The project itself is overseen by two contiguous intermediary educational agencies that share responsibilities in the supervision of equipment maintenance, program administration and coordination for high school programming, and connectivity via fiber-optic technology. These intermediary agencies were formed in the early 1950’s to assist local districts in providing services on a shared basis for programming that they would not otherwise be able to provide themselves. Historically, at that time, special education and similarly oriented programming was the predominant service provided. It is also important to note that at that time special educational services were generally delivered from a deficit-remediation orientation.

Though currently one network, when one examines the history of this network more closely, one notices a somewhat different picture. The current network represents the convergence of a number of smaller networks into the one that it now is. Some on the East End consider their network, established over ten years ago, the origination point of the current structure. That network connected a number of rural school districts who lacked sufficient resources to carry out certain programming on their own for lack of sufficient enrollment and faculty. After a while, however, that network went dormant without explanation.

On the western end of the region, at about the same time, three northern school districts formed a pilot project, linking five teleclassrooms in five schools, in collaboration with a local cable television firm and the intermediary educational agency, to share advanced science and foreign language courses. A few years later three high schools in another district joined this network. This network has operated continuously since its inception, which, until last June operated on an analog transmission infrastructure. This loop of the network is being converted to digital technology, so that there is seamless integration between this loop and the rest of the network. Until June, a bridge linked the two loops; however, the bridge had limited capacity for interaction between those in this analog system and those who more recently joined the network on a digital infrastructure.

In the last three years, the network enlarged to include ten more teleclassrooms on state-of-the-art digital technology using full-motion video technology and the latest camera and projection equipment. All of the new East End schools and five new West End schools joined the network at this time. Of the newest members on the West End, two districts’ teleclassroom installations were funded by a Goals 2000 grant. Both districts have high racial and ethnic minority populations and were under the scrutiny of the State Education Department. Integration of the teleclassroom technology into high school programming in both schools was difficult. After one year, neither school has participated in the high school programming by hosting or receiving courses. In one instance, the district committed to offering a full three year sequence, block scheduled program in electrical engineering, taught by a certified teacher, who is also a licensed professional electronic engineer and who adjuncts at a local technical college. The program was a source of pride to the district, providing many minority students an entry way into engineering, a profession where minorities are typically underrepresented. There was little interest demonstrated for this offering, despite its substantial curriculum, adequate promotion by the Distance Learning administrator, and its use of cutting edge approach to time utilization through block scheduling. Conversely, this district chose to receive no courses from other districts because of lack of rigor and otherwise weak documentation of the course via comprehensive course description/syllabus.

Concurrently with this concern is some discussion of expanding programming to include other than "college-bound" courses and appeal to the "everyday student." Recommended high school courses under this category are remedial courses for those who may have failed to meet the more rigorous learning objectives mandated at the State level.

Though I understand that technology can be used to bridge a variety of perspectives, I am also aware of the non-neutrality of technology and its capacity to be used in ways that can sustain social inequity among schools and school districts. One of the roles of the intermediary educational agency is to mitigate inequities. I am thus uneasy about the degree to which distance learning technology is being used to its fullest capacity as a tool for equalizing relationships among various groups and individuals.

For instance, in exchanges with others in the network, it has been suggested that the "non-participants" in the high school network form their own pod in the network, because they have similar interests. In another instance, a community leader attempting to infuse socially relevant programming about domestic violence to high school students linking students from minority and working class communities as a community service, suggested that the three schools with large minority populations may find programming about domestic violence useful. This troubles me. On the one hand, such offers are probably well intended. On the other, administrators in districts with high minority concentrations are also quick to remind me that they do not want to be grouped that way; they want to mingle with the mainstream and have a lot to offer themselves, as well as a lot to gain from their relationship with the others in Distance Learning.

What I interpret implicitly through these disconnected incidents is a potentially problematic theme that should be laid on the table for discussion, but I am at a loss for how to do that deliberately without damaging the delicate relationships that may be developing in the background despite this contextual feature.

As a program administrator in this project, my goal is for a fully integrated network, from technological, historical and social perspectives. I fear that this Network may never achieve this ideal. Though this dilemma has not reached crisis proportions, I fear that without adequate attention to the social aspect of distance learning program planning and administration, one day this could become a larger and untenable problem of epic proportions. I also am concerned about the implications for other areas of the network, where the source of the problem may be framed around other issues, such as the special characteristics of rural educational communities.

QUESTIONS:

1. How are problems related to diversity manifest in this case?
2. What types of interventions would you recommend? Why? How would you structure them?
3. What are the underlying issues that contribute to the undercurrent of tensions?
4. How might the issues in this case resolve themselves?