This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Project Follow Through | |
|---|---|
| Name | Project Follow Through |
| Country | United States |
| Sponsor | Office of Economic Opportunity |
| Start | 1967 |
| End | 1995 |
| Participants | disadvantaged children |
| Budget | federal and local funding |
| Location | United States |
Project Follow Through
Project Follow Through was the largest federally funded experimental education program in United States history, designed to extend the effects of Head Start for children from low-income families. Initiated in the late 1960s as part of the War on Poverty initiatives, it tested multiple instructional approaches across diverse sites with broad participation from educators, researchers, and community agencies. The program became a focal point for debates among proponents of cognitive skills training, advocates of whole-child approaches, and policymakers in Congress and the Office of Economic Opportunity.
Launched during the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson and tied to the broader agenda of the Great Society, Follow Through was conceived as a longitudinal continuation of Head Start to sustain gains in cognitive and social development. The program emerged amid interactions among organizations such as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Urban League, and researchers connected to universities like Harvard University, University of Chicago, and Stanford University. Early planning involved figures associated with the OEO and policymaking committees influenced by reports from commissions like the Kerner Commission and advisers linked to Sargent Shriver and Robert F. Kennedy.
Follow Through funded a plurality of instructional models developed by agencies, universities, and private contractors including behaviorally oriented programs, experiential curricula, and community-centered approaches. Models included approaches informed by the work of scholars associated with B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, proponents connected to Jean Piaget's developmental theories, and programs influenced by educators linked to Maria Montessori and John Dewey. Participating models were administered by entities such as local school districts, Community Action Program agencies, and nonprofit organizations with ties to institutions like Bank Street College of Education and Yale University.
Sites across urban, suburban, and rural settings implemented model curricula with training, materials, and variable fidelity. Evaluation responsibilities were assigned to contractors and research teams associated with universities including University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Columbia University. Assessment instruments measured basic skills, cognitive skills, and affective outcomes using standardized tests then familiar to researchers, drawing on assessment practices connected to Stanine scoring traditions and psychometric methods influenced by psychologists at American Psychological Association conferences. The Office of Management and Budget and Congressional oversight influenced reporting cycles and funding continuance decisions.
Summative analyses reported differential effects among models, with some behaviorally oriented approaches showing gains on basic skills measures while certain whole-child or process-oriented models demonstrated lesser performance on those metrics. Results published by evaluators linked to institutions such as University of Illinois, University of California, Berkeley, and independent analysts stimulated debate in venues including National Education Association meetings and Congressional hearings. Data from follow-up studies touched on outcomes relevant to scholastic achievement, employment trajectories, and civic participation noted by commentators with affiliations to Brookings Institution and RAND Corporation.
Critics raised methodological disputes involving selection bias, outcome metric choice, and the marginalization of affective or community-centered goals in favor of basic skills, with prominent commentators from Teachers College, Columbia University and University of Wisconsin–Madison voicing concerns. Advocacy groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and civil rights leaders associated with Martin Luther King Jr.-era networks questioned equity in site selection and implementation fidelity. Political actors in Congress and administrators from Office of Management and Budget clashed with researchers from Harvard Graduate School of Education and think tanks like Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute over interpretation and policy implications.
The program influenced subsequent federal initiatives and research-practice debates, shaping discussions that intersected with policies involving No Child Left Behind Act advocates, early childhood education expansions tied to later administrations, and reform movements that engaged organizations such as Children's Defense Fund and National Governors Association. Scholarship from centers at Carnegie Mellon University, Princeton University, and Johns Hopkins University referenced Follow Through when evaluating program evaluation standards and accountability frameworks. The contested findings informed later designs of large-scale randomized and quasi-experimental studies supported by agencies including the Institute of Education Sciences and philanthropic actors like the Carnegie Corporation.