Dialogue with Debra J. Rog
Debra J. Rog performed her study on homeless families in the USA in 1994-1995. It was innovative research in the sense that the issue of homelessness was considered relatively new to the scientific community and was not thoroughly studied. This Rog’s research was going to be the first and pave the way for other researches, who would learn from her successes and mistakes. The research had several anticipated outcomes to it. Rog expected to define and underline the necessities of homeless families and their mechanisms of coping with the situation, review the correlation between homelessness in families, child and domestic abuse, and incidents of rape, and develop mechanisms of assisting homeless families through Sector 8 Home program, education, and employment (Fitzpatrick, 1999).
During the study, however, Rog and her research team had to do constant alterations to their framework to adapt to the situation. Some goals had to be dropped, such as the history of rape and child abuse in families, as the subject was considered too sensitive to be included in standard questionnaires. While the necessities required for homeless families were outlined rather accurately, the assistance program developed based on them proved to be only partially effective. The only measure that, arguably, brought some results and stability to homeless families was the Sector 8 home program, whereas education and employment programs proved to be largely ineffective (Fitzpatrick, 1999).
Another factor not anticipated in the initial research expectations was the level of violence and depression in homeless families. According to Rog, it was off the charts, and present in practically every family that participated in the research. The differences between expected and actual outcomes are understandable, as it was hard to gauge the underlying factors behind homelessness with very little dedicated research to rely upon.
School Readiness Practices and Children At-Risk: Examining the Issues
This research was performed by Deborah C. May and Deborah K. Kundert in 1997, and it is dedicated to examining the issues with school readiness practices for children at-risk. The researchers identify children at risk as those coming from ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic classes, those with special healthcare needs, or from a single parent background (May & Kundert, 1997). It is a summative evaluation, as it evaluates current practices used to address the situation and offers recommendations on how to improve it. The need for the program is started at the very beginning, identifying children at-risk as a vulnerable population, and stating that current educational practices involving them may be inadequate. The study has focused on the assessment of the program processes and implementation, as well as its efficiency.
The criteria for the research are stated explicitly, as the researchers identify the vulnerable population, give reasons why a child could be considered at-risk, and provide a summary of school practices for children at risk. At the same time, the standards for assessment of children at-risk and their readiness for the school came under question, as the school practice section puts those under scrutiny. The study does not address the financial needs and costs of the programs being implemented, as well as costs for the proposed improvements and intervention. It concludes that the programs currently in place hurt the target population due to being myopic and limited. The researchers state that diversification and individualization of treatment for every child, rather than the application of traditional measures of readiness, would serve to improve education for children at-risk and for schools as a whole.
References
Fitzpatrick, J. (1999). Dialogue with Debra J. Rog. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 562-575. doi: 10.1016/S1098-2140(99)00042-9.
May D.C., & Kundert, D.K. (1997). School readiness practices and children at-risk: Examining the issues. Psychology in the Schools, 34(2), 73-84. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199704)34:2<73::AID-PITS1>3.0.CO;2-T.