A SURVEY OF SCHOOLS BOTH USING AND NOT USING PROGRAMED MATERIALS WAS PRESENTED. A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT TO 14,000 SCHOOL SYSTEMS. ANSWERS WERE RETURNED FORM 1,671 SCHOOL SYSTEMS WHO DID NOT USE PROGRAMED MATERIALS AND 209 SCHOOL SYSTEMS WHO DID. OF THOSE WHO DID NOT USE PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION, 84 PERCENT REPORTED FAMILIARITY WITH SUCH TERMS AS PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION, TEACHING MACHINES, AND PROGRAMED LEARNING. THIS FAMILIARITY WITH TERMS INDICATED THE IMPACT OF THIS NEW FIELD UPON EDUCATION. SAMPLE PROGRAMS WERE USED BY BOTH USER AND NONUSER SCHOOL SYSTEMS. TEACHERS AND CURRICULUM COORDINATORS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING MOST PROGRAMS. THE MAJOR USE OF THE PROGRAMS WAS AT THE JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS. A GOOD PERCENTAGE OF THE USERS EMPLOYED PROGRAMED MATERIALS WITHOUT ANY MACHINE. SOME SCHOOLS ALLOWED ONLY A FEW STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMED INSTRUCTION, OTHERS USED IT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CURRICULUM. THE TEACHER'S ROLE RANGED FROM BEING AN ACTIVE SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCE TO BEING ONLY A PROCTOR. EVALUATIONS FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF PROGRAM CONTENT WERE FAVORABLE. CASE STUDIES OF DIFFERENT SCHOOL SYSTEMS INCLUDED A LARGE METROPOLITAN SCHOOL SYSTEM WHICH WAS A PIONEER IN THE FIELD OF PROGRAMED LEARNING, SMALLER, URBAN SYSTEMS, AND A RURAL SCHOOL SYSTEM. THEY SHOWED INDIVIDUAL APPROACHES TO THE USE OF PROGRAMED MATERIALS. THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS INCLUDED DENVER, COLORADO, MANHASSET, LONG ISLAND, FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK, AND ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK.