Challenge for the Future at Mary Washington: Identifying and Compensating New Professors – A Peer Study (data compiled by McGrath Educational Services)

As part of my search for meaningful data, I stumbled upon an interesting tidbit. If one were to examine a particular university which is driving to upgrade its status and "brand name" in the collegiate community, one way to do so would be by identifying, properly paying, and retaining its young professors. The University of Mary Washington (formerly Mary Washington College) in Fredericksburg, VA could be identified as one of those schools. For the record, I have no ties to UMW and culled this information out as part of an analysis on the general professor salaries in the Southeastern United states as well as Virginia. I particularly like the comparison to Christopher Newport University, a school in my town of Newport News, which makes no secret of its desire to become the "Harvard on the James (River)"

In recent years, there has been a movement at the University of Mary Washington (UMW) designed to enhance the stature and “brand name” of the institution. The long-term objective is to build the school into a top-flight college with a strong reputation in the Southeastern United States, as well as nationwide.

The first step in this direction occurred when the school’s name was changed from Mary Washington College in 2004. The latest expansion projects, Eagle Village and the William M. Anderson Center, completed in the past two years at a cost of $115 million, are further examples of institutional progress.

McGrath Educational Services was “hired” to conduct a study – one which would make recommendations on how the school can better hire and retain young professors for its various programs. After an initial consultation, it was agreed to work on a professor salary study.

To understand UMW’s place among “peer” schools, one must understand the identity of UMW. Currently, there are almost 4,400 undergraduate students, mostly women (64%). UMW is a four-year institution and accepts first year students on a full-time basis.

To find the peer schools for UMW, the first database studied was from SCHEV (Schools and Colleges of Higher Education in Virginia). Their list was not accepted because of the influx of Northeast and Midwest schools. However, an initial list was developed from the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). The list of 36 was narrowed to 15, all four-year schools with 1,000-5,000 students, located in the Southeast. Here is how UMW compares in average associate and assistant professor salaries:

Institution Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer Bluefield State College 54512 49705 40356 Christopher Newport University 73087 56727 50135 Citadel Military College of South Carolina 68140 56117 49000 Elizabeth City State University 69438 62321 56294 Fairmont State University 58099 48707 40984 Francis Marion University 59881 53130 47499 Henderson State University 53048 48999 38809 Kentucky State University 58303 47373 41248 Longwood University 62978 53778 56383 Shepherd University 61370 52865 Blank South Carolina State University 61272 57489 43430 The University of Virginia's College at Wise 60041 55810 43300 University of Mary Washington 63386 53768 52667 University of North Carolina at Asheville 67703 61218 Blank Virginia Military Institute 62789 52005 41514

The findings from the initial search suggested that while some valuable information was gained from the salary comparison, it would be advantageous to perform another search to clarify the findings. It was decided that the second search would be restricted to all four-year schools in Virginia.

Based on the results of the second search, the data now shows new trends, especially as to where UMW ranks among its peer schools in Virginia, of which there are as many as five. The new breakdown looks as follows:

	Avg. Salary		Avg. Salary		Avg. Salary
	9 Mos.		9 Mos.		9 Mos.
	Associate		Ass't		Instructor
	Professors		Professors
	2010-11		2010-11		2010-11
Christopher Newport University	73087		56727		50135
College of William and Mary	81108		66312		42922
George Mason University	83149		68538		55845
James Madison University	66941		58357		50003
Longwood University	62978		53778		56383
Norfolk State University	69299		56575		50499
Old Dominion University	73816		66627		44942
Radford University	64910		56717		49010
UVA-Wise	60041		55810		43277
U. Mary Washington	62768		53877		52561
U. of Virginia	92539		76654		50815
VCU	78471		62387		47568
VMI	62789		52005		41514
Virginia Tech	82021		70900		45009
Virginia State	64425		64613		50184

This comparison provided more meaningful data. For average salary paid to associate professors, assistant professors and instructors, UMW is on par or slightly below schools such as Radford, Longwood, VMI, Virginia State and U. Virginia-Wise. However, a deeper analysis shows that UMW is in the high range (3rd of 15) for compensating lecturers. In a matchup against Christopher Newport, a future athletics (Capital Athletics Conference) rival and school of roughly the same demographics, there is a significant difference. UMW is approximately 5% (for assistant professors) and 15% (associate) behind CNU for average salary. Also, UMW is 20-30% behind the College of William and Mary and 35-40% behind the University of Virginia. There are several recommendations. First, in order to attract and retain younger professors, UMW needs to stay ahead of the average salaries of its “peer” schools. Second, because Fredericksburg is now considered part of Northern Virginia, and has a high cost-of-living expense, UMW also needs tom keep its average professor salaries competitive with CNU, which is the highest paying peer school. UMW should also aim to close the gap with W&M, VA Tech, GMU and U. VA. If this cannot be accomplished, alternative retention methods should be found, such as providing accessible affordable housing in Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties.

Hampton's Wells, McCorory and Lewis at the 2012 Olympic Track Trials - Update

The coverage of the USA Olympic Track and Field trials begins on the evening of Friday, June 22nd on NBC or one of its sister stations. Stay tuned for Facebook updates.


Last year, a worldwide television audience caught a glimpse of the World Track championships, broadcast from Daegu, Korea. Amazingly, three of the female athletes who earned airtime during the NBC and Universal Sports television coverage of the meet have a common bond in that they are all graduates of Hampton University in Southeastern Virginia. Although running more for personal glory than Pirate pride these days, there is still a connection of sorts among the three – Kellie Wells, Francena McCorory and Yvette Lewis, that being the dream of representing their country and winning an Olympic gold medal. The trio didn’t all compete together for Coach Maurice Pierce at Hampton (Wells and Lewis were teammates from 2003 – 2006, Lewis and McCorory in 2006-07, the year after Wells graduated), but do bump into each other occasionally at track meets in America and Europe. As a followup to last year's profile of the three young ladies, here's an update of their progress, coupled with the initial entries. The Olympic track and field trials began today at Hayward Field in Eugene, Oregon, a town affectionately called "Tracktown USA."

The Veteran - Kellie Wells

   Wells is the oldest of the three (30 on July 16th) and possibly the athlete most primed for Olympic gold given her age, experience and record of recent success.

At Eugene, Wells won gold in the 100-meter hurdles, with an inspiring performance in a world best time of 12.50, topping better known competitors such as Lolo Jones and Danielle Carruthers. Speaking to NBC’s Louis Johnson (after hugging him), her emotion was apparent. “I’m speechless and I’m a woman of many words!”

Indeed, Wells had traveled a rocky road. At the 2008 Olympic Trials, the Richmond, VA native competed in the semifinals and crossed the line in a personal best of 12.58 to qualify for the finals. However, with her first step after crossing the line, she heard a pop and suddenly fell to the track. The pop was from a tear in her hamstring and prevented Wells from the opportunity to compete for a shot at making the team.

Most of the 2009 season was spent in recovery mode, but signs of life showed in 2010 as the graduate of James River HS finished second in the 100 hurdles at the USA Outdoor Championships and ended up ranked ninth in the world for the event.

The road to recovery continued into 2011. Wells won her first US title in the indoor 55-meter hurdles with a world best time of 7.79. Her winning ways continued through the outdoor season with strong finishes at meets in Doha and Rome, then reached a new plateau with the race in Eugene. Given that the women’s hurdling contingent is arguably the strongest group of tracksters on the Olympic team, it looks as if the strongest from the group of Wells, Jones and others will take gold at the World Championships and become the immediate favorite for London.

Update: Kellie was the subject of a feature story in last month's Runner's World magazine. She comes into the trials with a qualifying time of 12.55, which seeds her second in the 100-meter hurdles, just behind Dawn Harper (12.47). This could be Wells' last chance to make the team and she will be a crowd favorite of the knowledgeable Hayward fans who know about Kellie's past trials and tribulations on and off the track.

The Phenom - Francena McCorory

McCorory is just 23 years old, but boasts a wealth of accomplishments over her short career. At the 2010 NCAA Indoor Track Championships, she won her second consecutive collegiate 400 title, but this time broke the nineteen-year old American record of Diane Dixon with a blazing time of 50.54. This was not her first American record, having also set the national standards for the 300 (indoor) and 400 (outdoor) as a star athlete at Hampton’s Bethel HS.

In one memorable high school race, at the 2006 Eastern region championships, McCorory ran the anchor leg for the Lady Bruins 1600-meter relay and grabbed the baton in eighth and last place, roughly 70 meters behind the leader. In a memorable comeback, she managed to systematically pass all seven other runners while posting an unprecedented split of 51.9. Accomplishments such as these helped McCorory earn the title of HS Athlete of the Decade from the Peninsula’s (VA) DAILY PRESS newspaper..

McCorory entered the finals of the 400 at Eugene with a strong qualifying time, but a heavy heart. Two weeks before the national meet, her father passed and she was determined to dedicate the finals race to his memory. In spite of a sluggish start, she regained her composure between the 150 and 350-meter marks and almost chased down three-time world champion Allyson Felix while finishing second. The margin (50.40 – 50.49) of difference was close enough to consider the Hampton resident a favorite to win a medal in Daegu, with Felix serving as her main competition for the gold.


Update: Francena comes to the Trials in a great position. Last year, at Daegu, she placed 4th in the open 400, while lowering her time to 50.26. However, given a second chance on the world stage, the Hampton native shined, anchoring the 1600-meter relay to a gold medal. Sanya Richards-Ross was her relay teammate in Daegu and will now be the top seed in Oregon with an impressive clocking of 49.39. However, McCorory is the second seed at 50.06, which she accomplished less than two weeks ago while winning the New York Grand Prix meet (shown to a national audience on NBC). With Allyson Felix opting out of the open 400, there is a great chance for Francena to make the Olympic team in the open 400. She is a shoo-in to make the 1600-meter relay team

The Grinder - Yvette Lewis

To date, Lewis has been a victim of an unusual run of bad fortune in her professional career. In 2007, the native of Newport News, VA finished second in the triple jump at the US Championships only to not qualify for the World Championships due to missing the qualifying standard. At the Olympic trials the following year, Lewis turned in a jump of 13.84/45-5 (after a best of 45-6.5 in the preliminaries), only to finish in fourth and miss making the Olympic team by one place and less than five inches.

The two-time NCAA champ also narrowly missed qualifying for the American team heading to Daegu. At Eugene two weeks before, Lewis placed fifth in the triple jump, then was disqualified from the women’s 100-meter hurdle finals due to a false start caused by a very minor shoulder move.

However, the future still looks bright for Lewis. At 27, she reports to looking forward to competing in a full slate of meets in Europe this summer while keeping in check for next year’s Olympic trials where she will be a force to be reckoned with in the triple jump and 100-meter hurdles.  Don’t count out the woman who essentially won a state title for the Menchville (HS) girls track team by herself in 2003, then later set a Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC) record with 48 individual points at the 2006 meet.

Update: Yvette may be the only woman in history to run the 100-meter hurdles under 13 seconds while also having a best triple jump of over 45 feet. If there is anyone else on the list, my guess would be Jackie Joyner-Kersee. But Yvette is bypassing the triple jump (best - 45'6 1/2") to concentrate on the 100-meter hurdles, which is arguably the deepest event for the American women's team. She has been training hard in Chula Vista, CA for several years now, and the effort has produced success. Lewis has won several hurdle races in European and Australian meets while lowering her time to an impressive 12.76. In most years, that would be enough to make the team easily. but with Harper, Wells, Lolo Jones and others competing in the same event, the battle is uphill for Yvette. The good news is this - she has gained some experience and national TV exposure. Plus, Lewis is peaking right now.

Leading the Charter School Movement in D.C. (Part 2 of 2)

 New Leaders for Better Thinking

In order to make charter schools work, the leadership would have to be fully functioning. Cultural competency would be an important piece toward achieving success, particularly in a city where over 90 percent of the students in the school system were African-American while less than 70 percent of the population was.

Retired general Julius Becton was the first superintendent under the new charter school plan. Although charter school enrollment rose dramatically during his 18-month tenure, he is given little credit for its success during that time. Part of the reason given is that his “military” form of leadership did not resonate to those who worked for him, and any increased support for charter schools was symbolic or occurred simply because the model was effective.

Other leaders met the superintendent position and burned out quickly. Arlene Ackerman and Paul Vance held short terms as head of the school system. Their ideology was different, as Ackerman was partially in favor of charter schools, but helped pass legislation to give more power to the schools, including charters. Under Ackerman, charter schools received access to more local government money, but also were held to a higher standard than previously. By comparison, Vance was less supportive toward the charter movement, and under his leadership, growth stagnated.

Yet, the charter movement continued to move forward, with support from Democrats and Republicans alike. New District mayor Anthony Williams was supportive, but so were members of the White House cabinet, now under the leadership of Republican president George W. Bush as the 21^st century began.

In 2002, the legislation entitled No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. Given the coarse requirements which would face school systems across America, many school leaders at the national and local levels became willing to look at alternative methods to help reach the stringent standards. The District of Columbia was ready to move forward with its development of new charter schools.

Only a year after the passing of NCLB, the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act was signed into law. Under the Act, $45 million was earmarked for transformational change within D.C schools, $15 million for charters and an additional $20 million toward a K-12 voucher program (2008). This act, also known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, became the impetus which created dramatic change for charter schools in the nation’s capital. All that was needed was a transformational leader for the District schools, one who could handle the resistance toward the movement, as well as the cultural competency issues which would arise as students from the poorer, more predominantly African-American sections of town, began to seek new schools in other parts of the District.

Bring in the New Chancellor

In 2007, with a new mayor, Adrian Fenty, in place as head of the District, the timing was again right for the District to seek a leader who was prepared to make huge changes. In order to do this, the new head of D.C. schools would need more power to make change.

For the new mayor, this meant hiring a data-driven technocratic type of boss. Fenty was known as a data-focused decision maker (Risen, 2008) who cared less about politics and more about the end result. To this end, he named Michelle Rhee, at the time just 38 years old as the new chancellor of District schools. The power given to her was unprecedented, and she wasted no time in putting it to use. Serving directly under Mayor Fenty, and not to the school board, Rhee was given the power to fire central-office employees and educators, and within months of her hire, 98 office workers, 24 principals, 22 assistant principals, as well as approximately 250 teachers and 500 aides were terminated (2008).

The type of change which Rhee was looking for was a sweeping one. However, her leadership style was challenged, not because of its grandeur, but because Rhee was seen as an out of touch bureaucrat. This was noted by her Korean heritage and upper-middle-class suburban background. Her cultural awareness was challenged, because it did not match the majority of the racial and financial demographics of the District students.

In her short term as chancellor, Rhee did manage to prevail in making change, particularly with the charter schools, of which she was a supporter. This support may have helped, as many of the charter schools in the District have flourished while maintaining a diverse student body.

Putting the Lens on One School

One of the charter schools to flourish in the aftermath of the Rhee administration is E.L. Haynes Charter school, with two campuses in upper Northwest Washington. Founded in 2004 by Jennifer Niles, the school is a shining example of the potential growth with a well-run charter school. Last fall, Haynes opened its high school building to ninth graders and will add one grade per year until all four grades are represented. In all, the school serves 600 students, and accepted a thousand applications for the 100 open seats available for this school year.

In its first six years, the school earned national recognition for its student achievement gains, which included 80 percent of its students scoring proficient or advanced in math and 66 percent in reading (Joiner, 2010).

More remarkable is the ethnic makeup of its student body. According to ELL chair Michelle Rush, 45 percent of the Haynes students are African-American, 30 are Latino, 15 percent white and 10 percent Asian.

Two-thirds of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, showing the working-class background of many of the parents. 15 languages are spoken by the Haynes students (2010).

The faculty at Haynes is well versed with conversations about race. As part of their training at the year-round school, teachers are required to attend a three-day seminar on The Race and Equity in Education Seminars (REES), sessions which involve the faculty and staff engaging in activities which address their own biases, and which of these are brought into the classroom. According to a quote from lower school principal Michelle Molitor, which was presented in a recent magazine article, “It gives dominant culture folks a safe environment to expose the things they don’t understand and to build allies and friendships (2010).”

Although there are lower performing charter schools in the District of Columbia, E.L. Haynes serves as a model example of how to build a successful charter school, one which the District school leaders can follow and use for other charter schools.

References

Foster, B.L. (2006). What’s going on in DC’s charter schools. Washingtonian, October 2006.

Joiner, L. L. (2010). Whatever it takes. The Crisis Magazine, Centennial Issue 2010. 17-22.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The Myth of Charter Schools. The New York Review of Books, 

        November 2010.

Risen, C. (2008). The Lightning Rod. The Atlantic Magazine, Nov. 2008.

Sullivan, M. D., Campbell, D. B., & Kisida, B. (2008). The muzzled dog that didn’t  

       bark: Charters and the behavioral response of D.C. public schools. University of Arkansas.

       Fayetteville.

Leading the Charter School Movement in D.C. (Part 1 of 2)

   This is the first of a two-part series looking at the history of charter schools in our nation's capital. 

The number of charter schools in the District of Columbia
has risen dramatically since the passing of the Public
Charter Schools Act  in 1996.

          The charter school movement in the District of Columbia has become one of the most noteworthy stories in the recent history of American public education. The school system in Washington, D.C. has shown the best and worst of leadership at all levels, as the District has been run by the Federal government, “home rule,” and a combination of the two.  As a system, the government of the District of Columbia is different than most other forms of city government, and this has led to many of its problems. However, the uniqueness of the District structure has also led to a great deal of the autonomy practiced by many of the recent leaders behind the school system in Washington, D.C., as well as the charter school movement. Despite criticism of the charter school model, educators such as Diane Ravitch agree with opinions, such as the ones expressed in the movie “Waiting for Superman” which support the movement of students from failing public schools to charters. (Ravitch, 2010)

History

          The public school system for the District of Columbia was founded in 1804 and originally chaired by President Thomas Jefferson. At its inception, the objective was for the District system to be a leader among school organizations. One example of this innovative style was the District forming the first secondary school for African-Americans, a feat which was accomplished before 1870 (Sullivan, Campbell, Kisida, 2008).

          In spite of its best efforts, there were cultural and sociological factors which complicated progress in the D.C. school system. Attempts to desegregate schools caused families to move to nearby suburbs in Maryland and Virginia, coining the term “white flight.” Enrollment in private schools in the District rose because of the racial friction in the public schools. The Civil Rights era saw an increase in violence within and outside of the District schools, culminating in the burning of buildings on and near the U Street corridor after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968.

          By the 1970’s, the public school system in the District was disjointed. The student enrollment was over 90% African-American and reflected the poverty problem within the District borders (2008). By contrast, the African-American population of Washington was 70 percent.

          The events which followed over the next 35 years have led to the transition of a school system which by the end of the 2006-2007 academic year had almost 20,000 students enrolled in charter schools, while the public school student population in the District dropped from over 78,000 in 1996 to 52,191, a drop of almost 34 percent (2008).

Identifying the Problem and Finding Solutions

          The root cause of the problem with schools in the District of Columbia started with the influx of power given to individuals as “white flight” out of the District created opportunities for new leadership.

          One of the nuances of the D.C. school board was that until home rule was granted by Congress in 1973, it was the only elected body in Washington; therefore, a seat on the board became the path of choice for young black leaders in the District, who were aspiring for higher offices (Risen, 2008).

          Marion Barry was one of these leaders. In 1971, Barry seized his first opportunity to gain one of these public offices, winning a school board seat in a landslide victory.

          Almost immediately, Barry showed off his political prowess. He learned that the school system could help him gain traction in his political career, but could also serve as a tool to rebuild the black middle class within the District. Quickly, the future four-term mayor ascended to president of the Board, followed three years later by a seat on the city council, which had just become an elected position.

          Realizing that the Washington school system had thousands of well-paying jobs with city benefits, Barry correlated his climb up the political ranks with his use of patronage to those who helped him, mainly in the form of giving his aides and benefactors jobs within the D.C. school system, whether they were qualified for the positions or not.

          For Councilman Barry, the possibilities were limitless. His emergence as a leader in the city led to a new power base in Washington, one which was mostly comprised of teachers, but also one which exclusively included African-Americans. Juan Williams, a nationally renowned writer and television analyst was covering education issues for the Washington Post in the 1970’s, and was quoted as saying, “It’s no longer about educating the best and brightest of black Washington but about establishing the schools as a place where blacks can get better jobs, higher salaries, and more benefits (2008).”

The Barry Aftermath

          After Marion Barry’s terms as councilman, and later mayor, the District of Columbia school system found itself in turmoil. The organization had become bloated with bureaucrats, resistant to change, and unable to satisfy its main goal of educating the youths of Washington. In spite of spending the most money per student in the Metropolitan area, its marks were woefully low. Graduation rates and test scores were the poorest in the region while dropout rates soared. Radical change was going to be necessary for the public school system in the District of Columbia to survive.

Winds of Change

          In the mid-1990’s, a paradigm change in public policy began to show its way into the collective thinking of District legislators. Some of this was caused by the national elections in 1994, which saw a rush of Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, take office with the promise of change. One legislator, Rep. Steve Gunderson, from Wisconsin, saw the education reform issue as worthwhile, and sought to create a charter school law, aided by a voucher program which would assist low-income students with public funding. (Sullivan et al, 2008). Despite some resistance, Congress did not take long to pass the School Reform Act in 1995. A year later, the District created and passed its own Public Charter Schools Act, one which allowed for the creation of ten charter schools per year. The stage was set; however, it would take several more years before progress was made, mostly due to problems with some of the city officials who had created the initial problems. One Washingtonian magazine article referred to the typical charter school as a “big laboratory.” (Foster, 2006)

Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components

I was intrigued by the thought process toward prejudice exhibited behind the scenes in an article which I recently read. Generally, one would think of prejudice as a feeling, an emotion, something that is indescribable, but to quote a line once used by a legislator to describe pornography, something that “I know it when I see it.”

In her article, Patricia Devine, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, reflects on the results of three studies, which attempted to quantify the correlation between stereotypes and prejudice. Her analysis of the findings are worthy of further review.

To use the abstract as a foundation, the three studies tested basic assumptions derived from a theoretical model based on the dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice. The two dozen or so individuals were tested using an instrument aimed to identify high and low prejudice persons. After being identified, they were divided into two groups, but not made aware of why they were associated with their partners. In statistical terms, these were between-subjects studies.

The first study aimed to support the belief that high- and low- prejudice persons are equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype. The second examined the effects of the automatic stereotype activation and the third examined responses of both types while they performed a consciously directed thought-listing task.

Many of the responses were derived from activities which required split second responses. At first thought, my memory went back to the Harvard implicit tests I engaged in during Cultural Competency and Leadership class earlier this semester. The objective with the Harvard test was to make subjects select from between a choice of two words without having time to consciously construct their answer. Therefore, the snap response, or automatic reaction, is the chosen one.

I wrote of my disapproval toward the Harvard tests here, at least for the ones which I completed. In my mind, the best results will not always be found by repeating the same approach. Because Devine analyzed three different tests with different approaches, I was more impressed with her attempt to see the whole scenario from different angles before making an analysis. By quantifying the significant interactions, she could draw a p score and set the level of statistical significance at < .05, which made her findings interesting to view (as a recent Statistics student!)

The findings don’t appear to be earth shattering in terms of statistical significance, but do support the theory that there is a correlation between the stereotypes of an individual and how they relate to one’s feeling about prejudice. As many studies on racism and prejudice tend to be qualitative and filled with data coded from many interviews and observations, I appreciate the effort that was made to quantify this hypothesis.

A Penn Relays Story - Running for the Love of Mom

The Perry brothers, Menchville track stars in the 1970's
and early 80's recently reunited to run the 4x400
in a Master's race at the Penn Relays as a tribute
ti their ailing mother.

On a terribly sad note, Mrs. Mary Perry passed away on May 22, 2012. I was not aware of her death before posting this. I do feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to tell this story while Mrs. Perry was with us.


Within the confines of the Newport News track and Menchville athletic Hall of Fames, the Perry brothers have built their own wing. Over the period from the mid-1970’s to early 1980’s, the brothers dominated local and state high school track and helped the Monarchs, under coach Steve Lewis (now with Hampton University), to three consecutive state titles from 1979-1981.

Each brother had his own niche. Clifton owned the middle distances, winning a state title in record time in the 880 in 1975, followed by a high school national record in the 600-yard run the following year, a record which still stands. James was a half-miler who competed on Menchville’s school record 4x880 yard relay. He also ran cross-country.

Eric was a three-time high and intermediate hurdles state champion who earned All-American status. Ray was also a state champion in the 330-yard intermediate hurdles. In all, the Perry’s built their legacy on excellence.

The Perry brothers, in uniform surrounding
their mother, Mary

It was a trait inherited from their mother Mary. Last November, the family gathered for Mary’s 80^th birthday celebration. On that day, all of the Perry brothers celebrated their mother to the tune of the Intruders “I’ll Always Love My Mama,” while each brother (nine, in all) presented a single gold rose to their matriarch. It was a special day for Mary and her 14 children.

Just weeks later and three days after Christmas, Mary complained of stomach pain and was taken to the hospital emergency room. The doctors’ initial prognosis was confirmed and in early January of this year, Mary was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, essentially a terminal condition.

Now in hospice care, the Perry’s all realize that their mother doesn’t have much time left on Earth. Still, her spirit continues to inspire.

Says Eric, “She is such a fighter. Her spirit is so strong as is her passion for love and passion for life.”

Now a detention officer in Texas, Eric wished to share one of the stories which best describes this passion.

“My mother has a favorite window at the home. Every day, there’s a squirrel that comes up to her window as if he knows she is going to be there. Mom even gave the squirrel a name… “Runner.” We like to say that the squirrel is sending nature to her window every day.”

Now in their 50’s, five of the brothers (Mike was added as an alternate runner) decided to bond and compete one more time in honor of their mother. For this moment, they turned back to their track background. Thinking of the prestigious Penn Relays meet in Philadelphia, they signed on to run, as a 1600-meter relay. Under the moniker “Sons of Mary,” the brothers entered the 50-and-older Masters race. Uniforms were designed and pictures were taken to commemorate the event.

Last Saturday, the brothers took to the track at Franklin Field, to relive their past glory in front of the 42,000 fans who commonly attend the last three days of the meet. Ray led off, followed by Eric, James and finally Clifton with the anchor leg. Their time of 4:15.13 was good enough for ninth place of 22 teams. But for the brothers, the placing and time were only a secondary matter.

Added Eric, “We wanted to have an opportunity, before the Lord calls her over, for our mother to see her sons together, focusing on one cause … one more lap.

And even though she was in Newport News at the time, on that sunny Friday in Philadelphia, Mary Perry’s presence was indeed alive, in the form of her five sons.

Heritage tennis coach voted PTR Member of Year

Heritage tennis coach Donald Widener speaks
at a USTA function

Heritage girls tennis coach Donald Widener was recently honored by the Professional Tennis Registry (PTR) as the Member of the Year for the state of Virginia.

Widener, now in his third year with the Hurricanes, was presented the award at the PTR International Tennis Symposium in Orlando, Florida this past February. As noted by the organization, the award is presented to a PTR member who has shown dedication and diligence in promoting tennis and PTR.

Widener is well known in local and national tennis circles. Along with his coaching duties at Heritage, he is also the Head of Player Development for An Achievable Dream Academy in Newport News. In this position, which he has held since 2004, he oversees the development of many United States Tennis Association (USTA) and National Junior Tennis and Learning (NJTL) student athletes.

The student athlete aspect of the position is an element that is not overlooked by Widener.

 “At the end of last semester, ADA had 11 students inducted into the National Honor Society. Five of them were tennis players.” He also points out that two of the five schools in Newport News which reached their Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals last year were Achievable Deam schools.

 With regard to the award, Widener said he was “honored” and added, “there is a lot of talent in the state… a lot of coaches doing great things.”

 The award is well deserved as Widener’s list of accomplishments is long and impressive. He is certified in all three PTR pathways – Junior Development, Adult Development and Performance, putting him in a rarefied class of coaches. He is also the primary coach with the Hampton Roads Competitive Training Center (CTC) for USTA, working with players from the ages of 8-10.

“As a group (USTA), we are looking at the younger pool. America used to dominate tennis in the 1960’s and 70’s but has fallen off a bit. Our objective is to identify these kids and work with them from a young age. It’s what the other countries are doing. We’re trying to find the next Grand Slam champion.” As an example, he speaks of Mya Byrd, an under-10 student of his from Norfolk who is already showing flashes of potential.

Widener’s work with USTA also includes serving as a board member with the Mid-Atlantic Section and Virginia District, as well as CTA President, and Junior Team Tennis Coordinator.  At the national level, he serves on the USTA’s Diversity Team and Junior Team Tennis Committees and was a national speaker at the 2009 USTA Community Development Workshop.

Other honors include a selection as the Virginia Community Outreach Person of the Year. Also , in 2007, he was named district Volunteer of the Year for Virginia.  His tennis program was spotlighted as a national NJTL Tennis Excellence Program at the 2009 US Open in Queens, New York during Arthur Ashe Kids Day.  

His tenure as head coach (he also served as an assistant for Eddie Bunch) at Heritage has also been short, but remarkable. Part of his success stems from the fact that Achievable Dream directly feeds its K-8 students into Heritage making his a “perfect situation.” His team is almost split in half between the “Dreamers” and “Non-Dreamers.” While this year is more about rebuilding, there are already stories of college scholarship athletes, most notably the brother/sister tandem of K’wanme and Sharmaine Tonkias, who are playing college tennis at Virginia State on a full scholarship. On a particular Friday, Widener took his team to Petersburg to watch the two freshmen compete.

For the team, it was a chance to see what their tennis career could become, led by the man who can help them get there.