In the middle of May I wrote that it seemed like I had to fill out a million forms as I got close to submitting my dissertation. I was still worried about my advisor’s support and wondered if this would ever be over.
By the middle of June I was writing every day and submitting parts to my advisor each step of the way. At some point I noticed a shift in his attitude. He seemed much more positive. I wrote on the 14th that I had submitted Chapter IV. Shepardson had read it and made some positive suggestions. Overall he said he was pleased with the chapter. Given his past practice I was encouraged.
When I finally had what I thought was a final draft I delivered a deposit of the document to a special office at the University. There, a woman reviewed the document for technical issues and made sure it followed the University’s rigid requirements. After a two-day argument and a special trip to Iowa City about the type size she finally returned the dissertation with eight pages of corrections. While that sounds like a lot, it only took a few hours to correct them all.
When I finally thought I was done with it I submitted eight copies to the University. Each of the five members of my committee got a copy and the University got the rest with one going to the printing office to be published. I defended my dissertation before my committee on July 13 at 3:00 PM.
My committee included my advisor, Dick Shepardson, Jack Bagford, Brad Loomer, Linda Fielding, and Cleo Martin. Jack, Cleo and Dick were also friends of mine so that helped. Loomer was from the School Administration Department. Fielding was in the Elementary Education Department and Cleo was head of the Rhetoric Department at the University. Jack was near retirement but stuck around for me to finish up. He had a national reputation as a reading expert.
“Individual Concerns And Roadblocks Which Shape The Responses Of Teachers As They Are Introduced To And Attempt to Use Cooperative Learning Strategies” is typical of the length of dissertation titles. Part of the reason for the lengthy titles is that they will get more hits in topic searches.
The defense didn’t really take long. The comments of the group were generally positive. Shepardson and Loomer got into an argument over the efficacy of cooperative learning. Bagford got us back on track with the discussion and they soon asked me to leave the room. I wasn’t outside more than a few minutes and Shepardson came out and extended his hand and said congratulations. I went back in the room and shook hands with each member of the committee.
I was on my way home within an hour and was stunned at how well it had gone. I couldn’t believe what had just happened, that I was done, and that I was going to get the degree.
On August 2, 1991, T. Anne Cleary (four months later she was murdered by Gang Lu, a disgruntled student) placed the Ph. D. stole over my head and said softly, “Congratulations, Dr. Ross” and I shook the hand of Hunter Rawlings, president of the University, and walked off the stage.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
90s12 Principals
By the end of April in 1991, I was heavily involved in my dissertation, presenting at several young writers’ conferences, doing storytelling events, and all that on top of my work as a curriculum director. The guy who was completing his first year as elementary principal in the district told me that he was going to resign and take a position in Idaho. I was shocked!
He was popular with the teachers and in the community. This was the job I had previously decided not to apply for so I could work on my dissertation. Now it would be open again. I wrote that it presented a dilemma and an opportunity for me. As I have said I was in the middle of writing my dissertation and didn’t see how I could get involved in the complications of applying for a position. I decided if I did go forward with it, it would be on my terms.
In those complicated days I was trying to write a minimum of 200 words each time I sat down to work on the dissertation. That worked well for me because I knew I could get up if I met that limit and actually seldom got up without writing several hundred words. I would get into something and couldn’t stop until I finished the thought. I frequently got lost in the writing. It was a break from the trouble of my job and the worries of everyday life. I didn’t spend much time thinking about the principal position.
That’s when the principal told me he got another offer from another district in Idaho and he was taking the position. He said he would tell why he was leaving when he had signed the contract for the job. Even after he had signed the contract he didn’t really tell me much. He just said working in Mediapolis wasn’t like it was in South Dakota. He thought we took our jobs too seriously. I think he thought we should be having a lot more fun than we were. It was really strange.
People go into the principalship for lots of different reasons. Some go into it for the money. Some want to be the boss. Some because they really care about kids and I am sure there are many other reasons. I had seen many who were there for the wrong reasons. I don’t know how many lousy teachers become principals but I am pretty sure there are quite a few. I had no respect for them.
I honestly believed, and still believe, that I could make a positive difference in the lives of children, families, and the staff of the building. I had worked for some good principals and some bad ones. I felt like I had learned from both and be a better leader.
So the last entries in the journal that may are about completing the dissertation and whether I want to apply for the principal position. I ran out of pages before either is decided. I’ll get to them soon.
He was popular with the teachers and in the community. This was the job I had previously decided not to apply for so I could work on my dissertation. Now it would be open again. I wrote that it presented a dilemma and an opportunity for me. As I have said I was in the middle of writing my dissertation and didn’t see how I could get involved in the complications of applying for a position. I decided if I did go forward with it, it would be on my terms.
In those complicated days I was trying to write a minimum of 200 words each time I sat down to work on the dissertation. That worked well for me because I knew I could get up if I met that limit and actually seldom got up without writing several hundred words. I would get into something and couldn’t stop until I finished the thought. I frequently got lost in the writing. It was a break from the trouble of my job and the worries of everyday life. I didn’t spend much time thinking about the principal position.
That’s when the principal told me he got another offer from another district in Idaho and he was taking the position. He said he would tell why he was leaving when he had signed the contract for the job. Even after he had signed the contract he didn’t really tell me much. He just said working in Mediapolis wasn’t like it was in South Dakota. He thought we took our jobs too seriously. I think he thought we should be having a lot more fun than we were. It was really strange.
People go into the principalship for lots of different reasons. Some go into it for the money. Some want to be the boss. Some because they really care about kids and I am sure there are many other reasons. I had seen many who were there for the wrong reasons. I don’t know how many lousy teachers become principals but I am pretty sure there are quite a few. I had no respect for them.
I honestly believed, and still believe, that I could make a positive difference in the lives of children, families, and the staff of the building. I had worked for some good principals and some bad ones. I felt like I had learned from both and be a better leader.
So the last entries in the journal that may are about completing the dissertation and whether I want to apply for the principal position. I ran out of pages before either is decided. I’ll get to them soon.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
90s11 Iowa Department of Education Audit
WACO and Mediapolis were both up to be audited by the Department of Education (D.E.) in the spring of 1991. That means the district turns over just about every type of documentation they have to a team of educators from outside the district who pour over them and then interview staff. The team included people from the D.E. and a few from other districts. It only lasts whirlwind two or three days. It is a lot of work on the district’s part to prepare for it and happens once every five years.
At the end of the audit the team writes their report and then present it as the exit report to the district at open meeting just before they leave. Usually the only people who attend are a few administrators and the team.
I have to say it’s a stretch, a big stretch, to think that observers could look at anything in depth in a multi-million dollar operation that covers all of the curriculum areas, employees hundreds of people and sometimes serves thousands of students. Corporations contract with consultants to evaluate their operations for months before they expect the final written document.
I wrote that the D.E. gave us so little direction in interpreting the standards and what they expect in these audits that it is a big guessing game. They didn’t seem to know what they wanted or expected. I have always felt it was a shallow process that provided little productive input to the district. It just seemed like a ritual that we had to go through periodically and then it was all put on a shelf until the next time.
The conclusions seemed to be far fetched at best. It reminds me of the Indian scout in the movies that draws all kinds of conclusions about riders by looking at a few hoof prints in the dust. The D.E. is the scout and they read these documents and tell us what they mean. Rather, they tell us what they think they mean. Even within the D.E. there is disagreement about interpretations.
Hmmm…big district, lots of paper!
Lots of paper…not very organized!
Uses a lot of education ease…must be doing it right!
Confusing…do they know what that means?
Administrators wear ties…must be very professional!
Formal…not a relaxed learning or working environment.
Licensed teachers…must mean good instruction!
Licensed teachers…but can they teach?
Appropriate documentation…students must be learning!
Documentation…but is it appropriate and relevant?
And on it goes! In recent years there is the expectation of follow-up, an improvement plan, and even another visit from the D.E. so it is a better process. I still think it’s superficial and of limited value. I am sure if the D.E. reads this they might come for another visit. I just believe that people who are deeply involved in the achievement of their learners are interrupted by this process and lose valuable time satisfying the requests of the audit team. We ought to be thinking about how to make it easier for educators to do their jobs, not harder.
At the end of the audit the team writes their report and then present it as the exit report to the district at open meeting just before they leave. Usually the only people who attend are a few administrators and the team.
I have to say it’s a stretch, a big stretch, to think that observers could look at anything in depth in a multi-million dollar operation that covers all of the curriculum areas, employees hundreds of people and sometimes serves thousands of students. Corporations contract with consultants to evaluate their operations for months before they expect the final written document.
I wrote that the D.E. gave us so little direction in interpreting the standards and what they expect in these audits that it is a big guessing game. They didn’t seem to know what they wanted or expected. I have always felt it was a shallow process that provided little productive input to the district. It just seemed like a ritual that we had to go through periodically and then it was all put on a shelf until the next time.
The conclusions seemed to be far fetched at best. It reminds me of the Indian scout in the movies that draws all kinds of conclusions about riders by looking at a few hoof prints in the dust. The D.E. is the scout and they read these documents and tell us what they mean. Rather, they tell us what they think they mean. Even within the D.E. there is disagreement about interpretations.
Hmmm…big district, lots of paper!
Lots of paper…not very organized!
Uses a lot of education ease…must be doing it right!
Confusing…do they know what that means?
Administrators wear ties…must be very professional!
Formal…not a relaxed learning or working environment.
Licensed teachers…must mean good instruction!
Licensed teachers…but can they teach?
Appropriate documentation…students must be learning!
Documentation…but is it appropriate and relevant?
And on it goes! In recent years there is the expectation of follow-up, an improvement plan, and even another visit from the D.E. so it is a better process. I still think it’s superficial and of limited value. I am sure if the D.E. reads this they might come for another visit. I just believe that people who are deeply involved in the achievement of their learners are interrupted by this process and lose valuable time satisfying the requests of the audit team. We ought to be thinking about how to make it easier for educators to do their jobs, not harder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)