Result of a Test: F

Once it seemed like an imaginative new way to overcome the faults of inferior schools. Instead of relying on standard teachers and standard routines, a community could sign a contract with outside specialists who would be paid only if they improved the students' learning. More than 30 cities have experimented with "performance contracting," and one poll showed that two-thirds of the nation's school-board members were interested in trying it (TIME, Oct. 11).

The Office of Economic Opportunity decided to organize a major study of performance contracting during the 1970-71 school year. It authorized up to $7.2 million for the project, spread among six educational firms and conducted in 18 school districts in both big cities and rural areas. The subjects of the year-long experiment were 13,000 children in grades one to three and seven to nine.

Last week, OEO announced the results of the test--a failure. "The overall differences are so slight," said OEO, "that we can conclude performance contracting was no more effective in either reading or math than the traditional classroom methods of instruction." OEO stressed that the findings do not mean that the idea is necessarily wrong, but it added that "an uncritical rush to embrace the concept is unwarranted at this time."

Post-mortems thus far indicate that contractors may indeed have relied too much on computerized teaching machines and programmed reading materials. Cracked David Selden, president of the American Federation of Teachers: "Now the OEO should stick to the poverty business and leave education to teachers."

The trouble with that argument is that teachers are not doing much of a job either. According to the OEO survey, all student-achievement averages, both in the special classrooms and in a control group of ordinary classes, failed to reach the national norms.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.