This chapter outlines the research methodology for this study by describing the purpose of study, the research questions, the research design and the rationale for the research.
Purpose of Study/Research Questions
In the relatively new marketized environment of school choice that currently frames large segments of the American educational system, an increasing number of public schools are competing directly with charter schools to recruit and retain
students and secure the corresponding financial allotments attached to that enrollment. Not having been required to compete for student enrollment previously, many public school leaders face new challenges in considering how to best adapt to this evolving competitive environment, including the utilization of traditional marketing practices already institutionalized by colleges and universities (Beal & Beal, 2016; Cucchiara, 2016; DiMartino & Jessen, 2014; Jabbar, 2015; Jabbar, 2016; Kasman & Loeb, 2013; Loeb, Valant, & Kasman, 2011; Lubienski, Linick, & York, 2012; Tubin, 2012). One wide- reaching mechanism of education marketing emphasized by university leaders and accessible to public and charter school leaders is the school website, a platform that allows schools to decide how to represent their environments, communities,
achievements, standards, and values to current and prospective students, families, faculties and other stakeholders (Drew, 2013; Hartshorne, Friedman, Algozzine, Kaur, 2008; Lubienski, Linick, & York, 2012; Miller, Adsit, & Miller, 2005; Tubin & Klein, 2007;
Wilson & Carlsen, 2016). Despite the perceived value of websites as an effective marketing medium for universities and all types of schools, and although all American schools already operate or are expected to provide school websites, the literature examining the use of school websites, like the academic field of education marketing in general, is limited in quantity, scope, methodology and purpose (Anctil, 2008; Ford, 2011; Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006; Milian, 2017; Pegararo, 2006; Smith et al. 2016).
This study’s research contributes to the limited field through an analysis of public and charter school websites that is both normative-consultative and empirical in purpose. Normatively, this study synthesizes the existing literature on the operational and marketing purposes and outcomes of websites, view books, and prospectuses at various educational levels to establish a comprehensive rubric that identifies the content resources that are expected or recommended to be offered on school and university websites. This rubric can serve as a guiding document to inform public and charter school leaders seeking to evaluate and improve the operational and marketing effectiveness and capabilities of their school websites.
Empirically, this study utilizes the new comprehensive rubric to determine what identified content resources are or are not currently available on the websites of
individual universities and colleges, private schools, charter schools and public schools in a selected region of central North Carolina. The existence and absence of particular website resources provides insight into how different types of schools and school leaders are or are not leveraging their school websites as operational and marketing platforms. While the existing literature indicates that university and college leaders
already highly value and prioritize school websites as an essential marketing resource, this study examines the content resources offered on public and charters school
websites to assess the extent to which public and charter school leaders are utilizing their school websites as operational and marketing platforms (Ford, 2011, Milian, 2017, Saichaie, 2011). This study also determines whether measurable differences exist in the available content resources on websites of public schools in districts with above- average charter school enrollment as compared to public schools in districts with average and below-average charter school enrollment. The resulting data will contribute to the growing literature examining the perception and practice of educational marketing by public and charter school leaders in response to the expanding competitive marketplace of school choice.
Towards these normative and empirical goals, this study explores the following research questions:
1. What content resources exist on public and charter school websites?
2. To what extent are the operational and promotional content resources offered on public school websites similar to or different than the operational and promotional content resources available on charter school websites?
3. To what extent are the operational and promotional content resources offered on public school websites in districts with higher than average charter school enrollment similar to or different than the operational and promotional content resources available on public school websites in districts with average and below average percentages of charter school enrollment?
4. To what extent are the content resources offered on public and charter school websites similar to or different than the content resources available on the websites of private schools and universities, which have longer existed in a marketized environment of direct competition for student enrollment? Research Design
This inquiry into public and charter school leaders’ utilization of school websites as operational and marketing platforms for current and prospective stakeholders relies on content analysis in synthesizing a single comprehensive rubric of potential and expected institutional website resources. This newly created rubric is then
systematically applied to identify and classify the existing resources offered on the home websites of 11 four-year universities and colleges, 58 accredited private schools, 54 charter schools and 141 public schools in a central region of North Carolina.
Content analysis is an empirically grounded research method that explores mediums of communication, such as websites, by examining texts, images, and symbols in order “to describe the characteristics of communication, to make inferences as to the antecedents of communication, and to make inferences as to the effects of communication”
(McMillan, 2000, p. 81). The development of this research technique, widely utilized in the social and psychological sciences, is largely credited to the 1940s and 1950s work of Lazarsfeld and Berelson, who defined content analysis as “the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (Berelson, 1952, cited in Hartley and Morphew, 2008, p. 674). As cited in McMillan (2000), Krippendorf indicated four distinct benefits of content analysis: “it is unobtrusive, it accepts
data” (p. 81). The purposes and advantages of content analysis are appropriate for this large-scale study identifying, comparing, and contextualizing the content resources offered on public and charter school websites for purposes of communicating with current and future stakeholders in an evolving competitive marketplace of school choice.
This study follows the four primary steps that McMillan (2000) and Hartley and Morphew (2008) identify as essential for conducting content analysis research: 1. Select a sample/Sampling; 2. Define categories/Unitizing; 3. Code the content and verify the reliability of the results/Reduction; and 4. Analyze and interpret the data/Making inferences. These steps are applied as follows:
1. Select a sample/Sampling
The region to be examined is designated by the North Carolina Department of Instruction (NCDPI) as District 3: North Central Region. It consists of 15 counties and 16 school districts (Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is located within Orange County but is a separate school district from Orange County Schools).
Figure 3.1 North Carolina State Board of Education North Central Region (District 3)
This region was selected because it includes the school district in which the researcher was employed at the time of the study and because it offers a wide range in the number of charter schools and of charter school enrollment within its 16 school districts. As of the 2016-17 school year, the Wake County school district, with 20 charter schools, and the Durham County school district, with 13 charter schools,
maintained the second and third highest total number of charter schools of any district in North Carolina. By contrast, five of the school districts in the region had only one charter school within their jurisdictions and two, the Chapel Hill–Carrboro and Lee County school districts, had no operating charter schools located in their districts.
Table 3.1 NCDPI District 3 school districts and the number of charter schools located within each district (2016-17 school year)
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools – 0 Lee County – 0 Chatham County – 3 Nash County – 1 Durham County – 13 Orange County – 2 Edgecombe County – 1 Person County – 2 Franklin County – 2 Vance County – 2 Granville County – 2 Wake County – 20 Harnett County – 1 Warren County – 1 Johnston County – 1 Wilson County – 1 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
In the 2016-17 school year, the average percentage of students in all North Carolina school districts enrolled in charter schools rather than public schools was 5.9%. Table 3.1 indicates that 12 of the 16 districts in NCDPI District 3 maintained a higher percentage of students attending charter schools than the state average, with Person County having the highest percentage of district students enrolled in charter schools at 19.6%, followed by Vance and Durham counties at 17.5% and 15.9% respectively. Charter school enrollment by percentage in Nash, Orange, Wake and Warren counties was similar to the state average. Relatively few students attended charter schools from the Harnett (2.0%) and Johnston (3.4%) districts and still a smaller percentage of students, those who enrolled in charter schools outside of the district’s region, from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro (1.1%) and Lee County (0.2%) school districts.
Table 3.2 Percentage of eligible students in NCDPI District 3 who attended a charter school rather than a public school (2016-17 school year)
NCDPI District 3
school districts Number of students who live within district and attend a charter school within or outside of school district Actual student enrollment within district Overall percentage of eligible students within district who attended a charter school rather than public school
Chapel Hill- Carrboro 134 12,017 1.1%
Chatham 981 8,608 10.2% Durham 6,416 34, 013 15.9% Edgecombe 914 5,964 13.3% Franklin 1,107 8,566 11.4% Granville 1,184 7,961 12.9% Harnett 418 20,850 2.0% Johnston 1,228 34,985 3.4% Lee 21 10, 067 0.2% Nash 1080 15,636 6.5% Orange 615 7,551 7.5% Person 1,122 4,611 19.6% Vance 1,358 6,416 17.5% Wake 10,935 159,462 6.4% Warren 246 2,275 9.8% Wilson 1,431 12,211 10.5%
Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
According to data provided by the College Foundation of North Carolina, the North Carolina Directory of Private Schools, and NCDPI, in the 2016-17 school year, NCDPI’s District 3 was home to 11 four-year universities and colleges, 58 accredited private schools, 54 charter schools, and 466 public schools. As detailed in the next section, this study examines the content resources published on the institutional webpages of all of the District’s 11 four-year universities and colleges, 58 accredited private schools, 54 charter schools and 141 of the 466 public schools. The 141 public schools that are part of this study were determined by selecting three elementary
schools, three middle schools, and three high schools from each of the 16 school districts located within NCDPI District 3. To do this, the researcher accessed the 16 districts’ websites to identify the names and levels of the districts’ respective schools and then selected the first three schools listed alphabetically at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Person County operates only two high schools and Warren County has one middle school; therefore the total of selected school is 141 rather than 144. Appendix B lists the 11 four-year universities and colleges, 58 accredited private schools, 54 charter schools and 141 public schools identified for this study, the county within which each university, college and school is physically located, and the website address for the home website of each university, college, and school.
2. Define Categories/Unitizing
In creating a normative guideline of recommended content resources for school websites and to compare the existing operational and promotional resources offered on university and school websites, this study establishes, then applies, a single
comprehensive rubric. This research-based rubric synthesizes existing rubrics and checklists utilized in 11 peer-reviewed academic studies that have examined the purpose, content or effectiveness of institutional websites, view books or prospectuses at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational levels in the United States or internationally. Of these 11 studies, three focus exclusively on the promotional
elements and resources featured in the marketing materials offered by universities and schools in recruiting student enrollment. Two studies explore the specific operational and informational resources expected or desired of school websites by students, families, and teachers who are already enrolled in or employed by an individual school
or district. Two other studies examine both the promotional and operational purposes of school websites and differentiate between the promotional and operational content and resources that are recommended to be featured on school websites. The remaining four studies similarly emphasize the promotional and operational purposes of
university and school websites and identify the content resources offered or
recommended to be offered on school and university websites, but do not specify which individual content resources are considered promotional or operational. The website content resources identified in these 11 studies form the basis of the new
comprehensive rubric and help inform which website elements on the rubric are to be considered promotional, operational, or both operational and promotional
(operational/promotional) in purpose.
Hite and Yearwood (2001) and Hartley and Morphew (2007) both utilized
content analysis to identify and categorize the content components featured in a sample of university and college viewbooks in the United States. Hite and Yearwood (2001) consider the viewbook an essential recruiting tool that “provides prospective students with a ‘first look’ at an institution” (p. 18) while Hartley and Morphey (2008) similarly determine the viewbook to be “an important medium by which institutions of higher learning entice students to matriculate”(p. 671). In establishing the viewbook as a marketing platform targeted exclusively toward recruiting prospective students, the individual resources and components identified in these two studies and synthesized into the comprehensive rubric are considered to be primarily promotional in purpose. Lubienski (2007) also drew upon content analysis to examine the types and frequency of information present in “promotional materials,” including pamphlets, videos,
websites, and annual reports “offered to parents of prospective students” by public, charter, and religious schools in the metropolitan area of Holland, Michigan (p. 128). The individual content information and resources identified and coded by Lubienski in these promotional materials targeted towards families of prospective students are also included in the comprehensive rubric as being promotional in purpose.
Miller, Adist and Miller (2005) consulted relevant literature about school website design and researched award-winning school websites to create a “School Site Checklist” of content features recommended to be offered on exemplary school
websites. The researchers used the School Site Checklist to evaluate elementary school websites in Georgia and Tennessee and surveyed current students, families, and
teachers at those schools about the perceived value of each resource identified on the School Site Checklist. This focus on internal stakeholders, rather than on prospective students and their families, provides insights about the operational information and resources on school websites expected or desired by students, families, and teachers who are already vested in a school community. With a similar emphasis on internal stakeholders, Acquaro and DeMarco (2008) adapted the School Site Checklist to explore how the presence or absence of website resources on school district websites in Long Island, New York facilitated and hindered parent engagement, student learning and teacher communication. The website resources identified by Miller, Adist, and Miller (2005) and applied by Acquaro and DeMarco (2008) are included in the comprehensive rubric and are considered to be primarily operational and informational in purpose.
Friedman, Hartshorne, Algozzine (2005) and Hartshorne, Friedman, Algozzine, and Kaur (2008) examined relevant literature on the goals of school websites and the
goals of elementary and middle schools to create a criteria of content elements that are recommended to be offered on an “effective” school website that is both promotional and operational in purpose. Among the criteria identified to evaluate a sample of elementary and middle school websites nationally, the researchers indicate that
particular content elements (photos, accountability information, demographics, faculty information, etc.) are important for “providing an effective and thorough introduction” of the school to potential students and prospective stakeholders while other resources (student work, teacher websites, parent-teacher organizations, rules and policies, etc.) are primarily geared toward the informational needs of existing students and
stakeholders (Hartshorne, Friedman, Algozzine, Kaur, 2008, p. 292). As such, the content elements designated for potential students and stakeholders are included in the comprehensive rubric and identified as being primarily promotional in purpose while the resources and information for current students and stakeholders are included in the comprehensive rubric and identified as operational in purpose.
Tubin and Klein (2005), Hu and Soong (2007), and Taddeo and Barnes (2016) developed rubrics and evaluation tools to assess the types and categories of content resources that are or should be offered on primary and secondary school websites in, respectively, Israel, Singapore, and Australia. Elangovan (2013) utilized content analysis to examine existing business school websites to create a “Frequency Table” of website resources to evaluate business school websites in India. Although these four studies emphasize the promotional and operational purposes of school websites, the researchers do not indicate whether examined website resources are either
researchers, the individual website resources identified in these four studies are included in the comprehensive rubric but are not identified as either promotional or operational in purpose.
The comprehensive rubric of school website resources established and utilized for this study of public and charter school websites synthesizes the content elements recommended or documented in the above-referenced 11 studies of university and school websites, view books, and related marketing materials. While conducting the initial process of coding university and college and private school websites, the
researcher decided to add two elements, Parent Testimonial and Why Apply/Why Us?, to the comprehensive rubric although neither element was identified in any of the 11 studies. The researcher based this decision on the documented frequency of these two elements on the examined websites and their perceived relevance to the marketing focus of this study.
The comprehensive rubric below (Table 3.4) indicates which researchers recommended or examined a particular website element in their studies and whether their respective studies emphasized the promotional (P) or operational (O) purposes of the identified website resource. The new content resources, Parent Testimonial and Why Apply/Why Us, added to the comprehensive rubric by the researcher are
considered primarily promotional in purpose as the information provided within both elements is targeted toward persuading prospective students and their families to attend a particular university or school. The content elements are alphabetized and separated into eight general categories: About the School; Academics; Admission; Alumni; Faculty; News and Events; Parents; and Students.
Table 3.3 Elements identified by researcher and purpose of element About the School
• Accreditation – Elangovan, Hite(P)
• Awards – Hartley(P), Hu, Lubienski(P)
• Crest/Logo – Hite(P), Hu
• Date updated/Copyright – Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O), Hu, Taddeo
• District/Network Info or Link - Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O)
• Diversity – Hartley(P), Hite(P), Lubienski(P)
• Dress Code/Uniforms – Lubienski(P)
• FAQ – Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O), Hite(P)
• Facilities/Campus – Hartley(P), Hite(P), Lubienski(P), Taddeo
• Feedback Form – Elangovan, Hu
• History/Date Founded – Hite(P), Hu, Lubienski(P)
• Location/Contact Information – Acquaro(O), Elangovan, Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O), Hartley(P), Hite(P), Hu, Miller(O), Tubin
• Map – Hite(P)
• Mascot – Hite(P)
• Mission Statement/Values – Acquaro(O), Hite(P), Hu, Miller(O), Tubin
• Motto/Branding Statement – Hite(P), Hu, Lubienski(P)
• Multimedia – Hu
• Partnerships – Taddeo
• Photos – Hite(P), Friedman(P), Hartshorne(P), Taddeo
• Principal/President’s Welcome – Tubin
• Ranking – Hartley(P), Hite(P)
• Rules and Policies – Acquaro(O), Harthsorne(O), Miller(O), Taddeo
• School Song - Hu
• Strategic/School Improvement Plan – Taddeo
• Technology – Hartley(P), Hite(P), Taddeo, Lubienski(P)
• Transportation – Lubienksi(P)
• Website Contact Person - Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O), Tubin
• Website Internet Use Policy – Taddeo
• Website Search Engine – Elangovan, Hartshorne, Taddeo
• Website Translation/Translation Tool – Lubienski(P), Taddeo
• Why apply/Why us?– Okun(P) Academics
• Classroom/Department Web Pages – Acquaro(O), Friedman(O), Hartshorne(O), Hu, Miller(O), Tubin
• Curriculum/Programs/Standards– Acquaro(O), Elangovan, Hartley(P), Hite(P), Lubienski(P), Miller(O), Taddeo, Tubin
• Data (test scores) – Elangovan, Lubienski(P)
• Graduation Rate – Lubeinski(P)