?Research Analysis 6 of 7

Research Analysis 6 of 7Read the narrative research study by Chan (2010) about the ethnic identity of Chinese Canadian students at the end of Chapter 15. Analyze the article, and answer the following questions: Why would Chan study the experiences of one Chinese immigrant student in this narrative study? Reflexivity or self-disclosure by the researcher is part of all good qualitative research, including narrative studies. How did Chan disclose her position and experiences in this study? The author discussed her background as a Chinese-American. The author briefly mentions her participation in the Canadian school. The author intentionally distanced herself from the participant in the study. The author discussed her role in making an interpretation of events Examine the sample ethnographic study by Swidler (2000) on recitation in a rural school presented at the end of Chapter 14 and then answer the following questions: Look at the purpose statement identified in the abstract. It reads: “This ethnographic case study describes one Nebraska teacher’s response to the multiage conditions of this naturally small institution in her use of ‘recitation” lessons.” What is the culture-sharing group that this researcher is exploring? How would you adjust this ethnographic purpose statement to change the study to a grounded theory project? In Tables 1 and 2 you can see detailed information about the students and their parents in the small school. In terms of ethnographic results, how would you characterize this information? It shows the reflexivity of the researcher. It shows the researcher’s attention to detail. It shows description in an ethnography. It summarizes tabled information about the students and parents. Journals are attached Chapter 14 APA Reference Swidler, S.A. (2000). Notes on a country school tradition: Recitation as an individual strategy. In J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.) (pp. 488-502). Boston, MA: Pearson. (Reprinted from Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(1), pp. 8-21) Chapter 15 APA Reference Chan, E. (2010). Living in the space between participant and researcher as a narrative inquirer: Examining ethnic identity of Chinese Canadian students as conflicting stories to live by. In J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.) (pp. 523-535). Boston, MA: Pearson. (Reprinted from Journal of Educational Research 103, pp. 113-122)
bls20180421_12021054.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
?Research Analysis 6 of 7
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

488
?)Al??? ??,?·??l) l)(}???Il?
?
In the Pearson etext, Click here to see studies that use an ethnographic design.
Ex??mine tl?f(?)??l??1)?1C?()??????1?? =??l??}? …??1·)gl??11? (lc?n.?l?gil?n()te?n-
di??e the m?)1·????·t?????? ()?tlm???i??…???
etext
h l??11i?ht??=1??? ?11??r)tCr. In the Pearson
Click here to answer questions about the study. W11?}1??ll u?)mit y()??1·
18???elt,` yO??=
receilre eX?Cl.t???)?1?
Notes on a Country Schoo! Tradition: Recitation as an Individual Strategy
S?e?)1?en A· 5??rlC?1?
C?ll,C/?), (f?¥?
/t
/?(/ ????0///
T??(?l(???r (`(?()?/(?/()???//)(??? (?(???}??/
?
/??IC/??/?`?/?// /??/////
Ir,C?l!l(?!/ll
t/7 //?)I?)(/i?/
pc,??/? # +`??,/(?/?l`?!i
(?
tb`,
//,/
?(:/?
h(??/?)0/?) I?/h`??///i(?) c`()??!/
)?/(/(,’//?(/(?/??/(,’?
,//
/?//////)
?/?{/llo??(/ ‘710(!??0/,·?(/
?(/?/(/
/)(,??(
Ii()/l?l(/
)”/?(
/)()0/ /’l /

?)l7
(??’,
??u’l l
()’
///??/)’r??(l

c
(/`??/`??)??-
/. / //l?????he It,?//l(ll.??
# /”?/()I?Il`)(/ It,??l?·) /0?
/?JC?/ti()I???)]0)?,(I (??/?
(?¥Y)()?·?o I?() (?0??(??(///???I77!)/l??tl)(?)Ilt(//
(// /
?vmb()ll
c (/(???”?()’7/??/?
//
?(l/t/ k/10//?/`,c?
,/// /???’? /0 /(????/
/ //??(!/
()?
I??’ JCh()()/
?,??
`?)’
))?/(,?///?!ol
I/,C
co??(??/?7?(l//I7(???, (,?0?()}.!·(//
i??7?C?(,(?r(/ti()?/’/()/?//)!() `?/(/
(01)
,
()/l?/7?//`?`) (!/???(//i()’l ?1 /`)??’?7?./?I)?/
/(?I)li(/?
/.,/?????(//?(/ `,??0/10?ic
lC/?t?/c?/c(/????c
l?/
I/l(?`,C?’/(/(//??
l?,`
ho()?
)?-
l`/
//?)
Th? One-tC?IdlCr ?()????? ???()()l l.???=?¥ ???}??l?} l?Il?n?C ()??Wide l?mge Of gl-urle le?Tel?
11nd???demic gr()??l ()1?? l`C?()???()???m1ti?C l`()ll
is n te?IChel? rcgrll????C ()?·??
liti()1?5 ()f?s mIt?I1111y sm?in5ti…i()n
1i()1?l?’??()??????indi¥??l?1l um?m?gro??S (?)? st?Ident5. This
ped?()gic?dc?’icc i??`()…=1()?I l??( > ()?1?? ()11????dlCr ?()??n???()?1?=?e OId co??ntry SCho()l
rec`it?on c`On)?IrCY?1?im?C? ()?1?????`1?lg ()n J h??)en?h? ()r?
reco?mting mem()?/Cd t???()????
???()I?h?? e?h?r ¥¥
hil? ()thel
nding??cnti(?)n, Ol-?
?ldcnt??r??l?e (l?Iie??md
inder)endently f?thcil· ()??i11??????r????()?)??)1·111…?C?· ?cc¥=·?Iv mcm()1-izec?md c?l.l·cCt-
answer reci?11ti()n5 WCl`C??n t??·1????)¥lC?)1? lc…?ing. Wllilc ¥
el->????1 ¥¥
O?1lc?IC?
()C?C thi+?I?n
ac`CePt?1e m()del ()?11??????·)1? il? l)??? `??h()()1?()d?thc,/??()? thc ?()?mtry “h()OI I?e?it??ti()n
?ith its r)l·edict?l???l
1??-{c?h?l. i1??·?L?()11 …?I c?)l?is ()n in
?,e?11? t()d??”??il)lc l)’
l?Cndc
1?t
?()l-k· nOn?thc?est`
????()1- 1??i…1?Im …?l t`tudcn????C?mnt. Here I im’eSti?te cth-
nogl.?1r)hic`?>? th??C5i????()…?(?h???¥ lt?()11 ill?11()dcm ()nC?te?h?}r SCho()1 i?1 l-?11ul Ncl)1·??Sk?I
I Ic)(?)k?tl??tt?mC(l iI???Il??()11?…????c?l l-e?()??e t() thC ?Onditi(?nt; Of sm?ncss.
I cxplore hO¥¥?n ittr`()n…???¥?} ()?’i??ti()n t()??url kl?()??d?c …C?tlldent le?nin?? thc l`eCi?on
is n()nethele??????ti()11?=·??()???()???()1?t?}?t ()? …1???t`??1-1?cit?r?ntfll l?n
exr)eCt?o??S`? ln(=n???Ic?-?-??…?=()????md??11-id
1 c()mmmity
=c …d `??()nd?T `Ch()(?·
Reform and Schoo?Size
(02) The re?e?C`h l.C??()rtCd h??l???l????()m tllC ?il`t in fl?l.i?()f ?()m?nti?’e C`?e StllC??
dcslgned t() C????C i?…?? ()?`?()()l `1/?? ??11()()l?’C h??illCd c¥=·l.m?>? in ?d???()l?l r?f()ml
Thir rc?????h I? N??(??d h¥ tIl?, l¥n??????Itl=·?(?1lun*??hl.()?Igh?l70()!
l! th`??t,?(,’???l11???>? ()?
Nd)?k???ill(`()ll= …l :?t?)?t() (?()1 ¥]l D.…??I)…?=??()i)???I?? l????111?? ()1r?…l()Il??111 P??-
Ch?g. m)’ QQM?: r?????=?????r H??1?1??`tll
??c(?l??k (m?n?l?·=??10n
??’t,V)()i/
/`?}l?,
?(?/?
,?/,/?? (/’?/(, `?l)()!//(/ /)(,
C:?.rl(?/???//?rI[( //r,I/.?///.
S¥?llc?? A (2000). r¥()(?
1??????????=?()?l??()????C? 1????Cr??·)=hcll
COmmel?md
????Il ??d?????=()?()1??????? (???‡ C??()?l.??(?11?11???()11
/
I(/’??(,(/ /o w?)l,(????’: / /(? /?)/,2
??/l?/?¥'(,/)??/?/??0!Il /J??()I/?¥’/?){?588????/??//?'(//
? ()(? 1
III RI/I?l//?///C(//10/’. /5= ). 8-?l
/i?](///. (/`,I7/`?I:/?
,I?@/?/
?()????11()()l????()n l???It?()1??…?ll?Id??t?:??!o/?l`l/(!/
)(/1?
kc,?(???
?
CHAPTER 14
48?
Eth77(?I?)bic Des?ns
conversations. Drawing?IPOn decades of research, †)egiming with Barker and Gump
s B?Scboo4
5mall School (1964), and upon artic?11ate practitioner r)Ortraits (e·g?Meier, 1995; Snyder, Liebeman,
MacDonald, & Goodwin, 1992), COntemPOrary reformers?arg?Ie StrOngly that smaller schooIs are
generally better than larger schooIs for students :md their lcaming. Despite these findings, Small
schooI size is no cure-all. Benefits of sma11ness vary llCCOrding to social and academic organiza-
tion and enactment of schooI p?Irr)OSe. Nevertheless?mallness is thoroughly implicated in rob??St
school improvement (see Lee & Smith, 1997)· Conseq?Iently, We hear calls ft)r SChooIs to
down
SChooIs
(Elmore, 1996), tO `?estructure
into small, m?Iltiage?mits, and to create
scale
schooIs within
(Darling-HammOnd, 1997)·
It is not uncommon to hear some progressive school reformers in the
small schooIs movement
(03)
(see Fine & Somervi=e, 1998), tyPically urban, invoke the image of the one-teaCher co??ntry SChool
as inspiration for their efforts. However, COntemr)Orary r?1ral, One-teaChc’r SChooIs continue to be
overlooked by ed?1Cational researchers. Small co?mtry SChooIs appear in larger q?Iantitative studies
(see Fowler, 199?; Howley, 1989), Which ratify what we know from other large, mainstream studies
that are not exdusively r?Iral? Sma11er is better.1 Descrir)tive research of contemporary sma11, Public
r?1ral schooIs, and one-teaCher schooIs in partic?Ilar, is exceptionally thin·2 what makes rural one-
????r????e
teachers schooIs of theoretical import?n relation to larger reform concems, is that they are 77atu-
mlb, OCCur7·ing instances of small-SCale schooling. Their size is a function of social and historical
circumstancc, nOt Of reft)rm intervention. The onc-te?ICher school is a peculiarly, SOme might daim
q??intessentially, rural institution that has waned with pop?1lation decline in rural comm?mities and
a hegemony of
economies of scale
. ideoIogies, both contributing to widespread consolidation.
The present study was?mdertaken to Iook at the practices of some of the remaining one-teaCher (04)
schooIs, What migh=)e leamed from them, and if or how we might capture a glimpse
in this remaining piece of our past
of our future
(Geyer, 1995).
Theoretical Frame and Methodoiogicai Concems
Since my interests are in Nebraska
?
s remaining one-teaCher schooIs as naturally occurring instances
(05)
Of small scale schooling, I p?IrS?Ie a theoretical and methodological orientation appropriate to
Study of sociocultural phenomena in natural settings. Ethnographic analysis is best suited to attend
holistically to the details and subtleties of such settings, eSPeCially when insider perspective is
CruCial to understanding those settings. While no school is truly `
natural
(they are human-made
institutions), the rural one-teaCher school is, in educational and institutional terms, nOt a design for
Change. It isjust so as a traditional r?Iral instit?Ition· I treat it as a m?Indane c?Iltural setting, Where
schooI constituents come together and form and coordinate rights, duties, PraCtices, and shared
SymboIs as a way to
do school,, that is small in scale·
In data co11ection and analysis, this study takes a more or less mainstream symbolic-interpretive
(06)
perspective on the school as a cultural setting (Erickson, 1986). The school is thus viewed, in
Geertz
s (1973a) WOrds, aS
an enSemble of texts, themselves ensembles, Which the anthropoIogist
strains to read over the sho?Ilders of those to whom they properly belong
to read over the sho?Ilders of the
(p. 452). In struggling
nativesl, in this school, I assume that there is a
historically trans-
mitted pattem of meanings embOdied in symhoIs, a SyStem Of inherited conceptions expressed in
Sh???p?e?ns
Symbolic ft)rm by means of which [people] commmicate, PerPetuate, and develop their knowledge
???eh?v??,
about and lttit?Ides towards life
(Geertz, 1973?), P. 89). Here, I consider specifically the pattemed
meaning of the recitation as a central feat?1re Of a school. My concems center on how, aS Cult?1ral
?????s,?d
????e?
Settings, these tradition?Il instit??tions cohere lnd comec`=O their rural circumstance.
Con5equen[?y, this inq?Ilry CmPIoys the ethnographic staples of long-term Participant-O??SerVation,
interviews, and artifact and doc?1mentary eXllmination. My data collection has induded participant-
observation and narrative field-n(?)teS from Bighand Schooli for the first 6 months of the 1998?1999
C???????
academic year (A?Ig?IS?Febr???Iry), at least 2 days/week and in several retum visits. I attended
??O??
i E.g., the N?onal Educational Longit?1dinal St?Idy (see Lee?mith, & Crominger, 1995).
2 By this I mean systematic` q?Ialitativ’e l.eSe?lrCh.?Iel·e, r)erh?IPS?1nfllirly, I exd?Ide oral history, reminiscence,
memoir, a?ItObiography llnd scores ()f jo?1malistic acco?mtS. Tb be S?1re, there is m?1Ch to be mined in these?)??t
?
(07)
?e?dw??k
none ()f them represents sy5tem?ic inq?Iiry into living, CO?ZtC,77/?O?’?t,, One-te?Chcr, P?1?c schooIs.
?All na111eS PreSenteC?ere ilre PSe??donyms I o g?Iard c`onfidentia?y.
4?0
PART 3
Re5earu?D(???
monthly school board meetings?md c()nd?l?tcd in-11er)th intervie??? ¥?ll the tc?h?1?ml?Ien?5?
?
SChool board members, P2?rCntS?¥dmini?????md ?O1?m???nity me??lberS. I cnde?Ol.Cd ?Sl)eCil?’
to interview the st?1dents?ndivid?IZl11>’ m
???l??c le??cl gl?O?Ir
?rs m()S=…Te CXPCrienc`ed no ()(1?el-
form of schooling and no other te?hel· in thd??l(`??ti()nal hiogl·aphies. I cond?ICted f()llow-??
interviews with st??d?ntS, r);lrentS, the tc?hcl??1d?l?()()=)(??I mcll?el?S, form??11??ir?)m???
(sometime in telephone calls), tO Ver?y CmergC??t??Cl?ti()n??nd to hl?ild ¥?)1·king hyr)OthC ??()?1t
what is going on
at the t;Chool· I lllso l-evie??·ed?·i()?It=?Xt-hooks, C?Il-ric??1?m??lide?md
?t{en
SChooI policies as doc?mlentar???lCtt?Ind?l?l)Olic tr?l?mgS ()f wi??the?hOO?111C?1n5.?1?1Ch
$?†?e ?????¥ha/
????????’
ofwhat I have leamed has come from thc h?IdI-e?1? Of c()nVCr?ti()nS ¥¥?ith thC tC;1Chel?ln?st?l?l?mtS
d?Iring the reg??lar school
lny? in the ?l?l
()()m?ting nex=o st?Idcnt??=he>? ??Ol.k?n the?1?
basement during l??nCh, On the r)1nygro??11d in ng?1mC ()fA’7(?A??O/1?,?I?d?l?1l.illg diz?111g l·ic?
On an andent co?mtry SChool mel-1?y-gO-l?()??nd?
Nebraska’s Remaining One-1tacher Schoois
(08)
Nebraska contin?IeS tO h:lVC mOre living ()nC-tC?hel- SCho()1s th??n :1ny ()thcl??lte. I?()m the m()?t
recent aggregated, national chta we have on ()nC-]
()()m SChooIs (DeW??997:??c? Hi?? R?mch11? &
Jensen, 1998), I estimate that there ll?e r()?1gl???0 (mC-te?¥Chel? S?hooIs in thc?T.S. 11=he time
Of data collection ft)r this st?Idy. (In 1931, thcre WCrC 143j91 ?Lcight & I?ienh?11·t, 1992?) r()l- the
1998-1999 school yeLlr, Nd?raSka hl-d 125 onc-tCl
?11er ?Chool?C??l?(m?7?o?rs intere?t gr()??S
for their dismantling l?nd consoli?lation ure r)el-emill=n Nehr?kn. Ho¥¥
are variants of
Class One
school districts. Th??5C
li`tri?t?
eVer, the One-tCI?hcr sdl?O??
re K-8 ()nly (i.c.?1()se tlmt h?e n(?) high
SChool). In the 1998-1999 school ye?thel?e ¥¥?el-e 320 Cl?s One sch()O?dlstrict$ in the?utc The
One-teaCher schooIs, like all Cl?ISS Ones, C()mr)rise thcir o¥¥Tn districts with ?heil- O
¥·n thl·c??erS(?)n
SChool boards. They have stat?ItOry our)r)(?t() CXi?to dimjn?e cntirely the rem?ning ()ne-tCilChel-
SChooIs in the state wo?IId req??1re l=egisl??’e?t ()n SChool l-?distri??ting. Ho¥¥?e¥?e??l.?Ir??)()1)?11?on
dedine, OngOing tax str??ggles, eXtremely inc(??1it?le st?e ;lid distrih11ti()n?nd socior)Oliti(?al r)reS?
S?Ire from r?Iral and nonr?Ir:ll schooI dist?ict?. ?eld)r?ng cconomies of?c?11e, all contl???e to Iocal
decisions to dose the small, Class One sch()Olt`.
??????
????
The Resea?ch Site
(09)
Bighand School is Iocated in the ro11ing r)1.?ic ()? e?tem Nehr?k?Whel?e?COm?Oybe?m, Hnd
Winter wheat cover the landscar)e d??1g thC grOWmg Se?15On. The s(`h()()=s sit?I?ed 3 milc? from
the?mincorr)Orated vill??ge OfJohnville (p()r) 170), 7 miles from the t()???n ()f S?rtn (r)()1?. 1?700)? 11nd
12 miles from the co?mty Seat, Rivervi?? (p()P. 6,600). It i?1iter?>?in the ?()?m?r?On l dirt??
highway.
N?t enO?Igh rid? PeOr)le live ()n i”() h???VCd; one r)11rent rCm?ked. It?l()C?Ite?1 on??i=
CreSt and, aPPrOaChing Bighzmd School from uny diI-eCtion, One SeC??n??tterl>’r COn??entiol???)?Iild-
ing. Constr?1Cted in 1981, the c?1rrent 30
StOrage Shed, an OId water p??p?l
× ?101 1?ildi11g i5 One StOl->’, With
?11it?
i11?1mim?Siding?I
let?hcd tomndo ?e??tWO??g sd?` tlnC?”m?I= 1?1el·1?gO-
ro?md. Co?mty arChives indic?e th??=he “hool ¥¥?[
to be a territory, and rem?Iin$ One Of the ()l
()?111dec=n 1868?I yellr?er N?l?kt?C?1SCd
1cst li?’ing sch()()1?n th? Sl?. Like i- grC
lt r)(?ion of
eastem Nebraska and westem Iowa, the l-egi()n in :1nC?1rO?1nd Bi??m1d?ho()l ¥¥r?h()me?C??e?I
and scttled primarily hy Gerlmn immigr?mt?n thc 19th ccnt?1r>? The v?t m:lj()lity ()?1e l·cgistcred
VOterS, aS Well as all of the st?1dent?md the te?hcl-?l?h?Ind Scho()1,?)e?Ir Gcm?lln ftm?m???
testing to this historical backdl?(?)r). I=ook thC n…1C I?hum?()mCtimc in the 188??Ir)P?)ntl¥?1·()11?
the name of the?lrmer Whose origimI home?e?p??()PCl
ty ut nex=() the scho(?)l ?nd Wh(?el·¥Cd
on the school board·?Jn n co?mty thl-t Cnl`()1-1P?e? 1?????e w?()()l dititri?tS. 9 o??·hich i-1-e Cl?
One, Bighand is I of the?remaimng ()ne-tC?hcl- ?h()Ol?tlin ye?11?.
(10)
???(???
Bighand School district cncompilSSe8 n() P()pr???n ?cnters (?)?hc rc??cnts. m(?t?C l?il·ed
farmers. The land is ]?reSently f_lrmeC=?y f÷lmil>r f:lrmel-5 ()1? tenant f??lel·t`, ¥vith l?S??1?m1111l)er ()f
incorporated and consolid:1ted f??rmS. The 1998?h()()l c`?ll?l15?1i(?e? tl?=??el·e lll`C 66 l-e?lents
??Data on NebrlSk?I Sch()()ls??()111c?r()m thc N????-?ltC l)??l·tm??()??Il?()n ?.?t?(knt?1·?? f…T
?
advocacy Gro?IP Cl?lS?Oncs??nitcd.
5Descendents ofWm. I?1?m?I stl= (?·n hm?r()r)Cr?-1?)????1l?? n…l? I?1un(=
tion of the German
Gr()St;ehand.??
thc An?) tl?mllt…?
?
CHAPTER 14
?
f#bn(?r?)blc Des?n5
in thc Bighand school district and 17 schooLage (K-8) children, With 8 of those attending Bighand
School. The district h??S Weathered decades of schooI district reorganization and witnessed neigh-
boring r?Iral districts dose and consolidate· Once comPOSed ?f lO square miles, Bighand district
now ind?Ides apr)rOXimately 25 sq??are miles, SOme Of Which is nonc`Ontiguo??S. In the mid-1980s, aS
r)art Of a state-Wide effort to eq?Ialize the property taxes, r?Iral hndowners were required to dedare
thcir association with a schooI district, and a high sdlOOl if that district was a Class One. Later in
1990, each Cl?IS5 One schooI was to for1?1ally
affiliate,, with one or more high schooIs or to become
?I S?Ibset of a Cl?s Six? high schooI only, district. (Bighand is?iliatcd with 3 high schooIs.) The
c?Irrent Bighand district config?+ration is the cffect of these land-OWnerS
choices.
The political imd some social bo??ndaries of the community?e cffectively defined by the school (11)
district. Because there are no economic or formal social c`enterS in the district itself, COnStit?1entS
take?1P Shopping and ch??rCh in the s??)?mding towns llnd villnges. At least one parent in each
of this year.s school families is cmpIoyed in one of these neighboring towns or villages. One par-
ent referred to the school?the `??Pital” of the community· With no tax advantage in retaining
a?SeParate r?Iral school district
and no high school, the preservation of the Bighand district has
seemed peculiar to many in the cl)?mty· In 1981, a region?Il electl·ic?1tility
s newsletter k)und it odd
yet delightful thilt While the rest of the state,s one-teaCher schooIs w …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15