THE LEARNING EXCHANGE: AN EXPERIMENT IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION. Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GREGORY DOUGLAS SQUIRES 1974 ‘AM a“. i *9- i)ix-*"~ 7‘ .9" L "I? D ’15 .‘ A. I .- - I ' x ( ‘r' .1. :37? IT .3!!! ‘.‘v'. ‘. I . . ' L; .:_.,1 $1215“) BMW FIINIJERY “III. s—a BIRDING BY " IIIIAII & ‘SM’ ABSTRACT THE LEARNING EXCHANGE: AN EXPERIMENT IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION By Gregory Douglas Squires The Learning Exchange is an educational matching service, in the Chicago metropolitan area, modelled along the lines of the learning webs or networks pr0posed by Ivan Illich and Everett Reimer as replacements for schools. The service began in May, 1971. It operates in the following manner. Anybody who wants to teach, learn, or discuss any subject area, skill, or interest can locate other peOple with the appropriate matching interest by contacting the Learning Exchange. The service provides callers with the names and telephone numbers of previous callers who have indicated a similar or complementary interest. The Learning Exchange is strictly a matching service. It provides names, telephone numbers, and any pertinent information relating to people's background and interest in their stated subject area which they choose to give. The service offers no courses, provides no classroom space, does not charge a fee, and does not grant any kind of diploma. This study examines the experiences of the Learning Exchange in its first year of operation. After the first year, a telephone Gregory Douglas Squires survey was conducted in order to find out how successful people had been in locating others with matching interests and to determine what kinds of people were using the service. Approximately 1,000 peOple were registered with the Learning Exchange at the time, and 504 of them were interviewed. The basic objectives of the Learning Exchange were to open up Opportunities for those who were unable to meet their educational needs in traditional schooling institutions, and to make use of educational resources throughout the community which were not being utilized. It was assumed that there were many peOple in the community with knowledge and skills they would be willing to share with those who wanted to learn, but prior to the establishment of this service there was no mechanism to bring these people together. One conclusion of this study is that the Learning Exchange is accomplishing these objectives. The Learning Exchange population in its first year was pre— dominantly a white, well educated, professionally employed group of people. The elitist nature of those who contacted the service can be largely explained by the fact that the office is located in an upper- middle class neighborhood, and that most of the publicity, particularly in the first three months, was aimed specifically at that neighborhood. Steps are being taken to attract more peOple throughout the Chicago metrOpolitan area and to attract a clientele which is more representa— tive of the total community. The Learning Exchange was well received by the community. Few people had any complaints about the service and many said they had recommended it to friends. The local and national media provided con— sistently favorable coverage and several public officials made public Gregory Douglas Squires statements and sent letters of commendation expressing their support of the concept. Whereas 1,000 people were registered after one year, over 7,000 people were registered after two years. And similar models have been started in other communities in the United States and in other nations. Illich, author of Deschooling Sociegy, and Reimer, author of School is Dead, are not the only critics to seriously question the viability of schooling institutions as a means for educating a nation. Others have made similar assessments concerning the state our schools are in and the functions they perform for society. This study examines some of these arguments and concludes that schools may not be as stable and secure a part of our society as most of us tend to think. The net- works and webs proposed by Illich and Reimer may well not be the answer. But, in light of the many problems facing schools in recent years, we might find that the shape of education is radically changed within our own lifetime. THE LEARNING EXCHANGE: AN EXPERIMENT IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION By Gregory Douglas Squires A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1974 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PERSONAL NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE DESCHOOLING ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Institution of Schooling. . . . . . . . . The Myth of Equal Educational Opportunity . . . Learning Webs and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . What Deschooling Would Accomplish . . . . . . . Deschooling and Other Educational Philosophies. Criticism of Deschooling and Related Educational Philosophies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE LEM INC EXCHANGE O O O O O O O C O O I O O 0 What it Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How it Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why it Was Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mechanics of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT THE LEARNING EXCHANGE HAS DONE . . . . . . Reception of the Learning Exchange in the Community Effectiveness of the Service . . . . . . . . . . ii Page iv ll l4 16 20 28 34 34 38 40 41 44 58 62 Section WHO HAS USED THE LEARNING EXCHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Race . . . Occupation Education Income . . Age . . . Elitism and th Learning Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCHOOLING AND THE LEARNING EXCHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . Future Study Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES . Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Questionnaire Used in the Learning Exchange Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Articles on the Learning Exchange. Samples of Endorsements Received by the Learning Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locations of Other Learning Exchanges . . . . iii Page 66 67 69 7O 71 72 73 79 91 92 94 96 96 102 107 109 Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Why People Contacted the Learning Exchange . . . Teachers - Learners - Interest Matches . . . . . . Subject Areas Registered With the Learning Exchange Learning Exchange Contacts and Meetings . . . . . . Forms of Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for No First Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for No Follow-up Meetings . . . . . . . . . Complaints About the Learning Exchange . . . . . . Race: Learning Exchange vs. Cook County . . . . . Occupation: Learning Exchange vs. Cook County . . Successful Matches by Occupation . . . . . . . . . Successful Matches by Income . . . . . . . . . . . iv 49 51 53 55 56 6O 68 69 7O 72 A PERSONAL NOTE The Learning Exchange has not been just an academic concern or a research project for me. I was one of a Small group of peOple who started the service, and for over a year and a half I worked with three close friends in directing its operation. Although I have not actively worked with the Learning Exchange since August, 1972, I still feel a close attachment to the Learning Exchange and to the individuals who currently direct it. I still feel partially reSponsible for its successes and the praise it receives as well as for its shortcomings and any criticism directed towards the service. In evaluating this analysis the reader must naturally take into account the author's relationship with the object being studied. One might conclude that because of my personal involvement, a certain bias has influenced my conclusions. Whether this has happened or not, I can only say that throughout, I have tried to set aside such feelings, and I have sought fairness and objectivity. The reader must also keep in mind certain advantages that I have had because of my relationship with the Learning Exchange. Having a thorough understanding of the model helped me, and two other co- founders, in constructing the questionnaire. We wanted to find out what was right and what was wrong with the model. We were aware of certain benefits the model had to offer and some of the problems it might face, or even create, which an outsider might not be aware of. Therefore, in writing questions which would provide information on these matters, we were in an advantageous position. Two of the three who wrote the questions, including myself, also administered them. Again, our understanding of the model and the intention of each question, enabled us to explain any ambiguities to respondents, and to interpret the answers which were given. The validity of any analysis is enhanced the more the analyst understands what the respondents meant when they answered a question. This study has both theoretical and practical objectives. I hope the findings will help the Learning Exchange in Chicago, and others which have been started in other communities. My intention, however, is not to serve as a public relations agent. I do invite those who are interested in the Learning Exchange concept to read this document, and I hope it provides them with useful information. I also invite others who question this analysis or who have doubts about the value of such concepts as the Learning Exchange, to re-examine my data or to collect new data from other models, and to offer their conclusions. vi INTRODUCTION Schools have long been criticized from a variety of sources. Students, teachers, parents, politicians, and just about everybody else appear to have something bad to say about schools. And many sugges- tions have been made, often contradicting one another, in hopes of solving the problems in our schools. Some want community control and decentralized school systems while others look to the state and federal governments to solve the problems. Judges order cross district busing while motorists display their "Happiness is Walking to Your Neighborhood School" bumper stickers. New techniques and strategies such as team teaching, individ- ualized instruction, headstart programs, open classrooms, classrooms without walls, and voucher systems are just some of the ideas which have been proposed. Most of them have been experimented with, and some have been incorporated into several public schools. Despite the seeming variety of reforms which have been pro— posed, almost all of them share one basic Premise. They assume that the school is the proper domain in which the function of education is to be carried out. Indeed, the words "schooling" and "education" are prac- tically synonymous in the United States today. Few challenge the notion that schooling is essential if we are to provide pe0ple with l 2 the skills, knowledge, and credentials which are needed to Operate successfully in our society. Even most advocates of experiential learning want to implement their non classroom education under the auspices of some schooling institution. Today, an educated person is a schooled person. Ivan Illich has proposed a radically different approach to meeting the educational needs of a society. To Illich, schools cannot provide the kind of education needed in today's world. If we want to make significant improvements in the way we educate, and if we want to improve the quality of life in general, Illich claims we must dis- establish our schools. Along with Everett Reimer, Illich observed the manpower shortages and educational problems of Latin American countries. To- gether, they projected the costs involved in providing the kinds of schooling needed to meet the manpower requirements of these nations. They concluded that the costs were completely beyond the economic capacities of those countries. In addition, they studied the failures of education in the United States and they began, in 1967, a systematic analysis of schooling. Although their conclusions were basically the same, they each published their own document concerning the problems of schooling and recommendations for what a better educational system would be. Illich's Deschooling Society was published in 1970 and Reimer's School is Dead came out in 1971. Both essentially call for dismantling our present school systems and replacing them with a series of webs or networks that individuals could use as they see fit for their own learning. There would be no state laws requiring anything in the way of attendance or 3 participation in any kind of schooling or educational activity. The deschooling argument does share several assumptions with other educational philosophies. The free schools which have mushroomed during the past decade, the progressive education movement in the first half of this century, and other similar educational movements dating back at least to Jean'Jacques Rousseau, embody many of the same principles as does the deschooling philosophy. Assumptions about human nature, the learning process, and the rights of individuals versus the needs of society represent some of the common threads under- lying these phiIOSOphies. The deschooling argument has also been critisized for many of the same reasons as have these other schools of thought. This study will examine what has happened during the first twelve months of operation of the Learning Exchange. The Learning Exchange, located in the Chicago metropolitan area, is an educational matching service, modelled along the lines of Illich's learning web proposals. It began serving the Chicago area in May, 1971, and the data for this study were collected in the summer of 1972. Following this introduction, I will describe, in greater detail, the arguments Illich and Reimer have made for disestablishing schools. I will also further explore some of the arguments others have made for giving learners greater control over their education than students have in most school systems. Then I will examine some of the major arguments which have been made against these educational philosophies. After looking at these theoretical prOpositions, I will briefly describe the concept of the Learning Exchange and the history of the particular model operating in Chicago. From the data that was collected in the summer of 1972, I will then analyze what kind of an impact the Learning Exchange had on the community. In conclusion, I will discuss some of the potential implica— tions of the deschooling critique and educational services like the Learning Exchange, in light of more recent developments in schools and more recent criticisms of schooling, for the future shape of education in the United States. THE DESCHOOLING ARGUMENT The Institution of Schooling The deschooling proposal advocates the disestablishment of schooling institutions. Schools, according to Illich1 and Reimer,2 are institutions which require the full time attendance of a specific age group, in a teacher supervised study of an obligatory graded curriculum. They argue that the functions of education can be carried out more effectively, more efficiently, and more equitably, by replac- ing schools with different kinds of arrangements. But more important than reforming education, deschooling is also a prerequisite for creating a more democratic social order. Illich and Reimer view our present society as one of domination of the masses by the privileged few. If we are to eliminate this unjust domination, we must dis- establish our schools. Illich's advocacy for deschooling lies within his framework of what he envisions as a need for an institutional revolution. To Illich, the United States, and other industrially advanced capitalist societies, have developed a culture in which individuals have become increasingly dependent upon and controlled by large institutions. 1Ivan Illich, Deschooling_Socie£y_(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970), p. 38. 2Everett Reimer, School is Dead (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1971), p. 29. 5 6 People accept institutional values and they have become addicted to the consumption of the commodities produced by those institutions. Insti- tutions, rather than individuals, define human needs and the manner in which they can be satisfied. For example, transportation has come to mean automobiles, health care is defined as that treatment which is available through hospitals, and learning is defined as schooling. What has evolved is a life style of competitive consumption. With the able assistance of the advertising and public relations industries people have become dependent, passive consumers rather than self-reliant, self-determining actors. Institutions tell people what their needs are, the commodities they must consume to meet those needs, and that they must constantly consume greater amounts of those com- modities. Educational institutions provide a classic example. People need to be educated. It is only through schools that a legitimate education is available. And the number of years of schooling required in order to be considered adequately educated has increased tremen- dously in the past few decades. Schools are the principle instrument used to indoctrinate - people into accepting this consumption orientation and the legitimacy of institutional definitions of reality. Schools are not merely a reflection of the larger society, or a dependent variable determined by some larger social force or specific interest group. To Illich, School . . . is the major component of the system of consumer production which is becoming more complex and specialized and bureaucratized. Schooling is necessary to produce the habits and expectations of the managed con- sumer society. Inevitably it produces institutional dependence and ranking in spite of any effort by the teacher to the contrary. It is an illusion that schools are only a dependent variable -- an illusion which, 7 moreover, provides them, the reprodgctive organs of a con- sumer society, with their immunity. In this manner, schools take on the characteristics of institutions which are manipulative or right wing, in Illich's termi- nology. Reimer uses the term "dominating institutions" to describe the same phenomenon. The alternative institutional form, and in the minds of the deschoolers a better form, is what Illich calls left wing or convivial, and Reimer calls democratic. The basic characteristic of left wing or democratic insti— tutions is that they offer a service to all people without exploiting them. In Reimer's words, Democratic institutions offer a service, satisfy a need, without conferring advantage over others or conveying the sense of dependence that institutions such as welfare agencies do. They take the form of networks rather than pro- duction systems -- networks that provide an Opportunity to do something rather than make and sell a finished product. Public communication and transportation systems are examples, as are water works and sewers, electricity and gas distri- bution systems, and general markets that facilitate the flow of various kinds of goods. Public utilities are democratic institutions 1 they are truly public and provide something really useful. Illich says left wing institutions are, distinguished by spontaneous use . . . Telephone link-ups, subway lines, mail routes, public markets and exchanges do not require hard or soft sells to induce their clients to use them. Sewage systems, drinking water, parks, and sidewalks are institutions men use without having to be institutionally convinced that it is to their advantage to do so. 3Daniel U. Levine and Robert J. Havighurst (Editors), Farewell to Schools??? (Worthington: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1971), p. 37. 4Reimer, loc. cit., p. 77. SIllich, loc. cit., p. 79. 8 In describing dominating institutions, Reimer says, They tend to be production systems rather than net- works . . . Access is limited, and access costs are fre- quently high. Once on, it isn't easy to get off; partic- ipation is often either obligatory or addictive . . . There are important diseconomies of scale. At some point, extension of the service to new clients becomes a dis- service to former clients. The needs served are not basic but at least partly induced. Once induced, however, these needs are open-ended and can never be fully satisfied. Surfeit leads to excess rather than satisfaction . . . The managers of dominating institutions must take and maintain the initiative. Clients must be seduced, manipulated, or coerced. True initiative or choice on the part of clients tends to disrgpt the maintenance requirements of dominating institutions. Illich adds, Right-wing institutions tend to be highly complex and costly production processes in which much of the elabora- tion and expense is concerned with convincing consumers that they cannot live without the product or treatment offered by the institution . . . The manipulative institu— tions of the right are either socially or psychologically 'addictive.' Social addiction, or escalation, consists in the tendency to prescribe increased treatment if smaller quantities have not yielded the desired results . . . Right wing institutions, as we can see clearly in the case of schools, both invite compulsively repetitive use and frus- trate alternative ways of achieving similar results. Most manufacturers of consumer goods are examples of right wing institutions. The automobile industry, according to Illich, manipulates public taste and creates a demand for its products. Not only do the various auto makers encourage peOple to buy their partic- ular model, but the industry as a whole has manipulated the public in such a way that transportation is now defined as automobiles. Schools appear to be left wing institutions because theoretically they are Open to everybody. But schools, in Illich's 6Reimer, loc. cit., p. 78. 7Illich, loc. cit., p. 80—81. words, are false public utilities. In fact, schools are more Open to the wealthy, particularly at the college and professional school level, but they are paid for by the entire tax paying public. Also, in the same manner that the automobile industry has manipulated the public into equating automobiles with transportation, schools have perpetuated the notion that schooling is equivalent to education. Schools confer and maintain the advantaged position of the rich and the public accepts the institutionally induced notion that education is schooling. Therefore, schools are right wing, not left wing, institutions. Being a right wing institution, schools foster the com- petitive consumption orientation and institutional dependence characteristic of modern society. Through the ritual of schooling, what Illich and Reimer call the hidden curriculum, people are indoctrinated to treat education as a product to be consumed. By accumulating course credits and schooling certificates and degrees, one becomes educated by a process of consumption. People are also taught to believe that true learning is the result of teaching, and that what one learns in the classroom is vital knowledge, but what one learns outside the classroom is not so important in terms of the process of becoming educated. Everywhere the hidden curriculum of schooling initiates the citizen to the myth that bureaucracies guided by scientific knowledge are efficient and benevolent. Every- where this same curriculum instills in the pupil the myth that increased production will provide a better life. And everywhere it develOps the habit of self-defeating consumption of services and alienating production, the tolerance for institutional dependence, and the recognition of institutional rankings. 8Ibid., p. 106. just 10 Reimer adds, The hidden curriculum of school is dangerous, because it bolsters belief in a sick society -— a society dedicated to competitive consumption, which assumes that man wants principally to consume and that in order to consume end— lessly he must bind himself to the wheel of endless produc- tion. The whole theory of schooling is based on the assumption that production methods applied to learning will result in learning. They do result in learning how to produce and consume -- so long as nothing fundamental changes. As means of learning to adapt to changing circum- stances, production methods are ridiculous. The need to distinguish these two kinds of learning is kept from our attention mainly by our participation in the scholastic ritual. This kind of manipulation which takes place in schools is the start of this syndrome. Once a man or woman has accepted the need for school, he or she is easy prey for other institutions. Once young people have allowed their imaginations to be formed by curricular instruction, they are conditioned to institutional planning of every sort . . . This transfer of responsibility from self to institution guarantees social regression, especially once it has been accepted as an obligation. If we are to break through this competitive production- consumption orientation and the acceptance of institutional values and definitions of reality, we have to disestablish the right wing institution which starts it all, the schools. In their place, accord— ing to the deschooling argument, we need left wing institutions. Rather than funnelling education through schools, we must create learning webs or networks. Such arrangements will be discussed in greater detail later in this section. 9Reimer, loc. cit., p. 46. lolllich, 10c. cit., p. 56-57. 11 The Myth of Equal Educational Opportunity_ Another myth perpetuated by the institutional perspective of education, according to Illich and Reimer, is that schooling institu- tions can deliver equal educational services to all people. They maintain that it is economically unfeasible to provide equal educa- tional opportunities as long as education is carried out through obligatory schooling institutions. Data collected in 1969 by the U.S. Office of Education suggested that it would cost eighty billion dollars to provide adequate schooling for all students at the grammar school and high school level.11 At the present time thirty-six billion dollars are spent on these services.12 In addition, the costs of college and professional schooling are much greater than the costs of grammar school and high school. If we are to talk about equal education through equal school- ing, these costs must also be considered. Therefore, Illich and Reimer conclude that equal schooling is an absurd concept, just from the economic perspective. A brief look at the present allocation of educational dollars indicates the unequal distribution of educational resources in our schooling institutions. Again, using data collected by the U.S. Office of Education, Reimer states, The children of the poorest tenth of the United States population attend school for an average of less than five years. The schools they attend, at this grade level, spend no more than five hundred dollars per pupil per year. These children cost the public, in schooling, llReimer, loc. cit., p. 4. lZIllich, loc. cit., p. 12. 12 less than twenty-five hundred dollars each over a lifetime. The children of the richest tenth of the population finish college and a year of graduate school, which costs about thirty—five thousand dollars. Assuming that one third of this is private expenditure, the richest tenth still get ten times as mfgh of public funds for education as the poorest tenth. Schools, therefore, rather than serving as an equalizing influence in society, actually constitute a form of regressive taxation. The rich tend to stay in school longer than the poor. Since most schools are publicly funded, the rich utilize more public education dollars than the poor do. When one considers the greater expense of a year in a university compared to a year in grammar or high school, this disparity is much greater than just the difference the number of years spent in school would indicate. Despite these financial realities, schools are still looked upon as a major source of upward mobility for the poor. Although equal educational opportunity is a desirable and a feasible goal, to equate this with obligatory schooling is, in Illich's words, "to confuse salvation with the Church. School has become the world religion of a modernized proletariat, and makes futile promises of salvation to the poor of the technological age."14 Schools, in essence, promise what they systematically deny. They use the rhetoric of equal opportunity in order to perpetuate the existing social order. We live according to the myth that schools are available to anyone, and that all people are limited only by their individual dedication and abilities. Through schools anyone can 13Reimer, loc. cit., p. 5. 14Illich, loc. cit., p. 15. 13 achieve the occupation and social role which his individual qualities will enable him to achieve. In fact, however, one's opportunities are largely determined by his family's socio-economic position. Individuals do not enter school on an equal footing, and the Opportunities to obtain the rewards available to those who succeed in school are limited to a privileged few. It is economically unfeasible to provide college and graduate training for all. But even if this could be done economically, higher levels of schooling would be required to Obtain the few privileged positions available in our society. So while schools appear to offer equal opportunity, they serve to assist other institutions in selecting out the few for whom more opportunities will actually be available. Schools, therefore, have long appealed to both the privileged and to the deprived. "For the latter, they held the promise of equal opportunity; for the former, the promise of orderly progression under control of the elite."15 In the final analysis, "Schools . . . promise the world and then become the instruments of its denial."l6 While schools play an important role in perpetuating the existing social order, they constitute just one of the institutions which performs this function. Reimer summarizes the role schools and other institutions play in modern society in the following state- ments 0 15Reimer, loc. cit., p. 55. 161bid., p. 61. 14 Modern institutions have assumed the burden of main- taining and justifying a continuing hierarchy of privilege. Among these institutions, the school plays a central role. It initiates each generation into the myths of technolog- ical production and consumption, the ideas that what is to be consumed must first be produced and that what is pro- duced must be consumed. Not only goods, but services and knowledge itself become commodities. It celebrates the rituals that reconcile the myths and realities of a society that merely pretends to be for all. It prepares men for specialized roles in specialized institutions, selecting and shaping them in terms of both skills and values. By its own hierarchical structure, it accustoms men to accept a single integrated hierarchy of power and privilege. School qualifies men for participation in other institutions and convicts those who do not meet the require- ments of SChOI7 of not deserving desirable roles in other institutions. Learning Webs and Networks What needs to be done is to replace schools with a series of educational webs or networks. Or, in the deschooling terminology, replace the existing right wing, manipulative, dominating institutions with left wing, convivial, democratic ones. These new educational institutions should be planned accord- ing to the needs of learners, not according to the needs of profes- sional educators, administrators, or a specific class of people. Illich says, A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known. 17Ibid., p. 58. 18Illich, loc. cit., p. 108. 15 He then advocates the establishment of four networks or learn- ing webs that should do the job. One such network would be a series of reference services for educational objects. Libraries and museums are two examples. Laboratories, factories, showrooms, airports, farms, etc. could all be made available to those who wanted to learn about a particular activity. Skill exchanges should be set up to permit people to list their skills and the conditions under which they would be willing to teach them. No certification would be required in order to teach a skill to someone who wanted to learn it. Peer matching networks should be organized to enable people to seek out others who want to pursue the same activity. A person could register his name and interest, and then be put in contact with others who have indicated the same interest. The fourth type of network would be reference services for educators-at-large. In a manner similar to the skill exchange, pro— fessional educators, paraprofessionals, and free lancers would list their services and the condition under which they would offer these services. The kinds of educators that will be required will differ from the kinds of educators needed to run our present school systems. Those whose skills are in the areas of hiring, supervising, public relations, curriculum making, textbook purchasing, maintenance of grounds and facilities, the supervision of interscholastic athletic competition, baby-sitting, lesson planning, and record keeping will not be in demand. Three types of skills will be required: architects and administrators of these netwOrks, counselors who can guide learners in the use of these networks, and those who have a certain body of l6 knowledge or expertise that others want to learn. A variety of strategies could be devised to finance these networks. Those suggested by Illich and Reimer call for distributing money for education directly to private citizens rather than to state institutions. What Illich calls edu—credit, an educational credit card, and Reimer refers to as educational accounts, could be provided for each person at birth. The amount of each allocation could be deter- mined by one's family background, in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of educational resources. Individuals would use their allotment as they saw fit. The resulting competition would make those who wanted to be professional educators accountable to their students, not to some professional association or state insitution. One's skill as a teacher, as determined by his clients, rather than the number of credentials he has accumulated, would determine his worth as an educator. What Deschooling Would Accomplish Designing educational institutions as networks rather than as production lines and financing the networks in this manner will, according to Illich and Reimer, accomplish several beneficial objec- tives. First, the meaning of education will be expanded significantly, and the monopoly which schools have over education will be broken. Theoretically, the entire world will open up as the domain in which education takes place, rather than just in the classroom. Individuals will be allowed to teach and learn as they see fit for their own needs, without the interference of certificates, attendance laws, and all the other bureaucratic trappings which characterize school today. 17 Education will also be carried on in a more equitable manner than it is through schools. Most importantly, people would learn more relevant truths about the world in which they live. They would eventually grasp a clear understanding of how most of our present institutions, partic— ularly the schools, are used by the privileged minority to dominate the rest of society and to perpetuate an unjust social order. Reimer envisions a definite revolutionary role for education. True education is a basic social force. Present social structures could not survive an educated population even if only a substantial minority were educated. Something more than schooling is obviously in question here. People are schooled to accept a society. They are educated to create or re-create one. Education has the meaning here that deep students of education and of human nature have always given it. None has defined it better than Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator, who describes it as becoming critically aware of one's reality in a manner that leads to effective action upon it. An educated man understands his world well enough to deal with it effectively. Such men, if they existed in sufficient numbers, woulfgnot leave the absurdities of the present world unchanged. Illich emphasizes the importance of becoming self—reliant actors rather than passive, addicted consumers. Reimer emphasizes the importance of becoming aware of the way institutions are used for purposes of domination. Both see the disestablishment of schools as a vital and inevitable step towards their vision of a better world. But there are dangers involved in what Illich calls the rash and uncritical disestablishment of schools. Other changes must be made along with the disestablishment of schools, if this better world is to be realized. 19Reimer, loc. cit., p. 121. 18 The first step should be a law which parallels the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits the creation of an established church. There should also be no established education or educational ritual obligatory for all peOple. There should also be a law requiring equal sharing of public educational resources. According to Reimer, the only feasible way to establish this is through a system of individual accounts. There must also be a law which prohibits discrimination in hiring based on schooling credentials. Performance tests which are job related would, of course, constitute legitimate criteria upon which one could hire. But a person's employment possibilities should not depend on the schooling credentials he has or has not received, particularly when there is no relationship between what he did to obtain a given certificate and the nature of the work involved on the job he is seeking. Even if one's schooling is job related, he should be shown no favoritism over someone else who may have learned the same skills outside of the classroom. Discrimination on the basis of prior schooling should be illegal. Deschooling could easily lead to even more subtle forms of social control if there is no "simultaneous disavowal of the very idea that knowledge is more valuable because it comes in certified packages and is acquired from some mythological knowledge-stock controlled by n20 professional guardians. If deschooling were to lead to some other form of credential accumulation, then other types of certifying 20Alan Gartner, Colin Greer, Frank Riessman (Editors), After Deschooling, What? (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1973), p0 1.5-160 l9 agencies would take the place of schools. The educational monOpoly presently held by schools would be taken over by other agencies which, by their power of certification, would take over the social selection functions now performed by schools and they would be used by the wealthy to protect their privileged positions. In short, deschooling would have accomplished nothing. Therefore, we need legislation to prevent the monopoly of education by any institution. New criteria for preferential employment and promotion practices might develop which could prove to be more insidious methods of perpetuating the existing social order than grades and schooling credentials. Unless job relevance is the only criterion for employment, and all ritualistic screening devices are ruled out, then deschooling will do nothing in the way of shaking the privileged from their position of dominance. Disestablishing schools, as stated earlier, is more than just a method for reforming education. To Illich and Reimer, deschooling is an essential first step in creating a just social order. In their minds, we have created a world in which the privileged few dominate society by controlling a series of manipulative institutions. By accepting the legitimacy of those institutions, the majority of the population operates according to certain myths which serves to perpetuate the existing hierarchy of privilege. The decision of whether or not we disestablish schools is part of a larger question concerning what kind of world we want to live in. Illich says, Illich and Reimer believe a better world is possible. 20 I believe that a desirable future depends on our deliberately choosing a life of action over a life of con- sumption, on our engendering a life style which will enable us to be Spontaneous, independent, yet related to each other, rather than maintaining a life style which only allows us to make and unmake, produce and consume-~a style of life which is merely a way station on the road to the depletion and pollution of the environment. The future depends more upon our choice of institutions which support a life of action than on our developing new ideologies and technologies. We need a set of criteria which will permit us to recognize those institutions which support personal growth rather than addiction, as well as the will to invest our technologicallresources preferentially in such institu- tions of growth. To Reimer, The choice ultimately is between two completely different styles of life. One is egalitarian, pluralistic, and relatively sparse in the kinds of products and services it provides. People have to do things for themselves, but have time and freedom to do what they want. The other kind of life is based on a unified hierarchy of privilege main- tained by international, interclass, and interpersonal competition. The kinds of competition are limited and highly structured, but t3? prizes are relatively glamorous, at least on the surface. Schools are instrumental in shaping our society as it is. better world, we must first disestablish our schools. Deschooling and Other Educational Philosophies To realize that The deschooling argument, as proposed by Illich and Reimer, shares several assumptions about the nature of learning, the 21Illich, loc. cit., p. 75—76. 22Reimer, loc. cit., p. 79. 21 relationship of the individual to society, and human nature in general, with other educational philosophies that have advocated allowing students to have greater control over their own education. When Illich and Reimer advocate the establishment of learning webs or networks and educational accounts which individuals can use as they deem apprOpriate for their own education, without any interference from the state or an institution of the state, they imply a faith that individuals are capable of making wise decisions concern- ing their education. A central tenet of the free school philosophy is a firm belief in the inherent wisdom and natural curiosity of man which will lead individuals to seek out those educational experiences which are important to their own personal growth. By allowing the natural inclinations and interests of people to dictate their education, without any interference from the adult world, they will develop their fullest capabilities. Jean Jacques Rousseau, generally considered to be the first advocate of the free school philosophy, emphasized that man, in his natural state, is inherently good. It is only through interaction with other men and institutions that he becomes corrupt. "Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Creator; everything degenerates "23 Therefore, he concluded, one ShOUld be in the hands of man. educated with as little interference from other people as possible. The closer we are to the state of nature, the less corrupted we will 23Jean Jacques Rousseau, His Educational Theories Selected From Emile, Julie, and Other Writings (Woodbury, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1964), p. 55. 22 be by our fellow man, and the better educated we will be. Rousseau said, "There is no original corruption in the human heart: there is not a single vice to be found there of which one could not say how and by what means it entered."24 From this philosophical belief he concluded that the best education is negative. "It consists, not in teaching virtue or truth, but in guarding the heart from vice and the mind from error."25 A. S. Neill stated, "My view is that a child is innately wise and realistic. If left to himself without adult suggestion of any kind, he will develOp as far as he is capable of developing."26 He claims a child needs love and approval rather than discipline. To Neill, punishment and the demand for obedience and discipline are often expressions of hate. If we want children to develop to their fullest potential, they must be shown love and approval for their actions, rather than the various expressions of hatred we often use in attempting to educate. George Dennison reinforces this belief in the inherent goodness of man when he urges that we, show some little faith in the life principles which have in fact structured all the well-structured elements of our existence, such principles as our inherent sociability, our inherent rationality, our inherent freedom of thought, our inherent curiosity27and our inherent (while vigor lasts) appetite for more. zalbido, p. 97—980 25Ibid., p. 99. 2 6A. S. Neill, Summerhill A Radical Approach to Child Rearing (New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960), p. 4. 7George Dennison, The Lives of Children (New York: Vintage BOOKS, 1969), p. 246—247. 23 Free school advocates share Illich's and Reimer's contempt for most of society's institutions. If man is to develOp his fullest capabilities, his natural inclinations and interests must lead the way, with as little interference as possible from other people and from institutions. The primary reason for this, as Rousseau and others have argued, is because of the corrupting influence of institutions. In Dennison's words, The issue is precisely that of the effect of the institution upon the individual. The institution, the educational system in all its branches, is corrupting to the individual, and though the corruption may in many cases take the form of considerable eggertise, the fact remains that competence is destroyed. The autonomy of the learner must be protected and the rights of individuals must reign supreme over the needs of the state. Rousseau spoke in terms of a social contract. "Every man, on coming of age and becoming his own master, has a right, which nothing can abrogate, to renounce the contract that binds him to the community, by quitting the country in which it is established.29 Illich clearly indicates where he stands on the question of individual rights and the needs of the state when he says, The learner must be guaranteed his freedom without guaranteeing to society what learning he will acquire and hold as his own. Each man must be guaranteed privacy in learning, with the hope that he will assumg the obligation of helping others to grow into uniqueness. 0 28Ibid., p. 276. 9Rousseau, loc. cit., p. 260. 0Gartner, Greer, Riessman, loc. cit., p. 21. 24 The deschooling and free school advocates also share a strong bias against the bureaucratic trappings of most schooling institutions. Tests, grades, age, Specific classrooms, course requirements, mandatory attendance laws, credentials, diplomas, etc., are all seen as extra— neous to the learning process. It is one thing to perform the various rituals of schooling and earn schooling diplomas; it is quite another thing to participate in learning experiences and to become an educated person. The deschooling and free school advocates also emphasize the education of the entire person, not just the education of the mind. Healthy people, not well adjusted citizens, should be the objective of education. Neill claims that "the aim of life is to find happiness, which means to find interest. Education should be preparation for life."31 He claims that schools place too great an emphasis on knowing and not enough emphasis on feeling. Yet it is just as important to develop emotionally in order to become a happy, healthy person who is interested in life. Neill says, "Books are the least important apparatus in school. All that any child needs is the three R's, the rest should be tools and clay and sports and theatre and paint and freedom."32 Rousseau also endorsed the concept that education means more than just developing the mind, and he had this rather cynical 31Neill, loc. cit., p. 24. 321bid., p. 25. 25 comment to make about books. "Too much reading only makes presumptuous ignoramuses. In no age of literature has there been so much reading as in the present, and in no age has there been less learning."33 Illich and Reimer say little about one's emotional develop- ment, but they certainly express a need for an educational system that would involve much more than the academic training of the class- room. Rather than creating well adjusted citizens, they see deschool- ing as vital in order to educate people so that they will not become adjusted to the existing political and social realities, but so they will actively seek to change them. One might say they view a good education as one which will create citizens who are not well adjusted to our present society. The ideal kind of learning, according to the free school philosophy, is that which results from active involvement in, and exploration of the ongoing events and daily routines of our world, or, more simply, learning by doing. Rousseau said, "Let him know nothing because you have told him, but because he has discovered it himself; he must not learn science, but find it out."34 He went on to say, "lessons to the young should consist of actions rather than of words; let them learn nothing from books which they can learn from experi- ence."35 The networks envisioned by Illich and Reimer would provide precisely this kind of learning. For example, learners could find 33Rousseau, loc. cit., p. 257. 34Ibid., p. 149. 351bid., p. 199-200. 26 apprenticeships in various activities from the skill models who would be registered with the skill exchange. And the reference service to educational objects could be used to learn about the Operations of a factory, airport, or any other routine operation in our society. The progressive education movement also embodies several of the principles of the free school and deschooling theories. The progressive education advocates were also concerned with the education of the entire person, not just the intellectual development. And learning by doing, or in the progressive terminology, "in the ' was also essential to a proper education. continuum of experience,‘ Progressive educators also believed in allowing the natural inclinations of the learner to guide his education. Whereas the free school and deschooling prOposals talk in terms of non-interference from adults or institutions, the progressive educators expressed a similar concept when they spoke in terms of teachers serving as guides or resource persons for the students to use according to the students' particular needs, rather than as the authoritarian figures teachers were in most schools. An essential characteristic of education, as stated by progressive educators, was the concept of personal growth. Rather than the inculcation of a specific set of facts or body of knowledge education should be the personal growth of the individual. To John Dewey, "The criterion of the value of school education is the extent in which it creates a desire for continued growth and supplies the means for making the desire effective in fact."36 An experience 36John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), p. 62. 27 was educational if it opened a person up to further learning. If an experience killed the desire for future learning, then it was mis— educative. Dewey claimed public schools were miseducative because they stifled the desire for future learning. There are many theoretical and ideological similarities among the free school, deschooling, and progressive education philosophies. This should not, however, be interpreted to mean that these are just different terms for the same philosophy. Some distinct differences do exist. For example, the progressive educators believed in universal schooling as the principle means for democratizing society and for curing most social ills. The deschoolers advocate just the opposite approach, disestablishing the schools, in order to achieve the same ends. When compared with the principles which guide most of our public schools, the similarities of these three philosophies far out— weigh the differences. Most of the shared beliefs, values, and assump— tions underlying these philosophies radically conflict with the con— cepts upon which most public schools have long been governed. Faith in the inherent goodness and wisdom of people, the de-emphasis of academic and intellectual development, and the belief that one's education should be designed according to the interests and concerns of the individual, as determined by the individual, rather than according to certain institutional requirements, are all notions which most of our schools have not accepted. The various spokesmen for the educational philosophies dis- cussed here have criticized schools, education, and society in general from several different perspectives, and they have proposed a variety 28 of solutions for the problems they have discussed. In a similar kaleidosc0pic manner, the critics of these philosophies have addressed themselves to a large number of issues. In the following paragraphs I will focus on the two predominant points of criticism. Criticism of Deschooling and Related Educational Philosophies One criticism of such educational arrangements as free schools and the learning webs proposed by the deschoolers is that they are, or would turn out to be elitist. When the burden of education is placed on the individual rather than on some kind of centralized institution, it is feared that those who are wealthy and well educated will accumulate far greater educational resources than those who are poor and uneducated. The result will be a higher degree of polarization between the haves and have nots than presently exists in our society. In discussing the elitist nature of deschooling, Robert J. Havinghurst says, It is impossible for this writer to understand how the children and adults and communities who need education most could get a fair deal in this kind of nonsystem. On the contrary, those who are best able to take care of their own education would make the best use of the four networks, while those disadvantaged by illiteracy and poverty would be neglected. Eventually, people with a social conscience would work through political and economic measures to set up educational institutions to serve the disadvantaged peOple better, and a school system would emerge again, as it did 39 the nineteenth century in the present developed countries. Judson Jerome believes that not only will the well educated be able to more effectively educate their children, but that power and privilege will accumulate into the hands of a few, even more than it 37Levine and Havighurst, loc. cit., p. 89-90. 29 has today. Laissez-faire education runs the same risks as laissez—faire economics. Power and privilege accumulate like an avalanche. There must be safeguards, regulations, guarantees of opportunities, and these themselves perpet- uate the system. Compulsory education was invented to help equalize opportunity, to even the score, to prevent exploitation. To some extent it has done so, but at the same time it has created deadening standardization, artificiality, and, as Illich often points out, a new system of hierarchy and privilege as Oppressive as the one it was meant to displace. If we simply closed down the schools, Oppression would increase, as the prosperous and ambitious would accumulate more and more power and those less fortunate or those 38 numbed by their social background would be trodden under." Max Rafferty describes Summerhill as an excellent example of an elitist institution. To him, the success of Summerhill can be attributed to the high socio—economic background of its students and the fact that there is a student/teacher ratio of ten to one. In Rafferty's artistic words, any educational philosophy can be implemented with fair results if the school is able to supply one teacher for every ten pupils. With that kind of tutorial staffing and with above average intellects to educate, Neill should be able to teach his kids to do everything except levitate. In his book, he (Neill) brags that Summerhill graduates succeed in later life. But how could they fail? With their background, their wealth, and their brains, they would prob- ably have done well if they had beeggeducated in the Himalayas, with yaks as instructors. A second point of criticism often voiced is that these educational arrangements are too anarchistic. There is a general feeling that there must be some kind of centralized or institutional- ized planning of education so that future generations will be provided 38 Gartner, Greer, and Riessman, loc. cit., p. 105. 39 Summerhill: For and Against (New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1970), p. 19. 30 with appropriate educational experiences. Whether the objective of education is to eliminate social problems, to train people so they will have marketable skills, or to socialize people so that they will fit into society, it must be done through some kind of controlled planning. These critics claim deschoolers and free schoolers are too idealistic when they talk about inherent wisdom or a natural curiosity and desire to learn. Some educators maintain that one of the most important functions of education is the socialization of young people. This function will not be prOperly performed in free schools or in educational arrangements like the networks proposed by Illich and Reimer. Louise Bates Ames says she would not send her child to Summerhill because, among other reasons, "young people must know "40 She believes students will not what the adult standards are. learn such standards in a free school. Eda J. LeShan says, "The civilizing process won't happen without adult guidance, without the imposition of reasonable limits, and without realistic demands and "41 And Maxine Greene poses the qUGStion: "15 there a expectations. teacher anywhere outside the radically 'free' schools, who does not realize that the job of educating in part involves initiating -- into the prevailing way of life, some discipline or another, sensitivity to the arts?"42 Arthur Pearl states that although he agrees with Illich z. oIbid., p. 81. 4 1Ibid., p. 128. 2Gartner, Greer, Reissman, loc. cit., p. 131-132. 31 about the goals of a desirable society, he believes no steps can be taken to realize that society without institutions. "Try to deinstitu- tionalize education as a symbol and the beginning of deinstitutional- ization of everything and you reinstitute the law of the jungle —- which quickly breaks down into a new set of oppressive institutions.”43 Several people have attacked the de-emphasis of academic and intellectual training espoused by these educational philosophies. Fred M. Hechinger says, The history of reforms is strewn with wreckage caused by kindly emotions defeated by lack of intellectual rigor . . . To uplift the poor and deprived requires more than heart and sympathy; it calls4£or effective strategies of social and economic reforms. Arthur Bestor, in his criticism of progressive education, stated that the ultimate purpose of education is intellectual training. Only through systematic intelligence can man hOpe to solve the problems which beset him. Through training in the basic academic disciplines man would cultivate the ability to think and to effectively deal with his problems.45 The advocates of greater freedom for the individual learners are often criticized for expressing an unsubstantiated, romantic vision of human nature and the learning process. Philip W. Jackson summarizes what the deschooling advocates think students will do when schools are closed, and what he thinks of such a vision. Jackson says, 431bid., p. 116. 44Summerhill: For and Against, p. 42. 45 Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York: Vintage Books, 1964), p. 344-345. 32 it is assumed that school—age children, free from the artificial demands of the classroom, will be enthusiasti— cally engaged in learning through contact with real-life situations. Guided by nothing more than natural curiosity and an instinctual love for learning, our children will presumably wander over the streets and fields of our land, gathering rosebuds of wisdom along the way. Adults, gladdened by the sight of these wandering scholars, will hail them as they pass and will invite them into the shops and factories and offices and hospitals, where they will become apprentices and learn at the feet of their elders those skills and trades that will equip them to take a pro- ductive place within our society. Of course, no self-respecting critic would accept this caricature of the postschool era, but the romantic idealism contained in such an image is strongly evident in the imagination of many who criticize our current educational scene. However, when they begin to muse how this Whitmanesque ideal might be achieved, something very much like the structure of our presegg schools, or at least the best of them, begins to emerge. Mortimer Smith's criticism along these same lines is even harsher. "The notion that the way to improve our lot is to abolish our institutions is, in my view, UtOpian, sentimental, and the ultimate copout."47 One problem shared by both the advocates and critics of deschooling is the lack of empirical data. Because we live in a schooled society, data on what our society would look like if schools were non-existent, is not available. However, a few educational services resembling the webs or networks proposed by Illich and Reimer have been created. The following sections of this paper represent an initial effort to examine such an educational service, and the deschooling prOposal, empirically. 6Levine and Havighurst, loc. cit., p. 63. 47Ibid., p. 75. 33 In the following pages I will describe the Learning Exchange and a survey that was conducted in order to evaluate its effectiveness. I will focus the analysis around two basic questions. First, did the Learning Exchange provide a useful service for the Chicago community? Secondly, if any services were provided, were certain segments of the population better served than others? The answer to these questions will, in turn, accomplish two objectives. First, they should shed some light on the theoretical questions concerning deschooling and the effects of allowing individuals total control over their learning in an educational organization. Secondly, they will indicate what the Learning Exchange in Chicago, and others like it which have been started, might do in order to improve their services to their respective communities. THE LEARNING EXCHANGE What it is The Learning Exchange is a free educational matching service in the Chicago metropolitan area. Anyone who wants to teach, learn, or discuss any subject, skill, or topic of interest, can find others with the appropriate matching interest through the Learning Exchange. For example, if a person wants to learn to speak Spanish, he can call the Learning Exchange and indicate his interest. The Learning Exchange will then give that caller the names and phone numbers of previous callers who have offered to teach Spanish. It is then the reaponsibility of that person to call those Spanish teachers and work out arrangements with one, or any number of them, which are mutually agreeable. If there are no teachers registered in the tOpic a caller wants to learn, his name and interest are registered, and when someone calls who would like to teach that particular subject, that later caller is given the name of the learner. Then, it is the responsibility of the teacher to contact the learner. If a caller cannot find an apprOpriate match when he first calls the Learning Exchange, he can also call back in a few weeks, or whenever it is convenient for him, in order to find out if any new callers have registered his appropriate matching interest. 34 35 Organizations, as well as individuals, can and do use the services of the Learning Exchange. For example, if a school needs a teacher for a particular subject, it may be able to locate one through the Learning Exchange. Also, if an organization is offering courses or is sponsoring some kind of ongoing function, it can register those events and this information will be passed on to those who are interested in the subject areas with which those courses or functions are concerned. The Learning Exchange has no control over the kinds of arrangements peOple make. Its services are restricted to putting people in contact with each other. It provides no classroom space, no teachers, no grades or certificates, and charges no tuition or fee of any sort. Its matching services are free to anyone who has access to a telephone, the postal service, or is able to visit the Learning Exchange office. Individual teachers, however, may charge a fee for their services. The Learning Exchange has no control over whether or not teachers charge a fee or the amount a fee might be. When people contact the Learning Exchange they can register in the teacher, learner, or interest match classifications. They may register in as many different classifications in any number of subject areas as they desire. For example, a person could register as a teacher, learner, and interest match in one subject area, or in any number of areas. The term "exchange" often confuses people. In order to learn from someone through the Learning Exchange, a person does not have to offer to teach something in return. Although there are many individuals who are registered as both a teacher and a learner, and there are cases where two people have been matched with each person 36 teaching a subject to the other, a person can register as just a learner. A teacher is defined as anyone who is willing to share his knowledge with Others who may want to learn what he has to offer. The only requirement involved in being allowed to register as a teacher, is that the person wants to teach. No credentials, certificates, or previous experiences of any kind are required. The Learning Exchange plays no role in evaluating teachers. If the person so desires, the Learning Exchange will describe his experience and credentials to future callers who may request such background information. But this information is not required. It is the learners who determine if the services of the teachers are acceptable or not. And learners have the right, as do teachers, to terminate their relationship at any time. They are also able, and encouraged, to call the Learning Exchange back for other names if their first experience does not work out. A person who registers as a learner is, simply, somebody who wants to learn about something. No matter what the interest may be, a person can register as a learner and he will be provided with the names and phone numbers of teachers in that area, if there are any teachers registered in that particular area. The interest match classification is for those who want to meet others who have a similar interest and would like to pursue it in some way, perhaps in a series of discussions or by participating in some kind of activity of mutual interest. For example, people have met to discuss books they particularly enjoyed. Some want to maintain their fluency in a foreign language so they meet and hold discussions in that particular language. Others have found tennis, handball, and 37 bridge partners. A science fiction club was started by individuals who registered in the interest match classification. The Learning Exchange consists of five full-time, minimally paid staff members, around 100 volunteers, four file boxes (one for teachers, one for learners, one for interest matches, and one for the mailing list), four telephones, an office donated by a church, and over 7,000 peOple in the Chicago area who are registered to use the service. At the time the interviewing for this study began, peOple were registered in over 450 topic areas. Today people are registered in over 1,300 areas which include academic subjects, mechanical skills, fine arts, religious philosophies, and a number of other areas. Some of the specific subjects are: anthropology, auto mechanics, boxing, Chinese culture, computer programming, Esperanto, Kenwood-Oaklawn community problems, macrame, radio broadcasting, sociology, lion taming, and Karma. Every three months an updated catalogue is sent to those who are on the mailing list. This list includes all the people who have registered in a subject area and others who have not registered a specific interest but want to keep informed about the Learning Exchange. The Learning Exchange does have one regulatory function. If it is discovered that someone is abusing the service (e.g. using the Learning Exchange to meet women and then manipulating them into uncomfortable situations) that person's name will be removed from the file. It is expected that some people will develop friendships through the contacts they are provided, and that these people who met originally because of a specific interest will develop fuller relation- ships. But if the Learning Exchange is informed of any individual who 38 had no intention of participating in the activity he registered, and his interests prove to be threatening or uncomfortable in any way to those with whom he was put in contact, the Learning Exchange will no longer serve that person and his name will be removed from the file. So far, the Learning Exchange has not had to exercise this regulatory practice. The Learning Exchange reflects the educational needs and interests of those who use it. The participants themselves determine what kinds of subjects are taught and what kinds of activities are participated in through the Learning Exchange. The variety of topics Cavailable, and the extent of its services are limited only by the extent of the interests and the willingness to participate of the people in the Chicago area. How it Started During the early winter months of 1971 Denis Detzel, a graduate student at Northwestern University, participated in a series of education seminars at the Center for Intercultural Documentation (CIDOC) in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Some of the other participants were Edgar Friedenberg, Paul Goodman, and Ivan Illich. One of the purposes of these seminars was to devise educational models which would be effective, inexpensive, and accessible to rich and poor alike. One of the results of these discussions was the development of the Learning Exchange model. Detzel brought the idea of the Learning Exchange back to Iflorthwestern, and after a few meetings with three other students, a IJorthwestern professor, and a few other members of the Evanston 39 community, the Learning Exchange was founded on May 26, 1971. In the first week of operation, over 1,000 leaflets describ— ing the Learning Exchange were distributed throughout Evanston, and three people responded. However, in the next few months posters were distributed, radio stations broadcasted public service announcements about the Learning Exchange, members of the volunteer staff were interviewed on several radio and television shows, and articles were written about the Learning Exchange in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Daily News, Chicago Today, and several neighborhood and suburban newspapers. By June, 1972, approximately 1,000 people were registered . For the first twelve months the Learning Exchange was run by volunteers. In addition, many local businesses and community groups contributed valuable services and equipment which enabled the Learning Exchange to exist with virtually no money of its own. (Willard Hall, a girls' dormitory at Northwestern, contributed $25 to the Learning Exchange). The United Community Services of Evanston donated office space, a telephone, and helped cover the mailing costs for the catalogues during most of the first year. The Learning Exchange was also given paper, and printing and duplicating services from various sources. In June, 1972, the Learning Exchange received its first foundation grant. Since then, money raised through foundation grants and private donations, and further contributions in the form of znaterials and services from various sectors of the community have been sufficient to keep the service going. Based on the donations received :from those who have used the service, and the projected number of 40 people who will be using the Learning Exchange in the future, the Learning Exchange should be self-supporting within three years. The service is, and always will be, free. However, donations will be requested, and based on previous money generated from its users, indications are that the Learning Exchange will be able to operate without having to charge a fee or having to raise money from external sources 0 Why it was Started Several people were involved in starting the Learning Exchange. There are probably as many reasons why it was started as people involved in starting it. Some felt that this model might eventually replace public schools. Others saw this as an opportunity to expand upon existing adult educational opportunities. Some indicated that they were looking for volunteer work in an organization they believed was contributing something to the community. The over-riding purpose for creating the Learning Exchange was to Open up educational Opportunities for those who want to pursue a particular interest, or set of interests, but are unable to do so satisfactorily in the existing educational institutions. It was assumed that in any large community there are many people with skills and knowledge they would be willing to share with those who want to learn. But there is no mechanism for bringing the potential teachers and learners into contact with each other. Hopefully, the Learning Exchange would be the vehicle that would bring these people together. In this manner, the Learning Exchange would recycle existing human resources and open up educational opportunities for the community. 41 The Learning Exchange has grown substantially in its two and one-half years of service. And the Learning Exchange concept has attracted much interest throughout the United States and other nations. There are at least twenty other educational services similar to the Learning Exchange operating in the United States. (See Appendix D.) Similar services have also been started in Canada, England, and Australia. Based on inquiries received by the Learning Exchange, there are people in many more communities who are interested in starting such a service. Bob Lewis, director of the Learning Exchange, claims it is feasible that 1,000 Learning Exchanges could be operating by 1980. Mechanics of the Stugy During the months of June and July, 1972, a telephone survey of the Learning Exchange population was conducted in order to assess the impact of the service on the Chicago community. A questionnaire was constructed and pre-tested with 133 Evanston residents who had registered with the Learning Exchange before May, 1972. Based on the results of the pre-test, the questionnaire was modified slightly for the survey itself. (See Appendix A for a copy of the instrument used in the study.) As of June 1, 1972, when the interviewing of the total sample commenced, approximately 1,000 people were registered. A total of 504 people were reached during the two months in which the inter- viewing was conducted. This survey did not include the 133 Evanston residents interviewed for the pre-test, but it did include the Evanston residents who registered after the pre-test was conducted. 42 Most of those who were not interviewed had either moved without leaving a forwarding phone number, were on vacation and would not be back until August or September, were deceased, or did not register a phone number with the Learning Exchange and were not listed with directory assis— tance. I can only speculate about what differences, if any, there would have been in the data collected if all the participants had been interviewed. It is possible, for example, that many of those who were on vacation and would not be returning for several weeks may have been students or teachers who were not in school during the summer months. Had these people been interviewed, the occupation data may have been slightly altered. Perhaps this would have also caused a change in the education and income data. If those who were not interviewed because they were on vacation were primarily students or teachers, they may have had more years of schooling than the average number of years of the remainder of the sample. It is possible that a lower percentage of those who were not interviewed were successfully matched compared to those who were interviewed. If they failed to register a telephone number, then someone who called the Learning Exchange after these people did could not have contacted them, even if they had potentially matching interests. Those who moved, without notifying the Learning Exchange, may not have had the degree of interest in the service displayed by others, which might have resulted from their lack of success in locating matches. If the Learning Exchange had difficulty reaching some of those who were registered, it is quite possible that any participants attempting to contact these people also had difficulty. 43 In evaluating the Learning Exchange, I will rely on the data that was collected, but it is worth keeping in mind the possible distortions in the data due to the non-response rate. In the following section I will examine what happened through the Learning Exchange in terms of how many people were supplied with contacts, how many met with those contacts, and how successful those meetings were. The effectiveness of the service will be evaluated in terms of the objectives it was created to accomplish. WHAT THE LEARNING EXCHANGE HAS DONE When peOple are introduced to the Learning Exchange concept, one of the basic questions which consistently arises is, will it work? Mere specifically, will anybody call such a service? If so, what kinds of people will call and what kinds of interests will they have? Even if interests can be matched, are people willing to meet with total strangers that they contact in this manner? And how successful are such meetings likely to be? In order for the Learning Exchange to serve an individual he usually must go through five steps. First, he must become aware of the existence of the service. Secondly, he must contact the Learning Exchange and register an interest. The third step is to be provided with the name of a previous caller with an appropriate matching interest. If there is nobody registered at the time of the call, then that person must wait for someone to contact him. Fourthly, once the person receives a name, or if a later caller is provided with his name, the people must contact each other and arrange to meet. Finally, they must work out arrangements for follow-up meetings. Usually, a person must proceed through each step in order to benefit from the Learning Exchange. In this survey people were asked about what happened at each step so that in those cases where peOple were not successfully matched, it could be determined where they "dropped out" and why. 44 45 It is difficult to estimate how many people were aware of the Learning Exchange. No reach or frequency data were compiled for the various sources of publicity and no public Opinion polls were conducted to determine its exposure. But after twelve months of Operation, approximately 1,000 people did call and register with the Learning Exchange. This study focuses primarily on the 504 peOple who were interviewed in June and July, 1972.- The reasons peOple called were quite varied. Table l on the following page is a breakdown of the 504 people who were inter- viewed according to their reasons for calling. As one might expect when a free education service is intro— duced, most of the callers either wanted to take advantage by learning something, or they wanted to find out more about the service itself. This presents the problem of finding enough teachers for all the learners. Again, as one would expect, more people who want to learn something are likely to contact a free educational service than people with the knowledge, skill, or desire to teach. Table 2 shows how many people registered as teachers, learners, and interest matches. It also shows what percentage of the callers registered in each classification. Because 65 of those interviewed did not register any interests with the Learning Exchange, the percentages shown in Table 2 are based just on those 439 respondents who did register as either a teacher, learner, interest-match, or some combination of the three, in some interest area. 46 TABLE 1 WHY PEOPLE CONTACTED THE LEARNING EXCHANGE No. of % of the 504 Reasons People interviewed To learn - seeking knowledge in some skill or subject area for themselves, a friend, or a member of the family 205 40.7% Curious - wanted to learn about the Learning Exchange itself or what might be available through the Learning Exchange 152 30.2% To meet peOple with similar interests 62 12.3% Desire to teach 34 6.7% Organization making its services available through the Learning Exchange or seeking services of the Learning Exchange 20 4.0% To make money - either by teaching for a fee, or by learning or improving upon a marketable skill 9 1.8% Other 16 3.2% No data 2 0.4% Do not recall 4 0.8% Total 504 100.0% 47 TABLE 2 TEACHERS - LEARNERS - INTEREST MATCHES* % of those who registered Classification Number , one or more interests Teachers 135 30.8% Learners 306 69.7% Interest-Matches 93 21.2% *Since some people did register in more than one classification, the total number of teachers, learners, and interest-matches is larger than 439. Each percentage, however, is based on a total of 439. When the service began, it was feared that many more learners than teachers would register. The above table indicates that a substantial proportion, 30.8% of those who registered one or more interests, did register as teachers. Naturally, there are still some areas where there are learners registered but no teachers, and there are also some areas with teachers registered but no learners. As the Learning Exchange grows, however, the prOportion of people who cannot be matched should decrease. At the time of this survey people were registered in over 450 different subjects. Originally, it was thought that the nature of the subjects for which people would seek out the Learning Exchange would reflect the interests of what is commonly thought of as the counter-culture. As it turned out, peOple have registered a wide variety of interests which cannot be attributed to any one clearly 48 defined segment of the population. The subject areas were categorized, and Table 3 on the following page shows how many people registered in subjects within each category. The most pOpular subject areas appear to be the arts, foreign languages, recreational activities, mechanical skills, and what has been defined as the awareness category. Whether the Learning Exchange concept is particularly well suited to meet these specific interests, or if this is just a reflection of what is not satisfacto- rily available in more traditional educational institutions is a provocative question which cannot be completely answered here. How- ever, those who registered as foreign language learners frequently mentioned the expense of most foreign language classes as one reason why they turned to the Learning Exchange. Others registered in foreign languages said they were just looking for someone to converse with, in that language, in order to maintain their fluency. This kind of service apparently was not available elsewhere. Several of those who registered in recreational areas said they were looking for people with whom they could play bridge, ping- pong, handball, tennis, or some other sport, and the Learning Exchange seemed like a logical place to look. Similar comments were made by some of those who participated in writers' workshops, jam sessions, dance classes, and in several other meetings which grew out of the Learning Exchange. 49 TABLE 3 SUBJECT AREAS REGISTERED WITH THE LEARNING EXCHANGE % of those who Subject Category NO' Of registered one people or more interests Art - painting, pottery, dance, drama, music, macrame, etc. 117 26.6% Foreign languages 97 22.1% Recreation - Sports, travel, pet care, etc. 80 18.2% Mechanical skills - auto repairs, carpentry, photography, printing, etc. 68 15.5% Awareness - occult, ESP, mysticism, witchcraft, astrology, yoga, etc. 63 ' 14.4% Language arts - English, writing, reading, etc. 51 11.6% Social sciences, social movements, politics 50 11.4% Professional skills - medicine, law, architecture, accounting, education, etc. 41 9.3% Physical sciences 34 7.7% Domestic Skills - cooking, sewing, knitting, gardening, etc. 31 7.1% Religion and philosophy 19 4.3% Clerical skills — typing, shorthand, etc. 9 2.0% Other 10 2.3% Again, the base figure is 439 and each percentage is a percentage of the 439 respondents who registered one or more interests. 50 The mechanical skills and awareness subjects are not topics which can readily be pursued in most schools. The interest shown in these topics by many Learning Exchange respondents indicates, at least, that they were unable to pursue such interests through more conven- tional educational resources. The Learning Exchange does offer a unique service. The nature of the subjects registered with the Learning Exchange indicates that it serves a wide variety of interests. After calling the Learning Exchange and registering an interest, the next step is to be provided with a match. This can be accomplished in two different ways. Either the person can be provided with a name when he first calls, or he may be contacted at a later date by someone who calls with a matching interest. Of the 439 who registered one or more interests, 303 (69.0%) were supplied with at least one name when they called. And 236 (53.8%) were supplied with two or more names. One hundred sixty (36.4%) Of those who registered one or more interests were contacted at a later date by someone who received their names through the Learning Exchange. Altogether, 355 (85.4%) of those who registered one or more interests were provided with at least one contact. These 355 people either received a name when they called or were contacted by someone at a later date, or both. The next step is to arrange the first meeting. Again using 439 as a base, 102 (23.2%) held a first meeting. Of the 355 peOple who were provided a contact 28.7% proceeded to have a first meeting. 51 The final step in this progression is to establish some kind of regular, ongoing arrangement. Seventy-six people were involved in regular meetings. This means that 17.3% of those who registered an interest, and 71.0% of those who held a first meeting, proceeded to meet regularly. Those individuals who met more than once were defined as being involved in regular meetings. The following table shows the number and percentage of people who reached each of these last three steps. TABLE 4 LEARNING EXCHANGE CONTACTS AND MEETINGS % of 439 people % of 355 people % of 102 who registered who were pro- people who 1 or more vided with a had a first interests contact meeting Total No. of people who regis- tered l or more interests . . . . 439 --------------- No. of people who were provided a contact 0 o o o o 355 85.4% ---------- No. of people who had a let meeting 102 23.2% 28.7% ----- No. of peOple who met regularly . . 76 17.3% 21.4% 71.0% The seventy—six peOple who were involved in regular meetings were asked, "Do you feel that these meetings are (were) successful?" The only criterion for success was whether or not the respondents defined their experiences as successful. Sixty-eight said their 52 meetings were successful. Two said some were and some were not. Therefore, 70 (92.1%) of those involved in regular meetings had at least some successful meetings and were, therefore, successfully matched by the Learning Exchange. There were also five people who never met with their contacts because they claimed their needs were met during the first phone conversation. These five are considered to have been successfully matched. In addition, eight people had a first meeting, but no follow-up meetings because they said their needs were met in the one meeting. These eight are also considered to have been successfully matched. This makes a total of eighty-three peOple who were successfully matched through the Learning Exchange. The meetings which resulted from contacts provided by the Learning Exchange varied in size and form, as well as in content. The following six paragraphs briefly describe some of the groups that were started. One Chicago girl tutored another girl in statistics. They met once or twice a week during the term. A priest and a factory worker met once a week to play handball. At the time of the interview, they had just met, and had played only twice, but they planned to continue their games in the future. Four people, registered as science-fiction interest matches, got together and started a science-fiction club. After two months they had recruited twenty-one more members. Anyone could join the club if they paid the club dues which was a contribution of ten science fiction books to the club library. A group of guitar interest-matches met weekly to play and learn from each other. A free school in Chicago located a photography and an arts-and-crafts teacher for one term. Both offered their services free of charge. 53 An insurance investigator, with a Ph.D. in philosophy Classes take place began teaching a course in philosophy. in his home during the evening. The groups took seven basic forms. The following table shows how many peOple were involved in meetings of each form. TABLE 5 FORMS OF MEETINGS % of peOple who No. of . Form participated in people meetings One-to-one, student-teacher instruction 32 42.1% Teacher led group discussion or activity 12 15.6% One-to-one discussion (not instructional) 6 7.8% Group discussion (more than two peOple) 14 18.4% One-to-one artistic or skill development (i.e. two people meeting to play tennis) 5 6.5% Group therapy (i.e. session in transactional analysis) 3 3.9% Group interaction in artistic or skill development 3 3.9% Other 1 1.3% Total 76 100.0% The services of the Learning Exchange are free, but the Learning Exchange has no control over whether teachers charge a fee. However, only eighteen (23.7%) of those involved in regular meeting groups reported that any fee was charged. Of those who charged a fee, most charged around $3 or $4 per hour. The highest reported fee was 54 $5 per hour. Unfortunately, not everybody who called the Learning Exchange was successfully matched. As indicated in Table 5, many of those who were provided contacts never met with those contacts. And some who met once never followed it up. Table 6 on the following page gives a breakdown of the reasons given for those who never met with their matches. Those who met just once offered similar reasons for not participating in any follow-up meetings. (See Table 7.) Logic alone, would indicate that as more people register with the Learning Exchange and as the concentration of Learning Exchange clients within a community increases, the number of successful matches will increase. The reasons given for not having a first meeting or for not following up on the first meeting further support this hypothesis. Clearly, in the case of those who never met because of a distance or transportation factor, the major problem was that an appropriate match could not be found close enough to home. In a city as large as Chicago, this is not an unlikely situation. There are still some neighborhoods where only two or three people have registered with the Learning Exchange. Obviously, it is not likely these few peOple will have matching interests. And if a person is provided with contacts who live thirty miles away, this is going to discourage him from participating. 55 TABLE 6 REASONS FOR NO FIRST MEETING % of those who were Reason No. if provided with a peop e contact, but never met Communication or scheduling problem - person was never home, phone was busy, no return call, time or place could not be agreed upon 72 28.1% Too busy - no longer had time for activity, lost interest 62 24.2% Distance or transportation pro- blem - person lived too far away 43 16.8% Improper match - people were interested in different aspects or levels of a subject 36 14.1% Fee - did not know teacher could charge a fee or the fee was too high 11 4.3% Needs met during first telephone conversation, no need for meeting 5 2.0% Other 21 8.2% No Data 4 1.6% Do not recall 2 0.8% Total 256 100.0% TABLE 7 REASONS FOR NO FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS R No. of % of those who easons peOple met only one time Needs met at first meeting, no need for follow up 8 27.6% Improper match - people were interested in different aspects or levels of a subject 7 24.1% Too busy or interest change - no longer had time or lost interest 3 10.3% Communication problem - never heard from person again 3 10.3% Fee was too high 2 6.9% Other 2 6.9% No data 4 13.8% Total 29 100.0% The cases where people were improperly matched also can be solved by an increase in the number of people. Naturally, not every individual will find someone with his specific interest. But a higher percentage will as more people use the service. The communication problem can also be reduced as more peOple register. If a person can be provided with several names, he does not have to spend too much time trying to reach someone who never seems to be home or who does not return his calls. Also, if a person is not provided with a name when he calls, but does receive a phone call some 57 time in the future concerning the interest he had registered, it is quite possible that, at that particular point in time, he may not be able or interested in something he was able and interested in doing when he registered. If enough people had been registered at the time the person originally called, he may have been able to benefit from the service. The pre-test conducted in Evanston provided conclusive evidence that the higher the concentration of peOple registered with the Learning Exchange, the more successful matches there will be. As mentioned earlier, 133 of the people who contacted the Learning Exchange were interviewed for the pre-test. Of this pre- test sample, 108 registered one or more interest. Thirty-three per- cent of those 108 met at least once with a contact provided by the Learning Exchange. This figure compares to the 23.2% of the larger sample who had a first meeting. Of those who registered one or more interests, 27.8% of the pre-test sample and 17.3% of the larger sample participated in regular meetings. Also, of those who had first meet— ings, 83.0% of the pre-test sample and 71.0% of the larger sample pro- ceeded to have regular meetings. There are other factors besides the numbers and concentra— tions of people which might have contributed to the higher percentage of successful matches in Evanston. Evanston is an education conscious community. Northwestern University is located there and Evanston Township High School seems to be at or near the top of every rating of public high schools. And Evanston residents are probably more community conscious and politically active than other suburbs which are characterized as middle or upper middle class communities. 58 However, the predominant factor which accounted for the higher percentage of successful matches in Evanston was the greater avail— ability of conveniently located matches. Based on these findings, the logical thing to do to improve the effectiveness of this service is to let more people know about it. These data show that most of the people who registered an interest (85.4%) were provided with at least one contact. And it appears that if the people can arrange to meet once, they are likely to develOp a successful, ongoing relationship. The major breakdown occurs at the fourth step in this progression. Arranging the first meeting appears to be the difficulty. The problem is not that people's interests do not match. The problem is that people do not have access to enough apprOpriate matches so that they can find one near by, or so they can try a second person if the first one is never home, or so they can be matched at the time they want to pursue their interest. Unlike many organizations, the efficiency of the Learning Exchange increases as it grows larger. More peOple means more con- tacts can be provided. And more contacts means more peOple can be successfully matched. Reception of the Learning Exchange in the Community Almost everyone who was informed of the existence of the Learning Exchange spoke favorably about it. Those who registered with the Learning Exchange, members of the various local and national media who did a program or story on it, and other members of the Chicago community provided much assistance in terms of money, supplies, services, and moral support. 59 Even though a majority of those who contacted the Learning Exchange were not able to locate a successful match, this did not appear to discourage them from wanting to stay registered. When asked, "Do you want to remain listed with the Learning Exchange?" 449 out 504 interviewed said yes. Only forty-nine said they did not want to remain listed. (There was no data available on this question for six respondents.) Of the forty-nine who did not want to remain listed, twelve (21.9%) said they were moving out of town. Twenty-four (43.6%) said they would no longer have time for the activity they registered because of some major unforeseen change in their lives such as illness or death in the family or a new job which would take more of their time. Only three people referred to the Learning Exchange itself as their reason for not wanting to remain listed. Two referred to the lack of structure in such arrangements and one said he had not gained anything in one meeting he had and he saw no reason to stay listed. The extent of the favorable word of mouth advertising is another indication of the community's positive reaction to the Learning Exchange. When asked, "How did you hear about the Learning Exchange?" 105 peOple (20.8% of the 504 interviewed) said they heard about it from a friend. And when they were asked, "Have you recom- mended the service of the Learning Exchange to any of your friends?" 343 (68.1% of the 504 interviewed) said yes. More than two-thirds of the people interviewed said they had recommended the Learning Exchange to someone. And 51% of those who did not want to remain listed said they had recommended the service to friends. 60 Even the nature of the complaints offers further evidence of the community's positive attitude. When asked, "Do you have any complaints about the service you have received from the Learning Exchange?" only forty-three (8.5% of the 504 interviewed) said yes. The following list is a breakdown of these complaints. TABLE 8 COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE LEARNING EXCHANGE % of the 43 who . No. of . Complaint registered a peOple complaint Disorganization - operator appeared disorganized, never received the mailing I was promised 18 41.9% Frustration - could never find a match in my subject or near my home 19 44.2% Received a call totally unrelated to subject I registered 2 b O\ N Did not know teacher could charge a fee 3 O\ \D N No data 1 N L») N Total 43 100.0% There is evidence that even those who registered a complaint were generally satisfied with the services they received. Thirty people (69.8%) of those who registered a complaint still recommended the Learning Exchange to their friends. And not one person who made a complaint asked to be removed from the Learning Exchange list. Forty-two of the forty-three who registered a complaint stated that 61 they wanted to remain listed. No data were available on this question for one person who registered a complaint. Based on the data collected in this survey, their appears to be a very favorable attitude towards the Learning Exchange. Even those who were not successfully matched and those who had a complaint appear to think of the Learning Exchange as a valuable public service for their community. There is also much evidence from other sources which indi— cates that the Learning Exchange concept was received as an exciting idea and as an important public service by those who were aware of its existence. From my experience with the Learning Exchange there was consistent informal feedback of a complimentary nature. Callers often said they thought the service was an excellent idea and occasionally some mentioned that they wondered why such a service was not imple- mented a long time ago. Other volunteers who spent a few evenings answering telephones have had similar experiences. During the first year, meetings were held once a week in order to discuss the Operation. The public was welcome, and almost every week there would be two or three new people who would volunteer some time. Whenever a new catalogue was to be mailed out, there was little difficulty in recruiting ten or fifteen people to help stuff and address envelopes. As mentioned earlier, the local businesses contributed to the operation by offering services or supplies for free or at cost. One of the local printing and duplicating firms typed and printed the Learning Exchange mailings free of charge for several months. 62 The girl who managed the office said she had taken German lessons from a teacher she located through the Learning Exchange and she was glad to help out by donating the firm's services. After the first year, the Learning Exchange had to move into a larger office. The telephone number had to be changed, which meant an answering service was required to provide those calling the old number with the new one. I called a telephone answering service to find out what such a service would cost. I was informed that the service we needed cost $22 per month. When I mentioned that I was calling for the Learning Exchange, we were given the service free. The local and national media were also receptive to the Learning Exchange concept. In addition to the many interviews and programs on local radio and television stations, and the articles which appeared in the four major daily newspapers and in most of the neighborhood papers, the Learning Exchange was favorably written up in Reader's Digest, the Christian Science Monitor, Time Magazine, and the Wall Street Journal. (See Appendix B.) The Learning Exchange also received endorsements from Governor Dan Walker of Illinois, Senator George McGovern, and Senator Charles Percy. Percy has placed two entries into the Congressional Record on the Learning Exchange. (See Appendix C.) Effectiveness of the Service Being well received by the community, however, does not mean the same thing as effectively serving that community. The above statistics tell us that 85.4% of those registering an interest were provided with a contact, that 28.7% of those provided a contact had 63 at least one meeting, and that 71.0% of those who had a first meeting proceeded to have follow-up meetings. We also know that eighty-three (16.5%) of the 504 people interviewed were successfully matched. The total number of people who benefitted from the service is unknown. It is not known, for example, how many students were in the classes taught by the two teachers who volunteered their time at the free school. And there are other cases where organizations located peOple through the Learning Exchange to serve the members or clients of their organiza- tion, and it is unknown how many people were involved. But evaluating the effectiveness of the service in terms of these statistics is difficult, particularly since there are no similar models with which it can be compared. (There are other Learning Exchanges, but none that have been around as long or are as well develOped as the one in Chicago. Also, to my knowledge, there is no data available on their activities.) The most valid measure of effectiveness is whether or not the objectives of the Learning Exchange are being achieved. As stated earlier, the primary objectives of this experi— mental educational delivery system were to Open up educational opportunities for those who were unable to satisfactorily pursue their interests or meet their needs in the existing educational structures and to utilize educational resources in the community that were not being used. It would achieve these objectives by bringing together those with a willingness to share their knowledge and skills with those wanting to learn. In this manner, human resources previously going to waste could be recycled into productive channels. 64 The evidence clearly indicates that the main objectives are being met. PeOple have located resources through the Learning Exchange that are not readily available in schools. Those wanting to period- ically converse in a foreign language to maintain their fluency, for example, could not locate the necessary resource, people who spoke the same foreign language, elsewhere. Human resources which had been lying dormant have come alive again. A prime example is the insurance investigator who is teaching the philOSOphy course. Some might argue that the number of peOple who registered with the Learning Exchange is too small to be of any significance. If only 1,000 peOple in a community of over five million utilize a service, one might conclude that such a service is not effective or useful to the comnunity as a whole. And even if every one of the 1,000 people were dissatisfied with the opportunities available in the traditional educational institutions, one might argue there is no reason to be concerned about those institutions. But the actual number of people who used the model in Chicago during its first year is not as significant as the growth in terms of the number of people using this particular model and the number of similar models which have been started in other communities. As of June, 1973, one year after this survey was conducted, over 7,000 people were registered with the Learning Exchange. And much of this growth resulted from word of mouth advertising. In addition, Learning Exchanges have been started in more than twenty—five other cities. Over 40% of those who registered indicated that their reason for doing so was to learn more about a particular subject area. 65 At least some people are turning away from traditional schooling institutions in order to find the educational resources they need. In the Chicago metropolitan area, the Learning Exchange is helping a continually increasing number of people in this process. The next question to be considered is, who is benefitting from this service. In the following section I will examine the demographic characteristics of the Learning Exchange population. WHO HAS USED THE LEARNING EXCHANGE Much of the controversy over the current state of education in our country centers on the question of equality. Americans may not believe that every child must be able to compete on an equal footing when they leave school, but we do voice a general consensus on the vague notion of equality of educational opportunity. That is, we may not think every child has the ability to become a doctor, but every child should have the Opportunity to become a doctor if he or she has what it takes. Yet, as has been reasonably well documented, there are many inequalities and injustices in our society, reflected in our school systems, which allow some people more opportunity than others. The specific objective of many proposed changes in education is to create a system that will meet the educational needs of our country in a more equitable manner. Illich and Reimer have stated that in order to eliminate injustice and oppression throughout society, schools must be eliminated altogether. The networks they propose will, in their minds, create an educational system that is accessible to all and which benefits all people on a more equitable basis. As mentioned earlier, the deschooling proposal has been criticised 0n the basis that it would do just the opposite, that it would increase the existing polarization and inequality. These critics argue that if the burden of education is placed on the individual student or his family, those 66 67 who are already well educated and well off socially and financially, will take much greater advantage of the available educational resources. The Learning Exchange is one example of an educational network in which learners do have complete control over their educa— tion. In this section I will look at what kinds of people have been attracted to the service, and what kinds of people have actually benefitted from it. The demographic characteristics of the Learning Exchange population, when compared with those of the total Cook County pOpulation, will show who was attracted to the service in its first year. The specific characteristics I will examine are race, occupation, education, income, and age. From these data it will be possible to determine if the Learning Exchange attracted an elite clientele in its first year. Raga_ Table 9 on the following page clearly shows that the percentage of minorities in the Learning Exchange population was smaller than the percentage of minorities in the Cook County area. And of those who were successfully matched, minorities made up an even smaller percentage. In addition, a smaller percentage of non-whites who regis— tered were successfully matched. Of the 424 whites who registered, 17.4% were successfully matched while only 12.5% of the fifty-six non-whites were successfully matched. 68 meoeeHHH msmaou use «0 smmusm moumssou mo ucmsuumemm .m.D mOAumwumuomumno coaumanmom Hmumcmo «doauMHmmom mo msmcoo Onaa em mHan "soum cmxmu whoa mussoo 3000 wow mumm mnH m .OHAmHHm>m aneB some o: 8053 now no .umsmcm ou wemsmeu 0:3 mucopcommmu mwamsoxm mcficequ wezoums SHHSMOmOOOSm oBu menace“ uoa meow HmuOH N .manmafim>m oumz some on Goes now so .umzmcm ou wemnmmu 0:3 mucoccoemmu omcmnoxm wcficummg “somlhucmzu mesaoafi uoc meow HmDOH ANo.ooev mem.~ms.m ANo.ooavNHm ANo.ooavaomq ANm.NNV mas.am~.a ANo.mv n ANN.HHV om ANN.AAV saw.oe~.e ANS.HSV SN ANm.mmv «we H mhucsoo xoou mwamzoxm mafiaummq msu zp venouma SHHSMmeoosm mums 0:3 mmosa coaumaseom mwcmsoxm measummq Hmuoe mueezuaoz «use: wHZDOU M000 .m> moz