Introduction
As online learning environments became more prevalent in educational settings,
it had intrigued me as to how these alternative learning environments find
their way into traditional school settings and how they are ultimately used.
My work as a George Mason University (GMU) instruction in the Integration of
Technology in Schools graduate program brought me in contact with an innovative
project called The Online Academy (TOA). TOA is an online virtual learning
environment for high school students. Over the past three years, GMU has worked
along with three local school divisions to develop and implement the program
forming what is known today as the Collaborative. One aspect of the Collaborative
was the creation of a Policy Advisory Board to serve as a steering committee
for the delivery of courses to high school students.
With my interest in online learning environments and the knowledge
that the research is scarce regarding the implementation of virtual
high schools into
school divisions, I decided to investigate the process of how The Online
Academy was delivered from the viewpoint of the Policy Advisory
Board (PAB) members.
I hoped to learn how each member of the PAB came to be involved in the project,
how each perceived their role in the process, what their notions of online
learning might be and their perception of how this innovation fit into the
future plans for each participating school division and the University as
well. By gaining insight into the relationships among the board
members, I hoped
to learn about the challenges and successes that face administrators as they
develop and implement new innovations in online learning. I wanted to understand
what needed to be done to ensure acceptance of an online learning environment
into the educational community and to gain insight into what types of policies
needed to be in place when a new innovation is introduced.
Conceptual Framework
I have not always been interested in online learning environments.
It’s
not that I deliberately avoided the topic. I simply lacked experience and knowledge
about technology and its affordances. Twenty years ago as I began my first
career as a health physicist at a medical facility, the uses of computer technologies
in a Radiation Safety Office were limited. However, I did have questions about
how to make workshops more accessible for the busy doctors, nurses, and housekeeping
staff at the medical center. I merely had a sense but no solutions that something
needed to be done to allow more flexibility in my training program.
The push to use technology in my children’s school intrigued me as I
tried to make sense out of how computers were being implemented into my children’s
school. In conversations with teachers, I learned that most were not comfortable
with using computers and frustrated by the technology initiatives. My work
as an instructional assistant assigned to the computer lab gave me the opportunity
to further explore technology use and its effect on learning. Through my Masters
program in the Integration of Technology in Schools, I learned about new technological
advancements and the challenges of gaining acceptance as innovations are implemented
into society. My technology position in the public schools allowed me to try
different ways of teaching and integrating technology with teachers and students.
It was in this position I experienced first hand the resistance to technology
integration by some teachers and administrators and the difficulties in offering
alternatives to traditional teaching practices.
My doctoral program and my faculty position at George Mason have
focused on the development and implementation of online learning
environments for
adults.
As an online mentor, I have experienced the rewards of working from home
in my pajamas. I have seen my online students transform in a way that
is different
from my traditional classroom students. My interest in virtual learning
environments, especially for K-12 students, has grown now that my four
children are middle
school and high school. I am aware of the challenges that high school
students face in balancing commitments to school and obligations
in real life as
they strive to be adults. I am also cognizant of the fact that some students
have
issues which prevent them from being successful in high school.
When the Collaborative launched TOA, I was given the opportunity
to assist in the design of online courses, which prepared high
school teachers
for mentoring in the Academy. Additionally, I was able to work with
a group
of teachers,
guiding them through the courses and the process of mentoring. Through
on-going online discussion, I was able to hear their stories and ideas
about online
learning environments and how the opportunity to teach students virtually,
made them feel like they were better classroom teachers. Primarily
working with teachers has limited my view regarding the online
learning phenomenon.
To gain a better sense of what was happening in this arena, I found
it was necessary to expand my thinking, my conversations, and
my research
to include
other stakeholders involved.
My experiences provided me with the knowledge that technology can
be used to support learning and online learning can be used as
an alternative
learning
environment. I believed that there are many challenges and obstacles
that need
to be overcome when a new innovation is introduced. I also believed
that in order for an innovation to be successfully implemented, stakeholders
at many
levels need to be considered, new policies need to be formed, and
a committed
change agent needs to be actively involved. These ideas influenced
my decision to study of the policy board appointed as a steering
committee for TOA.
I believed that hearing the stories of each policy board member as
they
guided
the policies
for TOA would give me insight from another level, the school division
Central Office Staff, about the diffusion of online learning programs.
While the research on virtual learning communities is emerging (Dabbagh,
2005), little is known about the process of how virtual high schools
are diffused
into school divisions. Virtual high school programs began to appear
around 1996 with the U.S. Department of Education’s Virtual High School (Maeroff,
2003). Since then many states have developed or supported participation in
virtual learning environments for high school students. However, not all virtual
high schools are alike (Branagan, 2003). Virtual school programs can differ
in goals, teacher resources, course delivery, and the design of the course
itself. In 2003, Edison, a professor from George Mason University presented
her vision of a virtual high school, which became known as TOA, to area school
divisions. The design is based on the Community of Practice Learning System
(COPLS) model, a patented system developed by Edison. This model utilizes a
unique course design and a one-on-one mentor-student relationship (Norton,
2003). It is this design that distinguishes the program from all other virtual
learning environments currently offered. By studying the TOA Policy Board,
I hoped to inform the literature on online learning environments.
During the data collection phase, Dr. Maxwell suggested that I
look into Ernest House’s work on the politics of educational innovations. Four specific
ideas presented by House jumped out at me. First, innovations usually do not
spread across school divisions. Second, smaller school divisions are the last
to adopt innovations. Third, the Central Office Staff has the greatest influence
when innovations are considered, and fourth, universities are generally the
initiators of innovations. I was happy to have read House’s work towards
the end of my data collection after my interview questions had been established
because I wanted to keep an open mind in my interviews. I did not want these
theories to lead me in any particular direction during data collection.
In order to gain more insight into the phenomenon of online learning,
my research question focused on the perceptions of the TOA
Policy Board about
what they
did to advance the delivery of The Online Academy in their
school divisions. Subquestions include: What did they believe
about
the nature of the
relationships among board members? What obstacles did they
believe they faced in the
process? What did they believe were the issue to be resolved
for the project to move
forward?
Research Methods
Setting
I purposefully chose The Online Academy project because it
is a unique program in both design and delivery. The Collaborative
included
Stafford
County Public
Schools, Frederick County Public Schools, and Loudoun County
Public Schools and George Mason University, a large public
university
located in Fairfax
County in Northern Virginia. The virtual high school project
was
conceived and developed
at George Mason University and the initial implementation
of the virtual high school project occurred within these three
school divisions. As
a faculty member,
the program and those involved in it from the University
side were
very accessible to me.
The school divisions represented in the Collaborative had
historically promoted technology programs. Over the past
several years,
the Loudoun, Stafford,
and Frederick Public School systems have invested staff development
money in teachers
who enroll in the George Mason University Integration of
Technology in Schools graduate program. The historical relationship
between
George Mason University
and the school division was a consideration in understanding
the meaning of the board’s perspectives.
The participants were purposefully chosen after a conversation
I had with Edison, the visionary of TOA and the implementer
of the
project
on the
University side.
She recommended the official policy board members as participants
because in their appointment as the steering committee
for the virtual high
school, they
were the primary information sources about the delivery
of courses to the school divisions. Their perceptions about
technology and
virtual learning
as it related
to teachers, students, and curriculum formed the basis
for making policies about the virtual high school and its use
by division
schools.
The official board members included three women and three
men. Peggy was the newcomer to the group, replacing Paul.
Although
she had only
attended
a couple
of meetings as an official member, she had been involved
unofficially in the project from the onset. As head of
the Professional
Development department, “a
department of one”, as she described, she was in the midst of leadership
changes within her division as well as becoming acquainted with prior decisions
of the PAB.
Paul had represented his division as the Director of
Instruction. His exit from this position amid leadership
changes and
subsequent relocation
to
a neighboring school system as a principal made me
curious about his influences on and interactions
with other policy board members. I wondered if the
displacement could be an indicator as to how Paul interacted
with
the board during his
term. I
understood
that this was a sensitive subject and became even more
aware of the huge responsibility for confidentiality
I carried
as a researcher.
Roger, Director of Student Support Services, had a
background in Curriculum and Instruction and he had
been a principal.
He was
involved in many
other projects including the development of a support
system for elementary school
counselors.
Lisa was a co-member on the board in a “supporting role” to her
colleague Sam. She was a Technology Resource Specialist in the Department of
Instructional Services.
Sam was in the lead role as official member for the
division. Prior to his position as Research Supervisor,
he had
worked for PBS Online,
a
virtual learning environment for staff development.
Paula was a university professor who specialized
in policy and education. She came to the project
with
an interest
in how teaching
in virtual
environments differed from teaching in traditional
classroom environments.
With the exception of a brief introduction to Paula
in the past at a faculty training session and
few email communications about
a policy
course in
which I was enrolled, I had no prior relationships
with
the
participants. In addition,
my prior experiences had not provided the opportunity
to work with administrators
on the level of Central Office Staff. I enlisted
the help of Edison as my gatekeeper to provide
me initial
access
to the
participants because through
her TOA work,
she had developed a relationship with all involved
in the project and communicated with them on
a regular basis.
My relationship with Edison is worth mentioning.
She is my doctoral committee chair and the
head of the
Integration of Technology
in Schools graduate
program, in which I am an instructor. We enjoy
a close working
relationship. She plays
a big role in the path that I take in my faculty
position and in my research by providing opportunities
for teaching
and
recommending topics
for research
to inform the programs in which we are working.
She is therefore available to me on a daily
basis to
answer questions
that
I might have about
the participants and TOA. I was aware that
I needed to
acknowledge this relationship
and the
possible affects on the validity of my findings.
I decided to conduct audio-taped interviews
with each of the six participants. I felt
that as
Central Office
Staff,
these
participants
were accustomed
to having conversations and sharing information
about new programs. Initially I went back
and forth on
the length
of the interviews,
deciding between
thirty
and sixty minute interviews. I decided that
these experienced individuals, with little
extra time
on their hands,
would have less than forty-five
minutes to spare for an interview. As gatekeeper,
Edison initially introduced me
through email to all the policy board members
and gave them an overview of what I wanted
to do in the study. Within minutes of her
email, we received responses from five of the interviewees.
I
noted the
quick response time
and realized that
the members thought highly of my gatekeeper
and were readily available to meet her requests.
The only
contact that I
had with the participants
prior
to the
interviews was email and telephone conversations
to schedule the interviews. Even though I
did not have
an opportunity
to advance
my relationships
with the interviewees prior to our scheduled
meetings, I did believe that my
gatekeeper’s
involvement added credibility to my requests.
An aspect that helped to prepare me for my
interviews was the informal conversations
that I had with
others involved
in different
capacities
with TOA. Through
my position as instructor at George Mason
University I frequently had contact with
individuals who
have knowledge about the
leadership structure,
the
missions of the school divisions, and past
attempts at implementing innovative projects
in the school divisions. These casual exchanges
have helped
me to focus my research questions, develop
my
interview guide and
have
provided
a preliminary list of organizational categories
for which to use as I collect
data. “Vision”, “Obstacles”, “Policy”,
and “Role” were a few that came out of my informal conversations.
In addition, I gained background knowledge about the general atmosphere at
the Central Office of each school division in the Collaborative. Specifically,
I’ve learned about how leadership changes in the instructional technology
department in one county have diminished the focus on technology projects.
Since I do not have experience in this arena, I think these conversations gave
me confidence as I prepared for my interviews.
Initially I considered viewing the PAB
meeting minutes as part of my data collection
process.
However, the
brief time
frame
allotted to
this pilot
study did not
allow for the collection and analysis
of those documents. In terms of validity,
these documents
would have
been useful for
triangulation
of
the data and
to verify the themes that emerged from
the interviews.
Data Collection
Table 1 illustrates the interview schedule
that I followed. I noted that for the
most part my
interview length
increased, which
I attributed
to
a continual
revision of my interview questions.
New thoughts and questions developed from
each interview
and I
used
that knowledge
to build new questions
to ask in subsequent
interviews.
Participant |
Date
of Interview |
Length
of Interview |
Peggy |
10/26/05 |
30 minutes |
Roger |
10/31/05 |
35 minutes |
Paul |
11/4/05 |
35 minutes |
Lisa |
11/7/05 |
32 minutes |
Sam |
11/15/05 |
40 minutes |
Paula |
11/16/05 |
45 minutes |
Table 1
My first interview was conducted with, Peggy, the new member of the group,
and was memorable to me because it was the first time I had conducted an interview.
As a novice interviewer interviewing a newcomer to the PAB it somehow made
me feel more confident that we were both entering new territory. From our conversation,
I was left with an impression that this interview was Peggy’s first opportunity
to verbalize her thoughts about her new role. I originally had thought that
there was no benefit to the participants as a result of their participation
in the study but reflection on the PAB experience might help each member consider
the past accomplishments and inform future decisions. I felt more comfortable
in subsequent interviews with this one under my belt. Following each interview,
I compiled notes and thoughts about my experience and preliminary categories
that came to mind. (See appendix A)
What had changed in my thinking about my topic after I began data
collection was my preconceived notion that the policy board operated
as a unit and was
all on the same page with the same issues. What I observed during my first
interview was that each school division in the Collaborative had issues that
differed from each other. It was revealed to me that the board operated as
separate entities bringing in division specific issues for everyone to address.
It showed me that I needed to reexamine my preconceived notions about the
virtual high school projects and reaffirmed what I had learned
from my coursework in
qualitative research that data collection and data analysis can and should
happen concurrently.
The questions I asked the interviewees were developed to gain insight
into the roles, relationships, obstacles and issues faced by
the Board. I asked
questions about how the participants became involved in the project, what
they believed to be their role on the board, what issues they had resolved
or had
outstanding, what they believed about online learning and its use in the
division schools, and the obstacles that they perceived. A sample of the
Interview Guide
can be found in Appendix B. My initial concern was that participants might
go off topic and that I would be lost in trying to bring them back around
to my questions. This was an important lesson for me in that while I was
in control
of the initial questions, it was the participants who had the story to
tell. I learned to ask the participant why they believed the “new topic” was
important. I worried that I would not be able to ask good responding questions
but when faced with an actual interview, I found that my interest in the topic
naturally led me to follow up questions based on what the participant wanted
to talk about. I discovered that if I treated the interview as a conversation
between two people who had an interest in the topic, I was a much better listener.
Validity
I saw two main areas which threatened the validity of my study. Researcher
bias was a main threat. My doctoral program and my faculty position are
both focused on the design and use of online learning environments and
reflect
my support. I know that I want these types of programs to succeed and
because I work in the office that produced TOA and have opportunities
to work on
elements
of the program, I have a professional interest in the project as well.
However, I feel that as a professional, I also want to know all sides
of the problem,
to have the opportunity to make improvements and to learn lessons for
other projects. In this way, I have tried to remain open-minded.
I believe that
while I have knowledge and experience in one aspect of TOA, I had no
relationships or knowledge about the PAB. This helped me keep my
eyes open. Also, the
process of revising and building on my interview questions for subsequent
interviews
allowed me to use what I was learning from the participants to dig deeper
rather
than my own assumptions. Writing about my beliefs and assumptions also
played a role in acknowledging my biases and gave me the opportunity
to revisit
these notions throughout the study.
I had informal conversations about my conclusions with Edison as
well as my doctoral program mentor, who is involved in TOA as
a University
professor.
From these conversations, I was confident that I had allowed for the
voices of the participants to be heard but also made plausible conclusions
as
to what
was happening in the process. Another way that I did validity checks
for research bias was to write about my findings and share those with
peers
and Dr. Maxwell,
whose advice not to believe everything I was hearing was a huge breakthrough
for me. This caused me to look at connections to check interviews against
each other so see if the same ideas were emerging.
Another validity threat could be found in my data collection and
the choices I made in what type of data I would collect. Due
to a lack
of time and
sensitivity to confidentiality issues, I decided not to collect and
view the minutes
from past PAB meetings. The minutes contained information about and
statements from
individuals who did not agree to participate in the study. In order
to get the perspectives of the official board members as my research
questions
indicated,
I felt that audio-taped interviews yielded adequate data for my purposes.
Data Analysis
An important part of my data analysis process was the frequent review
of interview tapes prior to transcription of the audiotapes. Since I
had to drive a considerable amount of distance to the interviews, I used
the return trip from the interview sites as a time to review my audiotapes.
I believe this process not only made transcription more efficient but
I believe this action engaged my thinking about possible organizational
categories.
Following each interview, I developed a habit of listening, transcribing,
reading and note writing. During each of these steps, I took time to
reflect on the
conversations and made notes to myself as thoughts occurred to me. While
some of these thoughts proved to be random reflections, they
helped me to keep an
open mind about my data and to ask myself, “What’s missing here?” Preliminary
organizational categories such as Roles, Obstacles, Vision, Policy, and Issues
were developed from my research question and interview questions and were used
to provide an overall framework as I analyzed data. After each interview I
took notes about my impressions and added to my list of organizational and
substantive categories (Appendix C).
After each interview transcription, I read through a printed copy
of the transcript and penciled in categories in the margin as
they appeared as well
as underlining
key phrases that supported each category. After listing all categories
found, I then collapsed the categories into four categories to
describe the of the
Policy Board members perceptions about what they did to promote The Online
Academy. These consisted of Relationships, Roles, Issues, and Obstacles.
Each theme was assigned a highlighter color, which I used to highlight
phrases and
statements on my printed transcript copies. During this process, I found
that I had to define Issue and Obstacles because for instance, one interviewee
would
describe the need for human capacity as an obstacle while another would
declare it as an issue. Comments that described an unsettled
matter for discussion
by the Collaborative fit into the Issues theme and those that described
situations that impeded the Collaborative processes were defined
as Obstacles. I also
began to see that some statements overlapped into two categories. I noted
these occurrences on the transcript by using both highlighter colors and
noting the
overlapping categories in the margin. These occurrences helped me to think
about making connections and at this point I started to develop a picture
of what was happening by using a whiteboard to ‘draw’ the relationships.
In the next step of my data analysis, I returned to my electronic
transcripts and used the highlighting tool to replicate the coding
I did on the printed
copies. This procedure served two purposes. I reflected on how I coded
each segment, looking for anything that I might have missed and rereading
portions
of the interview transcripts, especially sections that did not have coded
segments. As a result, a theme, “the right people at the table” emerged and
I went back through all the transcripts again to re-code segments that would
fit into this new theme. In addition, with my electronic transcripts coded,
I could copy and paste segments into an electronic matrix for each category.
This allowed me to collect segments across the transcripts and to see all the
comments made by all the interviewees on a particular category or theme. Within
the categories of Relationships, Roles, Issues and Obstacles in their respective
matrix, I subdivided coded segments into more specific descriptors to capture
a more complete understanding of each theme. Some of the descriptors were developed
by me such as “internal division” Obstacles, whereas others were
provided by the interviewees, i.e. “The Bus” Relationship.
After printing my matrices, I highlighted common phrases in one color
under each category as well as those comments that didn’t fit in with the others
in another color. Once again, I went to my white board and under each category,
wrote down common things that the interviewees said as well as noting those
comments that didn’t fit. At this point I began to make connections and
asked myself, “What is happening here?”
I noticed that categories I had developed were all interwoven and
affected by each other. Roles caused obstacles but because of
relationships,
issues could still be resolved, and so on. I decided that I needed
to look at
the substantive categories that emerged from the data and how those
themes told
the story about what the policy board did (Appendix C). I found that
the data supported and challenged ideas about the diffusion of education
innovation
into school systems. Some of these ideas I had as a result of my
experience as a technology specialist in a school system and
others were ideas
I had learned
about from Ernest House (1974) regarding the politics of education
innovations. It was at this stage that I began to include theories
of the politics
that occur when innovations are diffused into educational communities.
Findings
My research set out to understand the perceptions of the TOA policy
board on what they did to advance the delivery of TOA into the
school divisions.
Through
this understanding, I hoped to learn how online learning in the
form of a new innovation, is diffused into educational settings.
My initial
perception
that
the policy board was comprised of a group of school administrators
who met
monthly to develop policy for the delivery of the program was quite
different from what was happening.
The formation of a Collaborative was a result of recruitment by
George Mason University to implement an online high school into
school divisions,
developed
by Edison. Generally, universities are the source of innovations
(House, 1974) because they have the organizational structure,
the time, and
the resources to invent. Once the innovation is designed a network
of implementers
must
be
established. Each member revealed that their respective divisions
had a prior interest in and were in the process of investigating
an alternative
form
of instruction such as online learning to meet the needs of students
who
were
homebound, involved in work release programs, or couldn’t fit into the
traditional classroom setting. The invitation to join the Collaborative was
open to all schools but Paula indicates, “when the dust settled, there
were three plus Mason and that’s what we called the Collaborative.”
However, the recruitment and decision to join the collaborative
was very deliberate. Prior relationships between the three
school divisions
and
the University ultimately
convinced the school divisions to commit to the project. Edison,
the developer of TOA had particularly strong ties to the three
school divisions,
cultivated
through the Integration of Technology in Schools (ITS) graduate
cohort programs that she offered in these divisions. Paula
confirmed that “they [the
school divisions] knew the students did well in the programs and they [the
school divisions] trusted her.” In my own experience as an instructor
in these programs, I had witnessed successful learning among the graduate students
from these school divisions. The TOA project was based on the same principles
of good instruction that Peggy said, “[Edison] is well renowned [for].” The
members expressed great respect for GMU and Edison’s work. Lisa was “very
much in awe of the work she’d [Edison] done on [TOA]” and as one
who valued projects based on research, she thought it was “wonderful…that
GMU is doing the outside research component of [TOA].” The members were
in agreement with Roger that “the elements of good instruction…stand[s]
in TOA,” unlike the other online programs each division came across as
they explored the possibilities prior to being introduced to the GMU project.
Peggy felt that “George Mason has a great name” and Paula added, “They
[the school divisions] work with the University in lots of different ways.
But I think every time, there’s that kind of outreach to a school division,
it really cements relationships.”
What I discovered was that the relationships based on trust
and formed under the constructs of the Collaborative provided
a great
advantage
for the diffusion
of TOA. The divisions and the university were separated across
distances and did not share borders. One obstacle that board
members cited
was that even
the most convenient meeting place required extensive travel
time, as much as an hour and a half or more each way. It
was unlikely
that these
four
entities would come together to meet on a project. Innovations
rarely spread from
one
school division to another because school divisions operate
as their own government entity which typically inhibits the
flow
of information
(House,
1974). With
the Collaborative, there was a network of direct personal
contacts which allowed the communication about the online program
to
penetrate into
the division government.
With support from the Collaborative small school divisions
which generally do not have the resources to implement the
latest innovations
were
able to do so when working together with larger school divisions.
Roger admitted
that “we’re
a fairly small system,” and but the “beauty of the collaborative
also is no matter what size the school division, no matter what assistant superintendent,
or if you‘re a coordinator or university professor, there’s a quality
among the board members and there’s respect for the profession, a respect
for judgment, there’s respect for the fact that you are representing
a constituency.”
Roger’s comment about “representing a constituency” contradicted
my notion of the purpose of the Policy Board. It signaled to me that Roger
while holding an official board membership conferred with the leaders in his
school division about TOA issues. I initially thought the board was working
together as a single decision-making unit and that the school divisions faced
similar issues with regard to implementing a virtual high school. I also believed
that the board created policy with equal voices about how TOA should be delivered
to school systems. My perception was misguided in three respects. First, the
board members each had different issues stemming from what Paul offers as “three
distinct instructional philosophies, obviously all pointing to the same direction
but with different philosophical views.” Examples of these different
views included “the unique scheduling options in each division” (Paul)
and “and the whole transcript issue” (Roger). In order for TOA
to work in all three school divisions, each member worked closely with their
Central Office Staff to insure that TOA elements fit into school division.
At the monthly meetings, the members returned with reports about what elements
fit and what did not fit. Paul’s criticism of the other online programs
was that “they are built based on the educational philosophy of that
particular locality [which initiated the program]” while through the
Collaborative, TOA was developed to work within the constraints of several
school divisions.
By operating on group consensus, the board members were
forced to work out issues within their division or presented
ways
to modify TOA thereby
making
the program flexible enough to reflect the educational
philosophies of three localities. Sam commented that “adding other school divisions enriches
the content, if for only…that you’re using [different] texts…different
resources…different experiences. It gives you a broader based understanding
of what policies are in place…grading issues, instructional issues.” It
also allowed for TOA to be flexible enough to be used by other school systems
outside the Collaborative, a major issue currently facing the board. This illustrated
another aspect of the Collaborative which promoted TOA not only in their divisions
but outside the Collaborative.
A second mistake in my initial thinking was that the
policy board developed policy. However, it was the
notion of policy
making
that was lacking
in my conversations with the interviewees. Roger explained
that what comes
out
of board meetings was “not a policy as much as it is practice.” Sam
was more direct by saying, “…we don’t operate based on policy.
We operate based on decisions that aren’t written down.” It is “an
advisory board”, he continued. Paula, an expert on policy making, clarified
that the board was officially called Policy Advisory Board with a statement
that “its policy advisory board because in fact only a school board can
make policy in Virginia. So it’s always advisory.”
The third that the board members had equal standing
among each other was incorrect as well. the advisory
aspect
of the board
showed that
not all
at the table
held equal roles as I had suspected early on in my
research. A delineation of roles and a clear leader
emerged from
the data. As the initiator
of the innovation as well as owner of the intellectual
property known as
TOA, GMU “will
always have a different role than the three school division” as stated
by Paula. Sam stated that “we’re advising GMU… as much as
we like to say we have equal voices at the table, GMU is driving the bus. We
all have a seat on the bus but GMU is driving it.” Paula would agree
with Sam’s statement because “I saw my role as sort of a manager
of the board” and “the one to kind of cajole the school system
to sort of move along and help think about what are the legal things.”
Paula’s leadership was clear to me because she demonstrated a balance
between sensitivity and hardness, something that was missing from the conversations
with the other board members. In the interview she spoke of making sure no
one is embarrassed if they were not in the position to make a decision without
higher approval. She also was the only member who spoke of playing “a
little bit of hardball” when she “refuses to sign the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU)”, the initial agreement that set up the structure
of the Collaborative. She felt that one member was holding up progress by firmly
standing on the issue to have voting members rather than group consensus. Not
until the member, whom she called “destructive”, relented did she,
as the University representative, sign the MOU. Because of the weight that
the University bore in its ownership of TOA, the Collaborative and the project
could not continue without the University’s signature. This showed the
leverage and the upper hand that GMU had in the project.
The school division members indicated that they
did play a subordinate role to GMU. Roger quoted
his
Superintendent in
that the job
of the board was
to “keep
the herd moving roughly westward.” Paul saw the role of the board as “having
to be problem solvers”. Lisa saw a need to be “looking at the communication
between GMU and the fact that it all need to be on paper.” Sam summarized
the board’s accomplishments as “being the noodge.” Paula
referred to “the people at the table [are] the implementers”, the
ones “who really know how this [TOA] is going to have to be implemented.” Paula
was clearly excluding herself from the role of implementer because she went
on to say, “We have come to find out what the implementers, as I am calling
them, what it is they can do and what it is they can’t do. And if they
can’t, the strategy is, you have a written document, and you say, ‘We
need your school division’s position on these things and they can take
it back [to their school divisions]’, and there’s no question of
trying to reinterpret it when they go back home.” What was found in all
of these descriptions was that the school division members were in the role
of watchdog, worker bee, and pest, but certainly not in leadership roles with
equal voices. These self images from the board in part lead to the controversy
of whether or not the project was “getting the right people to the table” as
Sam stated.
Frustration to Sam was “getting the division as a whole, getting the
right people at the table, to say [that] these are the procedures, these are
the students we are going to serve, this is how we’re going to open this
up as far as [to] acknowledge that this [TOA] is really going on.” However,
Lisa believed that “policy board people need to be empowered [by] reporting
to or connected to people who are in power to make things happen.” Peggy,
although very new to the process, was concerned that she did not “deal
with curriculum on a daily basis” and is “not familiar with high
school” since her background was in elementary education. Paul became
frustrated because his Superintendent and superiors were wondering why there
were “spending all this money if we don’t have a product yet and
I had to constantly explain to my superiors that the product is not ready to
deliver.” It seemed that the way the members view themselves as board
members had a lot to do with what is happening internally within the school
division.
Sam and Lisa represented the same school division.
Sam stated that “a
challenge really is the bifurcation that we have at this school division.” There
had been struggles throughout the TOA process to which Lisa attested, “ I did not expect for there to be within the County such internal strife
over who would manage the process internally here, whether it would be Pupil
Services
with the Guidance directors, whether it would be the head of C and I [Curriculum
and Instruction], whether it would be Instructional Services.”
The internal strife was addressed further
by Sam and his assessment of the situation
that “there wasn’t a good dialogue between the two [Instructional
Services and Pupil Services] as we were developing [TOA].” The internal
challenge that TOA faced when presented to the Curriculum and Instruction people
was described by Lisa as “curriculum is always an issue in the school
districts because there’s always a core group of people who feel they
own it and that their curriculum is the BEST!...looking at someone else’s
[TOA] curriculum isn’t going to be good enough.” Her attitude towards
that “core group of people” had been “get a grip!” The “traditional
mindset” present in the school division frustrated Sam because “innovations
are very hard for school divisions who are…entrenched in what they know.” According
to House (1974) those in the Central Office have frequent contacts with the
outside world but it is “as propagator or inhibitor of innovations within
the district that they exert the most influence” (p.45). Sam and Lisa
were the propagators of TOA; however, they are supported by GMU, a highly respected
institution throughout the school division. This relationship provided a strong
influence against those that wished to inhibit the innovation. The project
was moving forward within the school division so it is clear who had the most
influence. In terms of the Collaborative, whose role was to advance TOA into
the divisions, Sam and Lisa seemed to be the right people at the table because
they offered issues to be addressed rather than obstacles.
Peggy was Paul’s replacement on the board. Paul’s exit from the
board demonstrated the changing leadership structure in that school division.
For her school division, Peggy saw that there “isn’t a clear vision…timeline
or plan for how we are going to roll this out” and “we have fewer
people here wearing too many hats” because “we are going through
growing pains right now.” However, Peggy saw the project moving forward
despite the obstacles because “we have always prided ourselves in [this
county] on being cutting edge despite being so short staffed in key spots.
She advocated a “tag team approach” by sharing the position with
a Curriculum and Instruction individual to make sure the right people were
at the table. Peggy was still in the honeymoon phase of her appointment to
the board. When we spoke she mentioned that she was “very impressed by
everyone else’s sensitivity to me coming in new” and that everyone
was willing to email me the information [to bring her up-to-date on the board
issues].” In Peggy’s case, she may have been the only one who could
sit at the table due to personnel changes in the Central Office.
Roger’s experience also demonstrated that internal relationships affect
a board member’s belief about the right people at the table. Roger believed
that his division “might be a little unique” in the strong communication
channel that operated in his division. He worked closely with the Director
of Staff Development on the recruitment of teachers and the content coordinators “reviewed
all the classes and curriculum [in TOA] and they felt very comfortable that…there’s
a good positive correlation between our courses and those of The Online Academy.” These
positive relationships were noticed by other board members. Sam stated that “[Roger]” is
in sync very closely with [the Assistant Superintendent] in his division and
they regularly talk. Paula singled out Roger’s division by saying, “I
really think a lot of the people in Frederick. They seem really, really super.
They’re really committed to this [TOA].” It was important to note
that among the three, Roger’s school division was the smallest and located
to the very western edge of Northern Virginia, where tremendous growth had
yet to occur. Lisa, whose county was one of the fastest growing in the United
States, commented, “[Roger’s] school division is static…they
see themselves as experiencing tremendous growth but they don’t really
know [what growth] [laughter] is!” Roger did not question his right to
sit at the table. He believed that there’s “the right driver, the
right people on the bus, but not just the right people the right people in
the right seats on the bus.” With a cohesive division administration
and little change within the division, Roger was able to be the right person
at the table.
I also learned that the Collaborative
is attempting to deliver a program
that is
innovative in
many ways. It
is innovative
in terms
of its patent
pending
design. A selling point for Roger and
his school division was that “the
elements of good instruction will stand in The Online Academy. It’s just
that we’re going to use a different medium to deliver it.” TOA
is innovative in its content. Sam explained the dilemma faced within his school
division because the Supervisors say “This is more rigorous than our
course content… kids are going to be hard-pressed to do this because
we don’t teach this way [in the schools].”
The program is innovative in its development
of a university graduate program
for teachers to learn
about and design
online content for
high school students
as well as the practice of online
mentoring. When Peggy thought about why she might
be having difficulty
in
recruiting teachers
for the
program, she stated, “
It’s not a Masters that they have already envisioned in their mind. Most
teachers might walk around and think…I’ll get a Masters in Administration
and Supervision or I’ll get one in straight out Technology. They already
have an idea. With this Masters, it does raise the question about, ‘What
will I do with this Masters? It won’t open up new jobs with the division
for me right now.’…although it does prepare them quite well for
private companies.”
The concept of online teaching is
just too new for most teachers
to imagine
the possibilities.
Peggy
described the difficulty
in getting the message
across to prospective teachers
in recruitment flyers and meetings.
It was not until
she asked one of the graduates
in the first teacher
cohort
to recruit that they “got the turn out” which she attributed to the first hand
knowledge the recruiter was able to provide. This demonstrated that with a
new innovation, personal stories and experiences need to be related before
understanding of the innovation takes place.
The innovation is new at the University
level as well. The innovation
has caught the attention
of
the Provost
and the
Board of Visitors
(BOV). Paula
reported
that “there’s some pressure from the Provost to try to take this
to a greater scale” and “the Board of Visitors see this as something
that could make a mark out in the world and they like that. They both [Provost
and the BOV] want revenue to come into the University…but they also want
the University to get recognition and they see this [TOA] as something that
might lead to that.” Paula did not see any negative consequences to this
because she also represented the needs of the University. However, the impact
that TOA has had at the University level caused the Collaborative to take notice.
Sam believed that “the Policy Board needs to begin looking at how the
bus is being driven…we are a K-12 division, GMU’s a Higher Ed.
We serve students based on where they come in the door whenever they come in
the door. GMU serves students who choose to go there and pay tuition, so there’s
that whole dynamic there.” Expansion of the program had been a consideration
from the beginning but the issue remained open. As Roger put it,
“
When you get into something, each new task, each new discovery triggers more
passion, more enthusiasm, more desire to know. From the get go we tried to
say we’re going to do more than a perfunctory offering, the board is
going to have more than a perfunctory discussion…sometimes you don’t
arrive at quality on the shortest trail”.
The Collaborative members agreed
that a major issue was defining
the entity
of
both TOA
and the PAB
before expansion
could
begin. According
to Paula
a second MOU was necessary
to define the “next phase of our connectedness”.
In addition, Lisa said the “commitment to building capacity in the form
of teachers, students, the systems, and support” needed to be defined.
These statements showed how the PAB members were moving in uncharted territory,
not surprising for a new innovation, but rare for a group of school divisions.
With touch of skepticism, Sam spoke of the board as “a bunch of educators
trying to do something that’s pretty entrepreneurial and business oriented…” indicating
a new venture for school divisions.
The story of the Policy Advisory
Board and their perceptions
about what they
did to
advance TOA
into the school
divisions revealed
a very interesting
relationship between a university
and three K-12 school divisions.
It confirmed
my
belief that a change agent,
in this case, the University
and Edison, needs to be
involved in the process in
order
to bring the entities together
and to
guide them
through the process. School
divisions do not have
the
structure or resources in terms
of human capacity, time,
knowledge or
finance to initiate
and implement
such
project on their own. School
divisions that collaboratively
deliver an innovation bring
diversity to the table which
actually can
enrich the
elements of the
innovation and make the innovation
more adaptable to other divisions.
Collaborative
such as
TOA allows the
spread
of innovation across
school districts and
gives smaller school districts
the opportunity to participate
in the
latest phenomenon.
The work of the Collaborative
also
opens the door for a possible
state-wide program
TOA,
bringing revenue and notoriety
to
the University and the
Collaborative school divisions
as well. The Collaborative
school divisions
are rapidly
growing entities, who are gaining
the
notoriety of top-notch divisions,
a title previously
held by the larger school divisions
in the area. While
the study affirmed the position,
intentions, and
goals of a university
when initiating
an innovation, it would be
interesting to further study
the goals
and expectations
at the
superintendent level of the
school divisions. The perception
of
these decision makers
about division-university
relationships and
what
they believe TOA
can
do for them would be a good
addition to this study.
As indicated in the study,
only the perceptions of the
official
policy
board members
were considered and therefore
my conclusions
were limited
to their
perspectives. Many others
attended the meetings and
had interactions with board
members and their perceptions
might have
been a good way to validate
the statements
made by the official board
members. Along
the same lines,
the official board members
were extremely positive about
the
TOA experience
and had invested
lots of time in the project.
I wondered
if their optimism caused
them not to reveal important problems.
Hints
of
much internal
strife was evident in many
of the interviews but participants
stopped short
of sharing too much
information
about
their internal division troubles.
In this case, my relationship
with
the
interviewees did not
have time
to develop and
I was not
given
privileged information.
Also as mentioned before,
the review of Board meeting
minutes
could
have been used
to triangulate
the
data collected.
The study was
also limited
by the fact
that only one interview
per participant was conducted.
A second interview
of each may
have produced
additional information.
I felt that my
interviewing skills improved
as I conducted more interviews
and
would
have liked
to have the opportunity
to interview the first participants
again.
I am aware that
the perspectives of a policy
board are only one aspect
in studying
this phenomenon. In the
future, to more fully understand
the problem I would
expand my list
of interviewees to include
the visionary
of the program, the curriculum
designers, the
mentors,
and the technical
personnel
who have been
involved. It would
also
be interesting to interview
the parents and students
in the pilot
program
to understand how a virtual
high school
program
impacts
the community
as a whole. Reflection
If I were to do this study over, I would try to spend more time gathering
information from the participants. Because the interviewees had tight schedules,
I would
ask the participants if they would be available for follow up questions. These
could be asked via email and in this case, I believe the participants would
have been agreeable to the idea. For validity purposes and clarifications,
these follow up questions might prove to be valuable. In addition, I would
try to take more time away from the data and to allow myself to take a step
back and return to it with a fresh look. I found that I had an easier time
looking at someone’s project and asking questions about what was happening
than looking at my own. I also would like to conduct the study with another
researcher. I believe there is a huge advantage in having discussions with
another researcher who is engaged in the same study. This has the benefit of
using different points of view as to what is happening with the data and to
be able to really brainstorm all plausible alternatives.
References
Branigan, C. (June
2, 2003). Forum
addresses virtual
schooling myths.
eSchool News. Retrieved on November 19, 2005 from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=4456
Dabbagh, N. & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts,
strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
House, E. (1974).
The politics
of educational
innovation. Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Maeroff, G. (2003).
A classroom of
one. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Norton, P. (2003).
COPLS*: An Alternative
to Traditional
Online Course
Management Tools.
Technology and
Teacher Education
Annual,
2003.
Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement Of Computing
in Education (AACE).
Published by Allyn & Bacon Publishers. Received SITE 2003 Outstanding
Paper Award.
|