School Finance and Technology: A Case Study Using Grid and Group Theory to Explore the Connections
Saved in:
| Title: | School Finance and Technology: A Case Study Using Grid and Group Theory to Explore the Connections |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Case, Stephoni, Harris, Edward L. |
| Source: | Educational Considerations. Spr 2014 41(2):33-42. |
| Availability: | Kansas State University, College of Education. 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, 006 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506. Tel: 785-532-5525; Fax: 785-532-7304; e-mail: edcoll@ksu.edu; Web site: http://coe.ksu.edu/EdConsiderations |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 10 |
| Publication Date: | 2014 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Tests/Questionnaires Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Finance, Educational Technology, Technology Integration, School Policy, Teacher Role, Administrator Role, Occupational Information, Work Ethic, Organizational Climate, Organizational Culture, School Surveys, Institutional Characteristics, Questionnaires, Online Surveys, Observation, Position Papers, Content Analysis, School Business Officials, Administrator Attitudes, Central Office Administrators, Leadership Styles, Administrative Organization, Performance Technology, Elementary Secondary Education |
| Abstract: | Using grid and group theory (Douglas 1982, 2011), the study described in this article examined the intersections of technology and school finance in four schools located in districts differing in size, wealth, and commitment to technology integration. In grid and group theory, grid refers to the degree to which policies and role prescriptions either hinder or promote individual autonomy. Group refers to the degree of commitment a person has to the larger social unit. The dynamics of grid and group are simultaneously at work in any social setting, and consequently, over time, certain themes and dominant patterns of thought and behavior tend to define a particular setting. In this study of four schools, neither school size nor budget size were indicators of successful integration and equitable distribution of technology. However grid and group features that promoted either isolation or integration were important indicators for these schools. For example, the weak-group leaders did not provide vision and direction, and individual teachers chose whether or not to integrate technology or not. The strong-group schools were more intentional in their technology mission. Their leaders developed program goals, systems to be used, the types of computers purchased, and use by students. The conclusion that the authors draw from this case study is that technology integration and equitable distribution depended upon the intentionality of those who budgeted the funds and provided necessary training |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Number of References: | 10 |
| Entry Date: | 2015 |
| Access URL: | https://coe.ksu.edu/edconsiderations/back-issues.html |
| Accession Number: | EJ1049905 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Using grid and group theory (Douglas 1982, 2011), the study described in this article examined the intersections of technology and school finance in four schools located in districts differing in size, wealth, and commitment to technology integration. In grid and group theory, grid refers to the degree to which policies and role prescriptions either hinder or promote individual autonomy. Group refers to the degree of commitment a person has to the larger social unit. The dynamics of grid and group are simultaneously at work in any social setting, and consequently, over time, certain themes and dominant patterns of thought and behavior tend to define a particular setting. In this study of four schools, neither school size nor budget size were indicators of successful integration and equitable distribution of technology. However grid and group features that promoted either isolation or integration were important indicators for these schools. For example, the weak-group leaders did not provide vision and direction, and individual teachers chose whether or not to integrate technology or not. The strong-group schools were more intentional in their technology mission. Their leaders developed program goals, systems to be used, the types of computers purchased, and use by students. The conclusion that the authors draw from this case study is that technology integration and equitable distribution depended upon the intentionality of those who budgeted the funds and provided necessary training |
|---|
