This is the first in a series of blog posts about different aspects of graduate school in the history of education. This post relays the experience of the author’s first research trip. Subsequent posts (about one a month) will address teaching, research, and publishing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a year into grad school, so I was both nervous and excited when I went on my first research trip a few weeks ago. Here I was, doing historical research “for real.” What would it be like? Would I find what I was looking for? And worst of all (my secret fear), what if it was really boring??
For the last nine months or so, I have been researching the Emergency School Aid Act, a desegregation program started by the Nixon administration that lasted from 1970-1981. I’ve always been interested in the politics of curriculum, so when I first read about these grants, which reportedly provided money for staff training and curriculum development in desegregating districts, I thought this would be a great topic for me. Maybe I would find out some juicy details about how districts altered their curriculum to be more multicultural or instituted some kind of cultural sensitivity training. It was easy to find and download hundreds of pages of congressional reports about the ESAA from the LexisNexis Congressional Database, but I had trouble finding specific details about what individual districts did with the money. I knew that districts must have had to write grant applications, and/or reports detailing what they did with the money, but I couldn’t figure out where those reports might be. A few people suggested looking into the regional Desegregation Assistance Centers, and my advisor suggested looking at the library catalogs of those universities that had the Centers in the 1970s. Sure enough, I did find some hits at NYU’s library, in Albert Shanker’s United Federation of Teachers files at the Tamiment Library & Wagner Labor Archives. One folder was even titled “Emergency School Aid Act Reports”!! I thought I had hit the jackpot.
I was lucky to live just an hour’s train ride from New York City this summer, so it was an easy day trip for me to get to the archive. However, nothing else was really easy about the experience. I was really surprised to learn how much of a process it is to do research in an archive. It’s not something that you can just decide to do spur-of-the-moment.
For example, the files I needed were stored offsite, so I had to email the librarian two business days ahead of time with the box numbers. Then, the archive was only open 10-5, Monday-Thursday, so I had to make sure I got there early enough on a weekday to get through everything in one day. I got there at about 11 AM on a Monday, had to fill out some paperwork to get library privileges for the main NYU library, then went upstairs to the archive and filled out more paperwork for privileges within the archive.
The librarian also sent me some documents to read ahead of time, so that I would be familiar with the rules (because there are a lot of rules involved in looking at archival materials!) There were obvious rules that I expected, like using only pencils, keeping backpacks in lockers, and not having any food or drink. Another logical rule was taking only one folder out of a box at a time, so that you keep everything organized.
A rule that I did not expect was to have to use a digital camera as a “copier.” They didn’t have scanners available, so you could either just take notes by hand, or take digital photos by bringing in your own camera. I opted for taking digital photos, so I nervously toted my husband’s expensive digital SLR all day around NYC because I didn’t think my point-and-shoot would get the job done. Unsurprisingly, there was also a whole set of rules for taking digital photos. You could not use a flash. You had to keep the document lying flat on the table, and not stand on your tip-toes or otherwise lean over it…yet somehow take an image that would be legible, not at a weird angle, and not have your shadow on it! You also had to write down the box, folder, and title of every document you photographed, and turn it in to the archive. And don’t even get me started on the rules for copyright permissions (they were really confusing; I will definitely not cross that bridge until I come to it!)
The many rules were one confusing aspect for an archive neophyte like myself. Another area of uncertainty was how to approach these huge boxes of files. Should I read in-depth, one folder at a time, taking pictures as I go? Should I try to leaf through everything quickly and then go in-depth? Should I just skim to see what might be relevant, take a picture of it, and read it later at home?
I decided that I would just try to get a sense of what was there before I took any photos, so I just took some handwritten notes as I looked through the files the first time, starring things in my notes that I wanted to copy later. Of course, I started reading way more in-depth than I originally intended, so I spent hours on the first box. Then, I skimmed through the rest quickly because I realized if I didn’t start taking photos soon, I would never be finished. I did my best to take good pictures while following all of the rules. My images turned out really well, all things considered, but they are annoying large files (and when I reduce the picture quality, I can’t read the words anymore.) Now, I have 150 jpegs that I am still trying to muster up the energy to crop and convert to linked pdfs.
But on to the good stuff – what I found! Unfortunately, I did not find ESAA district reports in the file labeled “ESAA Reports” (go figure), but I DID find some juicy stuff that made the trip well worth it. There were some fascinating controversies in the NYC districts about the ESAA money. One of the ESAA requirements was that each district form a grant advisory board with 50% minority members. Although this requirement was intended to ensure minority representation in the South, this requirement backfired in heavily minority districts in the North. A district that was 95% minority would still be advised by a board that was 50% white, due to the one-size-fits-all rule. Another area of controversy was a questionnaire administered to elementary students asking them about their racial attitudes. The idea was to see if there would be any kind of change in racial attitudes that could be correlated with the ESAA funds. The questionnaire asked students things like, “How do you parents feel about black and white students going to school together? How do they feel about brown and white students going to school together?” Many community members felt that this questionnaire’s language was offensive, and did not want it to be administered, even if that meant losing a chance at the grant money. I also found many examples of districts that were denied ESAA grants for not meeting its civil rights requirements. The Office of Civil Rights would compare the numbers of English Language Learners in a given district from several different reports. In many districts, the numbers didn’t match up, and OCR would refuse to give them grant money unless they extended ESL services to all eligible students. Their language was quite harsh. In one district, there were 4,120 students listed as ESL in one report, but only 1,877 in another. OCR said, “Your district has apparently failed to properly ascertain whether or not these 2,233 students are in need of educational services to remedy their English language difficulty. The large discrepancy between these two reports demonstrates a failure on your part…” (Ouch!) Districts could file waivers to receive the funds once they had corrected their civil rights violations. From everything that I have seen so far, it seemed like a good system for ensuring compliance and thorough desegregation.
Despite the many rules I listed above, going to the archive was a great experience. I did learn quite a bit about the ESAA that I never would have found from only reading congressional reports. I also want to give a huge shout out to the employees at the Tamiment Library. Everyone was very helpful, from the librarians, to the students working in the archive, to the library employees giving me my ID badge.
By the way, I was relieved to know that even though my head was spinning by the end of the day, going to the archive was actually pretty interesting (not boring, as I feared). Whew!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am just a year into grad school, so I was both nervous and excited when I went on my first research trip a few weeks ago. Here I was, doing historical research “for real.” What would it be like? Would I find what I was looking for? And worst of all (my secret fear), what if it was really boring??
For the last nine months or so, I have been researching the Emergency School Aid Act, a desegregation program started by the Nixon administration that lasted from 1970-1981. I’ve always been interested in the politics of curriculum, so when I first read about these grants, which reportedly provided money for staff training and curriculum development in desegregating districts, I thought this would be a great topic for me. Maybe I would find out some juicy details about how districts altered their curriculum to be more multicultural or instituted some kind of cultural sensitivity training. It was easy to find and download hundreds of pages of congressional reports about the ESAA from the LexisNexis Congressional Database, but I had trouble finding specific details about what individual districts did with the money. I knew that districts must have had to write grant applications, and/or reports detailing what they did with the money, but I couldn’t figure out where those reports might be. A few people suggested looking into the regional Desegregation Assistance Centers, and my advisor suggested looking at the library catalogs of those universities that had the Centers in the 1970s. Sure enough, I did find some hits at NYU’s library, in Albert Shanker’s United Federation of Teachers files at the Tamiment Library & Wagner Labor Archives. One folder was even titled “Emergency School Aid Act Reports”!! I thought I had hit the jackpot.
I was lucky to live just an hour’s train ride from New York City this summer, so it was an easy day trip for me to get to the archive. However, nothing else was really easy about the experience. I was really surprised to learn how much of a process it is to do research in an archive. It’s not something that you can just decide to do spur-of-the-moment.
For example, the files I needed were stored offsite, so I had to email the librarian two business days ahead of time with the box numbers. Then, the archive was only open 10-5, Monday-Thursday, so I had to make sure I got there early enough on a weekday to get through everything in one day. I got there at about 11 AM on a Monday, had to fill out some paperwork to get library privileges for the main NYU library, then went upstairs to the archive and filled out more paperwork for privileges within the archive.
The librarian also sent me some documents to read ahead of time, so that I would be familiar with the rules (because there are a lot of rules involved in looking at archival materials!) There were obvious rules that I expected, like using only pencils, keeping backpacks in lockers, and not having any food or drink. Another logical rule was taking only one folder out of a box at a time, so that you keep everything organized.
A rule that I did not expect was to have to use a digital camera as a “copier.” They didn’t have scanners available, so you could either just take notes by hand, or take digital photos by bringing in your own camera. I opted for taking digital photos, so I nervously toted my husband’s expensive digital SLR all day around NYC because I didn’t think my point-and-shoot would get the job done. Unsurprisingly, there was also a whole set of rules for taking digital photos. You could not use a flash. You had to keep the document lying flat on the table, and not stand on your tip-toes or otherwise lean over it…yet somehow take an image that would be legible, not at a weird angle, and not have your shadow on it! You also had to write down the box, folder, and title of every document you photographed, and turn it in to the archive. And don’t even get me started on the rules for copyright permissions (they were really confusing; I will definitely not cross that bridge until I come to it!)
The many rules were one confusing aspect for an archive neophyte like myself. Another area of uncertainty was how to approach these huge boxes of files. Should I read in-depth, one folder at a time, taking pictures as I go? Should I try to leaf through everything quickly and then go in-depth? Should I just skim to see what might be relevant, take a picture of it, and read it later at home?
I decided that I would just try to get a sense of what was there before I took any photos, so I just took some handwritten notes as I looked through the files the first time, starring things in my notes that I wanted to copy later. Of course, I started reading way more in-depth than I originally intended, so I spent hours on the first box. Then, I skimmed through the rest quickly because I realized if I didn’t start taking photos soon, I would never be finished. I did my best to take good pictures while following all of the rules. My images turned out really well, all things considered, but they are annoying large files (and when I reduce the picture quality, I can’t read the words anymore.) Now, I have 150 jpegs that I am still trying to muster up the energy to crop and convert to linked pdfs.
But on to the good stuff – what I found! Unfortunately, I did not find ESAA district reports in the file labeled “ESAA Reports” (go figure), but I DID find some juicy stuff that made the trip well worth it. There were some fascinating controversies in the NYC districts about the ESAA money. One of the ESAA requirements was that each district form a grant advisory board with 50% minority members. Although this requirement was intended to ensure minority representation in the South, this requirement backfired in heavily minority districts in the North. A district that was 95% minority would still be advised by a board that was 50% white, due to the one-size-fits-all rule. Another area of controversy was a questionnaire administered to elementary students asking them about their racial attitudes. The idea was to see if there would be any kind of change in racial attitudes that could be correlated with the ESAA funds. The questionnaire asked students things like, “How do you parents feel about black and white students going to school together? How do they feel about brown and white students going to school together?” Many community members felt that this questionnaire’s language was offensive, and did not want it to be administered, even if that meant losing a chance at the grant money. I also found many examples of districts that were denied ESAA grants for not meeting its civil rights requirements. The Office of Civil Rights would compare the numbers of English Language Learners in a given district from several different reports. In many districts, the numbers didn’t match up, and OCR would refuse to give them grant money unless they extended ESL services to all eligible students. Their language was quite harsh. In one district, there were 4,120 students listed as ESL in one report, but only 1,877 in another. OCR said, “Your district has apparently failed to properly ascertain whether or not these 2,233 students are in need of educational services to remedy their English language difficulty. The large discrepancy between these two reports demonstrates a failure on your part…” (Ouch!) Districts could file waivers to receive the funds once they had corrected their civil rights violations. From everything that I have seen so far, it seemed like a good system for ensuring compliance and thorough desegregation.
Despite the many rules I listed above, going to the archive was a great experience. I did learn quite a bit about the ESAA that I never would have found from only reading congressional reports. I also want to give a huge shout out to the employees at the Tamiment Library. Everyone was very helpful, from the librarians, to the students working in the archive, to the library employees giving me my ID badge.
By the way, I was relieved to know that even though my head was spinning by the end of the day, going to the archive was actually pretty interesting (not boring, as I feared). Whew!
RSS Feed