Developing the Qualitative Research Matrix

Deciding to undertake a qualitative research project generally begins with a self-check of sorts. Unlike the quantitative project, which is data-driven, the qualitative researcher is looking to find matching threads, marked by thoughts, feelings and experiences, which are qualified by a number of aspects about the subjects own views of reality.

Much like the subject, however, the researcher also enters into a project with his/her own world views, beliefs and opinions. Since we all view a situation from a different “lens,” it is risky for the researcher to enter a study with the belief that his world views will not possibly skew the findings from others. Knowing one’s own values and nature of reality is a necessary part of the qualitative research process.

To satisfy the self-checking process, it is important for the qualitative researcher to develop a matrix. Generally, the matrix addresses assumptions about reality which look at five different types of assumptions. They can be put into the form of a question and are listed below:

Matrix overview

·         Ontology – what is the nature of reality?

·         Epistemology – what is the relationship between the researcher and that being researched?

·         Axiology – what is the role of values?

·         Rhetorical – what is the language of research?

·         Methodological – what is the process of research?

Here are some of my concerns with regard to developing the matrix.

Ontology – reality is viewed from many different lenses, same picture can be seen many ways. The researcher is an instrument.

Epistemology – use self-immersion if necessary. Become immersed enough in the community to be taken seriously, but not enough to influence answers. Intention is to build trust with participants.

Axiology – embrace differences, but be careful with questioning. Researcher does not want to influence data.

Rhetorical – pay great attention to developing questions. Ask open-ended questions to develop follow-up topics. Use “How” and “Why” questions instead of “What”

Methodological – evaluate and adjust methods. Ask “What methods work with a group?” Interviews, observations, archives..?? Pilot studies help.

How Do School Administrators Successfully Resolve Conflicts?

Conflict is an inevitable by-product of human relations. Having the ability to deal with conflict requires many personal skills, as well as a flair for honesty, consistency, and tact. As a school leader, many administrators get stuck in the middle of conflict simply by virtue of their position. For example, the principal leads a school building, but also serves as an intermediary between the wishes of the district and her teachers and students. When the district promotes an unpopular ruling or program to the district, it is up to the principal, whether the leader is in agreement or not, to promote the new program to faculty and staff as part of the "buy-in" process.

Conflict works both ways. As the person between the district administration and the staff, having to ability to work through the inherent conflicts and keep the building moving forward is like walking a tightrope. The best leaders tend to walk this rope best by remembering one important guideline. It is not always the smartest person who accomplishes the most, but the person who has, what author Daniel Goleman calls “emotional intelligence” that can maintain an even keel and be productive when all signs are showing the threat of impending chaos in ones building.

Before breaking the topic in half between dealing with superordinates and subordinates, I would like to look at a general theory on conflict resolution. In their book Supervision and Instructional Leadership, authors Carl Glickman, Stephen Gordon, and Jovita Ross-Gordon advance a five-step system designed to handle conflict among individuals. To preface, the writers suggest that the leader keep the disagreement focused on the ideas rather than the personalities, and this makes perfect sense. I believe this procedure works regardless of whom one is dealing with as a school leader; the difference comes in the importance of the role the leader can play within this procedure. The procedure works as follows:

·         Ask each member to state his or her conflicting position

·         Ask each member to restate the other’s position

·         Ask each member if conflict still exists

·         Ask for underlying value positions: Why do they still stick to their positions?

·         Ask other members of the group (if possible) if there is a third position that synthesizes, compromises, or transcends the conflict. If not, reclarify the various positions. Acknowledge that there exists no apparent reconciliation, and move the discussion to other matters. (p. 335)

These authors put this formula into a group meeting situation, but it can work between two people, if both people are willing to be honest and open, and follow each step.

Interpersonal relationships are extremely important in the school leader role. While it is necessary to have ones staff working in harmony with each other, the better reason for solving conflict when it occurs is to keep the flow of information running up and down the hierarchical ladder. A breakdown in communication is usually the first by-product of an unresolved conflict.

In light of my philosophical beliefs, the next step is to differentiate between how to deal with mediating conflict during dealings with superordinates and subordinates, because the two groups require a different set of strategies. This is because of the school leader’s position in relation to both of these groups.

By definition, superordinates are our superiors, so a cautious approach must be met when dealing with situations of conflict. Although I would be in a leadership role, it would still not be as important as the role of the individual I am having the conflict with; therefore, respect for ones position, as well as respect for my own subordinate position has to be recognized during all phases. Of course, I wish to make my point, be listened to, and find a resolution to the problem. But, I do not wish to upset, or offend my superordinate. This could lead to problems in other areas, such as getting promoted in the future. Who wants to promote a person that is difficult and doesn’t work with the team? In short, there are very few leaders willing to do so.

A calm demeanor and a rational sense of being come in handy when dealing with bosses. The first thing to keep in mind is that everyone is on the same team. When one needs help as a leader, he cannot always ask  subordinates. The superordinate is the person that helps the leader, and this has to be kept in mind.

On the other side of the fence, a leader relies on subordinates to make life easier. Any conflict management has to be solved without making showing too much authority. Teamwork leads to a happier working environment in the future than “puffing ones chest” and reminding all of the subordinates who is in charge.

Authors Snowden and Gorton, last mentioned in the community liaison section, also offer up some interesting opinions in their School Leadership and Administration text. In the conflict management chapter, the pair breaks down conflict management into two parts – the effort to prevent or resolve disagreement, and the effort to initiate conflict because of the need to take an unpopular stand or introduce changes. One example of this would be when a school leader has to take action against a popular, but low performing teacher.

Snowden and Gorton examine four ways of dealing with conflict. The first is the cooperative approach, which emphasizes the stressing of mutual group goals and understanding others’ views. Second is the confirming approach, and this stresses the importance of communicating mutual respect for the competence of the group members. My philosophy matches with these two approaches and disagrees with the other two advanced – the competitive approach, where someone must win and someone must lose, and finally, the avoidance approach where withdrawal from discussing problems or settling differences leads to a negative situation. (p. 98) Most results of research studies confirm that the first two approaches have been found to be the most effective.

There is also useful information on conflict management philosophy from a pamphlet offered by Rachelle Lamb on behalf of the Center for Nonviolent Communication. Titled, Communication Basics, An Overview of Nonviolent Communication, the 24 page handout centers around themes, which are designed to “facilitate rich and meaningful connections with ourselves and others.” (p. 2) It looks at conflict management from an emotional point of view. While the concept may sound unusual, I read this and put many of its tenets into my own philosophy, and believe that it works with superordinates as well as subordinates. Lamb begins her observation of communication with short pieces on alienating language, choosing our responses, and focusing our attention, better known as listening. I believe that a centerpiece of philosophy in dealing with conflict has to focus on being the best listener that one can possibly be. The two most important words to help resolve any conflict are “I understand.”

Lamb also introduces us to the NVC model. The NVC (or Nonviolent Communication) model focuses on four steps. The first is observation, or stating clearly what a person is saying or doing that is or isn’t enriching life without using words that evaluate, judge, label, analyze or criticize.

The second step deals with feelings. Here one connects with and expresses what is alive in us using words that accurately describe the emotions and sensations we are experiencing. A third step looks at needs, and this occurs when one connects with the met or unmet need or value that is the source of the feelings. Finally, the final step is requests, which is when we ask for that which would enrich life. (p. 9)

Lamb also has sound advice on topics such as expressing empathy, anger, and gratitude.  

As a school leader, one can see the value in using the beliefs of nonviolent communication as a conflict manager. Far too often, the wrong word to a person can change the tone of a conversation or conflict resolution quickly. Coupled with the wrong non-verbal communications, this can lead to disaster in a conflict situation.

A final piece of conflict management philosophy would draw on some thoughts provided by an article, which comes from a 2006 article in Psychology Today and titled Criticism: Taking the Hit. Since most conflict management deals with negative feedback being directed by both parties at each other, it would make sense to base some part of my philosophy on the ability to deal with negative criticism, and use this ability as an advantage. Dr. Judith Sills, a psychologist, wrote this article and she prefaces her thoughts with an abstract thought which can be paraphrased by noting that learning to use negative feedback to your own advantage is “a sign that you’re moving up.” (p. 61)

In her essay, Dr. Sills hones in on one non-verbal tactic that I would find priceless when added to my repertoire of conflict management skills. This tactic is the “public smile.” I especially like the comment made as being Rule Number One when facing criticism, which is, sit back and take it in. The public smile is not a response; in fact, it is not even a defense. However, it shows that the person is listening and regardless of outrage, is communicating that thought back to the speaker. It also helps to dissolve the potential anger of the speaker. Having the ability to pull off the public smile is truly a valuable gift to have, as well as a difficult technique to develop.

There are certain things  to take into consideration as a leader when dealing with conflict resolution with superiors, as well as subordinates. While an understanding of one's position in the conflict has to be understood, many of the same techniques can be used to work through the various conflicts, and lead to a productive resolution.

Random Critiques

Admittedly, it must be the end of summer, because I am running out of material. Fortunately, Qualitative Research class at William and Mary begins next Wednesday and I'll begin on a whole new series of writings. If this course allows me to focus on cultural competency (again, my preferred dissertation topic), the blog may feature a number of articles centering on this topic. I have been pondering the idea of focusing the subject toward high school coaches. For today, I'm going back four years to several critiques I wrote - one on phonics, another on spelling and the third on literacy training.

JOURNAL CRITIQUE  #1: PHONICS: A Large Phoneme-Grapheme Frequency Count Revised

     The first article I chose to review comes from Edward Fry in “The Journal of Literacy Research” and was published in the spring of 2004. Fry aims to retrieve previous data gathered by academics such as Hanna et al (1966), Thorndike and Large (1944) and to simplify this data and make it more usable. Fry centers on two questions:

1. What are the most useful (highest frequency) phoneme-grapheme correspondences?
2. What are the most frequent ways of spelling these phonemes?

     I found this research to be well prepared and well presented. By using data from over

a half-dozen studies covering a sixty year period, Fry brings a wealth of facts to the table. He can divide his study between vowel classification and consonant categories. One interesting note about the former comes from the tidbit that Merriam Webster dictionary’s vowel classification system went from 33 vowel sounds to 22 to facilitate their original algorithms.

     The consonant section gets more technical with multiple phonemes and consonant digraphs mentioned at the forefront. Fry points out the differences among the studies while focusing on certain items – such as the digraph TH and how it is used in high frequency words (i.e. this, that, these), but only used in 411 different words. I was surprised buy the intensity of the findings and how the author attempts to make sense of such a plethora of data.

     At this point, I’ll have to determine how this material will relate to my teaching. It has surprised me over the past three weeks to learn how little I know about phonics. I now have a newfound respect for the work that reading teachers do. Working with their students is like detective work, in that they use different techniques to find the problems while developing solutions to solve the problem. I look forward to using these methods myself to help students, but in a sense, right now I’m the student.

CRITIQUE #2 – A NATIONAL SURVEY OF SPELLING INSTRUCTION: Investigating Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice

     For the second critique, I revisited the Journal of Literary Research and found an article on spelling, penned by Mary Jo Fresch. Fresch was seeking information on current spelling practices of teachers from grades 1-5.

     Fresch’s thoughts went along the following line. She feels that teachers in the early grades, in spite of having new strategies available, choose to continue using traditional models for teaching spelling. With this in mind, her group purchased 2200 teacher names from Market Data Retrieval. These teachers were evenly split between grades 1-5. Fresch surveyed these teachers with three main questions in mind.

1. What are some common instructional practices?
2. What do teachers believe about spelling instruction?
3. How are beliefs and practices aligned in the teaching of spelling?

My critique of this article, published in the fall of 2003, focuses on two areas – the survey response, and the findings.

     First, the survey response. Of the 2200 teachers who received surveys, only 355 responded. The group was pleased with the 16% response rate, but my knowledge of surveys recalls that at least 1000 people need to be surveyed for any findings to be deemed meaningful (i.e. Nielsen, Arbitron ratings). Therefore, as a reviewer, I am not sure that Fresch’s numbers constitute a full finding, and may be skewed. After all, if the surveys were evenly divided, then there are only 71 responses per grade.

     Second, the results of the survey leave something to be desired. If not enough people were interviewed, then the results have to be in question. In fairness, Fresch and her co-workers only had enough funds to buy 2200 names, so it was not a question of oversight. However, some of her findings can be proven valid. For example, 72% of teachers used one spelling list for the whole class, while 86% used a weekly list. No argument here. Other results without such a resounding response in one direction must be held up to the light. Overall, this survey is a good start to finding if spelling instruction has changed over the past 50 years.

CRITIQUE #3 – LOOKING FOR LEADERSHIP IN LITERACY TRAINING – How is New Zealand addressing this issue, and what can we learn from it?

     I found an interesting literacy issue halfway around the world worth reviewing. As Americans address our own issues of improving literacy, there is a unique situation occurring in New Zealand. On the world scale, New Zealand students have one of the highest reading levels in the world. This is admirable, but the next statistic is ironic. New Zealand also has the biggest gap between its best and worst readers. The purpose of this article, penned by Anne Alkema and Pam O’Connell for Literacy Today, addresses the measures which the New Zealand Ministry of Education has taken to help principals raise achievement in their schools.

     My first impression about the article was that it is a firsthand account of what has happened in New Zealand. Ms. O’Connell, one of the authors, is indeed the Ministry of Education’s Learning Media manager. If anyone could explain the assets and liabilities of the program, this would be a good stakeholder to interview.

     In my opinion, this article makes sense for three reasons. First, it agrees with the theory that the most important factor in learning is the quality of interaction between the student and teacher. In other words, the teacher affects student achievement more than any other factor.  Second, it notes that teacher capability is linked to the quality of management and leadership within a school. Finally, the article also makes a strong point that all subject teachers are teachers of literacy. Perhaps these are obvious points to American educators, but it is refreshing to see the same views held 12,000 miles away.

Academic Achievement and Money - The Debate Continues

The correlation between wealth and academic achievement has been the cause of debate for a long time, and because few concrete results have been provided, the debate continues. Part of the problem comes from determining the criteria. Where does one set the bar to determine a “high-income” student? For that matter, how is a student classified as “low-income?” The parameters are different for each state, and constantly changing, as evidenced in the state court systems. Perhaps a better question is, “Does more money translate into better academic performance?”

A quartet of educators from the state of Georgia decided to examine this correlation as it played out in their state. Over a four-year period, the team of Dr. Steven Hankla of Colquitt County Schools, Dr. James L. Pate, Dr. Don Leech, and Scott Grubbs, all of Valdosta State University, examined differences in academic achievement among its school systems, and how they related to several financial factors among the various systems. Each of the 57 school systems in Georgia was studied, and the results make for a fair assessment of any relation between academics and economics, at least in the Peachtree state. It is safe to suggest that this study cannot serve as a national model, but proves to be a thorough study, at least as it is seen in one state.

Although education reform has been receiving attention since the early 1900’s, most of the debate has been shaped by studies of the past thirty years. Currently, most of the reform has become a combination of attempting to ensure financial equity as matched up against educational competence.

Some of this concern was driven by legal challenges, but it also draws on the American political system. If all men are created equal, then we are supposed to believe in equal opportunities for current and future generations. There are few arguments that the “equal opportunity” concept has been overlooked on many occasions in American history, as this ideology does exist in the minds and hearts of some of our political leaders.

Part of this concept extends to the educational systems of America.  The belief that all children are worthy of the same quality education regardless of family or socio-economic background is endorsed by many of today’s American political candidates. But, has our society been able to provide an efficient education for all students who desire one?

Four Georgian educators set out to see if education reform was working in their state. Over a four-year period, they studied the data from the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT), and measured this scoring data against the income averages of all of the school districts in Georgia. Their investigation was thorough, and loaded with data to examine.

According to the study’s purpose statement, they set out to compare Georgia’s high wealth school systems to Georgia’s low-wealth school systems. The team set out to determine if the current funding in Georgia provided all of the students with an adequate education. Also, they studied the relationships between funding formula variables as well as the relationship between free and reduced lunch percentages, high school completion rate, and percentage passing on the first attempt of the GHSGT.

     The study addressed these two questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between Georgia’s high wealth and low wealth school systems in academic performance as measured by the Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) for Adequate Yearly Progress?
2. Is there a significant difference between Georgia’s high wealth and low wealth school systems in high school completion rate as measured for Adequate Yearly Progress?

Analysis/Response

Being an English teacher who studied English, while minoring in History and Social Studies, in college, it is important to note that the research techniques and standards for student separation were difficult to understand using the mathematical terms. In layman’s terms, the difference between high income and low income students came from a complicated measuring system using variables such as revenue generated from personal property tax by each county, as well as revenue generated from the Special Purpose Local Option Sales tax, or SPLOST.

The researchers took this information, and broke the school systems into five separate, but equal in number, income groups, called quintiles. While the numbers and formulas do not make complete sense to me, it is obvious that there were many factors taken into consideration, and I believe that the authors did their best to place each of the 57 school systems in the correct quintile.

I feel that the authors achieved their purpose with this study. My experiences as a REALTOR and school finance student have taught me a few things about this subject, and it is true that many localities measure their status for obtaining state money or education by the amount of personal property revenue they collect each year. There are certainly other factors, and the formula gets confusing, but in Virginia, it is no surprise when Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria have a .80 composite index, while Newport News and Hampton rate around .35. Using the financial variables that the researchers did, and measuring them against the same test (GHSGT), I think that the results are valid.

I would not agree that Georgia represents all American school systems; then again, no single state can stand as a representative of all 50. However, the study does provide a thorough examination of one state, and if the factors are solely dealing with income and test scores, then this is a fair, competent and worthwhile study.

Conclusion

     After collecting the data over four years (1998-2002) and analyzing their findings, the authors concluded that there was a pattern of increased academic achievement in the more affluent parts of Georgia. As the authors added more factors, such as free and reduced lunch percentages, dropout rates, and first time passing percentages and passing rate on subsequent tests, the results remained consistent.

     The strengths of this study are the number of students measured, the use of all 57 counties in Georgia, the complicated, but fair formula used to measure the income of each county to determine which should be consider low-income, and high-income, and the four year time window. I believe these factors led to a fair study with a valuable conclusion.

     The authors did note several weaknesses. Included on their list were history, pretest sensitivity, mortality/attrition, and instrumentation, researcher bias, statistical regression, and setting generalizability (Cohen, 1988; Gay, 1996; Huck, 2000; and Huck & Cormier, 1996.)

     Pretest sensitization (Cohen, 1988; Gay, 1996; Huck, 2000; and Huck & Cormier, 1996) may have provided an unfair advantage for subjects exposed to testing format and subject matter from pretest materials practiced. Also, the subjects may have learned to become familiar with the test format or environment, thus reducing anxiety.

The Policy Behind the Charter School Movement

The policy of permitting states to create charter schools for its students is gaining a great deal of momentum in academic circles. In fact, as of 2009, 44 states, including Virginia, have opened the door to allow charter schools to open within their boundaries. Virginia has only opened four charter schools to date, enrolling a mere 240 students. By comparison, neighboring North Carolina has opened almost 100 such institutions.

The idea behind charter schools started as a response to dissatisfaction with the current public school system. There was a school of thought that the public schools were failing for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, scarcity of money, under qualified teachers and archaic teaching methods. As concerned parents and officials of local jurisdictions began to analyze the problem, many questions surfaced. “Why should a child have to go to a failing school just because of his/her geographic location?” “What can be done to close the achievement gap between white students and minority students?” “If the existing school system is failing, can we do better?” From those questions were borne the outline of the charter school policy.

Generally, there was a feeling of helplessness as stakeholders felt separated from the process and felt like the legislative system in place would not be able to improve public education to a level of their liking. Not being able to find a suitable alternative policy, these stakeholders acted on the feeling that they needed to take matters into their own hands.

       Some general definitions of charter schools include the following:

·         Elementary/secondary schools that receive public money without having to adhere to public school rules and regulations

·         An alternative to other public schools, but without the ability to charge tuition

·         Magnet schools, or institutions that provide a specialized curriculum in a field, whether it is arts, science or math.

For the most part, charter schools are more prominent in urban school districts, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. Some schools thrive, while others are struggling. New York City’s Promise Academy is an example of a charter school enjoying tremendous success by virtually erasing its achievement gap between black and white students.

However, the success of charter schools is a debatable topic, and this is probably the reason why the state of Virginia has been slow to push this policy of offering alternative education to students and parents who are unsatisfied with the state of their neighborhood school. In the recent gubernatorial campaign between Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds it made for an interesting case study to see how each candidate planned on influencing and developing this policy.

Since election, McDonnell has tried to seize the opportunity. He is planning to loosen restrictions on new charter schools. Currently, the local school boards must approve potential new charter schools. Under McDonnell’s plan, charter school organizers may appeal to the Virginia Board of Education in the event of being rejected at the local level. This may help to resolve conflict at the lower level, as local school boards tend to resist competition, especially in the form of a charter school. In cases where a school division has one or more failing schools, the request for a charter school could be made directly to the state. While realizing that the charter school is not the only cure-all, the Republican nominee for Governor has been noted in a Virginian Pilot-Online editorial as at least putting considerable thought to the issue and developing a solution to the education problem, using charter schools as a viable alternative while keeping an eye on the 72 failing schools in the Old Dominion.

The same editorial criticized Democrat Deeds for not having a proactive solution about the charter school issue. This came in the wake of a statement by the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, wh warned states that resistance to charter schools could result in a reduction of incoming federal funds.

However, Deeds made the following comment on his http://www.deedsforvirginia.com/ website:

       “Like President Obama, I am in favor of innovative charter school programs that are held to appropriate standards of accountability. My opponent’s record, on the other hand, reveals his longstanding support for diverting needed funding from our public schools through voucher and tuition tax credit schemes.” – Creigh Deeds

In short, the main obstacles facing the development of charter schools in Virginia look to be the resistance of local school boards and the current state of the economy as local school systems look to overcome another round of budget cuts in 2012. The failing economy could also affect the financial situation of potential charter school founders.

Resources

Virginia Charter School Resource Center.  From http://www.virginiacharterschools.org/index.html. 

Editorial. Charting New Course for Charter Schools The Virginia Pilot. 10 July 2009. From

     http://www.pilotonline.com/

Holland, Robert. How About a Statewide Charter-School District for Virginia?  The Virginia Pilot.  12

     June 2009.  From http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/1434.shtml

Education Unsheltered. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-

     CHARTER12_20090611-184806/273283/

Dominic Goes To Hollywood – Part II – The Archbishop and the Wait

Upon further review, there are too many details about Dominic's Jeopardy game to lump together with this review of the L.A. trip. Therefore, an "executive" decision was made to extend this to a three-part series with Part III - The Game to post next Thursday.

After acquiring the services of grandparents Frankie and Louise to watch the three younger kids, Dominic and mother Gina prepared for the trip of a lifetime – a four-day trek to Hollywood, CA and CBS Studios, where the youngster would test his wits on Jeopardy against 14 other mentally accomplished pre-teens under the watchful eye of a studio audience, Alex Trebek and eventually, about seven million TV viewers.

Upon arrival, mother and son were escorted to their luxurious hotel, which turned out to be on the outskirts of CBS Studios. While many first-time visitors to La-La Land would have been interested in obtaining a “Map of the Stars” homes, Dominic had a clear idea of where his first destination in California would be. Church.

This choice might be surprising to some, but to know the young man from Bristow, VA is to know that it makes perfect sense. Dominic is a devout Catholic, a member of Holy Trinity Parish in Gainesville, VA, where he is active in church activities and has served for four years as an altar boy. He aspires to become a priest and was introduced as such to the Jeopardy audience.

As luck would have it, the nearest church to the hotel also happened to be the centerpiece of the Catholic community in Los Angeles – the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angeles. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles was in transition last February with the retirement of Cardinal Roger Mahony at age 75. In his place, Pope Benedict XVI named Archbishop Jose Gomez of   San Antonio, TX as his successor. In what can only be described as an amazing turn of fate, the Mass which the Oliveras attended at the Cathedral also happened to be the first Mass conducted by the newly appointed Archbishop Gomez. They were able to briefly meet with His Excellency after Mass.

There were other sights and sounds over the next couple of days to keep the trip entertaining. But the day of taping was approaching and it was time for Dominic to get into focus.

For the uninitiated, the routine at Jeopardy, like many other game shows, is to tape several episodes at a time. As 15 players evenly split into five games, the plan was to tape all five episodes on one day. After arriving to the studio at 8 AM, the players were brought together and sequestered, kept away from family and friends.

Now together as a group of 15, the producer called the names of three contestants to be sent to makeup. Dominic was not one of them. But he, like the others, was allowed to watch the game from a separate seating section in the studio.

After the first game, another three names were called, then another three. As morning turned into afternoon, Dominic remained among the waiting, an experience he described simply as “nerve-wracking.”Said Olivera, “I kept wondering, when am I going to be next?” The producers plan was to avoid giving the contestants’ time to think and work through the myriad of nerves and anxieties. With only minutes to mentally prepare for being onstage, each contestant had a level playing field.

After the fourth triad of players was called, Dominic knew that he would compete in the fifth and final game of the day. He also knew who his opponents would be – Tony Harkin, an 11-year old from New Milford, CT and Maddie Harrington, a 12-year old from Palm Beach Gardens, CA. After several days of activities with the group, Dominic was familiar with his opposition. “I was talking with Tony in the Green Room, and he was one of the smartest kids there.”

With the conclusion of the fourth game, Dominic, Tony and Maddie made their way to the makeup area, a process which Dominic said was “thankfully short.”

The players were led to the set, which is much smaller than it appears on TV. In fact, most of the applause which occurs throughout the show is not caused by several hundred viewers. Truth be told, there are only about 100 "very loud" spectators in the studio, many who are tourists that wait in line for tickets to see the live tapings.

Escorted to their podiums, the lineup for the final game was set. Tony to the left, Maddie in the middle and Dominic on the far right. As the familiar Jeopardy theme began to play, the voice of Johnny Gilbert went to work… “THIS…..IS…..JEOPARDY… Now entering the studio are our three contestants….”

It was Showtime!

NEXT THURSDAY – August 11 – The Game

Charter Schools in Virginia

       It is interesting to view an issue through the lens of different observers. What one person sees as a sensible argument may make no sense at all to several others. We see it in everyday life, especially in the op-ed columns and among the rants and raves of politicians. Gaining a consensus on any issue is tough to accomplish, unless the group involved is incredibly like-minded.

       The different lenses do not change when the topic is education. Just as there are 7-8 designated learning styles (at least, according to Mr. Gardner), there are also dozens of preferred methods on how to run the education business, both inside and outside of the classroom.

       In a paper for William and Mary , I introduced the two candidates for governor of Virginia in the 2010 election, Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell. Of course, as a Democrat and a Republican running for the same office, they had to disagree on some issues, if only for political purposes. I noted that they had some disagreements on charter schools. But who and what were making them disagree?

       It is no surprise that the two gubernatorial candidates didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye on the subject of opening more. The topic is historically a “hot button” issue, especially in Virginia. Even the beginning of Virginia charter schools was noted for its controversy. Back in the early 1970’s, Arlington County became the first jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to open a charter school. Although the school did not mention the word ‘charter,’ the opening of H-B Woodlawn Alternative School was met with resistance from school choice critics. Because of its individualized, caring environment, coupled with the love and peace theme of the youth at that time, the Woodlawn project was quickly labeled “Hippie High.” In spite of the name-calling, the school was successful with its impressive number of participants for the AP exams. Woodlawn continues to flourish today, as an offshoot of Yorktown High School.

       Virginia’s problem is not unusual. In theory, many groups and individuals are proponents of individualism and free choice. The problem only arises when free choice takes money or power away from another individual or group.

       It is difficult to find an interest group that exists solely for the abolition of charter schools. However, there are many interest groups that support the development of charter schools and seem to agree on the common enemies.

       The first group of interest is the Atlantic Legal Foundation. This foundation is run by a group of attorneys who offer counseling and legal representation pro bono if the client is a charter school leader conducting school business. As noted in its mission statement:

       “Atlantic Legal believes that charter schools offer a necessary and viable alternative for parents and children locked into failing public schools.  Recognizing that entrenched special-interest groups are opposed to the charter schools concept and advised by a board of nationally prominent leaders in education, Atlantic Legal has established a program devoted to the protection and strengthening of charter schools.”

       According to the ALF website, http://www.defendcharterschools.org/, the enemies of the charter school are teacher unions and school districts, because of the money and power that each loses when a charter school opens.

       Another supporter of charter schools is an advocate group that calls itself Flow, Inc. Its president, Michael Strong, recently wrote a seven-part series on charter schools for the Heartland Institute website. His initial offering details the story of two charter schools - School A and School B. School A is started by an inept administrator who hired unqualified teachers and turned in its paperwork late on a routine basis during its first year. School B is an exceptional school, which moves into the top 200 public high schools in the U.S. in its second year and the top 100 in its third. Remarkably, they are both the same school.  Strong makes the argument that the government sees School A, while the charter school supporters look at School B. To Strong, it’s not about individuals in the government that act as the charter school enemy, but rather the body of government as a whole.

       A third group is the Reason Foundation. With “free minds and free markets” as a slogan, one can see that the organization is all about choice. The only note that might be considered disagreeable from the Reason Foundation is that they emphasize the importance of charter schools to underprivileged and minority students, rather than students looking for an alternative regardless of race or economic status. The foundation is successful and counts celebrities such as Drew Carey among its supporters.

       In conclusion, the areas of agreement among these three groups appear to be that charter schools make for a good policy because they offer choice to students who may not have had one in the past. They may also offer a more diverse environment and an individualized form of learning. In short, the advantage is in having an alternative choice in schools.

       The vague disagreement areas among these three groups may deal with identifying the most noteworthy enemy of the charter school movement. One group blames teacher unions and school districts; another blames the government at-large, while a third barely acknowledges any disapproving faction.

       One might argue that the motivation among these three groups is probably as simple as saying that each supports the charter school concept. I would offer the notion that ALF is interested in creating a charitable diversion for the lawyers who support their cause, as even the richest attorneys will do some pro bono work for the sake of their reputation. I suggest that Flow, Inc. is looking to be seen as an authority on the charter school issue, while the Reason Foundation draws in the charter school supporters to its website and materials to introduce them to its other causes.

Resources

A Tale of Two Charter Schools. From http://flowidealism.org/. Retrieved on July 29, 2009.

Education Unchartered. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-CHARTER12_20090611-184806/273283/  Retrieved 22 July, 2009

Holland, Robert. How About a Statewide Charter-School District for Virginia?  The Virginia Pilot.  12 June, 2009.  From http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/1434.shtml

Retrieved on July 24, 2009. 

Los Angeles Times. Who Do Charter Schools Educate? From http://reason.org/news/show/who-do-charters-educate. Retrieved on July 27, 2009.

Virginia Charter School Resource Center.  From http://www.virginiacharterschools.org/index.html .  Retrieved on July 23, 2009.

http://www.defendcharterschools.org/. Mission Statement. Retrieved on July 26, 2009.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL? – A Reflective Analysis of the Desegregation Policy in Norfolk after Brown vs. the Board of Education (1953-1960)

     In 1954, a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for equal rights in education. This decision came on the heels of several landmark events, such as Thurgood Marshall’s argument for school integration in front of the Supreme Court some ten years before. With the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the justices hoped to level the educational playing field by allowing black students to begin attending the same schools as white students.

     The new policy was controversial and school districts had trouble adjusting. While some made adjustments within five years, others took 10, 15 years, and there are some who would suggest that segregation still exists at some level today. In fact, there is the basis for an argument that the policy may not have been reverted, but the numbers suggest that our students are being separated yet again. Therein lies the irony. For the sake of this article, the concentration will deal with one system in Hampton Roads  that fought the landmark decision with great resistance - the city of Norfolk.

     As would be expected, most of the changes in policy occurred between 1953 and 1960. In spite of its historical context, the policy does work as a good case study to show how a problematic policy gets implemented. In Norfolk,  the integration issue started before 1954 as an all-white parochial school, Blessed Sacrament, enrolled a black student in 1953, opening up the idea that integration was possible. Most of the opposition to Brown v. Board of Education came in the form of political action. Some acts, such as the “cool heads” approach and formation of a 32-member panel to discuss the effects of Brown v. Board of Education seemed sensible. Others, such as the declaration of Sen. Harry Flood Byrd to stop integration plans, was based more on emotion meant to rile up his political base.

     In Norfolk, resistance continued. The 1955 Brown II ruling placing policy implementation with the district courts caused the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) to begin redistricting neighborhoods in the hopes of keeping students separated, although now by neighborhood. But, by separating the black and white neighborhoods as districts, the effect was the same. Even after 233 black citizens signed a petition requesting that the Norfolk school board act in “good faith compliance,” the resistance continued. In spite of Governor Stanley’s claim that the state was acting in a righteous manner, behind the scenes, tempers were flaring. In early 1956, Sen. Byrd introduced the term “massive resistance” and introduced a set of laws designed to prevent desegregation. A month later 101 southern politicians signed the “Southern Manifesto,”  condemning the Supreme Court for interfering with states rights.  Two months later, the NAACP filed suit against the Norfolk school board to end segregation. This case would be decided and appealed several times. Three similar suits followed, one in Newport News. With the stir caused by the Rosa Parks incident in Alabama, the movement found its way to the forefront of the public eye, and by the end of 1956, the Virginia General Assembly convened for a hearing on public school segregation, at which notable black leaders from the NAACP were given the opportunity to be herd in a public forum. However, two weeks later, through the Pupil Placement Act, the General Assembly ordered all schools with black and white students attending to be closed.

     The first half of 1957 was left to the court system. Federal judge Walter Hoffman rendered an opinion on two separate, but related cases - Beckett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk and Adkins v. School Board of the City of Newport News. In both cases, Judge Hoffman declared the Pupil Placement Act to be unconstitutional and ordered integration. Later in 1957, the “Little Rock 9” began school in Arkansas and the ball was rolling.

     But the ball threatened to stop once and for all as the forces collided in the hardest possible way in 1958. Virginia had elected a new governor, J. Lindsay Almond, who rode the resistance wave into office. In spite of Judge Hoffman’s ruling that every application from a black student be handled fairly and promptly, the powers that be in Norfolk were not willing to give up. In 1958, they changed the rules. Their claim was that each student application to a school would be handled by the student’s proximity to the school, scholastic aptitude, availability of seats, and character of the student. Then, the School Board proceeded to reject all 151 applications from black students desiring to go to white schools. Hoffman ordered a review, reminding the members of the Board of their legal obligations. The Board took a week to ponder its options, then went back to work and found 17 students worthy of entrance. However, they requested that the 17 students be denied admission until September 1959. This request was denied; in fact, the beginning of school in Norfolk was delayed two weeks, to September 22, in order to allow the black students in.

     On September 27^th, Gov. Almond took over control of the Norfolk schools, and like he had done in other districts, ordered them closed, leaving black and white students out of school.

     At this point, the citizens and businesspeople of Norfolk took matters into their own hands and founded the “Committee for Public Schools.” Their letters and petitions were met with opposition from the Governor and local officials, but their efforts led to a legal challenge, which culminated in the 1959 decision of a federal court, finding the closing of schools to be unconstitutional and illegal. This brought attention not just to local media, but national as well. When Edward R.Murrow broadcast his “The Lost Class of ‘59” on the CBS National News, the negative backlash was enough to quiet the politicians and get the six closed schools reopened with little military, police or parental opposition.

     Gov. Almond made one last ditch effort in 1959 to provide for the safeguarding of all segregated schools, but in 1960 he realized it was a battle that would not be won. So, he ordered the integration of all schools in Virginia. Ironically, Norfolk was named an “All-American” city that year.

    

References

Brewbaker, John Joseph. Desegregation in the Norfolk Public Schools. Norfolk, VA: Southern Regional  

     Council, 1960. Retrieved on August 2, 2009.

Gruss, Mike and Philip Walzer. "Pioneers of Progress." (Series: Brown v. Board of Education: 1954-2004).

     The Virginian-Pilot, February 1, 2004. (Factiva). Retrieved on August 1, 2009

Nichols, James Andrew. The Turning of a City's Soul: Norfolk's Public School Integration Crisis, 1954-

     1959. M.A., History, VPI, 2003. (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09192003-

     125601/unrestricted/Nichols.pdf). Retrieved on July 30, 2009

Parramore, Thomas C. Norfolk: The First Four Centuries. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia,

     1994. (Chapter 25: A sojourn in the Byrd-cage, pp. 362-376) F234.N8P375 1994. Retrieved on

     August 2, 2009.

Virginian-Pilot. Fighting Massive Resistance. (Six part series running from 9/28/2008-10/3/2008)

     http://www.pilotonline.com/. Retrieved on August 1, 2009.

White, Forrest R. Pride and Prejudice: School Desegregation and Urban Renewal in Norfolk, 1950-1959.

     Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. HT177.N66W45 1992. Retrieved on August 1, 2009

Dominic Goes To Jeopardy - Part One: The Process

For young Dominic Olivera, the journey toward playing “Jeopardy” in front of a national audience was nearly as interesting as the experience itself.

Every year, the Jeopardy producers at Sony Pictures Company look to line up 15 individuals for their annual “Kids Week.” The idea, according to the CBS press release, is to “celebrate youth and academic excellence with fifteen of the nation’s brightest 10-, 11- and 12-year olds competing.”

The winnowing process is long and brutal. While perhaps not American Idol-ish in its degree of difficulty, there is still a matter of entertaining tens of thousands of pre-teens who dream of bantering with host Alex Trebek right after nailing the Final Jeopardy answer to win thousands of dollars. For Kids Week, the winner of each of the five games was guaranteed a minimum of $15,000.

Gathering the potential contestants was easy enough. As the #1 rated quiz show on television, Jeopardy claims almost nine million loyal viewers on a daily basis and in most major markets, a slot at 7:30 PM, right after “Wheel of Fortune.”  Finding test takers is as easy as presenting a well-placed ad heading into a commercial break requesting applicants to take the Jeopardy “test.” Unlike “WoF,” it is imperative for the Jeopardy producers at Sony to find contestants who are generally brighter than the viewing audience. While “Fortune” viewers take delight in answering the puzzle before the players, most Jeopardy watchers are happy just to keep up.

The first test was online and over 40,000 kids signed on. The first hurdle toward making it on the show is to pass this exam and the number of successful applicants is not readily available. Upon registering for the online test, applicants are allowed to choose the city where they would like to audition, if they are selected. Being from Northern Virginia, Philadelphia was the closest city to the Oliveras.

Soon after completing the exam, young Dominic received word that his score was worthy of a passing grade and he received an invitation to attend the audition in Philly. There are two good reasons for the audition. First, the invitees are given another test. As noted by Dominic’s mother, Gina, it is “to ensure you have the intellectual chops and that Daddy didn’t take the (online) test for you.” In this case, Dominic’s father Mario accompanied his son to the audition while Gina stayed home to care for the other three children – Vincent, Anthony and the youngest, Sophia.

The other reason for the audition is to acquaint the potential contestants with the workings of Jeopardy and to identify the most personable contestants. The process includes an interview with a member of the production staff and a mock Jeopardy game complete with bells and buzzers. Personality, intellect and stage presence are key components for the typical Jeopardy contestant, regardless of age. Dominic was given the opportunity to wow the producers with stories from his other extracurricular activities, which include music (he plays a mean piano and has performed before large audiences in the past), Boy Scouts (getting ready to begin his Eagle Scout project and recently completed a five day, 50-mile canoe/whitewater venture) and church. Dominic is an active member of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Gainesville, VA, where among other activities he has been an altar server for four years.

Leaving the audition in Philadelphia, the only promise Dominic received was that the producers would “be in touch” if selected.

Then the wait began….

After a couple of months, Gina admits that they had “kind of forgotten about it and just figured they were not going to call.”

Then one day, the news arrived. Dominic’s presence was requested at the Sony Pictures Television studio in Culver City, CA as one of the 15 contestants selected for Kids Jeopardy week. The taping was to take place in early March.

There was only one problem. Mario, a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, was getting ready to ship out to Afghanistan and his departure date had been pushed back to just before the taping. In fact, the going away “open house” party, set for February 5^th, had been cancelled as it was now the day that he would leave.

What to do when you love your job…and it’s becoming obsolete

One of the hardest scenarios for a worker to accept is being in a job that is meaningful and rewarding, then having it pulled away as the skill or position becomes obsolete. In the advancing age of technology, this is becoming commonplace. While the loss of a loved job can be upsetting, there are certain things an employee can do to put oneself in an admirable position as the inevitable changes in a workplace begin to take shape.

Change is inevitable

By design, many of us are creatures of habit. We put our pants on a preferred leg first on a daily basis, brush our teeth using a familiar routine, drive to work using the same route, etc.

While many of us grow defensive at the prospect of change, it is also true that the more successful employees are those who maintain numerous skills and accept change as part of the changing workplace. This allows for a more stable transition when a change is made. In the case of a job becoming obsolete, one must be aware of the future prospects for the job. Staying informed to trends in one’s industry and company is a way to prepare for any pending change.

This ability to “see around the corner” is a great skill to develop whether one is a worker or manager. It is better to be prepared for future change ahead of one’s colleagues.

Stay Positive and Adaptable

Regardless of internal strife, it is always best to project a positive attitude. Instead of looking at your obsolete job as an inconvenience, view the situation as an opportunity for change, a chance to develop new skills and gain professional training. Taking advantage of training in the present may keep a worker employed in the future. Show a willingness to adapt and always keep a positive mindset. This can go a long way in separating a worker from negative colleagues, which is a trait that bodes well in the eyes of supervisors.

Gain New Skills

Having the ability to “look around the corner” also includes having the skills to predict which jobs will be desirable in the future. As an employee, one should take advantage of every opportunity to learn new skills, especially technology-based tasks. Staying a step ahead of co-workers leads to more chances to obtain future positions with the company. Engaging in professional training, especially on a voluntary basis, shows a willingness to improve, and completing skill-based courses makes a worker more valuable to a business during a period of change. It also opens doors for the worker whose job is becoming obsolete.

Network

As the adage says, it is “who you know.” Maintaining an open network of colleagues and co-workers can prove to be valuable when one’s job becomes obsolete. In order to possess the ability to “see around the corner,” one must keep in contact with present connections. This does not mean sharing office gossip, but rather an open exchange of ideas. Staying involved with professional associations and networking groups (i.e. LinkedIn) is a great way to see what others in one’s profession are doing, particularly during a period of job change.