Research_Critique

A Transformation Story My critique is based on a case study that describes the transformation of how a small town vocational center serving part-time students became a full-time technical high school. This specific case, written by M.A Sullivan, is entitled “Case Study: Sussex Technical High School, Georgetown, Delaware.” In general, Sullivan uses a narrative style to present the restructuring and/or transformation efforts that were undertaken by this vocational-technical center between 1988 and 1991. The essence of this study discusses how Sussex Technical High School used the frameworks provided by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) and Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB) to design a new, comprehensive facility. This facility sought to blend traditional college preparatory studies with quality vocational-technical education in order to become more aligned with SREB’s High Schools That Work (HSTW) sites. An advisory committee or “Power Group”, as it was referred to in the study, which was composed of superintendents, key staff members, policy makers, and representatives of local businesses, industry and the community facilitated this restructuring under the prime directives of a combined and cumulative vision. The vision was to foster an applied learning environment such that the students of Sussex Technical High School would be well prepared and assimilated to the enter either into the workforce or into college. According to the study, the integrated curriculum of college preparatory courses and clustered vocational majors with hands-on learning resulted in substantial student gains in reading, mathematics, and science; more students enrolling in rigorous courses; a 95 percent attendance rate; dropout rate that was less than 2 percent; and competition for admission due to the increased interest in the integrated learning approach. While this case study told an insightful story about the benefits of a vocational/college preparatory learning hybrid, it lacked qualitative research depth in certain areas. The study was an objective reiteration of historical and chronological facts. However, there could have also been more analysis and introspection regarding the results and impact of the new curriculum on its student body and the surrounding community. Looking across the various research components, there were both strengths and weaknesses. The research purpose was clear, as it was intended to be a summarization of a new and improved facility that was embraced by the community, faculty, and thriving students, alike. The questions, still, were somewhat general and broad. It may have been beneficial with respect to gaining deeper personal insight, if Sullivan had sought to answer more probing questions in the approach. For example, questions to the students could have been more customized to get a sense for the demands of such a curriculum on their schedule and mental well being for someone at that age. The use of theories and conceptual frameworks was discussed at large relevant to the reference of the NCRVE and SREB design standards. Also, benchmarks derived from the HSTW tests helped to bring a comparative perspective to the successes realized at Sussex Technical High School. Because HSTW’s model is so detailed, it provided Sussex High with “clear guidance on how to restructure.” Some key practices that Sussex followed were as follows: They set higher standard for their students and held them accountable, they increased access to both vocational studies and academic studies, provided students with guidance and extra help, these and many more. Unfortunately the paper I am critiquing fails to mention any formal method of data collection; however, in another paper, which refers to this case study mentions that Sussex worked very “hard to collect meaningful data [themselves] to measure its progress toward reform.” Following the same assessment that HSTW does, National Assessment of Educational Programs (NAEP), Sussex reports that scores increased in all three areas of Math, Reading, and Science. Also, Sussex reports that their median combined SAT scores increased from 789 to 876 from 1993 to 1996 respectively. Other reported data states their percentile for students entering higher education increased from 26% to 64% from 1990 to 1996 respectively, in addition to their 95% attendance rate and less than 2% dropout rate. Lastly, within this same paper, it discusses opinions and comments from American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) and their observations of Sussex Technical High School. For example, a few comments they made referred to “classes were taught by a team of teacher” and the teachers also commented that they “learn a great deal by teaching with a partner and felt this improved their skills.” The data that was analyzed again seemed to be based on pre-defined information given to the researcher by the school. The study did provide benchmarks that Sussex followed from HSTW. One example is Sussex reading scores for 1993 was 262 and in 1996 increased to 274, but the benchmark set by HSTW is defined to be 279. A similar pattern of benchmarks is stated for both math and science. The data given above does show a positive sign that Sussex High students are increasing their scores and that the school is holding them accountable to even higher standards. Again, because this case study does not clearly define its data collection methods, it’s impossible to comment on its analysis. The basic findings and conclusions confirmed that this integrated, restructured, hybrid learning environment benefited all interested parties from the student, to the parent, to the school and school board, to the community. Nevertheless, some of the findings remain inconclusive. There was limited data presented or available that depicted the longer-term success of the graduating student. Information about job recruiting, post graduation careers and their associated starting or incremental salaries, college majors and even community contributions was not disclosed. Also, in another article that I found on the web discusses some of the implementation issues that Sussex has which are not formally discussed in the other two papers I’ve referred to thus far. Here it mentions that there is “ongoing struggle to have all parties understand the role of technology in all major,” how students at first resisted the higher standards they were being accountable for, keeping up with technology, and wiring old buildings to mention a few. Unfortunately, this paper only states the difficulties that Sussex is facing, but does not speak of how Sussex is trying to tackle these issues. Overall, this case study described a classic situative learning environment. Sullivan did a thorough job of gathering and organizing the researched facts necessary to understand the underpinnings of such an environment. Still, further synthesis of those facts coupled with perhaps a deeper psychoanalysis of the students and post graduation statistics may have helped to further appreciate the trials and tribulations of Sussex Technical High School. As they appear in the critique: Sullivan,M.A., “Case Study: Sussex Technical High School, Georgetown, Delaware”, Southern Regional Educational Board, Publican Orders Department, 1997, 18pgs. “The Transformation of an Area Vocational School Field Trip to Sussex Technical High School, Georgetown, Delaware,” http://www.aypf.org/tripreports/1998/tr110998.htm, 1998, 7pgs. “Technology works! Technology Success Stories,” http://www.siia.net/sharedcontent/divisions/education/stories/sussex.html, 2000,4 pgs.