The arguments are presented for and against the Hawaii 3 on 2 program, a team-taught, flexible, individualized instructional program for primary grade students. This report is based on an advocate-adversary evaluation design. The advocate team concluded that: the program is working effectively; teachers, principals, and parents support the program; lack of higher test scores than those obtained in self-contained classes is attributable to deficiencies in the tests; some assistance should be given to less effective teaching teams; criterion-referenced tests should be used; and organizational structure is effective in meeting students' needs. The adversary team concluded that: students in the program do not show greater achievement gains in reading, mathematics or in attitudes, based on achievement and attitude test results; parents and teachers did not notice discernible differences between the students in 3 on 2 classes and in self-contained classes; the program was not put through experimental stages; the objectives are ambiguous: individualization can be carried out as effectively in self-contained classes as in 3 on 2 classes; and the program costs cannot be justified. Each evaluation team further supported its observations by rebutting the other team's observations. (MH)