In July, 1970, the National Goals Research Staff presented to President Nixon and to the American People its report Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality. In the chapter on education they discuss educational change and the new role of the school: If the child in today's school is going to be expected to operate effectively in his society when he is an adult, he will have to have cognitive skills to deal with the flood of ideas and facts which he will face. Whereas once the task of the schools was to transmit information, the job today is more to give the student the cognitive skills to handle the information coming from many sources. As early as 1959 the need for cognitive skills was affirmed by Illinois. policy makers when the School Problems Commission first held hearings on the lack of adequate programs for the gifted. At that time the value of synthesis and evaluation was recognized and provisions for emphasizing their use in the classroom were built into the Illinois Plan. Again Illinois anticipated the findings of the national report which states: the proportion of information that children receive from mass media is so large and the range of values to which they are exposed so diverse that it may well be that the schools should be devoted to giving them the cognitive skills for integrating information, and a framework within which to sort out the diverse values to which they are exposed. Now, after eleven years, Illinois seeks to advance the cause of quality improvement in education by publishing the results of a full-scale evaluation of its gifted program, the findings of which should be of value not only to the smallest school district but also to the federal government of the United States. V. THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OPERATION OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM NUMBER, LOCATION, AND SELECTION OF CENTERS The Illinois Gifted Program operates a system of approximately 23 centers receiving an average of $43,478 each from state funds. In all cases the centers are situated within school districts. They are located in different areas of the state, although many of them are in the Chicago Metropolitan area. Ideally, they were to be situated in such a way as to enable anyone in the state to visit one without traveling more than a hundred miles. PURPOSE AND RATIONALE The major purpose of the demonstration centers as cited in the Illinois Plan is to provide "convincing and readily accessible demonstrations in operating situations of a number of approaches to the education of gifted children." Ideally, the demonstration centers illustrate innovative techniques in education which visitors observe and then import into their own schools. The original rationale of the centers assumed three goals for the centers to accomplish with each day's visitors: 1. Awareness. To help teachers and administrators become aware of innovations and ways to improve the quality of their program. 2. Acceptance. To help visitors decide whether the change or innovation is acceptable for him personally, to his district, and to his com munity. 3. Adoption. To help schools adapt or adopt particular programs or procedures in which they are interested. The success of the demonstration process in terms of these goals might be represented by figure 5. Another, perhaps more accurate, diagram of how the demonstration process should theoretically work is shown below. Figure 5. Model for Demonstration Center Success IF THE VISITOR IS AWARE OF THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES, THE CENTER HAS ACCOMPLISHED ITS GOAL OF DISSEMINATION. IF THE VISITOR ACCEPTS THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES, THE CENTER HAS ACCOMPLISHED ITS GOAL OF LEGITIMIZATION. IF THE VISITOR IMPLEMENTS THE CENTER'S ACTIVITIES, Each demonstration center prepares a brochure explaining the types of programs and methods it is demonstrating and at what grade levels. These are then sent to schools and colleges throughout the state. In order to visit a center, the visitor (usually a public school administrator or teacher) submits a formal request that the center acknowledges by specifying the day for the visit. After an orientation at the center, the visitor observes demonstration classes. Often he also has the opportunity to talk with the teachers and students. After the visit, the demonstration director may offer to help the visitor with his own gifted program. The administrator or teacher may be reimbursed for his expenses from funds that his district receives from the Illinois Gifted Program. The average cost of processing each visitor is $144. WHO VISITS THE DEMONSTRATION CENTER AND WHY The majority of visitors are school personnel, teachers and administrators, although there are other visiting groups of significant size. These visitors are to a certain extent self-selected and come to a center with the idea that they want to make a change in their classes or schools. Curiosity-to see what other teachers are doing is a primary motivating factor. (Centers are at least providing educational experience and inter-changes that might otherwise be nonexistent.) Both teachers and administrators are interested in new instructional materials, facilities, and equipment, while administrators are also very interested in finding new workable arrangements in teacher scheduling, team teaching, and planning. Administrators are also quite interested in learning about in-service training for their teachers. THE DEMONSTRATION PROCESS: EVALUATION EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE POLICIES Over a period of time, State policies for the demonstration centers have changed, both to a greater degree than have the policies for other section of the Illinois Plan, and with far greater ramifications. Demonstration policies also have been more open to misinterpretation and misapplication than have the policies governing reimbursement and special training for gifted personnel. Therefore, in order to evaluate the demonstration process, it is necessary first to understand the changes and effects of relevant State policies. Policy GENERAL PURPOSES 1. Centers are to operate exemplary programs...... 2. Centers are to display exemplary programs in realistic settings, so that visitors will import programs into their schools. 3. Help schools which are similar in characteristics or geographically near to develop their own programs. Followup services are provided to visitors. 4. A center may expect to put itself out of business in the area being demonstrated. The more effective the center, the greater will be the probability of the center being discontinued or changed. ROLE OF THE DIRECTOR 1. Each center must have a full-time director who has sufficient resources to accomplish the intended purposes of the center. 2. Each director must have sufficient authority to accomplish the intended purposes of the center. 3. Major tasks-Handling visitors; local administration responsibility; public relations; program development and expansion of quality. 4. Followup is a major task of the Director..... 5. The Director is responsible for an evaluation of his program and making results available to visitors. Little has been done in this area. These Weak. area. DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES 1. Each center should attract teachers, other professionals, and citizens. 2. Each center should publicize its program through publication of a brochure. 3. Each center is to explore and establish followup procedures with visitors from other schools near at hand, or on occasion from other schools with similar characteristics. Weak. All centers have succeeded in attracting Highly successful. Few centers offer active followup services, Weak. In summary, the evidence seems to indicate a degree of success of the centers in achieving awareness and acceptance of new programs on the part of visitors. Despite their success in demonstrating programs, the centers have not, for the most part, had such a powerful effect upon visitors as to change their post-visit behavior. The impact of demonstration is discussed in the section which follows: THE IMPACT OF DEMONSTRATION There are two types of follow-up available for the visitors: passive and active. Passive follow-up is defined as sending materials to past visitors and making presentations to groups of school personnel. Active follow-up is defined as a person-to-person working relationship involving the visitor and a member of the demonstration staff. Figure 6 illustrates the range and type of follow-up visiting school personnel receive. A large percentage of the visitors to the Illinois. Demonstration Centers received no help. Visitors who do get help in most cases received passive follow-up, although visitors who asked for follow-up usually got it. For the most part demonstration directors passively wait for visitors to initiate requests for particular assistance. 1 A visitor could respond to all items; therefore, the potential response for each category is 100 percent. There are individual centers that attempt a more thorough follow-up than others. However, the variation does not seem significant, thereby suggesting that part of the problem may lie within the total structure and not just with personnel from a few centers. In summary, the use of follow-up was encouraged to overcome the problem of demonstrating in what is often perceived as an atypical situation. The follow-up has not been as frequent nor as penetrating (speeches and materials) as policies demand. For example, 10% or more of the visitors in 17 of the 20 centers receive mailed materials. However 10% or more visitors in only 5 of the 20 centers receive help in developing their own programs. Similarly the centers do not stress the practical matters of how visitors may adopt activities. Neither do centers provide the "evidential assessment" the guidelines call for. For their part the visitors do not seem to miss these omissions. They feel that they are well informed and leave with what could be described as a euphoric feeling. One might conclude from this that the visitors themselves do not have any clear idea of the actual purpose of the demonstration process 34 |