional prdblemsproduced by ind4viduallearner differences by pledging support to any teacherwilling to try to indi- 32 -32- vidualize instruction in her classroom. We must realize schoolsare not places where teachers come to "do their thing" forbetter or forworse until retirement do we part. Effective programs ofindividualization of
instruction must beconsiderably more thana tour de force foran oc- casional willing and comoetent teacher. Individualized instructionmust be a characteristicof the educational program of the entire school- something available to each and every childin the school- and not a
random, uncontrollableoccurance available toa limited number of children on an unpredictable schedule in an indeterminablenumber of class(is.
3. A basic re-casting ofthe role of theteacher in the instruc- tional process is necessary if effective and durableprograms for in-
dividualized instructionare to be developed. Traditionally, the
responsfmAlity for producinglearning has beenan exclusive teadher responsibility with little or none of the responsibilityfor causing Icarning g:_ven to the instructionalmaterials used. Ironically, teachers typically meet this instructional responsibilityby teachingan adopted textbook of unknown instructional merit. However, there must bea reapportionment of responsibility forproducing learning inan individ- ualized instructional program. In such a program increasingresponsi- bility and accountability for learning mustbe placed on theinstructional materials used- It is clearly impossiblefor a teacher,even the most dedicated teacher, tosatisfy all theindividual learning requirements of all of the children in all learningareas of the school curriculum.
Building an :11dividualizedinstructionalprogram on the tacit assumption vidualize instruction in her classroom. We must realize schoolsare not places where teachers come to "do their thing" forbetter or forworse until retirement do we part. Effective programs ofindividualization of
instruction must beconsiderably more thana tour de force foran oc- casional willing and comoetent teacher. Individualized instructionmust be a characteristicof the educational program of the entire school- something available to each and every childin the school- and not a
random, uncontrollableoccurance available toa limited number of children on an unpredictable schedule in an indeterminablenumber of class(is.
3. A basic re-casting ofthe role of theteacher in the instruc- tional process is necessary if effective and durableprograms for in-
dividualized instructionare to be developed. Traditionally, the
responsfmAlity for producinglearning has beenan exclusive teadher responsibility with little or none of the responsibilityfor causing Icarning g:_ven to the instructionalmaterials used. Ironically, teachers typically meet this instructional responsibilityby teachingan adopted textbook of unknown instructional merit. However, there must bea reapportionment of responsibility forproducing learning inan individ- ualized instructional program. In such a program increasingresponsi- bility and accountability for learning mustbe placed on theinstructional materials used- It is clearly impossiblefor a teacher,even the most dedicated teacher, tosatisfy all theindividual learning requirements of all of the children in all learningareas of the school curriculum.
Building an :11dividualizedinstructionalprogram on the tacit assumption that teachers can do this is to court failurefrom the outset. Essen-
tially, we must demand muchmore teaching effectiveness from the instruc-
tional materials in use and requireteachers to become increasingly
proficient in recognizing and supportingthe learner's expanding capacity
to beCome an independent learner.
4. Systematic development of individualizedinstructional programs
must replace the haphazard, naw-and-thenapproaches characteristic of
so many contemporary efforts at individualizationof instruction. Such
an approach develops a consanguineousrelation between (a) thepurposes
of instruction;(b) the instructionalprocedures developed for realizing
these purposes; and (c) theevaluation procedures employedto assess
the adequacy of instructionand the scope of learning. Fsw contemporary
efforts at individualizedinstruction exhibit such characteristics.
Generally, no over-archingstructure for the curriculum hasbeen de-
veloped which guides anddirects both the instructionaland evaluation procedures used in theprogram. Usually, most efforts atindividualiz- ing instructionare little more thanone ,teacher's efforts to develop worksheets which permitstudents to progressthrough the basal textbook at a rate acceptable tothe teacher.
Implicit, too, ina systematic approach to theindividualization of instruction is the interchangeabilityof instructional materials.This requirement alone shoulddiscourage schools fromundertaking the produc- tion of these materials. Immediately one is asked: "Why can't teachers produce these materials?" Implicit in this questionis the assumption that teachers have boththe expertise and desireto do this job. If this were so there wouldbe little need for thequestion since the 40 -34- that teachers can do this is to court failurefrom the outset. Essen-
tially, we must demand muchmore teaching effectiveness from the instruc-
tional materials in use and requireteachers to become increasingly
proficient in recognizing and supportingthe learner's expanding capacity
to beCome an independent learner.
4. Systematic development of individualizedinstructional programs
must replace the haphazard, naw-and-thenapproaches characteristic of
so many contemporary efforts at individualizationof instruction. Such
an approach develops a consanguineousrelation between (a) thepurposes
of instruction;(b) the instructionalprocedures developed for realizing
these purposes; and (c) theevaluation procedures employedto assess
the adequacy of instructionand the scope of learning. Fsw contemporary
efforts at individualizedinstruction exhibit such characteristics.
Generally, no over-archingstructure for the curriculum hasbeen de-
veloped which guides anddirects both the instructionaland evaluation procedures used in theprogram. Usually, most efforts atindividualiz- ing instructionare little more thanone ,teacher's efforts to develop worksheets which permitstudents to progressthrough the basal textbook at a rate acceptable tothe teacher.
Implicit, too, ina systematic approach to theindividualization of instruction is the interchangeabilityof instructional materials.This requirement alone shoulddiscourage schools fromundertaking the produc- tion of these materials. Immediately one is asked: "Why can't teachers produce these materials?" Implicit in this questionis the assumption that teachers have boththe expertise and desireto do this job. If this were so there wouldbe little need for thequestion since the 40 -34- materials wouldmore than likely have been developedand inuse in zchocls. Eut such undertakings requi e theuse of rathercornisticuted constructs about teaching andlearning, constructswhich the typical tear:Ler hasnot developed. Usually tc:adlierdiscussions ofIaarning and instruction focuson the value of democracy in educ_Uon,nd technique for motivatingstudents, while the learning outcomesthey -lesiredare in thearea of cognitive development. Lastly., itassumes .t.achers have orderly routilIesfor dealing with learning difficulties. An analysis of the instructional procedures found inthe typicalclz-6J-:oom serioly challenges thisassumption.
More murncr3asorts for discouraging teacher -,:roductic_of tho istructional materialsneeded foran ineividualized
program tF.y be cited,too. Cost is one suchfactor. Increasingly, teachers F1.1.- dem'rnding and rec ivingcompensation for :le
poduc ir -:tional materials. 'Thisexpense, wiln aud5.4, t production
iraatc the priceof locallyclev,Ao-;ed.
, weIl beynnd thcf;c: of mostcoT7:Lal.cial1v TuvZ:herm=e, the materials proc'hcedin suchventure:: integi:ated part of the school'sinstruction progrm. ianc verifies thi,;1" Wher for example,was the Iast tim3 thcz.
materials yourilo diligently labored to produce for ciass or even one yearago were last used? Administrort3, too, 7-ncni even beginning teachers, arehesitant touse instructioLal eeveloped by their colleagues. Thediscourging legacyof loc:al tc develc:7 materialsfor an individualizee instrlictionalpro7ram i3ai materials wouldmore than likely have been developedand inuse in zchocls. Eut such undertakings requi e theuse of rathercornisticuted constructs about teaching andlearning, constructswhich the typical tear:Ler hasnot developed. Usually tc:adlierdiscussions ofIaarning and instruction focuson the value of democracy in educ_Uon,nd technique for motivatingstudents, while the learning outcomesthey -lesiredare in thearea of cognitive development. Lastly., itassumes .t.achers have orderly routilIesfor dealing with learning difficulties. An analysis of the instructional procedures found inthe typicalclz-6J-:oom serioly challenges thisassumption.
More murncr3asorts for discouraging teacher -,:roductic_of tho istructional materialsneeded foran ineividualized
program tF.y be cited,too. Cost is one suchfactor. Increasingly, teachers F1.1.- dem'rnding and rec ivingcompensation for :le
poduc ir -:tional materials. 'Thisexpense, wiln aud5.4, t production
iraatc the priceof locallyclev,Ao-;ed.
, weIl beynnd thcf;c: of mostcoT7:Lal.cial1v TuvZ:herm=e, the materials proc'hcedin suchventure:: integi:ated part of the school'sinstruction progrm. ianc verifies thi,;1" Wher for example,was the Iast tim3 thcz.
materials yourilo diligently labored to produce for ciass or even one yearago were last used? Administrort3, too, 7-ncni even beginning teachers, arehesitant touse instructioLal eeveloped by their colleagues. Thediscourging legacyof loc:al tc develc:7 materialsfor an individualizee instrlictionalpro7ram i3ai enormous; disorganized,under-utilized collection ofditto masters that are considerably more trouble to locate andrun off than they are worth. S. A carefully-developed and continuousinservice program forintro- ducing teachers to individualization ofinstruction must bean integral and ongoing part of the schoolprogram. Too often schoolsundertake pervasive educational changes with littleor no consideration givento developing procedures for the preservationand refinement ofthese in- novations. Apparently, these schoolsassume the staff planning the innovation will implement and operateit. This is rarely thecase. The typical school has a 70% to 80%staff turnover ina ten year period. This means that teachers with few ifany of the understandingsof the program developed by those creatingthem are expectedto operate these programs. Lack of effective and efficientindoctrinating proceduresis one of the most serious shortcomings of mostinnovative efforts. 6. Detailed evaluation procedures should beformulated concurrently with programdevelopment. Too often the intensedesire to putan educa- tional idea into -, practice isso overpowering that littleor no attention is given to developing proceduresfor evaluating theefficacy of the innovation introduced. Inexorably in Mayor June an evaluation of the program is requested and an unsystematic,uninterpretable collectionof teacher and administrator opinions about thepreeomed merits of the program are bound in report form. Programs worthy ofintroduction into schools should alsobe worthy of the best possibleevaluation available. This implies ongoing and pervasiveevaluation, that is,all aspects of the innovation, not simply studentachievement,are assessed. enormous; disorganized,under-utilized collection ofditto masters that are considerably more trouble to locate andrun off than they are worth. S. A carefully-developed and continuousinservice program forintro- ducing teachers to individualization ofinstruction must bean integral and ongoing part of the schoolprogram. Too often schoolsundertake pervasive educational changes with littleor no consideration givento developing procedures for the preservationand refinement ofthese in- novations. Apparently, these schoolsassume the staff planning the innovation will implement and operateit. This is rarely thecase. The typical school has a 70% to 80%staff turnover ina ten year period. This means that teachers with few ifany of the understandingsof the program developed by those creatingthem are expectedto operate these programs. Lack of effective and efficientindoctrinating proceduresis one of the most serious shortcomings of mostinnovative efforts. 6. Detailed evaluation procedures should beformulated concurrently with programdevelopment. Too often the intensedesire to putan educa- tional idea into -, practice isso overpowering that littleor no attention is given to developing proceduresfor evaluating theefficacy of the innovation introduced. Inexorably in Mayor June an evaluation of the program is requested and an unsystematic,uninterpretable collectionof teacher and administrator opinions about thepreeomed merits of the program are bound in report form. Programs worthy ofintroduction into schools should alsobe worthy of the best possibleevaluation available. This implies ongoing and pervasiveevaluation, that is,all aspects of the innovation, not simply studentachievement,are assessed. SOME SPECIFIC PROCEDURESFOR INDIVIDUALIZINGINSTRUCTION
I hope what I have been givingyou is a tall order and notsimply a tall story. A list of specific referencesto procedures helpfulin
filling this order has beendistributed.
1. Behavioral Obiectiy_e_s: Virtually every seriouseffort at
individualization ofinstructicn uses behavioralobjectives. If you or your staff are unfamiliar with behaviorally developedinstructional ob- jectives you may want to consult the works ofMager or Vargas in this area or use the Vimcet materials developed forgroup instruction in the
purposes and preparation ofBehavioral Objectives.
These are valuablesources of informationon the nature of instruc- tional objectives. I do not, however,recommend teacIle17: spendtime a,d energies writing behavioral objectivesfor acceptable behavioralObjec- tives far tooreadily available elsewhere.
The 4000 orso behavioral objectivesdeveloped for PLAN, for example, are available from the WestinghouseLearning Corporation for under sixty dollarsand the Instructional Objectives Exchange ofU.C.L.A.'s Center for the Study *(1) 'avaluation sellsnumerou3 lists of behavioral objectives in a wide range of instructionalareas for minimal costs.
2. Commercially PreparedProgs_ams: Schools seriously considering individualizing instruction should look carefullyat commerciallypre- pared programs already developed before developingtheir awn program.
I.P.I. (IndividuallyPrescribed Instruction)out of the University of Pitt.sburgh and Research for Better Schoolsin Philadelphia andPLAN (Planned Learning in Accordance tc Need),the Westinghouse Program,are
-37- SOME SPECIFIC PROCEDURESFOR INDIVIDUALIZINGINSTRUCTION
I hope what I have been givingyou is a tall order and notsimply a tall story. A list of specific referencesto procedures helpfulin
filling this order has beendistributed.
1. Behavioral Obiectiy_e_s: Virtually every seriouseffort at
individualization ofinstructicn uses behavioralobjectives. If you or your staff are unfamiliar with behaviorally developedinstructional ob- jectives you may want to consult the works ofMager or Vargas in this area or use the Vimcet materials developed forgroup instruction in the
purposes and preparation ofBehavioral Objectives.
These are valuablesources of informationon the nature of instruc- tional objectives. I do not, however,recommend teacIle17: spendtime a,d energies writing behavioral objectivesfor acceptable behavioralObjec- tives far tooreadily available elsewhere.
The 4000 orso behavioral objectivesdeveloped for PLAN, for example, are available from the WestinghouseLearning Corporation for under sixty dollarsand the Instructional Objectives Exchange ofU.C.L.A.'s Center for the Study *(1) 'avaluation sellsnumerou3 lists of behavioral objectives in a wide range of instructionalareas for minimal costs.
2. Commercially PreparedProgs_ams: Schools seriously considering individualizing instruction should look carefullyat commerciallypre- pared programs already developed before developingtheir awn program.
I.P.I. (IndividuallyPrescribed Instruction)out of the University of Pitt.sburgh and Research for Better Schoolsin Philadelphia andPLAN (Planned Learning in Accordance tc Need),the Westinghouse Program,are
-37- perhaps the two mostaMbitious works inthis area. 71rog1ams of this type are not give aways. PLAN, for example,costs a school district approximately $100a year a child to operateafter initial fees havebeen pai(L A complete breakdownof the costsa e as follows:
ANNUAL CHARGES FORA SCHOOL OF 400 PU?ILS TEACHING LEARNING UNITS 424,000. ($6.00/child/month)
COMPUTER CONTROL 11,200. ($2.80/child/month)
COMPUTER LINE AND TERMINAL CHARGES 8,000. ($2.00/child/month $43.200. INITIAL SIGN-UPCHARGES (one time only) 5,000.
SUPERVISOR TRAINDGCHARGE 500. (one timeonly charge)
TEACHER TRAININGCHARGE 4,800. ($300/week/teacher) ir $53,500. SUPPORT MATERIALCHARGE (varies withamount of equipmentand utilizationpatterns of theschool).
Some educatorsseeing these program costs for the firsttime nega,te the possibilityof suchan approach to individualization ofinstruction by saying "myboard will never buy it." Possibly we areover -quick to diminish theefforts made to supporteducation andeven use our fiscal woes as reasons fordoing nothing. We point with almostmasochistic pleasure to thefact that last year the world onlyspent $100- a child
4/31-33- perhaps the two mostaMbitious works inthis area. 71rog1ams of this type are not give aways. PLAN, for example,costs a school district approximately $100a year a child to operateafter initial fees havebeen pai(L A complete breakdownof the costsa e as follows:
ANNUAL CHARGES FORA SCHOOL OF 400 PU?ILS TEACHING LEARNING UNITS 424,000. ($6.00/child/month)
COMPUTER CONTROL 11,200. ($2.80/child/month)
COMPUTER LINE AND TERMINAL CHARGES 8,000. ($2.00/child/month $43.200. INITIAL SIGN-UPCHARGES (one time only) 5,000.
SUPERVISOR TRAINDGCHARGE 500. (one timeonly charge)
TEACHER TRAININGCHARGE 4,800. ($300/week/teacher) ir $53,500. SUPPORT MATERIALCHARGE (varies withamount of equipmentand utilizationpatterns of theschool).
Some educatorsseeing these program costs for the firsttime nega,te the possibilityof suchan approach to individualization ofinstruction by saying "myboard will never buy it." Possibly we areover -quick to diminish theefforts made to supporteducation andeven use our fiscal woes as reasons fordoing nothing. We point with almostmasochistic pleasure to thefact that last year the world onlyspent $100- a child
4/31-33- on education but $74.800 per soldier. While allocating $110 billion of
its resources to education it investeda wopping $159 billion in arma- 10 ment. We are quick to conclude from these and similar data that
schools are not getting their fair share of thetax dollar.
This is far from the whole story of educationalsupport. In the
past two decades educational spending in the UnitedStates increased
five-fold while personal consumption merelydolibled. In the same period
sdhool enrollments increased 88%) but schoolexpenditures, in constant
dollars, increased 35%. While employment in private industry increased
38%, employment in public education increased203%.(figure 2.) The 11 public has not been unwilling tosupport education.
If taxpayers are digging in their heelsto resist school tax in-
creases they may le justified for there is virtuallyno xelation between the money spent on education- per pupil expenditures; community tax rate, teadher salaries; pupil-teacher ratios;number of administrators per 100 pupils - and educational attainments (table 1). Even the fedble relations between grade 6 readingadhievement and educational expenditures virtually vaporize by the 10th grade. About all increases in staif size 12 ard salaries increases is the sizeof the educational tax bill.
Even using factor loading techniques (table 2)to augment the 13 analysis does not seriously alter thepicture previously presented,
I have no desire to dazzle you with fancystatistical footwork. It is far too late in the day for that. I simply wish to replace the con- jecture and wishful thinking that shrouddiscussions of the efficacy of increased educational spendingon educational attainments with hard
-39- on education but $74.800 per soldier. While allocating $110 billion of
its resources to education it investeda wopping $159 billion in arma- 10 ment. We are quick to conclude from these and similar data that
schools are not getting their fair share of thetax dollar.
This is far from the whole story of educationalsupport. In the
past two decades educational spending in the UnitedStates increased
five-fold while personal consumption merelydolibled. In the same period
sdhool enrollments increased 88%) but schoolexpenditures, in constant
dollars, increased 35%. While employment in private industry increased
38%, employment in public education increased203%.(figure 2.) The 11 public has not been unwilling tosupport education.
If taxpayers are digging in their heelsto resist school tax in-
creases they may le justified for there is virtuallyno xelation between the money spent on education- per pupil expenditures; community tax rate, teadher salaries; pupil-teacher ratios;number of administrators per 100 pupils - and educational attainments (table 1). Even the fedble relations between grade 6 readingadhievement and educational expenditures virtually vaporize by the 10th grade. About all increases in staif size 12 ard salaries increases is the sizeof the educational tax bill.
Even using factor loading techniques (table 2)to augment the 13 analysis does not seriously alter thepicture previously presented,
I have no desire to dazzle you with fancystatistical footwork. It is far too late in the day for that. I simply wish to replace the con- jecture and wishful thinking that shrouddiscussions of the efficacy of increased educational spendingon educational attainments with hard
-39- CONSUMPTIONPERSONAL NATIONALEDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES 1950-1970 SCHOOL EXPENDITURES IN CONSTANT DOLLARS PRIVATESCHOOL ENROLLMENT-EXPENDITURE INCREASES 1950-1970 INDUSTR PUBLIc.; EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT INCREASES 1950-1970 andFIGURE exp:_nlitur 2. Coperisons of percentage increases tncrca--; in ot.her segments .. of the for es-7,1cationa1 eco.:IaT7. expenditures CONSUMPTIONPERSONAL NATIONALEDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES 1950-1970 SCHOOL EXPENDITURES IN CONSTANT DOLLARS PRIVATESCHOOL ENROLLMENT-EXPENDITURE INCREASES 1950-1970 INDUSTR PUBLIc.; EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT INCREASES 1950-1970 andFIGURE exp:_nlitur 2. Coperisons of percentage increases tncrca--; in ot.her segments .. of the for es-7,1cationa1 eco.:IaT7. expenditures 1. Grade 6 :...eading EXPENEGTUR& PER PUPIL RATE TAX TEACHER SLUM/ - TEACHRPUPIL RATIO NO. OF AMA-100ISTRATORS/ PUPILS 3,2. PerGrade Pupil 10 rvaeingExpenditures .05023 .06.21 .02.18 -.03 018 -.06-.09 5,14. TeacherTax Rate Salary *35 .54.53 -.06 .142 .24.47 7,Do No.Pupil-Teacher Administrators/100 Ratio .18 .01.145 01111/WWW.TABLE le Oorrelations among educational cost factors and 6th and 10th Grade reading achievement scores.1 1. Jenban. a_911. p* 5 1. Grade 6 :...eading EXPENEGTUR& PER PUPIL RATE TAX TEACHER SLUM/ - TEACHRPUPIL RATIO NO. OF AMA-100ISTRATORS/ PUPILS 3,2. PerGrade Pupil 10 rvaeingExpenditures .05023 .06.21 .02.18 -.03 018 -.06-.09 5,14. TeacherTax Rate Salary *35 .54.53 -.06 .142 .24.47 7,Do No.Pupil-Teacher Administrators/100 Ratio .18 .01.145 01111/WWW.TABLE le Oorrelations among educational cost factors and 6th and 10th Grade reading achievement scores.1 1. Jenban. a_911. p* 5 INSTRUCTIMAL COST VARIABLS GRADE READING SCORES 6 10 1. PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES .23 .08
2.TAX RATE .21 006
3.TEACHCR SALARY 018 .02
4. TEACHER/PUPILRATIO .18
NUMBER OF ADMiNISTRA- -409 TORS PER 100 PUPILS -.06
TABLE 2. Rotatedfactor loadings fireducational cost factors and 6th and 10th grq7e student readingachievement scores.1
A'
1. Jensen, al.. INSTRUCTIMAL COST VARIABLS GRADE READING SCORES 6 10 1. PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES .23 .08
2.TAX RATE .21 006
3.TEACHCR SALARY 018 .02
4. TEACHER/PUPILRATIO .18
NUMBER OF ADMiNISTRA- -409 TORS PER 100 PUPILS -.06
TABLE 2. Rotatedfactor loadings fireducational cost factors and 6th and 10th grq7e student readingachievement scores.1
A'
1. Jensen, al.. data on thispoint. Traditionally thepublic has beenlead to believe money was the solventfor all instructional problems and theyellow brick road toeducational excellence is paved with smallerclasses and larger and betterpaid staffs. Taxpayers onceendorsed thissolution but arenow disappointed with it. Most of them, tr do not necessarily demandmore bang for thebuck. They would gladlysettle foran oc- casionalpop.
Suggesting themerits of tIle "big package"of commerciallyde- velopedinstructional materials as the starting pointfor a local effort to individualizeinstruction is dharacterized andrejected as the impossibleeducational dream. Soliltions shortof thisare solicited. Inherent in thisquest is tacit recognition ofthe merits of"the big package" approachto the individualizationof instructionbut a willing- ness to make do with second-bestsolutions. I am not countenancing
reckl_ess educationalspending, but I am suggesting thatthose coverting educationalinnovations beinnovative themselves. I feel the timemay have come whenwe must stop asking boards of educationwhat tbeycan do for ourinstructionalprogram and start asking ourselveswhat alternatives to increasedspending we can develop fortheseprograms. Innovations, likecharity, begin at home. In days ,f tightmoney, unique solutionsshould be developed for dbtainingthe innovations desired. Creativeuse of available resources placed atour disposal may contain'thesolution toour problems. I know oneeducator, for example, who filled one first gradeteacher opening with two half-timeteachers. Besides providingvaluable opportunities for using uniquestaffing pat- 49 -43- data on thispoint. Traditionally thepublic has beenlead to believe money was the solventfor all instructional problems and theyellow brick road toeducational excellence is paved with smallerclasses and larger and betterpaid staffs. Taxpayers onceendorsed thissolution but arenow disappointed with it. Most of them, tr do not necessarily demandmore bang for thebuck. They would gladlysettle foran oc- casionalpop.
Suggesting themerits of tIle "big package"of commerciallyde- velopedinstructional materials as the starting pointfor a local effort to individualizeinstruction is dharacterized andrejected as the impossibleeducational dream. Soliltions shortof thisare solicited. Inherent in thisquest is tacit recognition ofthe merits of"the big package" approachto the individualizationof instructionbut a willing- ness to make do with second-bestsolutions. I am not countenancing
reckl_ess educationalspending, but I am suggesting thatthose coverting educationalinnovations beinnovative themselves. I feel the timemay have come whenwe must stop asking boards of educationwhat tbeycan do for ourinstructionalprogram and start asking ourselveswhat alternatives to increasedspending we can develop fortheseprograms. Innovations, likecharity, begin at home. In days ,f tightmoney, unique solutionsshould be developed for dbtainingthe innovations desired. Creativeuse of available resources placed atour disposal may contain'thesolution toour problems. I know oneeducator, for example, who filled one first gradeteacher opening with two half-timeteachers. Besides providingvaluable opportunities for using uniquestaffing pat- 49 -43- perns, the money saved in contributionsto auxilbry compensation,con-
tributions to retirementfunds, medical insurance,etc., was used to
purchase additional instructionalsupplies and services. Boards of
education'must be presentedwith alternatives to thefunding needs of
innovative schools. They simply can not beasked regularly and relent-
lessly to dig deeper anddeeper into the tax-payer'spocket for more
dollars for theseprograms.
Earlier cmggested the solution to theinstructional problems of
individual differenceswere not to be found ingroup manipulations
exclusively. Now I suggest the solutionto individualized instruction
does not lie inperpetual use of thesame old tired solutions that have
failed us forso long.
3. Taxonomies of Education:Increasingly we are comingto realize the variability among humans is enormous and thesolutions to the in- structional problems produced by these differenceslimited. Essentially,
most available solutionsto the instructionalproblems resulting from individual differences focus on a singleaspect of learner differences-- differences in learning rates. Qualitative differencesare known to exist among learners, too. Time does not permita critique of the references distributed but I would liketo draw attention to theBloom and Grathwohl citations listed. Together th,..se taxonomiescould pro- vid a framework for assessing thescope of the learnings providedby the sChool's curriculum. These taxonomies ofthemselves will notcure an ailing curriculum but they should providevaluable insights into k_ what is killing the school's efforts toindividualize instruction. 50 -44- perns, the money saved in contributionsto auxilbry compensation,con-
tributions to retirementfunds, medical insurance,etc., was used to
purchase additional instructionalsupplies and services. Boards of
education'must be presentedwith alternatives to thefunding needs of
innovative schools. They simply can not beasked regularly and relent-
lessly to dig deeper anddeeper into the tax-payer'spocket for more
dollars for theseprograms.
Earlier cmggested the solution to theinstructional problems of
individual differenceswere not to be found ingroup manipulations
exclusively. Now I suggest the solutionto individualized instruction
does not lie inperpetual use of thesame old tired solutions that have
failed us forso long.
3. Taxonomies of Education:Increasingly we are comingto realize the variability among humans is enormous and thesolutions to the in- structional problems produced by these differenceslimited. Essentially,
most available solutionsto the instructionalproblems resulting from individual differences focus on a singleaspect of learner differences-- differences in learning rates. Qualitative differencesare known to exist among learners, too. Time does not permita critique of the references distributed but I would liketo draw attention to theBloom and Grathwohl citations listed. Together th,..se taxonomiescould pro- vid a framework for assessing thescope of the learnings providedby the sChool's curriculum. These taxonomies ofthemselves will notcure an ailing curriculum but they should providevaluable insights into k_ what is killing the school's efforts toindividualize instruction. 50 -44- 4. Individualized InstructionalMaterials: Increasing amounts of material on individualized instructionis appearingcn the matket. The hand-out lists a number of these materials. These materialspay fleeting homage to learner differencesin areas other thanthe cognitive and the skill development areas buttheir principal focusis on learning- rate differences in these. Despite desires tothe contrary,knowledge of learning differences in domains other.:han the cognitiveand the skill areas is far from complete and exhaustive. Furthermore, our Abilityfor dealing effectively with the identifiabledifferences in theseareas is
somewhat less thancrude. I mention this simplybecause the practitioner must determine the instructional value derivedfrom swappingspeculations about such differences particularly when thesediscussions tend to terminate in blindalleysnd no action.
5. alttms_gar. Evaluation: Evaluatior, obviously,is a particu- larized activity and can not be discussedintelligently in advanceof a detailed descriptionof the goals and procealres used to,achievespecified outcomes. In this seh6e it isnot possible to providea system for evalu- ation prior to program development. However, C. A. M.(Comprehensive Achievemant Monitoring) has an overallassessment design whichmay provide schools interested in individualizinginstruction witha frame- work for developing a sound procedure forprogram assessment.
CONCLUSION
The discussion of individual differencesand individualizationof instruction hascome full cycle. While the instructionaldifficulties produced by individual learner differencesare clearly not new
-45- 4. Individualized InstructionalMaterials: Increasing amounts of material on individualized instructionis appearingcn the matket. The hand-out lists a number of these materials. These materialspay fleeting homage to learner differencesin areas other thanthe cognitive and the skill development areas buttheir principal focusis on learning- rate differences in these. Despite desires tothe contrary,knowledge of learning differences in domains other.:han the cognitiveand the skill areas is far from complete and exhaustive. Furthermore, our Abilityfor dealing effectively with the identifiabledifferences in theseareas is
somewhat less thancrude. I mention this simplybecause the practitioner must determine the instructional value derivedfrom swappingspeculations about such differences particularly when thesediscussions tend to terminate in blindalleysnd no action.
5. alttms_gar. Evaluation: Evaluatior, obviously,is a particu- larized activity and can not be discussedintelligently in advanceof a detailed descriptionof the goals and procealres used to,achievespecified outcomes. In this seh6e it isnot possible to providea system for evalu- ation prior to program development. However, C. A. M.(Comprehensive Achievemant Monitoring) has an overallassessment design whichmay provide schools interested in individualizinginstruction witha frame- work for developing a sound procedure forprogram assessment.
CONCLUSION
The discussion of individual differencesand individualizationof instruction hascome full cycle. While the instructionaldifficulties produced by individual learner differencesare clearly not new
-45- educaticnal problems, this does notmean viable solutions to these
problems are not urgently needed.What has been learned about individual
differences from earlier efforts to deal effectivelywith the instruc-
tional problems they produce fillsmany books. The yet unanswered questions about individual differences,however, fills many libraries.
If, indeed, the past is truly prologue, itmust be scrutinized for stockpiling outmoded organizational gimmicksand empty dictums about individual differences has 9assed. Both the public and the profession have drunk too long and toc deeply of theseold wines to mistake them, regardless of the newness of the bottle,as the elixir that will cure the instructional problems produced by individualdifferences. A brave new world o! instructional procedures for working effectivelywith individual differences is being developed;it could decline and fall for want of brave new educational leadership. educaticnal problems, this does notmean viable solutions to these
problems are not urgently needed.What has been learned about individual
differences from earlier efforts to deal effectivelywith the instruc-
tional problems they produce fillsmany books. The yet unanswered questions about individual differences,however, fills many libraries.
If, indeed, the past is truly prologue, itmust be scrutinized for stockpiling outmoded organizational gimmicksand empty dictums about individual differences has 9assed. Both the public and the profession have drunk too long and toc deeply of theseold wines to mistake them, regardless of the newness of the bottle,as the elixir that will cure the instructional problems produced by individualdifferences. A brave new world o! instructional procedures for working effectivelywith individual differences is being developed;it could decline and fall for want of brave new educational leadership. FOOTNOTES
1. Dorothea McCarthy, 1, "Language Developmentin Children," in of Child pugh22.ow. Manual Ed. by LeonardCarmichael. New York: Weiley & Sons, 1954. John
2. John I. Goodlad,"Individual Differencesand Vertical of the School," in Organization Individualizing_LEstruction. The Sixty-First Yearbook of the NationalSociety for theStudy of Education, Part I. Nelson B. Henry (Ed). Chicago: National Society forthe Study of Education,1962. P. 219.
3. Walter W. Cook,arau_pjla_and Promotionin the Elementary, Series on Individualization School. of Instruction,No. 2, Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1941.
4. C. H. Keyes, 21Earess Through the Grades ofCity qdhools. Con- tributions to Education, No. 42. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,1911.
5. William P. McLoughlin, Evaluation of theNongraded Prima1. York: New St. John's UniversityPress, 1969. P. 1. 6. Harold G. Shane, "Grouping in theElementary School,"Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (A]pril 5,1960), 313-19.
7. McLoughlin, op. cit.
8. Jane Franseth and Rose Koury, Suryty_ofResearch on Grouping Related to Pupil ass knEmiATI. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health Educat'cn, and Welfare,1966
9. Walter W Cook and Theodore Clymer,"Acceleration andRetardation:" in Individua1i4ngTnstruction. Op cit., p. 188 10. "Unesco Figures Revealed" in PhiDelta Kappan, Vol.LII, February 1971, p. 385
11. Arthur R. Jensen, Do Schools CheatMinority Children? Paper delivered in theSeminar on Education,The Rand Corporation, Monica, California, Santa April, 1970 (Berkeley,California: for Human Learning, Institute University 4 California,Berkeley), P. 1. 12. Jensen, Rat cit.
13. Jensen, op. cit. Z3 FOOTNOTES
1. Dorothea McCarthy, 1, "Language Developmentin Children," in of Child pugh22.ow. Manual Ed. by LeonardCarmichael. New York: Weiley & Sons, 1954. John
2. John I. Goodlad,"Individual Differencesand Vertical of the School," in Organization Individualizing_LEstruction. The Sixty-First Yearbook of the NationalSociety for theStudy of Education, Part I. Nelson B. Henry (Ed). Chicago: National Society forthe Study of Education,1962. P. 219.
3. Walter W. Cook,arau_pjla_and Promotionin the Elementary, Series on Individualization School. of Instruction,No. 2, Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1941.
4. C. H. Keyes, 21Earess Through the Grades ofCity qdhools. Con- tributions to Education, No. 42. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,1911.
5. William P. McLoughlin, Evaluation of theNongraded Prima1. York: New St. John's UniversityPress, 1969. P. 1. 6. Harold G. Shane, "Grouping in theElementary School,"Phi Delta Kappan, XLI (A]pril 5,1960), 313-19.
7. McLoughlin, op. cit.
8. Jane Franseth and Rose Koury, Suryty_ofResearch on Grouping Related to Pupil ass knEmiATI. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health Educat'cn, and Welfare,1966
9. Walter W Cook and Theodore Clymer,"Acceleration andRetardation:" in Individua1i4ngTnstruction. Op cit., p. 188 10. "Unesco Figures Revealed" in PhiDelta Kappan, Vol.LII, February 1971, p. 385
11. Arthur R. Jensen, Do Schools CheatMinority Children? Paper delivered in theSeminar on Education,The Rand Corporation, Monica, California, Santa April, 1970 (Berkeley,California: for Human Learning, Institute University 4 California,Berkeley), P. 1. 12. Jensen, Rat cit.
13. Jensen, op. cit. Z3 USEFUL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bev..rtio;ral_gbjctives:
Mmger, Robert F.,plummingt.jmtsastional. Oblqctives. Palo Aito, Calif: Fnaron Pblishers, 1961i
Vargas, Julie 3.,EsAti...naJigtthVh112.12S Obiectim. University of Virgiaia(mimeographed).
Vimcet Associates,P. O. Box 24714, LosAngeles, California 90024.
Taxc,:Eami
Bloom, Benjamin S., et al. A Taxcragly.gfMagatignal 91.1=12:2P: PIT49.22N_IL_Zha_gganatim...2.91maia. New York: David MCKay, 1956.
Kratql, naq..a R.,et. al. A TenngaLatikuraumal liqPdbc* 71.1....19-6.ttaatiKAME4.4,11- New York: David McKay, L964.
Social :;c-it.ia Education Consortium, Inc., 970Aurora, Social Stiance. 1rjulier, Cclorado 80302.
Inct,-uctior.
24A1 Nauft1.19A_MallatolsEkaut.. Publicrionsc Wnldo Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331. $7.50
In3tv4ction Kit. Includes 6 film-strips/audiotape sotnc 46 :tudy brochures, 1 administrators manual. $77.50, D:vartmt of Audiovisual Instruction, 1201Sixteenth Street, Nag., Washington, 21036.
Int.3.i,vi dual i z _InatsgaticauglApitulasit. Edtv.Ilatioaal Council of America. Cleveland, Ohio
44b collearg111.14Y-ELaii.K2g.REPSYame:
Instructisa. Research for Better Schoolo, Inc., 121 South BroadStreet, Philadelphia, Pecinsylvania
plgagmfo:: Learning in Arcla4Ame with Needs. Phil Sorensen, nAN Regional ACiviser, 6612 57th Avenue SouthSeattle, Washington 98118.
-48- USEFUL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bev..rtio;ral_gbjctives:
Mmger, Robert F.,plummingt.jmtsastional. Oblqctives. Palo Aito, Calif: Fnaron Pblishers, 1961i
Vargas, Julie 3.,EsAti...naJigtthVh112.12S Obiectim. University of Virgiaia(mimeographed).
Vimcet Associates,P. O. Box 24714, LosAngeles, California 90024.
Taxc,:Eami
Bloom, Benjamin S., et al. A Taxcragly.gfMagatignal 91.1=12:2P: PIT49.22N_IL_Zha_gganatim...2.91maia. New York: David MCKay, 1956.
Kratql, naq..a R.,et. al. A TenngaLatikuraumal liqPdbc* 71.1....19-6.ttaatiKAME4.4,11- New York: David McKay, L964.
Social :;c-it.ia Education Consortium, Inc., 970Aurora, Social Stiance. 1rjulier, Cclorado 80302.
Inct,-uctior.
24A1 Nauft1.19A_MallatolsEkaut.. Publicrionsc Wnldo Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331. $7.50
In3tv4ction Kit. Includes 6 film-strips/audiotape sotnc 46 :tudy brochures, 1 administrators manual. $77.50, D:vartmt of Audiovisual Instruction, 1201Sixteenth Street, Nag., Washington, 21036.
Int.3.i,vi dual i z _InatsgaticauglApitulasit. Edtv.Ilatioaal Council of America. Cleveland, Ohio
44b collearg111.14Y-ELaii.K2g.REPSYame:
Instructisa. Research for Better Schoolo, Inc., 121 South BroadStreet, Philadelphia, Pecinsylvania
plgagmfo:: Learning in Arcla4Ame with Needs. Phil Sorensen, nAN Regional ACiviser, 6612 57th Avenue SouthSeattle, Washington 98118.
-48- 5. LtaksiljorEv....LLIII.mn. The system forevaluatingan individualized instructionalprogram, obviously,should be derived fromthe program's aims, goals andobjectives. In that sense, itis not possible to provide thesystem of evalua- tif4n in advanceo the program. However, CAM-Comprehensive AchievementMonitoring, has particular aspectswhich may be valuable indeveloping an evaltationsystem. Further infor- mation on CAR may be obtainedfrom:
Dr. RobertP. O'Reilly Division ofResearch University ofthe State ofN.Y. State EducationDepartment Albany, NewYork 12224 5. LtaksiljorEv....LLIII.mn. The system forevaluatingan individualized instructionalprogram, obviously,should be derived fromthe program's aims, goals andobjectives. In that sense, itis not possible to provide thesystem of evalua- tif4n in advanceo the program. However, CAM-Comprehensive AchievementMonitoring, has particular aspectswhich may be valuable indeveloping an evaltationsystem. Further infor- mation on CAR may be obtainedfrom:
Dr. RobertP. O'Reilly Division ofResearch University ofthe State ofN.Y. State EducationDepartment Albany, NewYork 12224 FUTU7E ACTION AND PROGRAMS byDr. Ted Grenda
If all oZ us leavetoetay pondering the question,°What is
Individualized Instruction?,"and we thenpursue a search for the answer to that question, this conferelece will havebeen an overwhelmingsuccess. My jo:e is a very difficult ore-. I think ending a conferenceso
that you feel thatv u've taken away a productand some deeper understandings of what we have been talking about isexce,dingly difficult. Next time if we repeat this co;Iference, I'm goingto ask to be the keynotespeaker b cause I think I can provokemore questions than provideanswers.
I have a feeliee thatone reason I've been askedto do this is because of an experienceI had reeently where Ivisited a principal. While we were talking the telephonerang and he talked tosomeone at the other end to wT!om h.aid,"Unbelievable!, but send himdown."
Then he turned tome and said, "There'sa young men coning down here. He was eating in class are: t e teacher said, 'Whatare you doing, Johnny?' The yoeng man eeswered, 'I'm eating a teacher'ssandwich.'
The teadher asked,-r,lha;:'s a teeher's sandwich made ..!7?' and he said, 'Baloney, so she's seneing him into me." So Johnny came into the room and the principal said, "Johnny,what are you doing?" (He's still eating the sandwich), and. lie 5e-sid, "I'm eating a principal's sandwich." "What's a principal's sandwich made out of?' Johnny replied, "Baloney." The principal said, "I!'ou leave and dont come back until Iveseen your parents." Well, beingvery humanistically inclined,I said, "Wait a '543
-50- FUTU7E ACTION AND PROGRAMS byDr. Ted Grenda
If all oZ us leavetoetay pondering the question,°What is
Individualized Instruction?,"and we thenpursue a search for the answer to that question, this conferelece will havebeen an overwhelmingsuccess. My jo:e is a very difficult ore-. I think ending a conferenceso
that you feel thatv u've taken away a productand some deeper understandings of what we have been talking about isexce,dingly difficult. Next time if we repeat this co;Iference, I'm goingto ask to be the keynotespeaker b cause I think I can provokemore questions than provideanswers.
I have a feeliee thatone reason I've been askedto do this is because of an experienceI had reeently where Ivisited a principal. While we were talking the telephonerang and he talked tosomeone at the other end to wT!om h.aid,"Unbelievable!, but send himdown."
Then he turned tome and said, "There'sa young men coning down here. He was eating in class are: t e teacher said, 'Whatare you doing, Johnny?' The yoeng man eeswered, 'I'm eating a teacher'ssandwich.'
The teadher asked,-r,lha;:'s a teeher's sandwich made ..!7?' and he said, 'Baloney, so she's seneing him into me." So Johnny came into the room and the principal said, "Johnny,what are you doing?" (He's still eating the sandwich), and. lie 5e-sid, "I'm eating a principal's sandwich." "What's a principal's sandwich made out of?' Johnny replied, "Baloney." The principal said, "I!'ou leave and dont come back until Iveseen your parents." Well, beingvery humanistically inclined,I said, "Wait a '543
-50- minute. Let me talk to this youngster, I've got 1l kinds ofpsychological experience, andI thint I can help you." So I said, "Johnny,what are you eating?" and he said, "I'meating a sandwich",and I said, "Aha! That's verysignificant. You recognizethat when hewas talking to the teadher, he saida teacher's sandwich, and when hewas talking toyou, he saida principal's sandwich. To me, he didn'tsay, Director of General Educationsandwich." Then Johnnycut in, Yeall0 but I don't have enoughbaloney to takecare of that!"
I think it'sbeen a very good conference, and Ifeel thatyou shouldcarry_away certain things that at leasthave beenvery apparent to me. I thinkyou should recognize that there isa lot goingon in New York Stateon Individualized Instruction Indeed there isa lot going on inthe countryon Individualized Instruction. It's obvious to me that there isa deep desire in Suffolk Countyto implementIndividualized Instruction, andwhen I deal with'gentlemenlike these whoare on the panel, it'salso very obvious to me thattiere is a great dealof knowledgeable anddedicated leadf::rship to bringthis about. If youare confused about wh.at IndividualizedIstructiox is, and how it shouldbe implemented, you'rein goodcompany, because the questions thatyou are asking are exactly thesame kinds of questions that arebeingaskedacross the country. You should becomfortable in knowing thatthere is a lot of help availableand that we'vealready taken some stepsto implement additional helpfor you. I'll tellyou about that ina moment. However, beforewe proceed I thinkyou should know that thereare some very significantmovements in thiscountry, both 57 -51- minute. Let me talk to this youngster, I've got 1l kinds ofpsychological experience, andI thint I can help you." So I said, "Johnny,what are you eating?" and he said, "I'meating a sandwich",and I said, "Aha! That's verysignificant. You recognizethat when hewas talking to the teadher, he saida teacher's sandwich, and when hewas talking toyou, he saida principal's sandwich. To me, he didn'tsay, Director of General Educationsandwich." Then Johnnycut in, Yeall0 but I don't have enoughbaloney to takecare of that!"
I think it'sbeen a very good conference, and Ifeel thatyou shouldcarry_away certain things that at leasthave beenvery apparent to me. I thinkyou should recognize that there isa lot goingon in New York Stateon Individualized Instruction Indeed there isa lot going on inthe countryon Individualized Instruction. It's obvious to me that there isa deep desire in Suffolk Countyto implementIndividualized Instruction, andwhen I deal with'gentlemenlike these whoare on the panel, it'salso very obvious to me thattiere is a great dealof knowledgeable anddedicated leadf::rship to bringthis about. If youare confused about wh.at IndividualizedIstructiox is, and how it shouldbe implemented, you'rein goodcompany, because the questions thatyou are asking are exactly thesame kinds of questions that arebeingaskedacross the country. You should becomfortable in knowing thatthere is a lot of help availableand that we'vealready taken some stepsto implement additional helpfor you. I'll tellyou about that ina moment. However, beforewe proceed I thinkyou should know that thereare some very significantmovements in thiscountry, both 57 -51- in the educational fieldand within the social fabric,which,I think, are going to dictateIndividualized Instruction-or somethingvery much akin to it.
To begin with,I was frankly disappointed thatno one during the course of the conferencesaid that IndividualizecaInsruction is ina process of natural evolution--that itwillcome and thatour role can only be thatofff eitherhastening it or hindering it. I believe thatthere is a v-,Jry definiterelationship between IndividualizedInstruction and open education, theBritish Infant School, and similarmovements. I think that thetwo go hand inhand. I think thatyou should beaware of somefantastictechnological advances eitheron the sceneor are just over thehorizon whichare going to create deliverysystems 1:or the schools,that are either going tb createproblems forus or are going tofacilitateeducational programs in theindividualizedmede. Just the otherday, Iwas reading 'that computers, anew generation of computers,are coming inthe not too distant future. Right now, computerscan only address '..themselves toone pigeon hole ata moment. The impulsescan only ferret out informationtht is containedin any one particularpigeon hole. Obviouslyo itcan be 'okle ata tremendous rate of speed,but it'slimited. The newcomputers arc, goinc4to be operating--rwon'tsay like the mind, because the mindi$ alnost beyond in the educational fieldand within the social fabric,which,I think, are going to dictateIndividualized Instruction-or somethingvery much akin to it.
To begin with,I was frankly disappointed thatno one during the course of the conferencesaid that IndividualizecaInsruction is ina process of natural evolution--that itwillcome and thatour role can only be thatofff eitherhastening it or hindering it. I believe thatthere is a v-,Jry definiterelationship between IndividualizedInstruction and open education, theBritish Infant School, and similarmovements. I think that thetwo go hand inhand. I think thatyou should beaware of somefantastictechnological advances eitheron the sceneor are just over thehorizon whichare going to create deliverysystems 1:or the schools,that are either going tb createproblems forus or are going tofacilitateeducational programs in theindividualizedmede. Just the otherday, Iwas reading 'that computers, anew generation of computers,are coming inthe not too distant future. Right now, computerscan only address '..themselves toone pigeon hole ata moment. The impulsescan only ferret out informationtht is containedin any one particularpigeon hole. Obviouslyo itcan be 'okle ata tremendous rate of speed,but it'slimited. The newcomputers arc, goinc4to be operating--rwon'tsay like the mind, because the mindi$ alnost beyond into incidents and happenings in their own lives. Computers are going
to add tremendous new dimensions to the instructional program and the
only way we're going to be able to cope with those tedhnologies is
through some form of individualization.
I think it should be obvious if you've been reading the New York Times
that our critics have not been asleep. Admiral Rickover had two
articles in last week's Times. Othes critics still on the scene are
concerned about the vasyinq elements within the instructionalprogram.
I think Individualized Instruction offersus a mode which will be able
to give attention to all theconcerns of all of our critics, and still
reflec:: tLe human concerns that I thinkwe have been manifesting in this
meetinsc. It should be obvious to you in professional organizations that
the APT and the UFTare becoming deeply concerned about many of the
things that we've been talking about. If you're an administrator you've got to be on the lookout for professional organizations thatare going
to be pressing you onsome of these instructional concerns.
I think you should know that thereare fresh wlnds blowing within
the State Education Department; thatthe State is indeed willing to work with districts in terms of easing regulations;and, that there is a process which we call "Redesign", which is just in its infancy.
"Redesign" will address itself tca system of school districts that are going to be as different fromone another as is a community in Suffolk into incidents and happenings in their own lives. Computers are going
to add tremendous new dimensions to the instructional program and the
only way we're going to be able to cope with those tedhnologies is
through some form of individualization.
I think it should be obvious if you've been reading the New York Times
that our critics have not been asleep. Admiral Rickover had two
articles in last week's Times. Othes critics still on the scene are
concerned about the vasyinq elements within the instructionalprogram.
I think Individualized Instruction offersus a mode which will be able
to give attention to all theconcerns of all of our critics, and still
reflec:: tLe human concerns that I thinkwe have been manifesting in this
meetinsc. It should be obvious to you in professional organizations that
the APT and the UFTare becoming deeply concerned about many of the
things that we've been talking about. If you're an administrator you've got to be on the lookout for professional organizations thatare going
to be pressing you onsome of these instructional concerns.
I think you should know that thereare fresh wlnds blowing within
the State Education Department; thatthe State is indeed willing to work with districts in terms of easing regulations;and, that there is a process which we call "Redesign", which is just in its infancy.
"Redesign" will address itself tca system of school districts that are going to be as different fromone another as is a community in Suffolk that there has to bean easing of Regents; that therehas to be a re-examination of many of the evaluative and testingnotions. In that
area I happen to be Chairmanof the ExaminationsTask Force which is looking at the entire program of State Examinations. We will be recommending within this year whata complete system of Stateservices should be in thisrealm. As a matter of fact,we're coming backto Suffolk County next week to ta.L,about that withparents, children, board members, administrators, andteachers. Indeed, I may get the
opportunity to meetsome of you at that meeting* I think you should know thatthere are a series ofconcerns about the developmentof a continuous achievement monitoringsystem as alludod to in the remarks by some ofyesterday's speakers. You should also know that universities and collegesare dissatisfied withthe kinds of teadhers thatthey're turning out and that3ome of them are beginnirgto get cnncerned about not onlyinstructing studentsin an individualized way, but also about departing fromthe oldcourse--you knowIthe six- course kind of notion. Don Nascawas telling me lastnight about a program he's advocating for Brockport. It would bean "open end", 30- creditprogram, for a student. The student wouldleave with a Bachelor's Degree, go intoa school district, and would thendevelop a program of activities forherself or himself that would end ina Master's Degree. It would ineffect bean internship program for that teacher. Now, if that there has to bean easing of Regents; that therehas to be a re-examination of many of the evaluative and testingnotions. In that
area I happen to be Chairmanof the ExaminationsTask Force which is looking at the entire program of State Examinations. We will be recommending within this year whata complete system of Stateservices should be in thisrealm. As a matter of fact,we're coming backto Suffolk County next week to ta.L,about that withparents, children, board members, administrators, andteachers. Indeed, I may get the
opportunity to meetsome of you at that meeting* I think you should know thatthere are a series ofconcerns about the developmentof a continuous achievement monitoringsystem as alludod to in the remarks by some ofyesterday's speakers. You should also know that universities and collegesare dissatisfied withthe kinds of teadhers thatthey're turning out and that3ome of them are beginnirgto get cnncerned about not onlyinstructing studentsin an individualized way, but also about departing fromthe oldcourse--you knowIthe six- course kind of notion. Don Nascawas telling me lastnight about a program he's advocating for Brockport. It would bean "open end", 30- creditprogram, for a student. The student wouldleave with a Bachelor's Degree, go intoa school district, and would thendevelop a program of activities forherself or himself that would end ina Master's Degree. It would ineffect bean internship program for that teacher. Now, if Further, there is a tremendous proliferationof instructional
materials. 3st yesterday at this conference,I encountered some new
materials that I had notseen before. The commercial firms are going
to be riding on the crest of theIndividualized Instructionwave.
This means two things: (1) We're going to have to be carefulthat we
don't let the commercialenterprises overwhelmus with material that
may not be as effective aswe would like it to be; and by thesame
token, (2) We ought to welcome them intothe Individualized Instruction
camp and begin to sp -ify the kindsof material we want. I think that
those are things thatyou should bear in mind as significant thingsthat
are going to influence thecourse that you're going to be taking in
your own classrooms. I don't want to minimize the impactthat you,
as individuals in thoseclassrooms are going to have,but I think you
should also recognizethat you're not the onlypeople who are making
decisions. In effect, people, things andmovements are making decisions for you.
Finally, you shouldknow that the IndividualizedInstruction Council
in New York State whichis a smallgroup of people that has neither the manpower, nor the money, but doeshave a deep-seated committment for
the advancement ofIndividualized Instruction, isgoing to be trying to develop Networks ofIndividualized Instruction Councilsthroughout the
state, so that peoplecan develop services and get supportfor their Further, there is a tremendous proliferationof instructional
materials. 3st yesterday at this conference,I encountered some new
materials that I had notseen before. The commercial firms are going
to be riding on the crest of theIndividualized Instructionwave.
This means two things: (1) We're going to have to be carefulthat we
don't let the commercialenterprises overwhelmus with material that
may not be as effective aswe would like it to be; and by thesame
token, (2) We ought to welcome them intothe Individualized Instruction
camp and begin to sp -ify the kindsof material we want. I think that
those are things thatyou should bear in mind as significant thingsthat
are going to influence thecourse that you're going to be taking in
your own classrooms. I don't want to minimize the impactthat you,
as individuals in thoseclassrooms are going to have,but I think you
should also recognizethat you're not the onlypeople who are making
decisions. In effect, people, things andmovements are making decisions for you.
Finally, you shouldknow that the IndividualizedInstruction Council
in New York State whichis a smallgroup of people that has neither the manpower, nor the money, but doeshave a deep-seated committment for
the advancement ofIndividualized Instruction, isgoing to be trying to develop Networks ofIndividualized Instruction Councilsthroughout the
state, so that peoplecan develop services and get supportfor their talk about the development of that kindof IndividualizedInstruction Council for Suffolk County. Some of you whowere at that meeting will be invited, and 1 hope that you'llbe hearing muchmore about this kind of Council.. Ifyou don't, don't blame me. Blame the people inthis County for not having picked up themarbles, and developingthis kind of Council.
In conclusion, I think that I'vegiven yousome insights into what you should be carrying away from this conference. And, what willI carry away from this meeting as an employee ofa State whicb disseminates some 4 billion dollars for instructionalpurposes? The one thinT that I carry away and the one thing thatI'm very gratefulfor is a sense of committmenton the part of a lot of professionals for theimprovement of instruction,a sense of committment to improving theschool scene for students,for children. I think that withthis kind ofcommittment, we can't help but bea success.
I'm very grateful to you for thistwo-day experience. I hope that you also found the bolo daysvery productive anduseful. talk about the development of that kindof IndividualizedInstruction Council for Suffolk County. Some of you whowere at that meeting will be invited, and 1 hope that you'llbe hearing muchmore about this kind of Council.. Ifyou don't, don't blame me. Blame the people inthis County for not having picked up themarbles, and developingthis kind of Council.
In conclusion, I think that I'vegiven yousome insights into what you should be carrying away from this conference. And, what willI carry away from this meeting as an employee ofa State whicb disseminates some 4 billion dollars for instructionalpurposes? The one thinT that I carry away and the one thing thatI'm very gratefulfor is a sense of committmenton the part of a lot of professionals for theimprovement of instruction,a sense of committment to improving theschool scene for students,for children. I think that withthis kind ofcommittment, we can't help but bea success.
I'm very grateful to you for thistwo-day experience. I hope that you also found the bolo daysvery productive anduseful. APPENDIX
6 3 APPENDIX
6 3 Frety..2±vi.p4pGRAM 1122.4aLE.L.n. 100-4:30 Sign-in
400-5:30 Dutch Treat Cocktails
5:30-7:30 Dinner
Conference Opens-AdmiraltyRoom 730 Introductions Dr. John Welcoming RPmarks Keough Mr. VincentKing Definitions andOverview of Dr. Donald NaSca Individualized Instruction
Individualized Instructlonin. the Nan-gradedSchool Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin
Questions andAnswers Dr. William McLoughlin Dr. Donald Nasca 930 Guests may attendany of the following: 1. Film on "The Oakleaf Project" Admiralty Room 2. Informal Talks withResource Chart Room Consultants 3. Auto Tutor (programmed Chart Room learning) 4. Computer-based instruction Chart Room 5. Display ofIndividualized Instruction Materials Ship's Lounge Tuesdaya.m. 700-8:30 Breakfast
8:30 First Session-AdmiraityRoom
Survey of Individualized Instruc- Dr, Donald Nasca tion in NewYork State
Survey of Indivir2ualized Instruc- Mrs. aune Rnbinson tion in SuffolkCounty 9:00-10:00 Work sessionsof mixedgroups to develop a planfor exploring, initiating', implementingor Group Discussion expanding aproqram of indivi- Leaders dualized learning
Group Location Leaders #1 Admiralty Room-Front Mr. Stanley Abrams
A...... Frety..2±vi.p4pGRAM 1122.4aLE.L.n. 100-4:30 Sign-in
400-5:30 Dutch Treat Cocktails
5:30-7:30 Dinner
Conference Opens-AdmiraltyRoom 730 Introductions Dr. John Welcoming RPmarks Keough Mr. VincentKing Definitions andOverview of Dr. Donald NaSca Individualized Instruction
Individualized Instructlonin. the Nan-gradedSchool Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin
Questions andAnswers Dr. William McLoughlin Dr. Donald Nasca 930 Guests may attendany of the following: 1. Film on "The Oakleaf Project" Admiralty Room 2. Informal Talks withResource Chart Room Consultants 3. Auto Tutor (programmed Chart Room learning) 4. Computer-based instruction Chart Room 5. Display ofIndividualized Instruction Materials Ship's Lounge Tuesdaya.m. 700-8:30 Breakfast
8:30 First Session-AdmiraityRoom
Survey of Individualized Instruc- Dr, Donald Nasca tion in NewYork State
Survey of Indivir2ualized Instruc- Mrs. aune Rnbinson tion in SuffolkCounty 9:00-10:00 Work sessionsof mixedgroups to develop a planfor exploring, initiating', implementingor Group Discussion expanding aproqram of indivi- Leaders dualized learning
Group Location Leaders #1 Admiralty Room-Front Mr. Stanley Abrams
A...... ,f7 Foredeck-Suite 6Is (middle level) Mr. Alvin Kravitz #8 Ftl)redeck-Suite 685 \-q4d37e level) Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin #9 Forildeck-Suite71S (top level) Mr. 'Ae3vinMendelsohn #10 Foredeck-Suite 785 (top level) Mr. Roger Ming #11 Promenade Deck-Suite Miss Mary Flynn 21S #12 Promenade Deck-Suite Mr. Charlqs 28S Robinson #13 Skippers Cottage Mr. RobertSokel #14 Quarter Deck Cottage Mrs. JuneRobinson #15 Bridge Cottage Mr. JamesWbmack
10:00-10:30 Coffee Break- Main Dining h--1
10:30-11:30 Return to groupdiscussions
11:30-Noon Guests may attendany of Che following:
1. Film on the"Oakleaf Project" (IPI) Admiralty Room
2. Informal Talks withResource Chart Room Consultants
3. Auto Tutor (programmed Chart Room learning)
4'00 4,, Computer-based Instruction Chart Rcom 1-.3o 5.Display of Individualized Ship's Lounge , 44006 Instruction Materials Reports of Tues Group DiscussionLeaders 1:30-2:15 Gronps 1-7 Admiralty Room Dr. DonaldNasca Groups 8-11 Chart Room Groups 12-15 Mr. John Walsh Ship's Lounge Dr. Ted Grenda
2:30-3:15 Panel Discussion:"How my district is developingIndividualized Instruction"- AdmiraltyRoom
Dr. Ted Grenda,Chairman _ ,f7 Foredeck-Suite 6Is (middle level) Mr. Alvin Kravitz #8 Ftl)redeck-Suite 685 \-q4d37e level) Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin #9 Forildeck-Suite71S (top level) Mr. 'Ae3vinMendelsohn #10 Foredeck-Suite 785 (top level) Mr. Roger Ming #11 Promenade Deck-Suite Miss Mary Flynn 21S #12 Promenade Deck-Suite Mr. Charlqs 28S Robinson #13 Skippers Cottage Mr. RobertSokel #14 Quarter Deck Cottage Mrs. JuneRobinson #15 Bridge Cottage Mr. JamesWbmack
10:00-10:30 Coffee Break- Main Dining h--1
10:30-11:30 Return to groupdiscussions
11:30-Noon Guests may attendany of Che following:
1. Film on the"Oakleaf Project" (IPI) Admiralty Room
2. Informal Talks withResource Chart Room Consultants
3. Auto Tutor (programmed Chart Room learning)
4'00 4,, Computer-based Instruction Chart Rcom 1-.3o 5.Display of Individualized Ship's Lounge , 44006 Instruction Materials Reports of Tues Group DiscussionLeaders 1:30-2:15 Gronps 1-7 Admiralty Room Dr. DonaldNasca Groups 8-11 Chart Room Groups 12-15 Mr. John Walsh Ship's Lounge Dr. Ted Grenda
2:30-3:15 Panel Discussion:"How my district is developingIndividualized Instruction"- AdmiraltyRoom
Dr. Ted Grenda,Chairman _ p PROGRAM Mondayp.m. l:00-3:00 Sign-in and Registration
3:00 Conference Opens Admiralty Room Introductions Dr. John Keough Welcoming Remarks tio Charles Robinson Survey of IndividualizedIn- otruction in New YorkState Dr. Donald Nasca 4:00 Questions andAnswers
4:00 Guents may attendany of the following: Film on "The OakleafProject" Admiralty RoOm Film on "The Mort:teaching Approachto Individualized Inatructioni7*. Mathematics" Admiralty Room
Informal talks withResource Consultants:
MIComputer-based Instruction- Dr. Ludwig fraun, Professor of Electrical andSystems Ship's Lounge Engineering, BrooklynPolytechnical insti- tute; MelvinMendelsohn, Principal, High School Malverne
Individualized Instructionof the Hamli- capped - John D'Antonio, Director,Project TEACH Ship's Lounge
Individualized instructionin New York State - Dr. TedGrenea, to Chairman, Individu- Chart Room alized InstructionCouncil, State Educa- tion Department.
Education I:ar theGifted- Mr. Roger W. Ming, Supervisor of Instructionfor the Gifted, Now York Chart Room State EducationDepartment National Survey ofIndividualized In- struction - Larry Srilanick, Coordinatorof Instructional Chart Room Technology, NassauCounty Regional EducationCenter M New York State Survey ofIndividualized Instruction - Dr. Donald Nasca.,Chairman, Department of Educational Chart Room Research, state UniVersity atBrockport
111 Individualized Instruction in theNon- graded School- Dr.William McLoughlin, fessor of LOucation, Pro- Chart Room St. John'sUniversity Programmed LearningAccording to Need (Project PLAN)- Herbert Cavanagh, Elemen- Chart Room tary Principal,Hicksville Schools
IndividnalizodInstruction- Science Education - DouglasReynolds, Associate, Bureau of Science Chart Room Education, New YorkState Education Department
IndividualizedApproach to Readin9 struction In- - Alvin Kravitz,Director of Reading, Amitvvillogolo,o1. Chart Room p PROGRAM Mondayp.m. l:00-3:00 Sign-in and Registration
3:00 Conference Opens Admiralty Room Introductions Dr. John Keough Welcoming Remarks tio Charles Robinson Survey of IndividualizedIn- otruction in New YorkState Dr. Donald Nasca 4:00 Questions andAnswers
4:00 Guents may attendany of the following: Film on "The OakleafProject" Admiralty RoOm Film on "The Mort:teaching Approachto Individualized Inatructioni7*. Mathematics" Admiralty Room
Informal talks withResource Consultants:
MIComputer-based Instruction- Dr. Ludwig fraun, Professor of Electrical andSystems Ship's Lounge Engineering, BrooklynPolytechnical insti- tute; MelvinMendelsohn, Principal, High School Malverne
Individualized Instructionof the Hamli- capped - John D'Antonio, Director,Project TEACH Ship's Lounge
Individualized instructionin New York State - Dr. TedGrenea, to Chairman, Individu- Chart Room alized InstructionCouncil, State Educa- tion Department.
Education I:ar theGifted- Mr. Roger W. Ming, Supervisor of Instructionfor the Gifted, Now York Chart Room State EducationDepartment National Survey ofIndividualized In- struction - Larry Srilanick, Coordinatorof Instructional Chart Room Technology, NassauCounty Regional EducationCenter M New York State Survey ofIndividualized Instruction - Dr. Donald Nasca.,Chairman, Department of Educational Chart Room Research, state UniVersity atBrockport
111 Individualized Instruction in theNon- graded School- Dr.William McLoughlin, fessor of LOucation, Pro- Chart Room St. John'sUniversity Programmed LearningAccording to Need (Project PLAN)- Herbert Cavanagh, Elemen- Chart Room tary Principal,Hicksville Schools
IndividnalizodInstruction- Science Education - DouglasReynolds, Associate, Bureau of Science Chart Room Education, New YorkState Education Department
IndividualizedApproach to Readin9 struction In- - Alvin Kravitz,Director of Reading, Amitvvillogolo,o1. Chart Room 5:00-6:00 Dutch Treat Cocktail
6:00-7:30 Dinner
7:30 "Individualized Instruction in theNon- te graded School"- Admiralty Room Dr. William 8:30 Questions and Answers McLoughlin
8:30 Work sessions of mixe i!grouos to develop a plan for expl:Jring, initiating, imple- Group Discussion. menting or expanding a program ofindivid- Leaders ualized learning, Group, Loca:tion Leaders # 1 Admiralty Room-Front James O'Toole # 2 Admiralty Room-Rear Dr. Ludwig Braun # 3 Chart Room John Ahern # 4 Ship's Lounge john D'Antcnio # 5 Forecastle-Suite 41S (upperlevel) Wilfred (_-.,7.y # 6 Forecastle-Suite 48S (upperlevel) Barry Kant:: # 7 Foredeck-Suite 6IS(middle level) Alvin Kravitz # 8 Foredeck-Suite 68S (middle level) Herbert Cavanagh .# 9 Foredeck-Suite 715 (top level) Melvin Mendelsohn # 10 Foredeck-Suite 78F Roger Ming #11 Skippers Cottage Larry Sribnick # 12 Quarter Deck Cottage Douglas Reynolds
T ues.a An. 7:00-8:30 Breakfast
8:30 First Session Admiralty Room Specific Practices-Indviaualized In- struction in New YorkState Dr. . Donald Nasca
Survey of Indi-i.dualizedInstruction in Suffolk County June Robinson
9:00-10:00 Return to Group Discussions
10:15-10:45 Coffee Break Main Dining Room Reports of Group DiscussionLeaders 10:45 Groups 1-6 to Admiralty Room Dr. Donald Nasca Groups 7-9 Chart Room 11:30 Groups 10-12 John Walsh Ship's Lounge Dr. Ted Grenda 11:30-12N Repeat of Monday Afternoon at4:00 12N-1:30 Lunch
Panel Discussion: 1:30 "How My Districtis De- tn veloping IndividualizedInstrur.tirw," 5:00-6:00 Dutch Treat Cocktail
6:00-7:30 Dinner
7:30 "Individualized Instruction in theNon- te graded School"- Admiralty Room Dr. William 8:30 Questions and Answers McLoughlin
8:30 Work sessions of mixe i!grouos to develop a plan for expl:Jring, initiating, imple- Group Discussion. menting or expanding a program ofindivid- Leaders ualized learning, Group, Loca:tion Leaders # 1 Admiralty Room-Front James O'Toole # 2 Admiralty Room-Rear Dr. Ludwig Braun # 3 Chart Room John Ahern # 4 Ship's Lounge john D'Antcnio # 5 Forecastle-Suite 41S (upperlevel) Wilfred (_-.,7.y # 6 Forecastle-Suite 48S (upperlevel) Barry Kant:: # 7 Foredeck-Suite 6IS(middle level) Alvin Kravitz # 8 Foredeck-Suite 68S (middle level) Herbert Cavanagh .# 9 Foredeck-Suite 715 (top level) Melvin Mendelsohn # 10 Foredeck-Suite 78F Roger Ming #11 Skippers Cottage Larry Sribnick # 12 Quarter Deck Cottage Douglas Reynolds
T ues.a An. 7:00-8:30 Breakfast
8:30 First Session Admiralty Room Specific Practices-Indviaualized In- struction in New YorkState Dr. . Donald Nasca
Survey of Indi-i.dualizedInstruction in Suffolk County June Robinson
9:00-10:00 Return to Group Discussions
10:15-10:45 Coffee Break Main Dining Room Reports of Group DiscussionLeaders 10:45 Groups 1-6 to Admiralty Room Dr. Donald Nasca Groups 7-9 Chart Room 11:30 Groups 10-12 John Walsh Ship's Lounge Dr. Ted Grenda 11:30-12N Repeat of Monday Afternoon at4:00 12N-1:30 Lunch
Panel Discussion: 1:30 "How My Districtis De- tn veloping IndividualizedInstrur.tirw," WHO'S WHO ON CONFERENCE LEADERS
John Ahern - Teacher in the Half Hollow Hills District.
Dr. Ludwig Braun - Professor of Electrical and Systems Engineering, Brooklyn Polytechnical Institute, an expert in the use of computers in education.
Irving W. Carlin - Principal of the Nassakeag School in the Three Village District.
Herbert Cavanagh - Principal of Woodland Avenue School, Hicksville, who is implementing Project PLAN (Programmed Learning According to Need), developed by Westinghouse.
John D'Antonio - Director, Project TEACH, a Suffolk County Title III project organized to plan innovativeprograms for the education of handicapped children.
Gerald Devlin - Principal of the Idle Hour School in Connetquot District.
Mary Flynn - Research Supervisor for Nassau County's Regional Educational Planning Office.
Dr. Ted Grendia - Director,of General Education, State Education Department, and Chairman of New York State's Individualized Instruction Council.
Wilfred Grey - Principal of the Northwest School in Amityville District.
Barry Kane - Principal of Meadow Glen School in Smithtawn District and Chairman of theSunerintendent's Advisory Planning Council.
Vincent King - Assistant District Superintendent in Suffolk's First Supervisory District-
Alvin Kravitz - Director of Reading, AmityvMe Schools, who has implemen'ced a variety of Individualized Instruction techniques in reading.
Dr. William McLoughlin - Professor of Education, St. John's University, an expert on Individualized Instruction in the Non-graded School. WHO'S WHO ON CONFERENCE LEADERS
John Ahern - Teacher in the Half Hollow Hills District.
Dr. Ludwig Braun - Professor of Electrical and Systems Engineering, Brooklyn Polytechnical Institute, an expert in the use of computers in education.
Irving W. Carlin - Principal of the Nassakeag School in the Three Village District.
Herbert Cavanagh - Principal of Woodland Avenue School, Hicksville, who is implementing Project PLAN (Programmed Learning According to Need), developed by Westinghouse.
John D'Antonio - Director, Project TEACH, a Suffolk County Title III project organized to plan innovativeprograms for the education of handicapped children.
Gerald Devlin - Principal of the Idle Hour School in Connetquot District.
Mary Flynn - Research Supervisor for Nassau County's Regional Educational Planning Office.
Dr. Ted Grendia - Director,of General Education, State Education Department, and Chairman of New York State's Individualized Instruction Council.
Wilfred Grey - Principal of the Northwest School in Amityville District.
Barry Kane - Principal of Meadow Glen School in Smithtawn District and Chairman of theSunerintendent's Advisory Planning Council.
Vincent King - Assistant District Superintendent in Suffolk's First Supervisory District-
Alvin Kravitz - Director of Reading, AmityvMe Schools, who has implemen'ced a variety of Individualized Instruction techniques in reading.
Dr. William McLoughlin - Professor of Education, St. John's University, an expert on Individualized Instruction in the Non-graded School. Melvin Mendelsohn - Principal, Malvern HighSchool, and former Director of Computer AssistedInstruction, Board of Education, City ofNew York. Roger Ming - New York State EducationDepartment's Supervisor olE Instruction forthe Gifted, Executive Secretary of theTask Force on the Impact of Technologyon Education, and a member of New York State'sIndividualized Instruction Council. James O'Toole - Director of InserviceEducation for the Middle Island .f..!,hoclDistrict. Douglas Reynolds - Associate of the Bureauof Science Education, New York State EducationDepartment, an expert in IndividualizedInstruction in Science Education.
Charles Rdbinson - Principal of Grace L.Bubbs Elementary School in Commack.
June Robinson - Elementary School Teacherand Consultant to the Suffolk CountyRegional Educational Planning Officeon Irdividualized Instruction in Suffolk CountySchools. Larry Sribnick - Coordinator of InstructionalTechnology, Nassau County RegionalEducational Planning Office, an experton the Edling Project, a National study ofIndividualized Instruction programs sponsored by theU.S. Office of Education.
Robert Sokel - District Principalof the Wading River School District. James Womack - Assistant DistrictSuperintendent of Schools for Suffolk'sThird Supervisory District. Melvin Mendelsohn - Principal, Malvern HighSchool, and former Director of Computer AssistedInstruction, Board of Education, City ofNew York. Roger Ming - New York State EducationDepartment's Supervisor olE Instruction forthe Gifted, Executive Secretary of theTask Force on the Impact of Technologyon Education, and a member of New York State'sIndividualized Instruction Council. James O'Toole - Director of InserviceEducation for the Middle Island .f..!,hoclDistrict. Douglas Reynolds - Associate of the Bureauof Science Education, New York State EducationDepartment, an expert in IndividualizedInstruction in Science Education.
Charles Rdbinson - Principal of Grace L.Bubbs Elementary School in Commack.
June Robinson - Elementary School Teacherand Consultant to the Suffolk CountyRegional Educational Planning Officeon Irdividualized Instruction in Suffolk CountySchools. Larry Sribnick - Coordinator of InstructionalTechnology, Nassau County RegionalEducational Planning Office, an experton the Edling Project, a National study ofIndividualized Instruction programs sponsored by theU.S. Office of Education.
Robert Sokel - District Principalof the Wading River School District. James Womack - Assistant DistrictSuperintendent of Schools for Suffolk'sThird Supervisory District. OUTCOMES OF GROUPDISCUSSIONS
Participants at theFebruary Conference assembled into 15groups; those at the March Conferenceinto 12.
The outcomes thatfollow were submitted by thegroup recorders andarranged in these categories:
Philosophy Public Relations Goals and Objectives Organization Teacher and TeacherPreparation Diagnostics Evaluation Materials Other Suggestions OUTCOMES OF GROUPDISCUSSIONS
Participants at theFebruary Conference assembled into 15groups; those at the March Conferenceinto 12.
The outcomes thatfollow were submitted by thegroup recorders andarranged in these categories:
Philosophy Public Relations Goals and Objectives Organization Teacher and TeacherPreparation Diagnostics Evaluation Materials Other Suggestions FEBRUARY CONFERENCE
PHILOSOPHY
1. A philosophy of individualizedinstruction must bedefined and developed for and by the unit using such instruction. (Groups 3, 6, 10, 13)
2. The program of individualizedinstruction shouldcoma from within the school. (Group 5)
3. The administrative andprofessional staffs mustbe totally committed to the philosophy of individualized instruction. (Groups 5, 12, 14) In contrast to this,Group 15 felt that althoughit is preferable to have cooperationbetween administrators,teachers and parents, the individualizedinstruction programcan operate successfully with eitherone or a group of teachers ina building. An individualized program should promote theinteraction of children with each other. (Group 2, 15)
5. The total program should include both individualand group learning experiences. (Group 2)
6. A developmentalprogram will lead toa change in school and society. (Group 12)
7. The philosophies ofstate and federal agenciesshould be inves- tigated° (Group 2)
8. The efficacy and desirability of individualizedlearning needs to be demonstratedand proven. (Group 1)
PUBLIC RELATIONS
1. For an individualized program to be successful, it isnecessary to have established positive attitudestowards the program and in the educators, the boards of educationand the community. (Groups 1, 11, 13,14)
2. Involve administrators,parents and the boardof education in the development ofthe program. (Group 3)
3. There shou...d bean "Orientation Program"set up for interested parties. (Group 9) Group 10 suggests"teas" to explain the program specifically.
-64- FEBRUARY CONFERENCE
PHILOSOPHY
1. A philosophy of individualizedinstruction must bedefined and developed for and by the unit using such instruction. (Groups 3, 6, 10, 13)
2. The program of individualizedinstruction shouldcoma from within the school. (Group 5)
3. The administrative andprofessional staffs mustbe totally committed to the philosophy of individualized instruction. (Groups 5, 12, 14) In contrast to this,Group 15 felt that althoughit is preferable to have cooperationbetween administrators,teachers and parents, the individualizedinstruction programcan operate successfully with eitherone or a group of teachers ina building. An individualized program should promote theinteraction of children with each other. (Group 2, 15)
5. The total program should include both individualand group learning experiences. (Group 2)
6. A developmentalprogram will lead toa change in school and society. (Group 12)
7. The philosophies ofstate and federal agenciesshould be inves- tigated° (Group 2)
8. The efficacy and desirability of individualizedlearning needs to be demonstratedand proven. (Group 1)
PUBLIC RELATIONS
1. For an individualized program to be successful, it isnecessary to have established positive attitudestowards the program and in the educators, the boards of educationand the community. (Groups 1, 11, 13,14)
2. Involve administrators,parents and the boardof education in the development ofthe program. (Group 3)
3. There shou...d bean "Orientation Program"set up for interested parties. (Group 9) Group 10 suggests"teas" to explain the program specifically.
-64- 4. Interested partiesghould be givenprogress reports on the individualizedprogram. (Groups 9, 13). Group 10 suggests doing this atindividual parent t. conferences and curriculumnights which involve thechildren.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Carefully preparedgoals of individualized be discussed instruction ghould and developed. (Groups 2, 6, 8,9, 10, 11) 2. The areas of freedom for teadhersand pupils needto be defined. (Group 6)
3. Both pupil and teacher ideas ghouldbe consideret!d inthe develop- ment of goals andobjectives. (Group 6) 4. Behavioral Objectives must be considered. (Group 12) 5. Decide on goals and Objectivesbeginning with the (Group 15) "pilot" areas.
ORGANIZATION
1. There ghould bea careful sequentialand coordinate of routines and organization time inan individualizedprogram. 9, 11, 12, 15) (Grcups 3, 6,
2. An individualized program should be initiatedin one subject area. (Groups 3, 4, 11, 15). However, Group 5states a one program commitment isnot reccmmended. 3. Teachers should organize their filesand record-keepingsystems very carefully. (Group 15)
4. Develop a planwhere the students actively assist inthe individu- alizedprogram. (Groups 2, 9, 15)
5. Consider how the building can bebest set up forindividualized instruction. (Groups 3, 10, 11) 6. A rich environment providingmany Choices needs to be (Group 4) developed.
7. A non-graded approach shouldbe -1sed. (Group 3)
v ,42 4. Interested partiesghould be givenprogress reports on the individualizedprogram. (Groups 9, 13). Group 10 suggests doing this atindividual parent t. conferences and curriculumnights which involve thechildren.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Carefully preparedgoals of individualized be discussed instruction ghould and developed. (Groups 2, 6, 8,9, 10, 11) 2. The areas of freedom for teadhersand pupils needto be defined. (Group 6)
3. Both pupil and teacher ideas ghouldbe consideret!d inthe develop- ment of goals andobjectives. (Group 6) 4. Behavioral Objectives must be considered. (Group 12) 5. Decide on goals and Objectivesbeginning with the (Group 15) "pilot" areas.
ORGANIZATION
1. There ghould bea careful sequentialand coordinate of routines and organization time inan individualizedprogram. 9, 11, 12, 15) (Grcups 3, 6,
2. An individualized program should be initiatedin one subject area. (Groups 3, 4, 11, 15). However, Group 5states a one program commitment isnot reccmmended. 3. Teachers should organize their filesand record-keepingsystems very carefully. (Group 15)
4. Develop a planwhere the students actively assist inthe individu- alizedprogram. (Groups 2, 9, 15)
5. Consider how the building can bebest set up forindividualized instruction. (Groups 3, 10, 11) 6. A rich environment providingmany Choices needs to be (Group 4) developed.
7. A non-graded approach shouldbe -1sed. (Group 3)
v ,42 Changes to be made withinthe classroom include: a. Ending domp'.1tion betweenstudents. b. Eliminate marks. c. Develop trust between teadhersand students. d. Encourage self-responsibilityamong students. (Group 15)
9. Set a specific amountof time to test out theideas introduced in the limited individualizedprogram statted. a. The time period shouldnot exceed 3-4 weeks, and the teachers should keepaccurate records and dataas their findings. b. After 3-4 weeks,a new planning program, settingnew objectives and evaluating"old" findings, should bestarted. (Group 15)
10. Parent volunteerprograms should be organized. (Group 14)
TEACHERS AND TEACHERPREPARATION
1. The faculty shouldbe helped to developattitudes towards the individualization of instruction. (Groups 4, 10). Group 7 adds, if teachers are shown the effectiveness ofindividualized education by teacherswho ar,.: usingprograms such as individu- alized reading, theywill be:more receptive.
2. Teadhers should observeindividualized instructionprograms. (Groups 3, 4, 14,15). Group 8 suggests visitingPLAN Program, Woodland School,Hicksville; IPI MathProgram, Chestnut Hill School, Half HollowHills. An individualizedprogram needs perceptive teadhers. (Group 4). Teachers should recognize the fact thatan individualizedprogram takes more teacher preparation time. (Group 4)
3. Teachers Should examinedifferent individualizedlearning models. (Group 9)
4. In-service programs inindividualized instructionshould be instituted. (Groups 11, 13)
5. Teadhers should shareteadhing skills, ideas andmaterials necessary to implementan individualized program. (Group 3). Group 10 suggestsfaculty brainstorm sessionsbe held and that teadhers have acommon plan time.
6. Individual preferences,skills and teachingtechniques Should be recognized. (Group 15) Changes to be made withinthe classroom include: a. Ending domp'.1tion betweenstudents. b. Eliminate marks. c. Develop trust between teadhersand students. d. Encourage self-responsibilityamong students. (Group 15)
9. Set a specific amountof time to test out theideas introduced in the limited individualizedprogram statted. a. The time period shouldnot exceed 3-4 weeks, and the teachers should keepaccurate records and dataas their findings. b. After 3-4 weeks,a new planning program, settingnew objectives and evaluating"old" findings, should bestarted. (Group 15)
10. Parent volunteerprograms should be organized. (Group 14)
TEACHERS AND TEACHERPREPARATION
1. The faculty shouldbe helped to developattitudes towards the individualization of instruction. (Groups 4, 10). Group 7 adds, if teachers are shown the effectiveness ofindividualized education by teacherswho ar,.: usingprograms such as individu- alized reading, theywill be:more receptive.
2. Teadhers should observeindividualized instructionprograms. (Groups 3, 4, 14,15). Group 8 suggests visitingPLAN Program, Woodland School,Hicksville; IPI MathProgram, Chestnut Hill School, Half HollowHills. An individualizedprogram needs perceptive teadhers. (Group 4). Teachers should recognize the fact thatan individualizedprogram takes more teacher preparation time. (Group 4)
3. Teachers Should examinedifferent individualizedlearning models. (Group 9)
4. In-service programs inindividualized instructionshould be instituted. (Groups 11, 13)
5. Teadhers should shareteadhing skills, ideas andmaterials necessary to implementan individualized program. (Group 3). Group 10 suggestsfaculty brainstorm sessionsbe held and that teadhers have acommon plan time.
6. Individual preferences,skills and teachingtechniques Should be recognized. (Group 15) 7. Teadhers shouldbegin by working witheither a small or a specific discipline group to introduce thestudents to the program and to give theteacher experiencewith the (Group 15) program.
8. An individualizedprogram should commence with teachers whoare ready. (Group 11)
9. The faculty should be evaluated forcompatability. (Group 10) 10. There thould beopen staff relationswhere there exists communication; free a non-threateningatmosphere; tolerationof mistakes; development of 1ternatives;and the buildingof an instructional team. (Group 11)
DIAGNOSTICS
1. In an individualizedprogram there needs to be of the dhildren's a careful diagnosis needs. (Groups 1, 3, 8). Group 3 suggests using previous teachersuggestions, SRT andBoxed. 2. Teachers should consider the variousdiagnostic tools andselect those which fittheir program. (Group 10)
3. The rate of eadhchild's learning needs to be established. (Group 4) 4. The style in which each child learnsmost effectively isdifficult to detect. (Group 4)
5. Each child's interests need tobe determined. (Group 4)
EVALUATION
1. a. The evaluative aspects of theprogram should be keptconcurrent with the developmentalaspects. (Group 8) b. Evaluation Should beperiodic andconstant. (GrouD 9) 2. A system Should be developed for gatheringdata fromyour program and keeping effectiverecords. (Groups 8, 13) a. A student log or folder should bekept. (Group 10). b. Teadhers should set up skill list (orcheck sheets) to help keep track of what each studentaccomplishes. A variety of sources could be used to set up these listsincluding objectives printed out in reading series, mathseries, the U.C.L.A.Bank of Objectives andfrom writers like Bruneror Whitehead. 7. Teadhers shouldbegin by working witheither a small or a specific discipline group to introduce thestudents to the program and to give theteacher experiencewith the (Group 15) program.
8. An individualizedprogram should commence with teachers whoare ready. (Group 11)
9. The faculty should be evaluated forcompatability. (Group 10) 10. There thould beopen staff relationswhere there exists communication; free a non-threateningatmosphere; tolerationof mistakes; development of 1ternatives;and the buildingof an instructional team. (Group 11)
DIAGNOSTICS
1. In an individualizedprogram there needs to be of the dhildren's a careful diagnosis needs. (Groups 1, 3, 8). Group 3 suggests using previous teachersuggestions, SRT andBoxed. 2. Teachers should consider the variousdiagnostic tools andselect those which fittheir program. (Group 10)
3. The rate of eadhchild's learning needs to be established. (Group 4) 4. The style in which each child learnsmost effectively isdifficult to detect. (Group 4)
5. Each child's interests need tobe determined. (Group 4)
EVALUATION
1. a. The evaluative aspects of theprogram should be keptconcurrent with the developmentalaspects. (Group 8) b. Evaluation Should beperiodic andconstant. (GrouD 9) 2. A system Should be developed for gatheringdata fromyour program and keeping effectiverecords. (Groups 8, 13) a. A student log or folder should bekept. (Group 10). b. Teadhers should set up skill list (orcheck sheets) to help keep track of what each studentaccomplishes. A variety of sources could be used to set up these listsincluding objectives printed out in reading series, mathseries, the U.C.L.A.Bank of Objectives andfrom writers like Bruneror Whitehead. 3. A aystem for reporting studentprogress Should be e.i4tablished0 (Groups 9, 11). Group 5 recommendedconference-type reporting.
4. The relationship betweentest results (Iowa, etc.)and educational innovation :thould beestablished for real evaluation. (Group 2)
MATERIALS
1. A variety of materials to assist in an individualizedprogram should be evaluated andappropriate tools selected. (Group 3, 5)
2. Package planscan be of some help and offer in.tialsupport in planning and developingself-confidence withindividualization. (Group 4)
3. Package plans onlyaccommodate "rate" of learning. You need a combination of packages and/orteacher talent andresources to accommodate the differentstyles in which childrenlearn best and the individualinterests of children. (Group 4)
4. Teadhers Should developtheir own materials. (Group 3). On tie other hand, Group 8felt money should beinvested in a tested system - e.g., I.P.I. Plan- and time Shouldn't be wasted in developing homemade materials.
5. Put materials inaccessible places. (Group 10)
6. Make use of cassettes,hardware and furniture. (Group 10)
7. An area should beprovided where teachersmay observe and experiment witha variety of materials. (Group 14)
OTHER SUGGESTIONS
1. There Should bean innovation newsletterto disseminate good teaching ideas. (Regional Centeror State Education Department?) (Group 2)
2. The Regional CenterShould take a muchmore active role in in-service techniques(courses, T.V., audiocassettes, etc.), arrange for Sharing of experiencesand the compilation of availdble materials. (Group 2)
3. Strategies should bedeveloped forimplementing a continuous individualized educationprogram from K- college. (Group 10)
-.68- 3. A aystem for reporting studentprogress Should be e.i4tablished0 (Groups 9, 11). Group 5 recommendedconference-type reporting.
4. The relationship betweentest results (Iowa, etc.)and educational innovation :thould beestablished for real evaluation. (Group 2)
MATERIALS
1. A variety of materials to assist in an individualizedprogram should be evaluated andappropriate tools selected. (Group 3, 5)
2. Package planscan be of some help and offer in.tialsupport in planning and developingself-confidence withindividualization. (Group 4)
3. Package plans onlyaccommodate "rate" of learning. You need a combination of packages and/orteacher talent andresources to accommodate the differentstyles in which childrenlearn best and the individualinterests of children. (Group 4)
4. Teadhers Should developtheir own materials. (Group 3). On tie other hand, Group 8felt money should beinvested in a tested system - e.g., I.P.I. Plan- and time Shouldn't be wasted in developing homemade materials.
5. Put materials inaccessible places. (Group 10)
6. Make use of cassettes,hardware and furniture. (Group 10)
7. An area should beprovided where teachersmay observe and experiment witha variety of materials. (Group 14)
OTHER SUGGESTIONS
1. There Should bean innovation newsletterto disseminate good teaching ideas. (Regional Centeror State Education Department?) (Group 2)
2. The Regional CenterShould take a muchmore active role in in-service techniques(courses, T.V., audiocassettes, etc.), arrange for Sharing of experiencesand the compilation of availdble materials. (Group 2)
3. Strategies should bedeveloped forimplementing a continuous individualized educationprogram from K- college. (Group 10)
-.68- MARCH CONFERMCE
PHILOSOPHY
1. Philosophical agreement. (Group 1)
2. Redefine the role of theteacher. (Group 2)
3. Decide as a community toeither accept or reject theprinciples and practices of IndividualizedIngtruction. (Group 4)
4. Statement of agreement bedrawn up a. Students learn at differentrates Students have different gkills,interests, goals, prOblems, attitudes, ways. (Group 12)
5. District commitment to gharing. (Group 12)
PUBLIC RELATIONS
1. Involve the community. (Group 1)
2. Important to implementa teach and work together attitude a. Trust b. Togetherness. (Group 3)
3. Set up a program of investigationand information for the sChool staff and the community. (Group 4)
4. Orientation or selling. (Group 8)
5. Parent involvement. (Group 9)
6. How can regionalcenters help to Change the attitudeof the community? (Group 11)
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Determine objectives. (Group :L)
2. Depend on studentinterests more. (Group 2)
3. Establish goals and objectivesbased upon the needs of the student, the school and thecommunity. (Group 4)
4. Agreement on objectives. (Group 5)
5. Long range goals. (Group 8)
6. Behavioral Objectives. (Group 8) 76 MARCH CONFERMCE
PHILOSOPHY
1. Philosophical agreement. (Group 1)
2. Redefine the role of theteacher. (Group 2)
3. Decide as a community toeither accept or reject theprinciples and practices of IndividualizedIngtruction. (Group 4)
4. Statement of agreement bedrawn up a. Students learn at differentrates Students have different gkills,interests, goals, prOblems, attitudes, ways. (Group 12)
5. District commitment to gharing. (Group 12)
PUBLIC RELATIONS
1. Involve the community. (Group 1)
2. Important to implementa teach and work together attitude a. Trust b. Togetherness. (Group 3)
3. Set up a program of investigationand information for the sChool staff and the community. (Group 4)
4. Orientation or selling. (Group 8)
5. Parent involvement. (Group 9)
6. How can regionalcenters help to Change the attitudeof the community? (Group 11)
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Determine objectives. (Group :L)
2. Depend on studentinterests more. (Group 2)
3. Establish goals and objectivesbased upon the needs of the student, the school and thecommunity. (Group 4)
4. Agreement on objectives. (Group 5)
5. Long range goals. (Group 8)
6. Behavioral Objectives. (Group 8) 76 7. Establish behavioralobjectives. (Group 9)
ORGANIZATION 1. Time builtin for planning. (Group 1) 2. Use of individual schedules. (Goup 2) 3. Use of olderchildren to checkprogress. (Group 2) 4. Posting of class goals- dhedking off (Group 2) when allcomplete.
5. Useinterdisciplinary problem-solvingapproadh. (Group 2) 6. SpecificPractices Steps for immediateexperiment! a. findyour strongarea b. what is next unityou will bedoing c. see how thetext approadhes d. the majorconcept breakconcept downinto its e. design component parts- mini-skills a pre-test(diagnosis) to give at for eachmini-skill. Be sure least 5 itemsper skill. level, etc. Considergroup reading when composingtests. f. design apost-test g. (evaluation)for eachskill run enough copiesfor all and component h. put intolabeled folders introduce thenew approach slowly clearly note: non competitive- grades out i. Procedure: pre-test answer key conference- prescribeor not prescribepost-test redheckconference post activity (Group 3)
7. Determine the strengths andresources of the school. (Group 4) 8. Establish climate of: trust, sincerity, involvement. (Group 6) 9. Encourage- discovery, pupil goal setting. (Group 6) 10. Develop organizingcenters. (Group 6) 11. Find pupilpreferred modalities. (Group 6) 77 7. Establish behavioralobjectives. (Group 9)
ORGANIZATION 1. Time builtin for planning. (Group 1) 2. Use of individual schedules. (Goup 2) 3. Use of olderchildren to checkprogress. (Group 2) 4. Posting of class goals- dhedking off (Group 2) when allcomplete.
5. Useinterdisciplinary problem-solvingapproadh. (Group 2) 6. SpecificPractices Steps for immediateexperiment! a. findyour strongarea b. what is next unityou will bedoing c. see how thetext approadhes d. the majorconcept breakconcept downinto its e. design component parts- mini-skills a pre-test(diagnosis) to give at for eachmini-skill. Be sure least 5 itemsper skill. level, etc. Considergroup reading when composingtests. f. design apost-test g. (evaluation)for eachskill run enough copiesfor all and component h. put intolabeled folders introduce thenew approach slowly clearly note: non competitive- grades out i. Procedure: pre-test answer key conference- prescribeor not prescribepost-test redheckconference post activity (Group 3)
7. Determine the strengths andresources of the school. (Group 4) 8. Establish climate of: trust, sincerity, involvement. (Group 6) 9. Encourage- discovery, pupil goal setting. (Group 6) 10. Develop organizingcenters. (Group 6) 11. Find pupilpreferred modalities. (Group 6) 77 12. Enrich environment with localresources. (Group 6) 13. See that; self image isenhanced; connectednessis established; some controlsover an individual's life is acknowledged. (Group 6) 14. Try to: relate topics andmaterials tolearner's knowledge, feelings,concerns. (Group 6)
15. Establish overallstrategy. (Group 7)
16. A plan of action. (Group 7)
17. Determine Objectives. (Group 7)
18. Use a cooperativeapproach for: a. teachers b. administrators c. para-professionals d. volunteer help e. student volunteers(Group 7)
O. Change shouldcome from: a. teachers b. administrators (Group 7) 20. Work through individual interestsof children. (Group 7) 21. Cre-te a humanistic environment. (Group 8) 22. Physical facilitieshelp. (Group 8)
23. Initiation of high interest individualizedprograms for slow learners. (Group 11)
24. Having older children work withyounger children. (Group 11) 25. Have dhildrenwork to develop sense of responsibility. (Group 11) 26. Overcome prOblemsof: a. shortage of hardware b. shortage of software C. preparation time d. para-professional assistance. (Group 12)
27. Ideas for readinggrouping a. individual conferencesfor determininggroup meMbership b. work withone group at a time c. records on adhievementto next teacher d. parent conferences e. develop skill sequences based on behavioralObjectives (Group 12) 12. Enrich environment with localresources. (Group 6) 13. See that; self image isenhanced; connectednessis established; some controlsover an individual's life is acknowledged. (Group 6) 14. Try to: relate topics andmaterials tolearner's knowledge, feelings,concerns. (Group 6)
15. Establish overallstrategy. (Group 7)
16. A plan of action. (Group 7)
17. Determine Objectives. (Group 7)
18. Use a cooperativeapproach for: a. teachers b. administrators c. para-professionals d. volunteer help e. student volunteers(Group 7)
O. Change shouldcome from: a. teachers b. administrators (Group 7) 20. Work through individual interestsof children. (Group 7) 21. Cre-te a humanistic environment. (Group 8) 22. Physical facilitieshelp. (Group 8)
23. Initiation of high interest individualizedprograms for slow learners. (Group 11)
24. Having older children work withyounger children. (Group 11) 25. Have dhildrenwork to develop sense of responsibility. (Group 11) 26. Overcome prOblemsof: a. shortage of hardware b. shortage of software C. preparation time d. para-professional assistance. (Group 12)
27. Ideas for readinggrouping a. individual conferencesfor determininggroup meMbership b. work withone group at a time c. records on adhievementto next teacher d. parent conferences e. develop skill sequences based on behavioralObjectives (Group 12) 28. Ideas for Math: a. try math packets b. determine skills - work individually to developthese skills (Group 12)
29. Ideas for Science: a. set up corners - for individualized procedurein doing units b. use kits with specified procedures (prepared). (Group 12)
TEACHER AND TEACHERPREPARATION
1. See moreprograms in action. (Group 2) 2. Have much more communicationamong teadhers. (Group 2) 3. Discuss and establish what a full commitmentinvolves. Realistically, describehow.the "new"procedure would what would be the operate professional's rolland expectations. (Group 4) 4. Strong orientation. (Group 5)
5. Administration and faculty agreementon programs. (Group 5) 6. Teachers shouldunderstand an individualized requires: instructionprogram a. more work for teacher b. takes more time c. there is grouping and individualization,an ebb and flow process (Group 7)
7. Suggestions forretraining of personnel a. through rgionalinstitutes b. BOCES centers c. TV instruction 1) local district 2) county sdhool d. University personnelto be retrained C. Demonstrations 1) classes 2) sdhools 3) districts f. Begin withone step at a time 1) recreational reading 2) math skills 3) reading gkills (Group 7)
8. Maximum staffutilization. (Group 8)
9. Outside consultants_ (nl-nurl Pi 28. Ideas for Math: a. try math packets b. determine skills - work individually to developthese skills (Group 12)
29. Ideas for Science: a. set up corners - for individualized procedurein doing units b. use kits with specified procedures (prepared). (Group 12)
TEACHER AND TEACHERPREPARATION
1. See moreprograms in action. (Group 2) 2. Have much more communicationamong teadhers. (Group 2) 3. Discuss and establish what a full commitmentinvolves. Realistically, describehow.the "new"procedure would what would be the operate professional's rolland expectations. (Group 4) 4. Strong orientation. (Group 5)
5. Administration and faculty agreementon programs. (Group 5) 6. Teachers shouldunderstand an individualized requires: instructionprogram a. more work for teacher b. takes more time c. there is grouping and individualization,an ebb and flow process (Group 7)
7. Suggestions forretraining of personnel a. through rgionalinstitutes b. BOCES centers c. TV instruction 1) local district 2) county sdhool d. University personnelto be retrained C. Demonstrations 1) classes 2) sdhools 3) districts f. Begin withone step at a time 1) recreational reading 2) math skills 3) reading gkills (Group 7)
8. Maximum staffutilization. (Group 8)
9. Outside consultants_ (nl-nurl Pi 10. How tui a. buy a program b. Develop ono t0coup Os
11. Involvelont or whole"Matt. (Ogo'P 9)
12. taculty moetinqwith praeorstation, (Group 10)
13. ln-sarvico presentations (opento 3.11). (Group 10) L4. Committoo tostab'ish flo4l (04 aap 10) Is. Look into rosourcos available. ic ouP 10) 16. Visitations to othorschools. (Or( ip 10)
:7. IPLOIAOLAq pilot p:ogram. (Group )
/O. tmpLemntation. (Croup 10)
1. Svslamtion. (Oroup 14)
20. wockohop too tollow through on (soul's. (Group 10) 21. Sting in quootspeakers to tot up pogroms. (Group 11) 22. VLsitations toschool. involvoldin )1dividua1 programs. (Group11) roachet hould seekaelet4ACe tr04 4. State Unc4tionDopostment b. boilion61 emots.* c. Teacbar4440ciattOfts 4. Scbool districts Univesouty highot oducatLori 0roup 12) 24. fr" tia. 10visit individuslisod (Group 12! Pcgrams in cther districts.
IsmserviesPisservies tutning&mogul% (Group 12) 3 in individualizedprograms.
Whing111121
/41/1"1"°114 knalt almida*,11terests; I" II" irmtructio°"Oa be be" modes of operation- 4.'441 ledwith and for him. (Group 3) Provid lollizAdial.gliammulato Pscov&4 (Croup 7) a for prescriptiveteaching. 80 -73- 10. How tui a. buy a program b. Develop ono t0coup Os
11. Involvelont or whole"Matt. (Ogo'P 9)
12. taculty moetinqwith praeorstation, (Group 10)
13. ln-sarvico presentations (opento 3.11). (Group 10) L4. Committoo tostab'ish flo4l (04 aap 10) Is. Look into rosourcos available. ic ouP 10) 16. Visitations to othorschools. (Or( ip 10)
:7. IPLOIAOLAq pilot p:ogram. (Group )
/O. tmpLemntation. (Croup 10)
1. Svslamtion. (Oroup 14)
20. wockohop too tollow through on (soul's. (Group 10) 21. Sting in quootspeakers to tot up pogroms. (Group 11) 22. VLsitations toschool. involvoldin )1dividua1 programs. (Group11) roachet hould seekaelet4ACe tr04 4. State Unc4tionDopostment b. boilion61 emots.* c. Teacbar4440ciattOfts 4. Scbool districts Univesouty highot oducatLori 0roup 12) 24. fr" tia. 10visit individuslisod (Group 12! Pcgrams in cther districts.
IsmserviesPisservies tutning&mogul% (Group 12) 3 in individualizedprograms.
Whing111121
/41/1"1"°114 knalt almida*,11terests; I" II" irmtructio°"Oa be be" modes of operation- 4.'441 ledwith and for him. (Group 3) Provid lollizAdial.gliammulato Pscov&4 (Croup 7) a for prescriptiveteaching. 80 -73- EVALUATION
1. Method of measuringprogress. (Group 1)
2. Eliminate grading. (Group 2)
3. Avoid restrictivetests that grade only. (Group 7)
4. Establish plans forrecord keeping. (Group 7) 5. Develop skill sequences and checkoff Sheets. (Group 12)
MATERIALS
1. Try more commercial self-instructionalgames. (Group 2)
2. Provide materials ofa varied nature. (Group 7)
3. Find materialsavailable. (Group 8)
OTHER SUGGESTIONS
Use facilities ofregional centers a... for implementingprograms b. for redesign ofprograms (Group 11)
2, How can the professional librariaa be used to thegreatest advantage? (Group 11)
3. Use of educational communications personnel. (Group 11) 4. Teadh childrenabout education. (Group 11)
5. Act as a clearinghouseto programs. (Group 12) 6. Set up a model school system that would providefor dissemination. (Group 12)
7. A "consumer's guide"to individualizedprogram', - utilizing classroom testingprocedures. (Group 12)
8. Ideas for administrations: a. maintain positiveposture as to teachercompetence b. become knowledgeableabout individualizedinstruction c. nressure SED University toget involved (Group 12) 81 EVALUATION
1. Method of measuringprogress. (Group 1)
2. Eliminate grading. (Group 2)
3. Avoid restrictivetests that grade only. (Group 7)
4. Establish plans forrecord keeping. (Group 7) 5. Develop skill sequences and checkoff Sheets. (Group 12)
MATERIALS
1. Try more commercial self-instructionalgames. (Group 2)
2. Provide materials ofa varied nature. (Group 7)
3. Find materialsavailable. (Group 8)
OTHER SUGGESTIONS
Use facilities ofregional centers a... for implementingprograms b. for redesign ofprograms (Group 11)
2, How can the professional librariaa be used to thegreatest advantage? (Group 11)
3. Use of educational communications personnel. (Group 11) 4. Teadh childrenabout education. (Group 11)
5. Act as a clearinghouseto programs. (Group 12) 6. Set up a model school system that would providefor dissemination. (Group 12)
7. A "consumer's guide"to individualizedprogram', - utilizing classroom testingprocedures. (Group 12)
8. Ideas for administrations: a. maintain positiveposture as to teachercompetence b. become knowledgeableabout individualizedinstruction c. nressure SED University toget involved (Group 12) 81 PARTICIPANTS" REACTIONSHEETS SUMMARIZED
Dear Participant:
Your evaluationof the ccIferences would be greatlyappre- ciated. Please takea few moments to complete the follawingand turn it in when theconference adjourns.
Thankyou
Very Good Good Conference Concept Adequate Poor (presentations,group discussion, panel discussion) 1. Educational value 42 53 14 4 Physical Accommodations 2. Quarters 75 13 3 3. Meeting rooms - 62 27 4. 12 2 Service facilities 80 22 6 01.1. Program Format 5. Program content 31 62 6. Quality of 16 1 presentations 23 58 7. Quality of 29 9 group 44 44 discussions 22 2 8. Quality of panel 33 63 8 discussions 9. Provisions foryour 35 ,.,c- 16 involvement 8 10. Overall evaluationof 34 62 conference 13
s2 PARTICIPANTS" REACTIONSHEETS SUMMARIZED
Dear Participant:
Your evaluationof the ccIferences would be greatlyappre- ciated. Please takea few moments to complete the follawingand turn it in when theconference adjourns.
Thankyou
Very Good Good Conference Concept Adequate Poor (presentations,group discussion, panel discussion) 1. Educational value 42 53 14 4 Physical Accommodations 2. Quarters 75 13 3 3. Meeting rooms - 62 27 4. 12 2 Service facilities 80 22 6 01.1. Program Format 5. Program content 31 62 6. Quality of 16 1 presentations 23 58 7. Quality of 29 9 group 44 44 discussions 22 2 8. Quality of panel 33 63 8 discussions 9. Provisions foryour 35 ,.,c- 16 involvement 8 10. Overall evaluationof 34 62 conference 13
s2 PARTICIPANTS- FEBRUARY CONFEREWE
Amityville Public Schools Copiague Schools Alvin Kravitz George Michiloff Wilfred Gray Nancy Zmyndak gegina Moylan Carole Solomon Catherine Quinn Bay Shore Schools Bernadette Bennett Marion Prahl Marie Green Madeline McGlynn Angela Morgante Walter Hajek Hildyne Bowens East Islip Joseph Selmanoff Bellport Schools Dorothy Schaeffer Rdbert Gardner Rita Baskin Edward McHuah Frank Long Elwood PublicSchools Donald Madelung Arlene Kaufman Daniel Koch Anne Dolan Gilbert Halpin Theodore Weisse Beverly Weinstock Vincent LoCicero Edith Hughes Clelia Ioppolo Helen Murphy Brentwood Schools Austin Harney Peter DiMento Half Hollow Hills Elsie Reavis Schools James Garvey John Bilitsky Commack Schools Kevin McGuire Jules Harris Virginia Holt Douglas Morey John Ahern Gordon Hausrath Edward Petroske Mrs. Helbing Phillip Kordula Charles Comstock Miss Marayati Raymond Heins Richard Gaffney Robert Allen Philip Carolan Lee Hargrave Hampton Bays Connetquot Schools Roger Schmitt Gerald Devlin Alan Ackerman Sue Ericksen Linda Ward Al Zivitz Robert Liljequist Harbc,rfields Schools Gerald Butler Beaulieu Roilald Roma John Mahoney Robert Smith Thomas Dight Robert Huffine John Lally Arnold Becker Walter aallagher PARTICIPANTS- FEBRUARY CONFEREWE
Amityville Public Schools Copiague Schools Alvin Kravitz George Michiloff Wilfred Gray Nancy Zmyndak gegina Moylan Carole Solomon Catherine Quinn Bay Shore Schools Bernadette Bennett Marion Prahl Marie Green Madeline McGlynn Angela Morgante Walter Hajek Hildyne Bowens East Islip Joseph Selmanoff Bellport Schools Dorothy Schaeffer Rdbert Gardner Rita Baskin Edward McHuah Frank Long Elwood PublicSchools Donald Madelung Arlene Kaufman Daniel Koch Anne Dolan Gilbert Halpin Theodore Weisse Beverly Weinstock Vincent LoCicero Edith Hughes Clelia Ioppolo Helen Murphy Brentwood Schools Austin Harney Peter DiMento Half Hollow Hills Elsie Reavis Schools James Garvey John Bilitsky Commack Schools Kevin McGuire Jules Harris Virginia Holt Douglas Morey John Ahern Gordon Hausrath Edward Petroske Mrs. Helbing Phillip Kordula Charles Comstock Miss Marayati Raymond Heins Richard Gaffney Robert Allen Philip Carolan Lee Hargrave Hampton Bays Connetquot Schools Roger Schmitt Gerald Devlin Alan Ackerman Sue Ericksen Linda Ward Al Zivitz Robert Liljequist Harbc,rfields Schools Gerald Butler Beaulieu Roilald Roma John Mahoney Robert Smith Thomas Dight Robert Huffine John Lally Arnold Becker Walter aallagher Islip Southold Schools Dr. Landry Walter Cain Helen Muller Richard Hilary Margaret McColgan
Laurel Schools B. Eleanor Tuthill Three Village Schools Lindenhurst Schools Irving Carlin Esther Sharnak Cornelia Raynor Doris Harms James O'Leary Aime LaCoste Middle Island Schools Ronald Soviero Dennis Hogan Daniel Hanrahan John Kittell Middle Country Schools Mildred Stoltze Carol Cotins Terry Covalskie West Babylon Schools James Mahoney Donald Conrad Ernest Skilnick Philip Engeldrum Evrett Masters Miller Place Schools Albert Dantzig Raymond Daly Laddie Decker Westbury Schools Barbara Trede Gloria Tudhman Carole Helstrom Riverhead Schools Thomas Kewin Westhampton Beach Schools Jane Brennan Ann Kuna Nancy Matsunaye Jeanne Lewin Sayville Schools William Floyd Schools Mary Tobi Marianne Ritz Mary-Jo Spencer Carol Cappalli Robert nrickson Elaine Paquette Susan Daly Shordham Schools Louis Ricciardello J. Kenneth Gorman Carl Rosenblad Joan Aykroyd Carole Mital NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS Smithtown Schools J. Joseph Hetterick Coindre Hall William Eysaman Brother Raymond Shirvell Irwin Traugot Brother John Ennniston Michael Warkentin Bruce Niller Brother William Cawley 84 Patricia Hohenberger
-77- Islip Southold Schools Dr. Landry Walter Cain Helen Muller Richard Hilary Margaret McColgan
Laurel Schools B. Eleanor Tuthill Three Village Schools Lindenhurst Schools Irving Carlin Esther Sharnak Cornelia Raynor Doris Harms James O'Leary Aime LaCoste Middle Island Schools Ronald Soviero Dennis Hogan Daniel Hanrahan John Kittell Middle Country Schools Mildred Stoltze Carol Cotins Terry Covalskie West Babylon Schools James Mahoney Donald Conrad Ernest Skilnick Philip Engeldrum Evrett Masters Miller Place Schools Albert Dantzig Raymond Daly Laddie Decker Westbury Schools Barbara Trede Gloria Tudhman Carole Helstrom Riverhead Schools Thomas Kewin Westhampton Beach Schools Jane Brennan Ann Kuna Nancy Matsunaye Jeanne Lewin Sayville Schools William Floyd Schools Mary Tobi Marianne Ritz Mary-Jo Spencer Carol Cappalli Robert nrickson Elaine Paquette Susan Daly Shordham Schools Louis Ricciardello J. Kenneth Gorman Carl Rosenblad Joan Aykroyd Carole Mital NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS Smithtown Schools J. Joseph Hetterick Coindre Hall William Eysaman Brother Raymond Shirvell Irwin Traugot Brother John Ennniston Michael Warkentin Bruce Niller Brother William Cawley 84 Patricia Hohenberger
-77- Episcopal Dioceseof Long Island Robert C.Courtemanche
Long Island Lutheran Lonnie R. Nagel Donald Cornelius
St. Anthony's HighSchool Brother BruceGrossman Brother MichaelMoran
St. John the BaptistDiocesan H.S. Sister BernadetteDonovan Sister M. EdwardineHorrigan
EDUCATION CENTERS
Dr. Barbara Baskin
Mary Flynn
Lois Hench!icks
Vincent King
85
-78- Episcopal Dioceseof Long Island Robert C.Courtemanche
Long Island Lutheran Lonnie R. Nagel Donald Cornelius
St. Anthony's HighSchool Brother BruceGrossman Brother MichaelMoran
St. John the BaptistDiocesan H.S. Sister BernadetteDonovan Sister M. EdwardineHorrigan
EDUCATION CENTERS
Dr. Barbara Baskin
Mary Flynn
Lois Hench!icks
Vincent King
85
-78- CONSULTANTS
John D'Antonio
Dr. Ted Grenda
Dr. William McLoughlin
Dr. Melvin Mendelsohn
William Michaels
Roger Ming
Dr. Donald Nasca
Charles Rdbinson
June Robinson
Richard Schindler
Joan Sinclaire
Dr. Ludwig Braun
86 CONSULTANTS
John D'Antonio
Dr. Ted Grenda
Dr. William McLoughlin
Dr. Melvin Mendelsohn
William Michaels
Roger Ming
Dr. Donald Nasca
Charles Rdbinson
June Robinson
Richard Schindler
Joan Sinclaire
Dr. Ludwig Braun
86 COMMUTERS
Amagansett Wading River Mrs. Charlotte Hallock Robert Sokel mrs. Margaret Schneider Marjorie Christopher Mrs. Rosemary Mannes Teresa Holland Miss Janice Vernier Christine Benfield Mrs. Frances Fantini Ellen Hufe Mrs. Rowena SMith Irene Drake Mr. Milford Crandall Ruth Matthews mr. Raymond Durlacher Jeanette Peluso Mx. Robert Yates Eleanor Johnson mr. Harrison Schneider Marsha Samponaix) Douglas Peterson Brentwood Sally Lindblad Sister Patricia Strozak Edward Kronin Sister Joanna Cook Michael Bufi Sister Kathryn Slavin Sister Maria Coletta Non-public. schools Center Moriches Pascal Covello Most Holy Trinity School East Hampton Commack Sister Mary Emily Dorothy LaMay Sister Karen Kaelin Louis Perez Sister Eileen:Kelly East Hampton Little FlowerConvent Matilda Delehanty Kay Lycke Sister Irene Weiner Sister Renee Canitrot Gail Wilson Robert Freidah William Lycke,Jr. Avis Freidah Kathleen Vinski Mary Miller-Van Hazel
East Quogue James A. Brophy Joan Tutt Alice Kulick
Patchogue Spencer Lowell Frank Rossi
Shelter Island Michael P. Chiaramonte E. Quadros 87 COMMUTERS
Amagansett Wading River Mrs. Charlotte Hallock Robert Sokel mrs. Margaret Schneider Marjorie Christopher Mrs. Rosemary Mannes Teresa Holland Miss Janice Vernier Christine Benfield Mrs. Frances Fantini Ellen Hufe Mrs. Rowena SMith Irene Drake Mr. Milford Crandall Ruth Matthews mr. Raymond Durlacher Jeanette Peluso Mx. Robert Yates Eleanor Johnson mr. Harrison Schneider Marsha Samponaix) Douglas Peterson Brentwood Sally Lindblad Sister Patricia Strozak Edward Kronin Sister Joanna Cook Michael Bufi Sister Kathryn Slavin Sister Maria Coletta Non-public. schools Center Moriches Pascal Covello Most Holy Trinity School East Hampton Commack Sister Mary Emily Dorothy LaMay Sister Karen Kaelin Louis Perez Sister Eileen:Kelly East Hampton Little FlowerConvent Matilda Delehanty Kay Lycke Sister Irene Weiner Sister Renee Canitrot Gail Wilson Robert Freidah William Lycke,Jr. Avis Freidah Kathleen Vinski Mary Miller-Van Hazel
East Quogue James A. Brophy Joan Tutt Alice Kulick
Patchogue Spencer Lowell Frank Rossi
Shelter Island Michael P. Chiaramonte E. Quadros 87 PARTICIPANTS- MARCH CONFERENCE
Bayport-Blue Point 'WY Connetquot Marie Contino John Randazzo Robert E. Covell John Snyder N. White Robert Finta Croton-Harmon Jerome Ciaccia Ronald Lavery Paul Harenberg Martin Hession Douglas Erath George Matthias
Bay Shore East Islip Donald Lockhart Joyce Brass Merela Milim Ernest Codispoti Florence Coogan Sondra Cohen Norma Solamon Bernerd Miro Luella Levin Sue Skahan Marjorie Novotny Bellport Helen Rohr Lucille Melvin Gabriel Gabrelian Greenport George Gildersleeve Brentwood James Mulhill Lucille Carrody Richard Mar-A/blaring Elfredia DeFelice Kenneth Holt Half Hollow Hil1,4 Robert Ducker Central Islip Jeremiah Nolan, Jr. Ann Hoerlein 2dward Kenny Anne Garry William Walters Helen Robelen Susan Schmidt Edward O'Donnell Marcia Silber Melanie Krieger Commack Linda Kaplan Peter Gannon Carol Posillico Joel Thaw Rosemary Merz Beverly Ellen Helen Lammert Carol Munson Charles Lammert Gary Korn William Wilson Fred Weinstein Lawrence Becht Patricia Russo Cornwall Margaret Grimes John Battles Carol Goldfarb Mrs. Battles John T. Ahern
Commack Harborfields Perry Bendickson Sinclair Wilson Dianne Polowczyk Raymond Brett Martin Quinn Sharon Capilian -81- PARTICIPANTS- MARCH CONFERENCE
Bayport-Blue Point 'WY Connetquot Marie Contino John Randazzo Robert E. Covell John Snyder N. White Robert Finta Croton-Harmon Jerome Ciaccia Ronald Lavery Paul Harenberg Martin Hession Douglas Erath George Matthias
Bay Shore East Islip Donald Lockhart Joyce Brass Merela Milim Ernest Codispoti Florence Coogan Sondra Cohen Norma Solamon Bernerd Miro Luella Levin Sue Skahan Marjorie Novotny Bellport Helen Rohr Lucille Melvin Gabriel Gabrelian Greenport George Gildersleeve Brentwood James Mulhill Lucille Carrody Richard Mar-A/blaring Elfredia DeFelice Kenneth Holt Half Hollow Hil1,4 Robert Ducker Central Islip Jeremiah Nolan, Jr. Ann Hoerlein 2dward Kenny Anne Garry William Walters Helen Robelen Susan Schmidt Edward O'Donnell Marcia Silber Melanie Krieger Commack Linda Kaplan Peter Gannon Carol Posillico Joel Thaw Rosemary Merz Beverly Ellen Helen Lammert Carol Munson Charles Lammert Gary Korn William Wilson Fred Weinstein Lawrence Becht Patricia Russo Cornwall Margaret Grimes John Battles Carol Goldfarb Mrs. Battles John T. Ahern
Commack Harborfields Perry Bendickson Sinclair Wilson Dianne Polowczyk Raymond Brett Martin Quinn Sharon Capilian -81- Hauppauge Mattituck Robert Backer Mildred Bitses Lawrence McGrath Robert Morris Middle Country James Andreadh Ruth Faine Rosemary O'Neill Hicksville Herbert Cavanagh Massapequa Mrs. Herbert :'avanagh Lillian Demos Janet Waters Hofstra University Rita Brown Middle Island Carolyn Redmond Huntington Joseph Bigham Agnes Hazzard James O'Toote Enid Logigian Audrey Keppler Edward Logigian Linda Samek Edward Abrahamson Jdhn Sanborn Jack Abrams LaVonne Reid Anita Flood John Radjeski Harriet Flood Stephen Good North Babylon Herman Katz Kings Park Joseph DiSpigno Patchogue-Madford Italia DiSpigno Angela McGirr Carl Treuter Drew Cronin Quogue Daniel Hunt Charles Clough Sonia Stratford Lindenhurst Jean Young Patrica Daly Doria Taylor Louis Ragosta Ellen Thompson Roslyn John Gallagher David Berey Jack Bogart Edward Martin Smithtown Raymond Anderson Sharon Raphael Geraldine Cuneo Dianne Dalkind J. O'Shaughnessy Hugh Marasa Southampton Carmine Cascone Edward Orr Rosemary Hunnell Lois Weiss South Huntington Robert Denn3.s ss Icsbert Greenberg Mrs. Robert Greenberg Dennis Donatuti -82- Hauppauge Mattituck Robert Backer Mildred Bitses Lawrence McGrath Robert Morris Middle Country James Andreadh Ruth Faine Rosemary O'Neill Hicksville Herbert Cavanagh Massapequa Mrs. Herbert :'avanagh Lillian Demos Janet Waters Hofstra University Rita Brown Middle Island Carolyn Redmond Huntington Joseph Bigham Agnes Hazzard James O'Toote Enid Logigian Audrey Keppler Edward Logigian Linda Samek Edward Abrahamson Jdhn Sanborn Jack Abrams LaVonne Reid Anita Flood John Radjeski Harriet Flood Stephen Good North Babylon Herman Katz Kings Park Joseph DiSpigno Patchogue-Madford Italia DiSpigno Angela McGirr Carl Treuter Drew Cronin Quogue Daniel Hunt Charles Clough Sonia Stratford Lindenhurst Jean Young Patrica Daly Doria Taylor Louis Ragosta Ellen Thompson Roslyn John Gallagher David Berey Jack Bogart Edward Martin Smithtown Raymond Anderson Sharon Raphael Geraldine Cuneo Dianne Dalkind J. O'Shaughnessy Hugh Marasa Southampton Carmine Cascone Edward Orr Rosemary Hunnell Lois Weiss South Huntington Robert Denn3.s ss Icsbert Greenberg Mrs. Robert Greenberg Dennis Donatuti -82- Stony Brook Montauk Dr. Lawrence Stolurow Barbara Borth Marguerite Winski Three Village E. Michael Helmintoller Southampton College Jane Wittlock Raymond Orts Elizabeth Simpson Donald Kurka George Cassell Eugenie Nadelman Ada Newberry
West Babylon INTERESTED LAYMAN Mary Dunn Janet Tramontana Michael Grant Rdberta Stocks George Silvera Lawrence Tooker Louis Camassa Joanne Waterman Ann Venneri Peter H. Fabregas
West Islip Martin Curran Carl Harris
NON-PUBIC SCHOOLS
St. Boniface Cicilia Bergold Sister EileenCorcoran
COMMUTERS
Center Moriches Florence Stoeckert
Commack Richard Gallo
East Islip Mary-Jo Gallc; Ruth Feingold Joanne Eggert 90 Middle Island Guy Mastrion Joseph Bigham
-83- Stony Brook Montauk Dr. Lawrence Stolurow Barbara Borth Marguerite Winski Three Village E. Michael Helmintoller Southampton College Jane Wittlock Raymond Orts Elizabeth Simpson Donald Kurka George Cassell Eugenie Nadelman Ada Newberry
West Babylon INTERESTED LAYMAN Mary Dunn Janet Tramontana Michael Grant Rdberta Stocks George Silvera Lawrence Tooker Louis Camassa Joanne Waterman Ann Venneri Peter H. Fabregas
West Islip Martin Curran Carl Harris
NON-PUBIC SCHOOLS
St. Boniface Cicilia Bergold Sister EileenCorcoran
COMMUTERS
Center Moriches Florence Stoeckert
Commack Richard Gallo
East Islip Mary-Jo Gallc; Ruth Feingold Joanne Eggert 90 Middle Island Guy Mastrion Joseph Bigham
-83- CONSULTANTS
Dr. Ludwig Braun
Douglas Reynolds
Edward Lalor
John Favitta
John D'Antonio
Barry Kane
Roger Ming
Dr. Ted Grenda
Mrs. June Robinson
Charles Robinson
Larry Sribnick
Dr. Dollald Nasca
Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin
Rdbert Sokel
Wilfred Gray
Alvin Kravitz
Sid Oper
91 CONSULTANTS
Dr. Ludwig Braun
Douglas Reynolds
Edward Lalor
John Favitta
John D'Antonio
Barry Kane
Roger Ming
Dr. Ted Grenda
Mrs. June Robinson
Charles Robinson
Larry Sribnick
Dr. Dollald Nasca
Dr. WilliamMcLoughlin
Rdbert Sokel
Wilfred Gray
Alvin Kravitz
Sid Oper
91