 On
October 8th, 1973, the State Education Department released a publication
entitled “Providing Optional Learning Environments in New York State Schools.”
This publication coincided with a major address by Commissioner of Education
Ewald B. Nyquist in which he called upon the State's School Administrators
to exert every effort to “humanize education in New York State.”
The Commissioner pointed out that any educational system that seeks to
permit individuals to achieve at their maximum potential must provide multiple
options for learning.
While outlining various learning
options for all school levels, the publication stressed a need to accommodate
parental preferences, student needs and interests, preferred learning styles,
and the personal and social welfare of students. The State Education
Department, therefore, emphasized that there would be need for a significantly
modified curriculum with considerable involvement of parents and students
in program planning, development, implementation and evaluation.
While cautioning against sudden and wholesale system-wide reforms, the
publication suggested that optional learning programs may operate apart
from the regular school program, encompass more than one grade level, make
extensive use of common resources, emphasize open educational practices,
feature individual approaches, focus on learning oriented programs, and
be properly centered.
Although many New York State
School Districts had, prior to October 1974, initiated alternative approaches
to education, the new Education Department publication proposed guidelines
to assist districts in setting up optional learning programs.
First, the proposed program
must satisfy all statutory requirements concerning staffing, facilities,
curriculum, pupil attendance, accounting, and length of school day and
year. The program description, as sent to the State for formal recognition,
should clearly reflect that requirements established by the Board of Regents
or Commissioner of Education are satisfied.
The proposal should include
a plan for evaluation to guarantee continuous progress toward stated objectives
to improve or revise procedures as results would indicate. Evidence
should be submitted to indicate that the Board of Education in a Public
Meeting (a Public Meeting was conducted in the Spring, 1974) has approved
the proposed program on recommendation of the Chief School Officer and
that it will provide the necessary support for the proposed duration of
the program.
After complying with the
above requirements, the Program referred to as The Maslow-Toffler School
of Futuristic Education became a curriculum offering of the Brentwood School
District. The School opened in September 1974 with an initial enrollment
of 95 pupils. |
|
| Part
2
(So far) this article (has)
attempted to present a brief history of alternative schools in New York
State along with the guidelines for alternative schools put forth by the
New York State Education Department.
Two years ago (1973) it was
realized that two elementary schools would have to be converted to provide
additional student space for our increasing secondary (7-12) student population.
Since one of these schools was to be utilized as a High School Annex, it
was suggested that we had an ideal opportunity to possibly initiate an
alternative school program. The teaching staff was encouraged to
submit possible alternative school programs. (Ed note: A total of
11 programs vied for Board approval). After a thorough procedure
was exhausted which involved staff members, parents, and students, and
which culminated in a Public Hearing by the Board of Education, the Maslow-Toffler
(School) started in September 1974 with an enrollment of 95 students.
Is this Program really an
alternative form of education? From observing the students and faculty
involved in this Program, one can say that the answer to this question
is an unequivocal “YES”. In terms of operating procedures, you will
not find such things as home-rooms, study halls, cafeteria, security guards,
public address announcements, passes, detention and suspension, bells signaling
the start or end of classes, and formalized grades.
The criteria for entrance
to the school is based on the following:
-
(1) 4th year high school student
– normally has finished 12 credits, has completed his/her official prescribed
sequence courses with the exception of 12th grade English and Physical
Education.
-
(2) 3rd year high school student
– normally has finished 8 credits, has completed 2/3rds of the prescribed
sequence and must take the English and History Comprehensive Exam (Regents)
at the Maslow-Toffler School. (Only fifteen 11th grade students have
been allowed to participate in this Program on a pilot basis.)
-
(3) Parents of the students
must give written permission to have their young lady or man accepted in
the Maslow-Toffler Program.
The curriculum of the
school is somewhat different from that of the regular high school.
Students are exposed to regular subjects such as English, Social Studies,
Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, Physical Education and Driver Education.
They also participate in an orientation, workshop and seminar, a Forum
which is the governing body of the School, Humanistic Psychology, Philosophy,
Semantics, Consciousness Raising for Women, Mass Media, Child Development,
Sex Roles in Literature, Views of Nature, Futures, History Through Art,
Performing Arts courses in Voice, Music Theory, Instrumental Music, Dance
and, last but not least, Painting.
Students get grades in two
college-level courses offered through Syracuse University’s Project Advance
and in the Regents courses. Credit is also earned through Independent
Study and Work Experience (at jobs approved by the school staff, such as
with Islip Town or at Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center), and teachers give
written Evaluations of the students’ work. The independence allowed
in managing their own time helps prepare all students for life experiences,
as well as helping those specific students who are going on to college
and need this training experience.
In trying to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Program, certain objectives were set up. Some
objectives were operational or procedural, while others were product oriented
in terms of student growth. Agreement was reached to carefully evaluate
three (3) specific product objectives for the first year of the School’s
operation, as follows:
-
(1) The students will improve
their reading vocabulary and comprehension ability at a rate that is at
least equal to or better than their previous rate of growth.
-
(2) Students will improve their
verbal creativity in fluency, flexibility and originality from the beginning
to the end of the year.
| Part
3
The preceding part concluded
with two of the three (3) specific product objectives of the School’s operation.
The third follows:
-
(3) The students will increase
their school and career aspiration level from the beginning to the end
of the year.
The reading objective
was evaluated using the Gates Reading Test. Scores for most of the
students on a test administered before they entered the Maslow-Toffler
School were obtained from the High School Reading Consultants. The
student’s previous rate of gain in reading achievement was calculated and
added to their pre-test score. The sum became the predicted achievement
level. The predicted achievement level was then compared to the actual
achievement level obtained in the post-test. The result of the analysis
showed that the predicted and the actual achievement levels were equivalent
or higher. Therefore, the objective was considered achieved.
The Gates Reading Test did not have grade equivalent scores that were high
enough to reflect the achievement of the most capable students. However,
this test was used because of the pre-test data already available from
it.
The creativity objective
was evaluated using the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking. The assumption
was that creativity is an ability not dependent upon specific skills.
Therefore, no gain in this ability would be expected from a regular school
program. The Torrence Test measured verbal fluency, flexibility and
originality, and the results of the pre-test and post-test were compared
to determine whether or not there was significant improvement. The
fluency characteristic showed a significant improvement but the other two
characteristics were non-significantly improved. One possible reason
for the lack of significant growth in the results of the other two abilities
was the fact that the students had participated in the program for three
months before the pre-test was given. The prior participation may
have raised the pre-test score and allowed less room for growth by the
time the post-test was given six months later.
The aspiration level of the
students was evaluated by comparing the students’ statements of the amounts
of school they were planning on beyond high school at the beginning of
the school year to the amount of school they were planning on at the end
of the school year. In both comparisons there was no significant
shift measurable in aspiration level. Based on empirical evidence and analysis
the objective was not achieved, but in a further analysis of this objective,
it is believed that our students were much better able to realistically
assess their higher education and career aspirations.
In closing, let me address
myself to the concern most frequently expressed about The Maslow-Toffler
School of Futuristic Education. While it is true that the class size
is kept at about 22 to allow for individual attention, the assumption that
the cost of operating this program is extremely high is FALSE. In
fact, the opposite is TRUE. The cost for each student in The Maslow-Toffler
School is less, on the average, than the allocation made for a student
who attends the normal high school. While the per pupil allocation
for instructional supplies, textbooks, etc., is the same, the student-to-professional
staff member ratio at the Ross Sonderling Complex is less than for The
Maslow-Toffler School.
While this Program was obviously
not created for the average student, we do have approximately 4,700 students
in our High School. Therefore, there are students (while small in
comparison to the total number of students we serve) who can profit to
a greater extent from a program which is different from the traditional
approach. It is obviously not designed for most students. It
is an alternative to our normal High School which has been enthusiastically
received by the students and parents who have elected to participate, as
well as by the very dedicated teachers who staff this Program. |
|
