Digital Technology: A Double-Edged Sword for a School Principal in Rural Pennsylvania

Abstract

This case study was inspired by visits to several different rural high schools in Pennsylvania. The case illuminates the challenges faced by rural principals and superintendents who want to integrate digital technology into their curriculum, but who lack certain financial and human capital resources. Although this case occurred in a remote, rural area, school leaders in various settings deal with similar dilemmas. The following case is designed for principal preparation courses such as instructional leadership, organizational leadership, and school budgeting. In addition, this case could be utilized in educational policy courses examining school choice policies and how traditional public school districts respond to competition from online charter schools.

Keywords

technology instructional leadership cyber charter schools rural education school budgets

Introduction

As the economic conditions of rural America shift, many rural school districts find themselves facing the dual challenge of providing more innovative curriculum in spite of shrinking enrollments and subsequent budgetary cuts. Rural school enrollments decrease for a variety of reasons including economic decline (Carr & Kefalas, 2009; Sherman & Sage, 2011), aging populations (Glasgow, 2000), and high drop-out rates (Hardré, Sullivan, & Crowson, 2009). In some instances, cyber charter schools are attracting rural students, further exacerbating enrollment declines. In response to these challenges, some rural principals and superintendents tout digital technology as a great savior for rural schools in crisis (A. Howley, Wood, & Hough, 2011). Rural school leaders often look to digital technology as a means for increasing student engagement, preparing students for 21st-century careers, and connecting students to opportunities outside their community (Beeland, 2002). Relatedly, many rural schools take advantage of online platforms to offer advanced courses or cutting-edge learning opportunities (Hannum, Irvin, Banks, & Farmer, 2009).

Although digital technologies offer opportunity for innovation and engagement, challenges exist for rural school leaders who want to integrate technology into their schools and classrooms. Many rural educators (and educators in general) resist the integration of new technology (Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2014; Richardson & McLeod, 2011). In some cases, rural areas lack broadband coverage, making the use of digital devices such as tablets and smart phones more difficult (C. Howley, Kim, & Kane, 2012). Moreover, the price tag associated with purchasing devices and providing subsequent professional development requires districts to shift finances or seek external funding. These additional costs can be especially painful for districts experiencing financial duress. Some rural districts have even turned toward a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy, but such strategies can introduce issues of access if not every student possesses a reliable device (Herro, Kiger, & Owens, 2013).

Even when the district possesses adequate funds, rural districts often lack the necessary human capital for a high-tech school. For instance, the geographic isolation of some rural schools makes it more difficult to form long-lasting professional development partnerships or to find qualified personnel to maintain the digital infrastructure (Richardson & McLeod, 2011). Finally, technology can be a double-edged sword if principals overly emphasize it while neglecting other critical elements of instructional leadership and school culture. This case study explores how one rural high school principal negotiates these various challenges including a tight budget and reduced funding due to cyber charter schools attracting students away from a traditional public school environment, and how he is able to work with his staff to implement an innovative technology-based vision.

Keystone High School

Rich Snyder had just taken a position as principal of the Keystone School District, a district located near Pennsylvania’s border with New York. Snyder sought the job in Keystone because it allowed him to be closer to his aging mother who lived in Southern New York State. Before joining the Keystone District, Snyder had served as a high school principal for a large suburban district outside of Philadelphia. Snyder prided himself on being a technology leader—a leader with a formidable digital IQ who views digital literacy as vital for improved learning and teaching (McLeod, Bathon, & Richardson, 2011). According to Gosmire and Grady (2007), a technology leader should serve as a “role model, instructional leader, and visionary” (p. 18). A technology leader does not necessarily have to be the foremost expert on technology himself or herself but needs to have a decent grasp of how available technologies can be used by teachers and how they enhance learning. Technology leaders also need to utilize effective technology consultation and empower their staff to experiment with new technology in their classrooms.

As the principal in a wealthy, suburban district, Snyder took advantage of relatively high per pupil funding to purchase smart boards for all of the classrooms, 100 tablets, and several cutting-edge software programs so that students could edit movies, design video games, and mix music. However, he quickly realized that many of his teachers were not well trained in using technology. For instance, the tablets were rarely checked out and when he did find teachers using them, they often were simply using them as a reward for students, allowing them to play games after their work was completed. Snyder formed a technology committee of staff comprising some of the more enthusiastic faculty as well as the teachers who were more apprehensive about technology. The committee decided to use the majority of the school’s professional development budget to help train teachers in integrating technology into instruction. Some of the teachers began to see the effect that technology could have on student learning when strategically applied. One of the teachers, Ms. Jones, was so inspired by a professional development at a nearby university, that she approached Snyder about starting a robotics course for her ninth-grade students. The robotics program garnered great interest from students—many of whom had previously been disengaged from school and extra-curricular activities. Ms. Jones’s students attended and won robotics competitions, and the school itself, gained recognition from the state as a model for other high schools.

When the Keystone School Board initially interviewed Snyder, they told him of the district’s difficult financial situation. Although they were attracted to him because of his commitment to technology, they warned him that there would be little money to acquire resources or provide external professional development. Keystone collected very little in property taxes and was having enough trouble paying the teachers, let alone purchasing tablets and smart boards. In recent decades, a series of economic hardships had devastated the local community. The mid-century coal industry boom had long ago busted as the mining companies left the town with economic and environmental concerns. Keystone had once been home to Shreyer Steel, a local, family-owned Fortune 500 factory that employed thousands of workers worldwide including about 800 people right in Keystone. In 1991, Shreyer was purchased and moved to Georgia. The new owners kept the local Shreyer factory open, but it now only employed about 400 mostly low-wage workers.

Concurrent to these economic shifts, cyber charter schools—schools of choice where all instruction is delivered online—were explicitly authorized in Pennsylvania in 2002. These schools recruited students from across the state, creating an especially large financial burden for smaller districts (Mann, Kotok, Frankenberg, Fuller, & Schaftt, 2016). The cyber charters charge districts based on how many students from each district enroll in their cyber schools (DeJarnatt, 2013). Cyber charters appealed to many rural families for a variety of reasons. Some of the students had previously been homeschooled and now their families could obtain a state-funded curriculum without having to let their children attend a traditional public school where the parents would have less oversight of their children’s learning (Huerta, Gonzalez, & d’Entremont, 2006). Rural students often must travel an hour or more to get to their school, so the convenience of waking up and flipping on a computer appealed to many students. Finally, some of the cyber charter enrollees simply felt that their former, traditional public schools lacked engaging curriculum or technological resources (Barbour & Plough, 2009). Cyber schools offered them a virtual, interactive experience, which potentially linked them to course content far beyond their small town. Yet, cyber schools have been criticized as lacking in their ability to socialize students effectively (Barbour & Plough, 2009). Moreover, the future of rural school districts like Keystone greatly depends on student socialization as a means to forge a strong connection to the community. The connection between rural students, their schools, and communities has the potential to promote the long-term growth and development of rural communities (Schafft, 2016).

Rural districts such as Keystone are concerned with the loss of their students to the cyber charter schools since their financial margins often leave little room for error (Schafft et al., 2014). In the case of Keystone, the district had shrunk to about 650 students with about 50 students in each grade. Thus, when seven fifth-grade students decided to enroll in cyber schools, the superintendent still had to keep, and pay, two fifth-grade teachers despite the loss in per pupil revenue of seven students. Fortunately for Keystone, the state had been subsidizing these students at 80% of their tuition. However, the year before Snyder had been hired as principal, the state legislature made some difficult choices in light of the Great Recession of 2008, including ending all subsidies for cyber school tuition (DeJarnatt, 2013). Suddenly, Keystone had to pay over US$500,000 a year in tuition to the various cyber operators. To make matters worse, the Keystone School Board noticed that they were paying for students who had previously been homeschooled and had never attended their schools. Snyder’s predecessor, Principal Zimmer had grown up in Keystone and worked in the district for 31 years including the last 10 as the high school principal. The prospect of potentially firing teachers or cutting funds for the football team overwhelmed Zimmer and he resigned, creating the opening for Snyder.

Snyder’s Plan

Snyder felt it was important not to make major changes during the first year, but rather to gather information from various stakeholders and develop a plan. He wanted to take inventory of the high school as it was being strongly affected by the introduction of cyber charter schools. Moreover, although Keystone’s high school graduation rate was higher than the state average, one in 10 high school students in Keystone failed to complete high school. However, Keystone was still far more successful at graduating students than the cyber charters that reported about an average of 60% graduation rate. Snyder, along with other staff members who had volunteered to help, began visiting the homes of the students who had enrolled in the cyber charter schools to uncover why they had left and what it would take to get them re-enrolled in the district high school. The Keystone High outreach team found that most of the students and their families were initially enthusiastic about the cyber school programs, but had grown disenchanted due to boring curriculum, low test scores, and technical issues with the online curriculum. The cyber schools promised cutting-edge technological courses, but in actuality, most courses consisted of very rudimentary recordings of lectures, readings, and multiple-choice assessments. Parents expressed concern that none of the cyber charters had made adequate yearly progress (AYP), the school/district accountability measure based on student graduation rates and standardized test scores. Conversely, almost 80% of districts across the state including Keystone had made AYP (Neiderberger & Zimmerman, 2013). Other parents complained about Internet connectivity issues as Keystone and the surrounding area still lacked broadband coverage.

Snyder and his team of volunteer staff made a simple proposition to the students and their families—“What can I do to get you back in the school?” One student said, “I would have stayed at Keystone High if it wasn’t so boring. The upper level classes are too hard and put me to sleep and the vocational classes are stupid. I mean. I don’t want to be a barber or a mechanic.” So Keystone came up with a plan to re-enroll students and re-engage the entire student body. They developed a hybrid curriculum program for students who only wanted to attend the school part-time, revised some of the previous course offerings, and developed some 21st-century vocational courses such as computer coding and video editing. Snyder and the district officials realized that allowing students to take some courses online would be much cheaper than paying for the students’ entire tuition to cyber charter schools. Moreover, Snyder had a sneaking suspicion that if he could get the students to physically attend Keystone High even one period a day, they might realize that they enjoyed the social environment of the high school and would eventually decide to take more courses in person. At the same time, Snyder and his staff researched online course offerings to ensure their rigor and innovation. The plan worked well as most of the cyber students agreed to return to Keystone and the majority of previously enrolled cyber charter students eventually decided to take the greater part of their core courses in the physical high school. Conversely, online courses tended to be utilized more often to offer advanced placement and dual-credit courses, thus limiting the amount of additional course prep for teachers.

Snyder also sought technology integration for all courses and grade levels. Again, Snyder asked some of his staff to form a special technology committee. Although eager volunteers were welcome on the committee, Snyder also reached out to some of the staff who had expressed the most reluctance to use what they called the “flavor of the month” technology. He felt giving some of the more dubious staff a voice was critical as his plan depended on their buy-in. The committee eventually formulated a plan that they believed provided support for teachers and simultaneously gave autonomy to them. The committee decided to require each teacher to incorporate technology into his or her professional development (PD) plan. Teachers were given some level of autonomy with the only stipulation being that PD plans had to be sustained over the course of the year and that it was something related to technology. For instance, the leadership did not want teachers to simply have students read an e-book instead of a hard copy textbook. To ensure that a higher level of technology integration was possible, Snyder met all of the teachers in February of his first year to develop their PD plans. This gave Snyder and the other members of the committee ample time to identify resources for the following year.

Still, Snyder knew that even with the re-enrolled cyber students, it was going to be difficult to fund all of the necessary professional development and purchase all of the necessary resources. A lack of funding often presents a challenge for technology leaders in rural areas and elsewhere. However, Smith (2005) recommends viewing technology leadership more as an enduring process embedded into a comprehensive plan and suggests that schools seek external funding from public and private entities to fulfill their vision. In the case of Keystone, Snyder was inspired by the teachers’ ideas and he was up for the challenge of promoting technology on a shoestring budget, initially. For instance, the Spanish teacher wanted to use Skype so that her most advanced students could meet weekly with a group of students at a school in Madrid, Spain. The American Government teacher wanted to have a weekly podcast where students would talk about important current events and social issues. These projects not only increased student engagement, but they also required little money and professional development for the teachers. Conversely, the science and AutoCAD teachers had much more ambitious projects in mind. The science teacher wanted to start a robotics program similar to the one Snyder had overseen at his previous school and the AutoCAD teacher wanted to purchase a US$7,000 3-D printer. The AutoCAD teacher noticed that his students were the ones most at risk of dropping out of school, so he thought it was important for them to have something that caught their interests and inspired them.

Finding the Funds

Although the return of the cyber charter students meant an influx of funds the following year, Snyder needed funds sooner to purchase the necessary software, hardware, and professional development. In essence, it was an “if you build it, they will come” gamble for him. As Snyder was new to the area, the superintendent took the lead in raising external funds and shifting the budget around to accommodate the funding of the new programs. First, the superintendent reached out to the Shreyer family as well as a few other wealthy community members and some successful alumni who had moved away from Keystone. Together, they set up the Keystone Foundation, through which he was able to raise several thousand dollars. The district also applied for and received a grant with a telecommunications corporation provider to receive two sets of tablets (40 total tablets). Still, the district lacked enough funds for its technological wish list of items, which included 1-week robotics professional development for teachers at a university in Philadelphia. As a result, the superintendent made some difficult staffing decisions. For instance, when one of the two music teachers retired at the end of the year, the district elected not to hire a new music teacher. Although this limited the time each grade in the district could have music, the administrators felt it was better than other alternatives, such as increasing class sizes.

Although the Keystone district had limited financial means, some nearby districts were even more disadvantaged. Fortunately, not all technological innovations require a large price tag. For instance, a high school English teacher in rural Nebraska had students participate in the “Rural Voices Project,” where students produced, wrote, and read place-based content for a podcast (Goodson & Skillen, 2010). The project motivated students and utilized a software application that could be purchased for less than US$5 for the entire class. More ambitious projects may require cash strapped districts to seek external grants, though such endeavors may require additional time and money to organize. Online charities such as DonorsChoose.org—which allows teachers and schools to solicit donations for resources through online crowdsourcing—provide an alternative to lengthy grant application processes.

Resisting Technology Integration

Principal Snyder met resistance from various stakeholders. In particular, some of the teachers pushed back on the technology demands and the redesigning of their professional development. Already, rural teachers frequently teach multiple subject areas, courses, and multiple grade levels (Colangelo, Assouline, & New, 1999). Thus, the teachers felt overwhelmed by the new demand to integrate technology into all of their courses. Although some pedagogical strategies could be used in multiple courses, other technologies such as robotics were unique to one course. Many teachers and parents also thought too much effort was being exerted to attract cyber charter students back to Keystone. They argued that these students did not want to be there and most of them were “troublemakers” anyway. However, based on conversations with the cyber students, the Keystone outreach team had found that the “troublemaker” label was often misapplied to students who were simply not engaged or challenged. The outreach team relayed this belief to the staff even as some teachers doubted the claim. Finally, some of the most veteran teachers simply refused to truly integrate technology into their teaching. Unfortunately, the principal and superintendent lacked the authority to force these teachers—many of whom were successful and well liked—to buy into the new approaches.

Snyder and the other technology committee members had to be creative with their efforts to enlist staff support. First, by inviting an array of staff to join the committee, Snyder was able to empower his staff to be advocates for the programs. Snyder and the other committee members redesigned the structure of professional development to emphasize more individualized online professional learning opportunities. To gain more support, Principal Snyder worked with the professional development committee to create an overarching professional development goal for the high school based on best practices on teaching with technology. The PD committee decided the goal should focus on integrating technology to increase analytical thinking and problem solving and each teacher was required to adapt the goal for his or her subject matter. The PD goal was aligned with the school’s strategic plan so it did not seem too extraneous to what teachers were already doing in their classes. The PD committee welcomed individualized PD opportunities instead of standard school-wide professional development usually focusing only on math or literacy strategies. To help facilitate the shift, Snyder hired an adult learning consultant to recommend resources and work with the staff to identify areas of professional growth with an emphasis on technology. Although the consultant freed up Snyder for other responsibilities, it added a financial burden to the budget and led to some conflict among the staff, as the consultant was not well liked by all faculty. The consultant recommended using many online platforms as some of the professional development was so specialized and may only be relevant for one or two teachers. Moreover, the online learning platforms appealed to Snyder because the geographic remoteness of Keystone made it difficult to connect with universities or other professional development.

There are drawbacks to using online professional development. Prior to Snyder’s arrival, there had been a big emphasis on professional learning communities (PLCs) rather than traditional professional development. The focus on PLCs had given the teachers an opportunity to share pedagogical strategies and identify potential interdisciplinary connections. Conversely, many teachers found the online professional development to be isolating and they felt disconnected from other teachers. Some teachers also resented that the science teacher got to stay in Philadelphia for a week for the robotics course whereas they mostly completed online professional development modules. In response to some of these concerns, Snyder began to allot more PLC time, but under the condition that teachers focused collectively on technology integration.

The Outcome

Although the process of transforming Keystone was certainly fraught with challenges, it definitely benefitted the students in many key ways. For one, attendance increased as all but three of the former cyber charter students rejoined the district and many of the at-risk students attended school more often as they felt more engaged in their course work. As some students lacked digital technology at home, several students began staying after school to work on projects, which in turn helped students stay out of trouble during the infamous idle after-school hours. The school counselor also found that many of the students that he perceived as “aimless” began expressing more defined career interests and post-secondary paths. Concurrently, among some high-achieving students, they finally felt that their small, rural high school was providing something that could challenge them intellectually.

Yet, with any educational change, there were trade-offs and an over-reliance on technology was a double-edged sword for some. For instance, some students felt that the fine arts program often became a casualty of the push for technology as the district shifted funds and priorities. In some cases, students experienced a drop in standardized test scores as their teachers fully embraced creative tech-based projects at the peril of more basic skills. Furthermore, some students who lacked digital technology at home fell behind because they could not stay at the lab after school due to jobs or responsibility for younger siblings. Yet, the administration at Keystone never wavered in their vision as they ultimately felt that each one of these challenges could be navigated. For example, Principal Snyder applied for grants to obtain home devices for low-income students and he lobbied his local legislator to expand broadband to some of the more rural areas. In terms of pedagogy, he worked with teachers to ensure they both tied lessons to standards and integrated technology into their curriculum. Although some teachers resented all of the new curricular demands, most of them attempted to implement the new vision.

Teaching Notes

This case study illuminates the challenges faced by principals and superintendents who want to integrate digital technology into their curriculum, but who lack certain financial and human capital resources. Digital technology operates as a double-edged sword in education. Although it can offer engaging content explicitly tied to college and career readiness, it can also be a very costly “flavor of the month” that fails to actually transform student learning and outcomes. Although this case occurred in a remote, rural area, school leaders in a variety of settings deal with similar dilemmas. This case is designed for principal preparation courses such as instructional leadership, organizational leadership, and school budgeting. In addition, this case could be utilized in educational policy courses examining school choice policies and policy responses from the traditional public school sector.

Teaching Note 1: Technology and Instructional Leadership

For technology to transform instruction, school leaders and teachers must be trained in the effective implementation of technology integration (McLeod et al., 2011; Weber & Waxman, 2014). Ideally, pre-service teachers receive instruction in how to incorporate technology in their lessons, but such preparations vary widely and veteran teachers are less likely to have taken classes with a technology focus (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). If principals think strategically about what type of professional learning opportunities they offer, they will build institutional capacity and efficacy. In the case of Keystone, teachers began to build confidence as they tried something new and witnessed increased engagement. However, an overemphasis on technology in professional development poses a threat to the overall instructional culture. Technology integration alone will not make ineffective teachers markedly better if they lack other instructional and classroom management skills. Principals still need to pay attention to developing teachers’ general pedagogical skills such as unit design, formative assessments, and classroom management. Instructors should consider the following questions to guide class discussion:

What are some of the issues that arise when instructors rely too much on technology for instruction?

To what extent should principals focus professional learning resources on technology versus other instructional needs?

What are some strategies to increase technology engagement and efficacy for staff that are resistant to the use of technology in classes?

In addition to discussing these questions, the instructor could also utilize activities to further students’ understanding of how technology relates to instructional leadership:

Review a strategic plan: Many districts have a strategic technology plan. Students can review their school’s plan or find another school’s publically available plan and analyze it with an emphasis on how technology fits into plan.

Interview: Have students interview a member of the professional development committee to investigate how they organize professional learning opportunities for teachers as well as the data that inform these decisions.

Teaching Note 2: Technology and Budgeting

Districts such as Keystone are faced with a budgetary challenge when it comes to technology. With a national average of 80% of school budgets allocated to teacher salaries and benefits, districts possess limited discretionary funds (Cavanaugh, 2011; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). Moreover, as digital technology advances rapidly, districts must select wisely what types of resources will be utilized by faculty and will improve educational opportunity for students. Large districts such as the Los Angeles Unified School District recently invested in purchasing tablets for all of their students at a price tag of almost US$700 per student (Saltinski, 2014). Advocates of tablet technology argue that school districts recoup some of this price tag by not purchasing textbooks and by taking advantage of free educational “apps.” However, textbook providers still charge districts money to upload content onto the tablets and many applications cost money. Other districts require students to bring their own device with a “BYOD” policy. Such a policy saves the district money, but creates issues of equity and security for districts such as Keystone (Afreen, 2014). Instructors should consider the following questions regarding how technology is prioritized in budgets:

How much of the school’s budget should be allocated to acquiring and maintaining new technology? Are any types of technology (e.g., tablets, desktop computers, or laptops) a better investment in your opinion?

To what extent should the context of school be considered when purchasing technology or setting a policy such as “BYOD”?

What should a school’s protocol be if students lose or damage a technological device?

Increasingly, schools and even individual teachers are seeking external funding for resources. As a school leader, would you encourage such outreach? Would you find it useful to provide professional development or develop committees for obtaining external funds? At what point, could such outreach become a distraction from other responsibilities?

What are other potential drawbacks of BYOD? Think in terms of social media, bullying, and school safety.

In addition, instructors could propose various activities that help students consider the relationship between technology and school budgets:

Budget review: Students review their school or district budget to determine how much total money is used to purchase technology and what types of technology were purchased for their schools.

Grant application: Students research grant funders and complete a grant application to obtain a resource for their school or classroom. Alternatives to this activity could be to create a list of grants authorizers or to write a sample grant proposal.

Budget priorities: Districts and high schools such as Keystone must make difficult decisions regarding professional development and resource acquisition. Based on the following PD and technology wish lists, work with a small group to determine how you would have spent the allotted funds ($7,500 for PD and $30,000 for technology):

PD Discretionary Budget US$7,500

____ $2,500 Personalized professional development consultant

____ $1,500 1-Week Robotics professional development (per person)

____ $2,000 2-Day technology basics professional development for entire faculty

____ $500 Website Development certification (per person)

____ $200 Targeted professional development: podcasting, educational apps, social network usage (per course per person)

Technology Budget US$30,000

____ $4,000-10,000 Class set of 20 tablets (multiply per class)

____ $5,000 1 Lego robots class set (includes 10 kits)

____ $5,000 Smartboard with projector (multiply per class)

____ $10,000 Class set of 20 Dell laptops (multiply per class)

____ $200 Cost of one-unit online course (per student per subject)

____ $1,500 Class set of student response systems (multiply per class)

____ Add any additional products and estimate price.

Teaching Note 3: Cyber Charter Schools and Policy

Currently, full-time virtual schools exist in 33 states with about half of these schools being charter and the other half being district/state run (Christie, Millard, Thomsen, & Wixom, 2014). Ironically, district officials in Midland, Pennsylvania, applauded the opening of the state’s first cyber charter school in their community (Moe & Chubb, 2009). As Midland’s high school had closed due to low enrollment, the district had to pay for students to take a bus to a high school across the state line in Ohio if they wanted to attend a brick and mortar public school. However, the cyber school in Midland was surprised when it received applications from students across the state and a new type of “school choice” was born in Pennsylvania. Cyber charter schools soon became a threat to the livelihood of many rural school districts across the state. Proponents of school choice argue that the presence of charter schools leads to increased competition and innovation (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Neumann, 2008). In the case of Keystone, the threat of cyber charter schools challenged them to respond to the wants and needs of all students. However, accommodating hybrid-learning models requires a large amount of energy for a small school district such as Keystone (Schafft et al., 2014). Other rural districts in Pennsylvania utilize regionally based intermediate units to provide online courses and even full-time virtual learning experiences. Instructors should use the following questions for discussion:

Is it appropriate for principals to be expected to devote time to recruiting students, or should they be focused only on in-school tasks and administration?

To what extent do you think cyber charter schools serve a competitive purpose in pushing traditional districts to be “innovative” or to use technology to attract and retain students?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a district managing their own online learning experiences for high school students versus a regional, state, or charter provider?

As each state varies in its charter school laws with some not allowing cyber charter schools, the instructor could assign students an activity to further analyze differences:

State policy analysis: Each student chooses a state that allows cyber charter schools. Students provide enrollment and achievement data for cyber students. In addition, students summarize the legal and financial framework for cyber charter schools in that state. For a higher level course, the instructor could require students to make policy proposals for the state.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Stephen Kotok is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at the University of Texas at El Paso. His research focuses on the extent that schools expand opportunity or act as a stratifying mechanism. His specific areas of research include educational leadership, school climate, charter schools, and segregation.

Erica L. Kryst is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Education Policy Studies with a degree in educational theory and policy at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on college access and academic achievement of students in rural areas.

References

Afreen

(2014). Bring your own device (BYOD) in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science, 3, 233-236.

Barbour

Plough

(2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53, 56-60.

Beeland

W. D.

(2002, July). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Phoenix, AZ.

Blackwell

C. K.

Lauricella

A. R.

Wartella

(2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90.

Carr

P. J.

Kefalas

M. J.

(2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Cavanaugh

(2011). Personnel costs prove to tough to contain. Education Week, 30(16), 28-31.

Christie

Millard

Thomsen

Wixom

(2014). Trends in state charter school laws: Authorizers, caps, performance-based closures and virtual schools. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/13/13/11313.pdf

Chubb

Moe

(1990). Politics, markets, and American schools. New York, NY: Brookings Institute Press.

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

New

J. K.

(1999). Gifted education in rural schools: A national assessment. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

10.

DeJarnatt

(2013, Fall). Keep following the money: Financial accountability and governance of cyber charter schools. Urban Lawyer, 45, 915-951.

11.

Glasgow

(2000). Rural/urban patterns of aging and caregiving in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 611-631.

12.

Goodson

L. A.

Skillen

(2010). Small-town perspectives, big-time motivation: Composing and producing place-based podcasts. English Journal, 100, 53-57.

13.

Gosmire

Grady

(2007). A bumpy road: Principal as technology leader. Principal Leadership, 7(6), 16-21.

14.

Hannum

W. H.

Irvin

M. J.

Banks

J. B.

Farmer

T. W.

(2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(3), 1-15.

15.

Hardré

Sullivan

Crowson

(2009). Student characteristics and motivation in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24, 1-19.

16.

Herro

Kiger

Owens

(2013). Mobile technology: Case-based suggestions for classroom integration and teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30, 30-40.

17.

Howley

Wood

Hough

(2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(9), 1-13.

18.

Howley

Kim

Kane

(2012). Broadband and rural education: An examination of the challenges, opportunities, and support structures that impact broadband and rural education. Charleston, WV: ICF International.

19.

Huerta

L. A.

Gonzalez

d’Entremont

(2006). Cyber and home school charter schools: Adopting policy to new forms of public schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 103-139.

20.

Mann

Kotok

Frankenberg

Fuller

Schafft

(2016). Choice, cyber charter schools and the educational marketplace for rural school districts. The Rural Educator, 37, 17-29.

21.

McLeod

Bathon

J. M.

Richardson

J. W.

(2011). Studies of technology tool usage are not enough: A response to the articles in this special issue. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 6, 288-297.

22.

Moe

T. M.

Chubb

J. E.

(2009). Liberating learning: Technology, politics, and the future of American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Public school expenditures. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp

24.

Neiderberger

Zimmerman

(2013, January 28). Pennsylvania charter school test results sag: Stricter evaluation standards lead to much poorer outcomes. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.postgazette.com/news/education/2013/01/24/Pennsylvania-charter-school-test-results-sag/stories/201301240358

25.

Neumann

(2008). Charter schools and innovation: The high tech high model. American Secondary Education, 36(3), 51-69.

26.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

A. T.

Brush

T. A.

Strycker

Gronseth

Roman

Abaci

Plucker

(2012). Preparation versus practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59, 399-411.

27.

Richardson

J. W.

McLeod

(2011). Technology leadership in Native American schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(7), 1-14.

28.

Saltinski

(2014). Ethics and technology: The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Los Angeles USD iPad Project. National Social Science Proceeding, 57, 108-112.

29.

Schafft

K. A.

(2016). Rural education as rural development: Understanding the rural school–community well-being linkage in a 21st-century policy context. Peabody Journal of Education, 91, 137-154.

30.

Schafft

K. A.

Frankenberg

Fuller

Hartman

Kotok

Mann

(2014). Assessing the enrollment trends and financial impacts of charter schools on rural and non-rural school districts in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: The Center for Rural Pennsylvania.

31.

Sherman

Sage

(2011). Sending off all your good treasures: Rural schools, brain-drain, and community survival in the wake of economic collapse. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(11), 1-14.

32.

Smith

(2005). How to find technology funding. Principal, 84(4), 62-71.

33.

Weber

N. D.

Waxman

H. C.

(2014). Systematic classroom observations of the first-year teacher interns’ pedagogical technology integration in secondary schools. The Texas Forum of Teacher Education, 4, 63-84.