The Independent Project

Sam Levin
theindependentproject@gmail.com
www.theindependentproject.org

Introduction
The Independent Project is an alternative student driven school-within-a-school that
was started at Monument Mountain Regional High School by a student. The idea for
The Independent Project came about from that students own experience of high
school, and his observations of the experiences of his peers. The two main things he
felt were missing from many high school classrooms were engagement and mastery.
He also felt that even students who were engaged were often learning material that
was not very intellectually valuable. They were learning lots of information, but very
little about how to obtain information on their own, or even create new information.
His intent was to design a school in which students would be fully engaged in and
passionate about what they were learning, would have the experience of truly
mastering something, or developing expertise in something, and would be learning
how to learn. He felt that the most important ingredient to a school like that would
be that it was student-driven. Research by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi on engagement
suggested that if students have more control over what they are learning, they will
be more engaged, excited, and committed to their studies. He also felt that it was
important for the school to be focused on methods rather than specific topics,
having students work like actual scientists, mathematicians, or writers. Eight
students were accepted into the pilot program of the school, which ran for one
semester and is now complete. The school, dubbed The Independent Project, is now
in the stage of redesign and replication. The purpose of this White Paper is to
provide a detailed description of The Independent Project, and in doing so, hopefully
serve as a resource for students, teachers, and schools trying to implement similar
programs in their own schools. Every Independent Project will look a little different.
However, some elements are necessary and inflexible. Throughout the document
there will be a distinction between those two kinds of elements.
The Program
The Students The Independent Project was made up of one tenth grader, five
eleventh graders, and two twelfth graders. The students represented the whole
gamut: from students who were failing many of their classes (and one IEP student),
to students with straight As at the top of their class.
The Structure The Independent Project ran for one semester. The semester was
broken up into four parts: Orientation, The Sciences, The Arts, and The Collective
Endeavor.
Week 1: Orientation

The pilot showed that the orientation is necessary because switching from ten to
twelve years of one type of education to a completely new style of education
required some adjusting. Orientation consisted of various activities, challenges and
small projects designed with three goals in mind: beginning to develop the group
dynamics, exploring the nature of education and the purpose of The Independent
Project, and beginning to practice and form the fundamental skills that would be
valuable in the program (such as inquiry, exploration, creativity). In addition, the
week served as a time for students to decide on the focus of their Individual
Endeavors. The specific activities or exercises could and should be different for
different programs, but the key goals behind those exercises should stay the same.
The following game will serve as an example. One person had to find out a fact
about another person (e.g. the name of their dog) without letting the other person
know what piece of information they were trying to get at. In other words, the goal
of the person being asked was to figure out what the question-asker was trying to
learn, and the goal of the question-asker was to ask questions that would lead to
the answer he sought, without revealing his actual question. When the game was
finished, the group talked about the art of asking a question, and discussed the way
questions are handled in the traditional schooling system versus what role they
would play in The Independent Project. The exercise started to develop group
dynamics by engaging the students with each other in a fun and competitive way; it
allowed students to talk about their previous educational experience and the
purpose of The Independent Project; and it allowed students to practice one of the
skills (inquiry) that would be honed and developed during the program
Weeks 2-9, Morning Work: The Sciences
The Independent Project divided its morning academic work into categories, dubbed
the Sciences and the Arts, that were departures from the groupings used in
traditional settings. These groupings were based on the intellectual approach and
practices required by each discipline. Specifically, a science is about asking
questions and an art is something you practice. Thus, the first half of the program
was dedicated to natural and social sciences, which covered the traditional
disciplines of Science and History, while the second half of the program was
dedicated to the mathematical and literary arts, which covered the traditional
disciplines of Math and English. This categorization helped frame the way the
students approached each discipline, and helped distance the work from any stigma
a student might have previously held about a certain subject.
The Sciences lasted for eight weeks. On Mondays, each student had to develop his
or her natural science and social science questions for the week. Each person either
would already have two questions in mind (in which case the group would help
refine and hone the questions, by giving feedback on their depth, specificity, and
carefulness, and by talking about how effective the questions might be in allowing
for thorough research), or would have an area of interest to focus on, and the group
would help him/her develop a good question. Students would spend the rest of
Monday morning, and then Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday mornings
researching their questions; sometimes through books or the Internet, sometimes
by talking to experts, and sometimes through their own experimentation and

collection of data. On Friday each student taught the group about their question,
their findings, their methods, etc., and the group gave feedback (about the
effectiveness of the question, the thoroughness of the sources and methods, and
what they could have done differently). An example will illustrate the process. One
Monday, a student came in with the natural science question, How are plants from
different parts of the mountain different from each other? In refining this question,
the group discussed using the word different which holds a hidden expectation in
it (versus compare), the general nature of different parts of the mountain (vs.
more specific adjectives), the word plants (vs. focusing on one species or one part
of the plant) and the word how (vs. what or why). By the end of the
discussion, the students refined question was How do plant cells from the top of
Monument Mountain compare to plant cells from the bottom? After refining her
question, the student hiked the mountain and collected leaf samples from various
species at the top and bottom of the mountain. On Tuesday, the student looked at
the samples under the microscope, and created slide drawings. On Wednesday and
Thursday, the student researched the plants and studied the drawings, and
developed a theory about the differences. On Friday, she presented the drawings
and her theory about the differences between the cells and why those differences
might have arisen, and talked about the experience of collecting her own samples
and learning how to create slides for a microscope.
Weeks 10-16, Morning Work: The Arts
After eight weeks of the sciences, the students switched to the Arts, which included
the Literary Arts and the Mathematical Arts, and lasted seven weeks. For the
Literary Arts, each week a student picked a novel that everyone in the group had to
read. On Fridays, the group would make tea (this was a liberty of having a small
group. It is certainly not necessary, but it helped make people who hadnt ever
partaken in a book discussion feel more comfortable) and spend anywhere from
thirty minutes to an hour talking about the book. In addition, each student had to
write a response to the story. The response could be anything: an analysis, a piece
of fiction written in the style of the author, an alternate ending to the story, etc. On
Fridays, after the book discussion, each student had to read a part or all of their
written response, which ranged from one to six pages in length. The group gave
feedback on each persons writing (its carefulness, the language, how their writing
was evolving, what they could have done differently, etc.). The students read seven
novels and one play:
The House On Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros , Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut,
Charlottes Webby E.B. White, As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner, Tales of Weirrd by
Ralph Steadman, Travels In The Scriptorium by Paul Auster, Exit Sign by Sam Levin,
and The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde.
For the Mathematical Arts, the group spent the first week reading Flatland by Edwin
Abbot, and talking about why math should be considered an art. For the following
six weeks, each week every student (or sometimes small groups of students) picked
a mathematical topic to focus on. Topics included infinity, the math of poker,
predicate calculus, and random mathematics. On Fridays, each student (or

students) taught the others about the math that they had learned that week. For
example, one week a student chose to develop a formula to represent population
spread of elephants. She studied random mathematics, and found a formula for
random dispersal that she then manipulated so that it could be used to describe
elephants. Throughout the week, she consulted a mathematician in the school who
understood random mathematics. On Friday, she taught the basics of random
walks equations, and then talked about how she made decisions about variables
for her elephant equation.
Weeks 2-16, Afternoon Work: Individual Endeavors
The Individual Endeavor could be any endeavor that takes roughly one semester to
complete (e.g. building a boat, writing a novel, conducting an in-depth science
experiment). The only requirement for the endeavor was that the student was
excited about it. Students worked on their endeavors every afternoon for fifteen
weeks, leaving the building if necessary, and finding a mentor (inside or outside of
the school) if desired. It was up to each student to make his or her own schedule
and plan of action, although every few weeks the group would have a discussion
about the endeavors (where people were stuck, how they were struggling or
succeeding, what surprised them, etc.). As an example, one student in The
Independent Project had an endeavor of making a short film. First he had to define
making, which he defined as writing, scoring, filming, directing, acting in, and
editing a short film. He spent the first month or so writing the script of the film and
then storyboarding the script. He spent the next month starting to gather footage
and score the film. For the last few months of the program, he gathered actors for
his scenes, finished filming and scoring the film, and finally edited the film to his
satisfaction. At the end of the Individual Endeavor/Academics section of the
program, students had to make two presentations of their Individual Endeavors. The
first was to the group, after which the group gave serious feedback and criticism
about the endeavors themselves and the presentations, and the second was to a
public audience (about eighty people).
Each presentation included a Q+A, but aside from that there were no guidelines.
There were performances, readings, screenings, cooking, and lectures. The public,
performative, and celebratory (it came at the culmination of the endeavors and
academic work) nature of the night served as a bar to raise the quality of the
endeavors even higher than they might have been otherwise, and provided a
context within which to frame some of the more abstract endeavors. For example,
the student whose endeavor was to write a novel had a very clear goal: write a
novel. However the student whose endeavor was to learn how to cook might have
lost focus and direction, had he not had to work towards a final presentation, which
was to cook a meal for eighty people.
Weeks 17-19: The Collective Endeavor
For the last three weeks, the group spent all day every day working on the
Collective Endeavor. The group had the option to pick any serious community or
world issue (such as water, hunger, or energy), and then they had to create a
solution or a part of a solution to the issue. The group elected Education, and

decided to make a short documentary talking about some of the problems of the
current education system, and then proposing The Independent Project model as
one potential solution. They then put the film on YouTube. The film received over
10,000 hits in a month, and led to numerous teachers, principals, and students
contacting them about starting an Independent Project, or a similar program, in
their own schools. There is no set mold for what makes a good Collective Endeavor
and what does not, but the chosen endeavor should have a tangible impact and
should teach the students about social activism. Some helpful questions for
students, facilitators and advisors to ask are:
Is the endeavor going to have a local or global impact?
Will it solve a problem that is specific to our community (e.g. a shortage of public
libraries) or a problem that may exist in our community but also exists other places
(e.g. a shortage of family farms)?
Are we designing something (like a proposal or a theoretical solution) or actually
implementing something (like a program or a garden or a watershed)?
The Independent Project students recognized that as a Collective Endeavor, making
a film about themselves could have been a very weak project, and the group talked
about this danger before embarking on the endeavor. One of the main purposes of
the Collective Endeavor is for the students to do something socially valuable, and a
self-centric documentary ran the risk of having very little impact. However, because
their goal was not to create a film about themselves, but to change the education
system using a film about themselves, they decided it could be successful.

Roles
Student Facilitator
The student who founded The Independent Project served as the facilitator.
However, in future Independent Projects some aspects of the student facilitators
role could be diffused among the group members, while other aspects could be
assumed by the Faculty Advisor. The role of the student facilitator was two-fold.
First, his role was as that of a cheerleader (this is the part that could be organically
diffused among the group members). He helped encourage, motivate, and inspire
the students in the group much like a captain of a sports team urges on his
teammates (this is a good analogy because the student facilitator took part in the
program). He helped manage group dynamics through times of struggle, and
continually checked in with each individual student. The second and more
significant part of his role is the part that could be assumed by the faculty advisor
and/or faculty advisory committee (see below). His second role was to maintain the
intellectual caliber and rigor of the work that went on in The Independent Project.
This meant pushing people to develop their science questions to be richer and more
careful, and giving feedback on Fridays to encourage people to be more thoughtful,
to use the scientific method, to use a variety of resources, to be creative in their
thinking, and to be open to new ideas. Any person or persons could assume this

role, as long as he/she/they have a strong intellectual grasp of science, math,

history, and reading and writing. The program will not be successful if there is not
someone who values intellectual rigor regularly giving feedback on the work that
goes on. However, it is important to note that the facilitator is not directing the work
as a conventional teacher might. His role is not to present information to the
students or tell them what to learn. His role is to give feedback that will help the
students grow in their ability to ask good questions, carry out good science, discuss
books, write well, and value knowledge, learning and teaching.
Faculty Advisor
The Independent Project had one main faculty advisor, who is a guidance counselor
at Monument Mountain Regional High School. The advisors first role was to be
connected to the facilitator at all times (this would not be relevant if the role of the
facilitator was distributed), and to help manage the social atmosphere of the group.
Much like a good mentor, the advisor needed to read situations in the group, and
then provide the words, emotions, and/or actions that he thought would allow the
group to do their best work. The advisor was there to help the group find, refine, or
develop the skills necessary to cultivate an environment conducive to learning,
sharing, and growing. He needed to check in consistently with the students to see
how they were doing, help them if they were struggling, challenge them if they were
coasting, and commend them when they were succeeding. The more constructive
feedback the advisor can give to the participants about teaching, learning, and
relationship building, the more effective the group will be. There were a handful of
logistics the advisor to The Independent Project was responsible for. The advisor
carefully considered obstacles such as classroom space, availability of money for
books, etc. to determine whether or not to leave them to the students to deal with.
If trying to overcome a specific hurdle would help any or all of the students learn,
grow, or become better people, then he would allow them to do it (with support if
needed). If the task at hand didnt carry that potential, then he would do it for them
so that they could focus on other aspects of their learning. For example, the faculty
advisor took care of finding a space for The Independent Project home base over the
summer, so that they were not starting out the year stressing about where they
would be able to work. But he allowed them to figure out how to pay for the books
they needed (they applied for a grant) because it was a chance for them to
experience fundraising and getting the materials they needed to carry out their
work (much like a scientist might have to acquire funds for equipment and
materials). There are a few things that it was critical that the advisor avoided doing.
The advisor was not there to answer all the questions. He was not there to make
things better each time things became difficult. He was not a focal point and he was
not a leader. The advisor should be a strong, yet often invisible presence in the
group. His ultimate goal would be to assist the team in building an environment
each day that provided the best opportunity for discovery, investigation,
questioning, sharing, teaching, learning, and relationship-building.
Advisory Committee

In addition to the Faculty Advisor, there was also a Faculty Advisory Committee. This
was made up of one Science teacher, one Math teacher, and one History teacher
(The Independent Project could not get an English teacher for the first year). These
teachers were not in the classroom with The Independent Project students, and
there was no set time for them to work with the students (nor did they ever lecture
to the group). Rather, the role of these teachers was to provide expertise and
guidance in their fields of study when the students sought them out. During the
session in the Sciences, the students reported their natural science question to the
science teacher, and their social science question to the history teacher. Each
teacher gave feedback on the question, and sometimes suggested resources
(books, websites, studies, people). Occasionally these teachers would check in with
some of the students about their questions, and help talk them through obstacles.
However, it was difficult for them to provide assistance as regularly as they (and the
students) wished due to their schedule within the traditional system. In addition,
these teachers sometimes sat in on Friday teachings to give feedback, and once a
month the students gave them a thorough update as to what they had been
working on and how things were going. In future editions of the Independent Project
the teachers on the Advisory Committee may have more time set aside to provide
resources, support, and expertise for the students (see section on Future
Improvements/Changes).
Parents
Parents played several minor roles in The Independent Project. First, parents had to
consent to their child being part of the program. All parents in the district received a
short letter explaining The Independent Project. Parents of children who applied
were invited to a meeting held at the school, where the Student Facilitator and
Faculty Advisor answered questions. On Parent-Teacher Conference night, parents
(and students) were invited to meet and talk about how the program was going.
Parents received a letter towards the end of the program inviting them to the final
presentations of the Individual Endeavors, and giving them a formal update on the
program. Upon completion of the semester, parents received a letter inviting them
to set up a meeting with the Student Facilitator and Faculty Advisor to give feedback
and ask questions. That was the only formal interaction between the program and
the parents; however, almost all of the parents said that they were very aware of
what was going on in the program because the kids were talking about school at
home much more than they ever had in the past. Logistics
Process for Getting the Program Approved
There were two steps in the process for getting The Independent Project approved
to run as a pilot for one semester. The first step was to propose the program to the
Curriculum Steering Committee (CSC), made up of faculty members from each
department and the school principal. The proposal included the rationale for
creating the Independent Project, the outline of the structure of the program, and a
description of the methods for evaluation. The Faculty Advisor and Student
Facilitator presented to the CSC twice (the second time to answer questions and
concerns that were raised in the first meeting). The CSCs approval of the program

was a recommendation to the School Board, which is made up of elected officials.

With the recommendation of the CSC and two presentations from the student
facilitator and faculty advisor (an oral version of the written proposal to the CSC),
the School Board approved the pilot as well. Although other schools may not have
as receptive an administration as Monument Mountain Region High School does,
this White Paper and the example of the pilot Independent Project should make it
easier for the other proposed programs to get approved.
Credits
Because The Independent Project ran as a pilot program, the students received one
semesters worth of elective credits (for Monument Mountain Regional High School
in 2010 that equated to 3.5 credits). The students did not receive core credits for
their work in Science, History, Math, or English. In Massachusetts, students are
required to take four years of English, so the students who took part in the pilot
Independent Project will have to take two English classes one semester. The school
is currently discussing changing that for future editions of The Independent Project.
If those changes go through, the student would receive a half credit each in Math,
Science, History, and English, and 1.5 elective credits (or, if the program becomes a
full year program, one credit in each core area and three elective credits).
State Testing
In Massachusetts, where the pilot of The Independent Project was carried out,
students have to pass Science, English, and Math state achievement tests, which
students usually take either in their freshman or sophomore years. Because only
one student in The Independent Project was an underclassman, preparing for
required standardized tests was not a huge concern for the pilot. The one
sophomore was not required to do any specific preparation for the MCAS during The
Independent Project. Schools in other states with different standardized tests would
have to figure out how they wanted to deal with preparing their students. However,
it is strongly recommended to avoid exam preparations as part of the program; it
could only detract from the experience and the amount of learning that occurs (this
could be one argument for making the program half-year and dealing with
preparations second semester).
Students Applying to College or University
The Independent Project appeared on the students transcripts (along with 3.5
elective credits for the fall semester) with no details beyond the title. However, the
description of the program came through to colleges and universities in a
combination of the students personal essays, the student advisors letters of
recommendation, and for some students in the Additional Information section on
the Common App. The school will also send a letter signed by the principal and
superintendent briefly describing the program and verifying its legitimacy and level
of rigor. As with any class or activity a student participates in, The Independent
Project could be viewed as a positive thing by colleges (if the student did wonderful
work that they or their advisor/teachers can talk about) or a negative thing (if they
did not invest themselves in the program). There were only two seniors in the first

edition of The Independent Project, and they were accepted at Bennington College,
Bard College, Oxford University, and Yale University.
Logistics within the School
The Independent Projects home base, or classroom, was the coachs office in the
girls locker room. The students spent time during orientation week changing the
room to make it more suited to learning (they made a library with books from home,
brought in chairs, painted the walls, etc.) The students were free to move about the
building as long as they did not disrupt other classes. The students spent a lot of
their time in the library, and were free to come and go as they pleased as long as
the library was open. The students were also able to leave the building for their
Individual Endeavor (a site visit or an internship) or their academics (collecting data
or visiting a college library), as long as the group and faculty advisor knew where
they were going and the students signed out in the main office. However, students
rarely left the building. Two students left one day a week (one for a music lesson
and one for an internship at a restaurant), but other than that departures were
infrequent. Transition back into regular system
At the end of the semester, students transitioned back into regular classes. Some of
these classes were full year courses, and some were semesterized courses. For the
full year courses, students talked to the teachers about the work they were doing in
The Independent Project, and made individualized plans with those teachers about
how to make the transition go smoothly. Students were not required to follow the
curriculum of those full year courses during The Independent Project. However,
three students elected to take full year English courses because the courses really
interested them. Those students left the Independent Project for one period each
day to take the traditional classes. This is effective only if the students take those
courses out of pure interest. If students were to take courses outside of the
Independent Project because they felt they had to, it would detract from the
experience of being fully immersed in the alternative form of education. The
required homework from the traditional classes could lead students to neglect
responsibilities for the Independent Project that they would have otherwise taken
on, and to immerse themselves in the work less fully. Overall the transitions went
very smoothly. In the spring semester after The Independent Project, many of the
students are receiving the best grades they have received in high school. Although
students have sometimes been frustrated with the superficiality of the material in
certain traditional classrooms, or with the lack of room for exploration and inquiry,
they have found that The Independent Project has helped them seek out the
aspects of their courses or the material that were interesting (or could be made
interesting), and it has given them the tools to create interesting intellectual
opportunities for themselves within the confines of the course. For example, two
students started a discussion in their traditional English class about student
autonomy, and as a result the teacher has decided to allow the students to choose
the books that the class will read. The sense of ownership of their education has
stayed with the students long after the program ended. Although some students
have continued to struggle academically, feedback from parents has suggested that

they are pursuing more interests outside of school than they were before The
Independent Project.
Application Process
The Independent Project was open to eleventh and twelfth graders (although one
tenth grader was accepted into the program), and to be in the program students
had to respond to an application (either in written or oral form) made up of three
parts: -If you could spend six months doing something, working on, or learning
something what would it be? Describe what you have in mind. -List all the uses for a
stick. -Describe a conversation you had that surprised you OR describe a situation in
which you had to work with other people that went really poorly, and why. The
purpose of the application was two-fold: a tool for the facilitator and faculty advisor
(who made the final decisions about the applications), and an exercise for the
applicants. For the faculty advisor and student facilitator, the application helped to
ensure that the students were really serious about wanting to be part of the
program, and at least had some sense that they would want to work on one thing
for an extended period of time. For the applicants, the purpose of the application
was to get them to start thinking about what they might like their Individual
Endeavor to be, start thinking outside of the box, and start thinking about what it
means to work in a group. The founder and facilitator of The Independent Project
feels very strongly that there is no set mold of student who could succeed in The
Independent Project and part of the application process was to ensure that the
pilot group of The Independent Project represented the full range of academic
accomplishment. The program is designed to be, and has thus far been, successful
for any type of student. Although the program was self-selected, one of the students
felt initially that it was a stupid idea, and was pushed by a guidance counselor
into applying. That is not to say no one will fail; any program or system will contain
failure. In fact, in the pilot of the Independent Project one student struggled to
complete the work, and did not receive full credit for the program (although the
Faculty Advisor and Student Facilitator believe that it was the best way to reveal
issues that might have otherwise been covered up, and to allow the student to face
them). In addition, other students that match the type of student that struggled to
complete the work succeeded. There have not been enough models of The
Independent Project to determine if there is a type of student who will fail and why.
The goal, then, is to not make The Independent Project so that no one fails, but to
make it so fewer people fail than in the current system, and to make success in The
Independent Project carry more intellectual meaning than success often does in the
current system.
Evaluation
Students in The Independent Project were graded on a pass/fail basis, and the
faculty advisor and the student facilitator decided those grades. However, those
grades were used out of necessity; the real meat of the evaluation came in other
forms throughout the semester. These evaluations came in three forms: peer
evaluation, self evaluation, and teaching-based evaluation. The formal peer
evaluation happened on Mondays and Fridays. On Mondays during the sciences,

students would evaluate each others questions, and in doing so, evaluate each
students growth in the field of inquiry. Each Monday students questions were more
carefully thought out and more cleverly constructed. On Fridays, throughout the
academic work period, students orally evaluated each others academic work for
that week, and in doing so, evaluated each students methods. This could have
meant evaluating use of resources, use of the scientific method, ability to consider
something from many angles, writing style choices, effort, and various other
aspects of the work. In addition to the formal peer evaluation, peer evaluation was
also happening informally all the time throughout the week, especially as the
semester progressed and people became more comfortable with each other and the
structure of the program. This took the form of gentle nudging to work harder,
offhand suggestions like maybe you should talk to an expert in addition to reading
those books, or random conversations about interpretation of a novel or a
mathematical concept. By the end of the semester, this informal evaluation was
even more abundant than the formal evaluation. The self-evaluation took the form
of journals and portfolios. Students were required to keep a personal journal about
the entire experience: their individual endeavor, the academic work, the group
dynamics, etc. In these journals students often reflected on their effort from day to
day or week to week, the nature of their questions, and their development and
change as the semester progressed. The personal journals, which were not read by
the rest of the group (unless someone wanted to share) allowed the students to
reflect honestly on their own work without worrying about anyone else judging what
they were thinking and writing. These journals took many forms; there were audio
journals, written journals, and some journals that contained photographs or art.
Students were also required to keep a portfolio of their academic work. They were
required to write down their question or math topic for the week, the sources they
used, and at least one important idea they gained that week (it could be questionspecific, like an idea about how elephants communicate, or it could be more
general, like an idea about what its like to conduct an experiment or a thought
about the nature of mathematical logic). In addition to those requirements, some
students took notes and wrote more lengthy reflections. These portfolios, which
were shared with the group, served to record what each student was doing week to
week, and to help students think about and reflect on their academic work week to
week. The final form of evaluation, teaching-based evaluation, was simply a result
of the students having to teach every Friday about their work. This simple
requirement not only pushed students to learn their material well (you can only
teach something well if you really own it), but it also forced them to organize their
work and what they learned so that it could be taught. Sometimes, in teaching their
material, the students would realize what they hadnt learned, or maybe realize that
something they thought they had mastered they had only barely grasped. In
addition, the act of teaching itself helped engrain the work in the students minds. It
is important to recognize that all of the assessment (other than the final pass/fail
decision) that occurred in The Independent Project was formative, rather than
summative. In other words, students were assessed and evaluated not for the
purpose of obtaining a judgment (in the form of a grade or a description) but for the
purpose of improving their work for the next time around. These forms of evaluation
were effective because the purpose of the evaluation wasnt the evaluation itself,

but what it would lead to. This took the emphasis and pressure off of the evaluation,
and put it on the process and the work. In this way the need for summative
assessment was nullified; the formative assessments became what they intended to
be. They led to more learning, and improved the students work. Some of the many
changes that were observed in the students academic work as the semester
progressed were:
Students used a greater variety of resources.
Students questions became more carefully constructed.
Students became better at reflecting on their own work and articulating what they
needed to change.
Students asked more questions, and were more readily aware of how to answer the
questions they had.
Students became better at managing their time.
Students became more thoughtful: they considered ideas from multiple
perspectives, they evaluated their sources (and the methods those sources used),
they thought about and discussed more aspects of an authors writing, etc.
The list goes on, but it is important to note that the more the assessment is
formative, the less it needs to be summative.

Odds and Ends

There were a few other parts to the program that were valuable but could be
modified or eliminated in other models. Each day began with a check-in. No
matter what else was going on that day, students were required to be there for the
first twenty to thirty minutes of the day. Each student checked-in on how he/she
was doing, what was going on outside of school, how work was going, etc. Although
the format of check-in could be modified, it is critical to have at least one time every
day where the whole group is together. Fostering a personal connection between
the students in the group allows students to push each other harder (the more
comfortable they are with each other the more comfortable they are at giving
criticism and the more likely they are to receive criticism), makes them want to
push each other more (because they care about each others success), and allows
for more cooperation and communication. On a day-to-day basis, it also helps the
group function if everyone has a sense of how everyone else is doing on any given
day (you know when someone could use a boost, should be left alone, etc.). The
students also created what they called The Encoded Story Wall of Time. Every
week of the semester had a vertical section on one wall of the room. Each Friday,
every student added something to the wall (sometimes it was an object, sometimes
they drew, wrote, or painted directly on the wall) to represent their work that week.
By the end of the semester, the group had a visual map of the students work life.
This was valuable because it pushed students to think of creative ways to represent
their work (for example the student who studied the plants on the mountain pinned

a cluster of pine needles to the wall for that week). It also served as an abstract
reminder that all of the work was at once individual and collective in its nature. One
week at the beginning of the session in the Arts, the Student Facilitator and Faculty
Advisor agreed that the groups energy seemed lackluster, and there seemed to be
some tension among group members. They decided to spend one morning hiking up
a nearby mountain, and at the top of the mountain the Faculty Advisor facilitated a
discussion about how the program was going, what people personal goals were for
the rest of the semester, and improvements they felt they could make as a whole.
The group was energized by the surprise change in pace for a Monday morning, and
by the discussion (reflecting and reassessing goals). Again, this might not be
necessary for every group, and its form may change, but it is very important for the
Facilitator and/or Faculty Advisor to be aware of the mood of the group and to be
willing to make adjustments accordingly.
Future Improvements/Changes
There are five major changes that will be made to future editions of The
Independent Project. The first change is that eventually the program should be a full
year program. Because of the nature of the program, the quality of the work will
continue to increase the more time the students are immersed in it. This will also
avoid an unnecessary and complicated transition back into the standard system.
The first semester would still look the same (it would not just be expanded to be a
full year). There are multiple options for what the second semester would look like.
One option is to ask students to carry out two or three week-long academic
endeavors in the mornings (like a study on Kafkas fiction, or a more extensive
science experiment) that would meld the various academic disciplines. The second
semester would also have a much longer period (four to six weeks) dedicated to the
collective endeavor. There might be requirements for the second semester
endeavor such as it having to be in a different field of work than the first endeavor.
The second change is to restructure the Mathematical Arts. The founder and student
facilitator of The Independent Project felt that the students did not learn as much in
the Mathematical Arts as they did in the other disciplines, and that what they did
learn was somewhat superficial (certain specific skills or mathematical information).
The valuable change that occurred in the practice of the Mathematical Arts was that
students who had always hated math opened up to appreciating it and engaging
themselves in it, but there was not much intellectual gain. Thus, rather than having
students pick mathematical topics, in future editions of the program students will
study the core of mathematics: the art of logic. They will pick logical challenges
(either from a database or from their own research) and tackle those problems. The
logical challenges can be of any nature for the first few weeks, but for the last few
weeks they will have to be strictly mathematical in nature. Students will discuss and
debate these logical quandaries twice a week, and on Friday they will present formal
proofs for their logical answers to the challenges. Ideally, by studying and practicing
logic, rather than topics, students will form a strong base that will help them
approach any mathematical problem (or any other logical problem) that they face in
the future. In this way, they will be thinking and working like mathematicians, rather
than studying the work of mathematicians. The third major change is to put more

emphasis on the concept of giving criticism during orientation. Over the course of
the semester, the students developed their ability to give criticism tremendously.
The difference between their feedback at the end of the first week and end of the
last week was phenomenal. However, considering how essential the aspect of
criticism is to the success of the program, in future editions students will spend time
during orientation practicing giving criticism to each other and talking about the
concepts behind valuable criticism. This way, although the students will still grow in
their abilities throughout their semester, they will start out from a more advanced
position. The fourth major change is to have more expertise available to the
students. Expertise in a person cannot be replaced by any number of books or
online sources. Although there was some of this available through the Faculty
Advisory Committee in the pilot, ideally the teachers would be available for some
amount of time every day. These teachers could suggest resources, give feedback
on the students questions, methods, and ideas, and possibly use their own work as
a model. In an ideal situation, although this may not be possible in every school,
these teachers would be doing their own scientific research, mathematical proofs, or
writing (depending on their area of expertise) that they could use to model good
work for the students. The more expertise these teachers have, the more beneficial
they will be to the students and the program. If there is any specific area where the
school or the teachers feel they lack expertise, the students can reach out to
experts or professionals in the community. The final improvement to the
Independent Project is to increase the amount of communication and interaction
with the rest of the school. There were only a few instances during the semester in
which students or teachers who were not part of the Independent Project came to
observe or participate in a conversation in the project. In future editions, hopefully
Independent Project students will go into classrooms to teach; classes, individual
students, or teachers will come to the Independent Project to observe or participate;
and there will be regular discussions between people inside and outside of the
project. The more interaction and communication there is between the Independent
Project and the rest of the school, the more of a positive impact the program will
have on the school, and the more the students in the program can benefit from the
expertise available in the building.
Conclusion
The pilot of The Independent Project was extremely successful. A wide range of
academically successful students were heavily productive, and the work they
produced was of a high intellectual caliber. The students learned how to conduct
research and use the scientific method, how to think mathematically, how to read
and discuss novels, and how to write in response to reading. They learned how to
organize their time and structure their workday, and how to reflect on and monitor
their own work. They also each mastered something, and in doing so learned how to
master something. They learned how to communicate their learning, and how to
criticize and push their peers. Ultimately, the students learned how to learn, learned
how to teach, and learned how to work. It is important to remember that there are
classrooms that are engaging and intellectually rich. Those classrooms may always
serve a valuable role in schools. However, no matter how good they are, by

definition they are adult-led, and thus do not offer the same benefits that the
Independent Project offers. It is equally important to recognize that the Independent
Project is not a perfect model. There were kinks and bumps in the road. There were
moments of struggle and turmoil between the group members. In the school where
the Independent Project was founded there was some strong support from faculty
and administration (specifically from the school board, superintendent, principal,
and Faculty Advisory Members). However, there was also, and still is, a significant
amount of resistance, especially from faculty. This will inevitably occur in any school
trying to adopt this model. It is a dramatic change, and change always brings with it
resistance and turmoil. However, disagreement and debate is healthy: it leads to
improvement. And hopefully this White Paper, and the example of the pilot
Independent Project, will serve to ease some of the resistance that arises. Since the
release of the student-made film about the Independent Project, over eighty schools
in twenty states, plus schools from five other countries on four continents, have
contacted the students of the Independent Project. This program will look different
in every one of those schools that decides to adopt it, and every group of students
will add its own twists and alterations. And this is not the only solution to the
problems with the current education system. It is just one of many possible changes
that can be made to improve schools. But, ultimately, the potential of The
Independent Project model is to revolutionize the education system, making
students the authors of their own learning.