Seizing Opportunity at the Top: How the U.S. Can Reach Every Student With an Excellent Teacher

Explains how to provide excellent teachers for every child every year by better identifying excellent teachers, removing policy barriers so they can teach more students for more pay, and catalyzing schools' and districts' will to put them in charge

AIRBNB: ASSESSING ITS ENGAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY IN ATHENS, GA

AIRBNB: ASSESSING ITS SUSTAINABILITY USING A TBL FRAMEWORK IN ATHENS, GA Introduction The growth of the sharing economy has been widely noted from Fortune magazine to President Obama (Eckhardt & Bardhi 2015). It is also touted as one of the 10 ideas that will change the world in the 21st Century (Teubner 2014). Moreover, its potential to reduce waste within economic, social, and environmental processes has been dubbed as important as the Industrial Revolution in terms of how we value ownership of goods and services (Belk 2014). The sharing economy was valued at 26 billion in 2013 (Geron 2013b; Cannon & Summers 2014). Airbnb, a major shared-lodging player in this economy, was valued at 10 billion in April 2014 (Ember 2014) with more than 11 million guests choosing between more than 600,000 private accommodations in more than 34,000 cities and 192 countries (Smolka & Hienerth 2014). With this type of growth, Airbnb has earned attention from the global hospitality and tourism industry because of its ability to secure what some might see as an unfair economic competitive advantage by circumventing sales and occupancy taxes, the two major sources of income for CVBs and DMOs, and its ability to supply inexpensive accommodations in the heart of tourist centers (Zervas, Prosperio, & Byers 2014). While the economic competitive advantage presents a challenge to traditional accommodation options, the true impacts of Airbnb have not been studied from a triple bottom line (TBL) framework assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts (Dubois 2015; Sigala 2014). This study aims to study whether Airbnb participants are creating net economic, social, and environmental value to the Athens, GA community. Literature Review While shared-economy literature has primarily addressed economic impacts, analyzing economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts underneath a triple bottom line framework helps in assessing the sharing economy’s potential to contribute to sustainable development, particularly in tourism (Elkington 1994; Dwyer 2005). Below is a brief review of the research within each of the three categories of the TBL. Economic Impacts Hosts’ and guests’ economic motivations for engaging in the sharing economy have been examined from a variety of methods such as consumer segmentation (Müller 2014), online surveys (Tussyadiah 2015), semi-structured interviews with hosts (Bardhi, Eckhardt & Arnould 2012), and web crawlers investigating price reaction within online rating platforms (Gutt & Hermann 2015). Researchers have also attempted to understand participation from the theoretical lenses of the theory of planned behavior and social exchange theory (Matzner et al. 2015; Ikkala 2015; Kim, Yoon, & Zo 2015). Research has identified economic incentives such as earning more in collaborative production than in the traditional market place, cost consciousness (Bardhi et al. 2012; Hamari et al. 2013; Dubois 2015); time, space and effort saving as reasons for participating in the sharing economy. The degree of negative economic impacts of Airbnb demand on the supply of traditional lodging options varies by lodging type (Zervas, Prosperio, & Byers 2015). For example, in a study by Zervas et al. (2014), it was found that in Houston, Texas, lower-end hotels and motels that do not cater to business travelers were the most affected with a 0.05% decrease in quarterly hotel revenues per 1% increase in Airbnb listings in the area. In contrast, businesses comprising the tourism supply of an area have in some cases, experienced positive economic externalities from the existence of nearby Airbnb’s (HR&A 2012). Some have even speculated that reducing housing supply might increase demand and subsequent housing market values (National Realtors Association 2011). While motivations for participation might seem mostly formative , there are certainly substantive reasons for participation in the sharing economy to be considered as well as the potential social impacts of this participation (McGehee, 2007). Social Impacts Trust, reputation, (Tussyadiah 2015; Botsman & Rogers 2010; Lamberton & Rose 2012; Schor & Fitzmaurice 2014) and the desire to belong to a community (Belk 2010; Giesler and Pohlmann 2003) are among some of the substantive reasons for participation in the sharing economy. However participation as a guest or host in Airbnb might be accompanied with some risks such as the ability for Airbnb listings in some places to circumvent safety regulations enforced by a third party (Chasin & Scholta 2015). Some researchers worry about challenges faced by collaborative consumptive employees such as exploitation by hiring contracted workers rather than employees (Cheng 2014). On the other hand, authenticity remains a potential benefit of Airbnb for the tourism economy. While there is potential for an unwanted intrusion into community fabric, embedding the tourist experience might create a socially sustainable and authentic experience (Guttentag 2013) desired by tourists (Mac Cannell 1973) through opportunities for education and increased appreciation for the community. The demand for authentic experiences is reinforced through Airbnb’s through promotional videos (Airbnb 2014). Understanding the socially nuanced motivations for participation might help gauge the stability of support for the sharing economy. If there are expressed concerns for feeling disconnected from the community or favorable reviews for the ability to provide tourists with authentic experiences, these are insights helpful to gauging the stability and future support for the sharing economy in tourism. Environmental Impacts Very little literature addresses environmental impacts in the sharing. Growing environmental awareness (Gansky 2010) and an increasingly critical view of over consumption (Belk 2014: Coyle 2011; Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn & Baedeker 2013) are thought as environmentally motivated reasons for participation in the sharing economy. The resource-saving benefits of collaborative consumption have been conceptualized (Liesmann et al. 2013; Sigala 2014), however, this idea has not been empirically tested leaving much room for investigation into the environmental impacts of the sharing economy. Methodology Study Area The study area will be confined to the city of Athens, GA as done by Zervas et al. (2014) who proposed that this geographic range is large enough to see accommodation substitution patterns between Airbnb listings and other lodging options. Assessing the Impacts of Airbnb through the TBL Economic Impacts Guests for this portion of the study will be sampled from economical, boutique, high-end, and Airbnb locations in town. The Athens, GA CVB STR report’s average occupancy rates and site specific average daily rates, will be used to calculate potential revenue per available room among (RevPAR) traditional lodging options. Numbers of Airbnb stays obtained from mining the Airbnb website across the same time period will be calculated to determine the RevPAR from these visitors. Surveys left in guests’ rooms or offered at the front desk (depending on the lodging facility) will be administered to obtain guests’ perceived expenditure patterns while in town. The occupancy and length of stay of all guests in the study will be plugged into an EIA program, such as IMPLAN to examine the multiplier effect of guests across different types of lodging. Social Impacts Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with hosts recruited through Airbnb’s online messaging system lasting a total of 30-90 minutes either over video chat or in person (Dubois 2015). Hosts will also be asked about their attachment to the community, to describe their sense of place of not only their accommodation but of Athens, and their perceived contribution to the community through their participation in Airbnb. Other qualitative methods such as pile-sort of economic benefits from occupancy and sales tax to understand motivations for participation in Airbnb and to understand knowledge of the local economy The second measure of social impacts will be the perceived positive and negative impacts of Airbnb on the Athens community from Airbnb non-users. Airbnb non-users will be chosen based on their proximity to interviewed Airbnb hosts. Lastly, a historical investigation will be made into a timeline for the development of different types of lodging in town and the community participation and published opinions of their development. For instance, articles within the local independent newspaper about Airbnb will be analyzed for the topic covered and the comments if any on the topic. Environmental Impacts Chosen hotels and residential properties of interviewed hosts will be assessed for their embodied energy (Haynes 2010; Rosselló-Batle., Moià, Cladera, & Martínez 2010). Understanding the life cycle of chosen lodging options creates a point to compare proposed and apparent economic benefits to for a ratio that highlights whether each location’s environmental footprint is offset by the economic benefits it provides. Alternative development plans, if any, identified through the above mentioned historical investigation will be used to assess tradeoffs associated with different development choices. Expected Outcomes The intense focus on the economic impacts of Airbnb hinders a progressive and holistic understanding of a stakeholder who is likely to revolutionize the tourism industry. The TBL framework supports the inextricability of social and environmental tradeoffs with economic ones. The findings from this study will present an opportunity for tourism industry stakeholders to transform a defensive reaction against the economic changes that the sharing economy brings to a proactive strategy that considers also the new social and environmental tradeoffs that might deserve mediation or could benefit tourism at all scales. References Arnould, Eric, and Melanie Wallendorf (1994), “Market Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation Building and Market Strategy Formulation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (4), 484–504. Bardhi, Fleura, Giana M. Eckhardt, and Eric J. Arnould (2012),“Liquid Relationship to Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), electronically published January 12. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of consumer research, 36(5), 715-734. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600. Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. Cannon, S. and Summers, L. H. (2014). How Uber and the Sharing Economy Can Win Over Regulators - HBR. Harvard business review Chasin, F., & Scholta, H. (2015). Taking Peer-to-Peer Sharing and Collaborative Consumption onto the Next Level-New Opportunities and Challenges for E-Government. Cheng, D. F. (2014). Reading between the lines: blueprints for a worker support infrastructure in the peer economy (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Coyle, Diane (2011). The Economics of Enough: How to Run the Economy as if the Future Matters.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dubois, E. (2015). The Field of Consumption: Contemporary Dynamics of Status, Capital, and Exchange (Doctoral dissertation, BOSTON COLLEGE). Dwyer, L. (2005). Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to achievement of sustainable tourism: A scoping study. Tourism Review International, 9(1), 79-938. Eckhardt, G. M. and Bardhi, F. (2015). The Sharing Economy Isn’t About Sharing at All - HBR.Harvard business review. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California management review, 36(2), 90. Ember, S. (2014, April 21). Airbnb’s Huge Valuation. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/morning-agenda-airbnbs-10-billion-valuation/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1& Gansky, Lisa (2010). The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing. New York City, NY: Penguin Group US. Geron, T. (2013b). Airbnb and the Unstoppable Rise of the Share Economy - Forbes. Forbes. Giesler, Markus and Mali Pohlmann (2003). “The Anthropology of File Sharing: Consuming Napster As Gutt, D., & Herrmann, P. (2015). Sharing Means Caring? Hosts\u27 Price Reaction to Rating Visibility. Guttentag, D. 2013. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. CurrentIssues in Tourism, (ahead-of-print), 1-26. Hamari, Juho et al. (2013). “The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption.”SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–19. HR&A. 2012. Airbnb: Economic Impacts in San Francisco and Its Neighborhoods. Data analysis. San Francisco: Airbnb. Ikkala, T., & Lampinen, A. (2014, February). Defining the price of hospitality: networked hospitality exchange via Airbnb. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 173-176). ACM. Kim, J., Yoon, Y., & Zo, H. (2015). Why People Participate in the Sharing Economy: A Social Exchange Perspective. Lamberton, C. P. and Rose, R. L. (2012). When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(July), 109–125. Leismann, Kristen, Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., Baedeker, C. (2013). “Collaborative Consumption: Towards a Resource-Saving ConsumptionCulture.” Resources 2 (3), 184–203. Matzner, M., & Chasin, F. (2015). To share or not to share: towards understanding the antecedents of participation in it-enabled sharing series. McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111-124. Müller, M. P. (2014). An economic analysis of online sharing systems’ implications on social welfare. National Realtors Association (2011). Short-Term Rental Housing Restrictions. Retrieved January 21, 2016, from http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2011/short-term-rental-housing-restrictions-white-paper-2011-09.pdf Schor, J. B. and Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2014). Collaborating and Connecting: The emergence of the sharing economy. Cheltenham, Handbook on research on teaching Sigala, M. (2014). Collaborative commerce in tourism: implications for research and industry. Current Issues in Tourism, (ahead-of-print), 1-10. Smolka, C., & Hienerth, C. (2014). The best of both worlds: Conceptualizing Trade-offs between Openness and Closedness for Sharing Economy Models. Teubner, T. (2014). Thoughts on the sharing economy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Commerce Tussyadiah, I. P. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consumption in travel. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 817-830). Springer International Publishing. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2014). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Boston U. School of Management Research Paper, (2013-16). Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015). A First Look at Online Reputation on Airbnb, Where Every Stay is Above Average. Where Every Stay is Above Average (January 23, 2015)

3X for All: Extending the Reach of Education's Best

Proposes ways to extend the reach of the best teachers, who produce three times the learning gains that the least effective ones do, including focusing on instruction, managing multiple classrooms, and using technology. Looks at implementation challenges

How Should States Define Teacher Effectiveness?

Adapts slides from a presentation on defining a teacher's effectiveness based on student outcomes and teacher behaviors linked to outcomes, with rigorous and dynamic measurements that include deeper competencies, and extending the best teachers' reach

Opportunity at the Top: How America's Best Teachers Could Close the Gaps, Raise the Bar, and Keep Our Nation Great

Analyzes the effect the best teachers have on low-performing students' learning gains, the potential for closing achievement gaps by expanding their impact, and strategies to identify and retain effective teachers by building an opportunity culture

Types of Forecast and Weather-Related Information Used among Tourism Businesses in Coastal North Carolina

This study profiles the coastal tourism sector, a large and diverse consumer of climate and weather information. It is crucial to provide reliable, accurate and relevant resources for the climate and weather-sensitive portions of this stakeholder group in order to guide them in capitalizing on current climate and weather conditions and to prepare them for potential changes. An online survey of tourism business owners, managers and support specialists was conducted within the eight North Carolina oceanfront counties asking respondents about forecasts they use and for what purposes as well as why certain forecasts are not used. Respondents were also asked about their perceived dependency of their business on climate and weather as well as how valuable different forecasts are to their decision-making. Business types represented include: Agriculture, Outdoor Recreation, Accommodations, Food Services, Parks and Heritage, and Other. Weekly forecasts were the most popular forecasts with Monthly and Seasonal being the least used. MANOVA and ANOVA analyses revealed outdoor-oriented businesses (Agriculture and Outdoor Recreation) as perceiving themselves significantly more dependent on climate and weather than indoor-oriented ones (Food Services and Accommodations). Outdoor businesses also valued short-range forecasts significantly more than indoor businesses. This suggests a positive relationship between perceived climate and weather dependency and forecast value. The low perceived dependency and value of short-range forecasts of indoor businesses presents an opportunity to create climate and weather information resources directed at how they can capitalize on positive climate and weather forecasts and how to counter negative effects with forecasted adverse conditions. The low use of long-range forecasts among all business types can be related to the low value placed on these forecasts. However, these forecasts are still important in that they are used to make more financially risky decisions such as investment decisions.  M.S

Testing for Gender Discrepancies Using the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale

Testing for Gender Discrepancies Using the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale Introduction The international attention gender equality and women’s empowerment is receiving by institutions and initiatives such as the UNWTO and the third Millennium Development Goal (MDG3) (Ferguson, 2011; Ferguson & Alarcón, 2014) emphasizes the importance and expanse of gender issues not only to tourism, but to many internationally-endorsed development goals. In alignment with the third Millennium Development Goal, “To promote gender equality and empower women” (United Nations, 2000), empowerment has become one of the central tenets of sustainable tourism development. Authors such as Choi and Murray (2010, p. 589) assert that “If the government fails to empower residents, the success of tourism development and sustainability cannot be guaranteed.” Sofield (2003, p. 7) adds that, “Without empowerment, sustainable tourism development by communities is difficult to attain.” Even though empowerment has become a “mantra” within the sustainable tourism literature and is the topic of many research articles recent and old (Boley & McGehee, 2014; Boley et al., 2014; Cole, 2006; Di Castri, 2004; Scheyvens, 1999, 2000, 2002), many important research gaps remain. One gap of particular importance is empirically assessing perceived differences in levels of resident empowerment between men and women within tourism development. Using tools such as the resident empowerment through tourism scale (RETS) and other constructs can by employed to better understand the precursors to empowerment as well as the associated outcomes like trust and political support or tourism when residents are empowered through tourism (Boley et al., 2014; Nunkoo et al., 2012). The sustainable tourism literature is full of articles investigating the roles of women in tourism and their access to power (Duffy et al., 2015; Ferguson & Alarcón, 2014; Gentry, 2007; Ling et al., 2013; Moswete & Lacey, 2014; Pleno, 2006; Scheyvens, 2000; Tucker & Boonabaana, 2012), but these articles have largely approached the subject from a qualitative perspective, using small sample sizes and single communities as points of reference. This research approach has yielded a rich understanding of gender issues within tourism development of specific communities, but has yet to manifest itself into a more widespread, quantitative evaluation of residents’ perceptions of empowerment or disempowerment by tourism and how perceptions might differ by gender. In addition to this gap, the tendency within the literature is to treat empowerment as a unidimensional ‘power’ construct (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Reed, 1997). This exists despite a growing recognition that empowerment is a multi-faceted construct with psychological, social, political, environmental and economic components (Boley & McGehee, 2014; Friedmann, 1992; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Rappaport, 1984; Scheyvens, 1999). Treating empowerment as multi-dimensional allows researchers to delve into not only the overarching power structures within communities (political empowerment), but also investigate how tourism affects community pride and self-esteem (psychological empowerment), cohesion and collaboration (social empowerment), the retention and sharing of economic benefits (economic empowerment), and tourism’s effect on natural resource conservation (environmental empowerment). If empowerment gaps do exist between men and women, this multi-dimensional approach allows them to be identified at the dimensional level and provides tourism officials with a clear picture of where to allocate resources to help remedy any discrepancy in perceived empowerment. With these gaps in mind, this study’s purpose is to examine residents’ perceived psychological, social, and political empowerment differences and similarities by gender across five unique sample populations (three rural counties in Virginia, USA, and two distinct cultural groups in Oizumi, Japan) using the recently developed Resident empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS) by Boley and McGehee (2014). The multiple samples provide the opportunity not only to examine discrepancies across multiple sites, but also provide to look at perceptions of empowerment in two distinctly different countries with different power relations between men and women. The American and Japanese samples specifically differ across Hofstede’s (1980, 1994) cultural dimensions of 1) power distance, 2) individualism, 3) masculinity, 4) uncertainty avoidance, and 5) indulgence with Japan being a more hierarchical society than the U.S., more collectively focused, more masculine, less tolerant of uncertainty, and less indulgent than the United States (see Hofstede 2014 for more specifics). If significant gaps exist between men and women on their perceptions of empowerment, the RETS should be able to identify not only the gaps but also dimensions of empowerment on which the gaps are located, as well as differences across specific items. Literature Review The focus on gender disparities and ways to address them have been largely driven by international efforts such as the 1995 United National World Conference on Women in Beijing and the establishment of the third Millennium Development Goal in 2000 that specifically addressed promoting gender equality and empowering women across the world (Ferguson & Alarcón, 2014; United Nations, 2000). Parallel to these international initiatives aimed at gender equality, has been the popularization of a feminist gender approach in tourism studies which has attempted to understand women’s experiences and attitudes irrelevant of the existing androcentric representation of their lives at the time (Deem, 1992; Evans, 1990; Green, Hebron & Woodward, 1987; Henderson, Stalkner & Taylor, 1988). Some of the first gender topics explored in the tourism literature included: perpetuating gendered stereotypes in tourism destinations (Ireland, 1993; McKay, 1993); gendered differences in perceptions of tourism at different stages of development (Harvey, Hunt, & Harris, 1995); power relations contributing to gender disparities (Kinnaird & Hall, 1996; Wilkinson & Pratiwi, 1995); and economic independence for women through tourism (Butler & Connele, 1993; Purcell, 1993). Today, gender tourism scholarship addresses many issues such as gender equity in the tourism planning process (Ferguson & Alarcón, 2014); tourism, gender and poverty reduction (Tucker & Boonabaana, 2012); the cultural and structural issues determining the roles women play in tourism’s service industry (Baum, 2013); women’s economic independence through tourism (Acharya & Halpenny, 2013), and the role gender plays into residents’ perceptions of control over tourism development and their subsequent political support for tourism (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). A common thread within these studies is that gender disparities result from situated notions of power (Gibson, 2001). This understanding of power aligns with the Foucauldian perspective that power is omnipresent and behind all aspects of tourism development (Cheong & Miller, 2000; Foucault, 1982; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012). This omnipotent conceptualization of power coupled with the discovery of disparities in the social, political, environmental, economic, and psychological power held specifically by women (Gentry, 2007; Schellhorn, 2010; Vandegrift, 2008) has been part of the impetus on empowerment and the investigation of power structures to become a core area of sustainable tourism research. Empowerment in its most basic form describes the ability of “people, organizations, and communities to gain mastery over their affairs” (Rappaport, 1987, p. 122). Sofield (2003, p. 79) writes that this generic definition of empowerment has been the impetus behind the “proliferation of usage where different authors define the term in the context of their professional experience or a particular situation.” Relating to the study of gender and empowerment, Moswete and Lacey (2014, p. 6) write: “Empowerment is complex and subjective and can occur in one or more of economic, political, social, or psychological realms. Any exploration of the empowerment of women through tourism needs to examine multiple realms of empowerment if true insight is to be gained into the advantages accruing from the venture.” This perspective of empowerment having psychological, social, political, and economic facets is derived from Scheyvens’ (1999) seminal study that first applied the psychology and development literature’s interpretation of empowerment to ecotourism (Friedmann, 1992; Rappaport, 1984). Ramos and Prideaux (2014) have also recently added an environmental dimension of empowerment. Comprehensively, empowerment, within a tourism development context, concentrates attention on providing residents with the agency to determine the best direction of tourism development for their communities (overarching empowerment), removing any structural barriers that would prohibit the community from having control over development (political empowerment), enabling the community to capture the economic benefits of tourism (economic empowerment), fostering community cohesion through the tourism development process (social empowerment) with a final tourism product that the residents are proud of sharing with visitors (psychological empowerment), and sustaining the community’s unique natural and cultural resources (environmental empowerment). With quantitative scales only developed for the psychological, social, and political dimensions of empowerment, the actually tests for gender discrepancies will focus on these three dimensions and the items within the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS) (Boley & McGehee, 2014). Methodology Discrepancies in residents’ psychological, social, and political empowerment were examined using the 12-item Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS).The RETS was administered across five unique sample populations (three rural counties in Virginia, USA and two distinct cultural groups in Oizumi, Japan). The three U.S. counties were chosen based upon their similarities in tourism product (all located along the Blue Ridge Parkway), similar per capita tourism expenditures ($1,400-$1,600 per resident), and unemployment levels around 6% in 2012. The Oizumi sample was chosen because it provides the ability to test the RETS across two different cultures in Japan (e.g., Brazilians and Japans). Oizumi is located in Gunma prefecture and is approximately 110 km northwest of Tokyo. While the town has traditionally been known as a manufacturing town, more recently it has become recognized as “Little Brazil” for its high concentration of Brazilian residents. According to the Census conducted in 2010, 3,678 Brazilian residents (approximately 15% of the total population) reside in Oizumi, which is the highest concentration in Japan. With the severe decline of manufacturing in 2007, the chamber of commerce in Oizumi created the tourism bureau and has introduced Brazilian “ethnic enclave tourism” to help revitalize its economy. The RETS was administered to residents of all five populations using a self-administered, door-to-door, pen and paper questionnaire that implemented a census-guided systematic random sampling scheme (Woosnam & Norman, 2010). For the Virginia samples, questionnaires were distributed in the spring of 2013.Throughout the six-week period of data collection, 1784 households were visited. Out of the 984 eligible residents intercepted, 900 were willing to participate, with 84 declining. Of the 900 survey questionnaires distributed, 703 were returned and used within the study resulting in a 71% response rate. In regards to the Oizumi sample, data concerning the RETS were collected from Brazilian and Japanese residents living in Oizumi between November 2013 and June 2014. In total, 5,566 household were visited by the research team, while no one answered the door at 4,012 homes. At the remaining 1,554 homes, 650 surveys were completed for a response rate of 42%. No additional tests of the RETS’ reliability and validity were conducted because they have already been assessed and confirmed previously through two different confirmatory factory analyses (see Boley & McGehee, 2014; Boley, Maruyama, & Woosnam, 2015 for more specifics). To test for significant empowerment discrepancies between men and women, independent samples t-tests were performed for each of the five samples with a significance criteria of 0.05. Results Results revealed that gender discrepancies among residents were in fact present, but surprisingly, not in the direction suggested in previous literature (Table 1). In all three U.S. samples, results revealed that women were more likely to perceive themselves empowered through tourism than men. The results from two Japanese samples did not suggest any significant differences, which is of interest given Japan’s traditional patriarchal society. Within Floyd County, women perceived themselves being more empowered than men on the latent constructs of social (3.35 \u3e 3.04; t = 2.50; p \u3c 0.05) and political empowerment (2.76 \u3e 2.53; t = 2.11; p \u3c 0.05) as well as on four individual scale items. Results were different for Botetourt County because the significant differences were centered only on the psychological empowerment dimension. Women’s perceptions of empowerment were significantly higher on the latent construct of psychological empowerment (3.84 \u3e 3.63; t = 2.52; p \u3c 0.05) as well as its individual items of “Tourism in Botetourt County makes me feel special because people travel to see my area’s unique features” (3.76 \u3e 3.52; t = 2.23; p \u3c 0.05), “Tourism in Botetourt County reminds me that I have a unique culture to share with visitors” (3.77 \u3e 3.52; t = 2.55; p \u3c 0.05), and “Tourism in Botetourt County makes me want to work to keep Botetourt County special” (3.98 \u3e 3.66; t = 3.55; p \u3c 0.001). The results for Franklin County revealed only significant differences on the social empowerment dimension. Women’s perceptions of empowerment were significantly higher on the latent construct of social empowerment (3.51 \u3e 3.25; t = 2.53; p \u3c 0.05) as well as on its items of “Tourism in Franklin County makes me feel more connected to my community” (3.48 \u3e 3.18; t = 2.68; p \u3c 0.01) and “Tourism in Franklin County provides ways for me to get involved in my community (3.50 \u3e3.19; t = 2.61; p \u3c 0.01). Conclusion and Discussion In all three U.S. samples, women residents were more likely to perceive themselves being empowered through tourism than men. This finding is parallel to some previous studies that have indicated women’s enhanced empowered status through tourism (Garcia-Ramon et al. 1995; Khatiwada & Silva, 2015; Moswete & Lacey, 2014). The results from the two Japanese samples did not find any significant difference, which is of interest because Japan is traditionally seen a very patriarchal society (Hofstede, 2014). This finding demonstrates the ability of tourism to enter into situated notions of power prevalent within different cultures and possibly flip power structures or at least level the playing field for traditionally marginalized groups. Rather than fighting against the Foucauldian perspective that power is omnipresent and behind all aspects of tourism development (Cheong & Miller, 2000; Foucault, 1982; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012), perhaps the power of tourism can be harnessed as a force for good that works to undermine pervasive power imbalances. This is one of the goals of sustainable tourism (Ferguson & Alarcón, 2014) and directed niche forms of tourism such as pro-poor tourism (Akyeampong, 2011; Ashley, Boyd, & Goodwin, 2000). For practitioners, the RETS’ ability to identify specific perceived discrepancies in empowerment between men and women provides tourism industry managers and other government officials the opportunity to identify problem areas and subsequently modify tourism marketing and management plans and other government-led initiatives such as increasing access to higher education and start-up capital for tourism entrepreneurship to see if their initiatives are working to remedy the problem. For academics, the study provides the first empirical test of the widely-held view that women are underrepresented and less empowered in tourism development (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). Such an imbalance has been demonstrated in existing qualitative research (see Duffy et al., 2015; Ferguson & Alarcon, 2014; Ling et al., 2013; Scheyvens, 2000; Tucker & Boonabaana, 2012), but did not materialize within the five samples of this study. Perhaps, perceptions of gender disempowerment are not as widespread as originally thought and that real success stories exist of communities effectively empowering both men and women within their tourism development strategies as Moswete and Lacey’s (2014) and Khatiwada and Silva’s (2015) findings from Botswana and Namibia suggest. Empowerment is very much a site-specific phenomenon and more quantitative research is needed to see if empowerment discrepancies exist in other tourism destinations as some qualitative findings suggest. Table 1. RETS mean comparisons across gender by US (VA) and Japan samples United States (VA)a Japan (Oizumi)b ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Botetourt Co. Floyd Co. Franklin Co. Japanese Brazilians _________________________________________________________________________________ ______ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ M M M M M _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Factor and Corresponding Item Female Male t Female Male t Female Male t Female Male t Female Male t Psychological Empowerment 3.84 3.63 2.52* 3.88 3.71 1.60 3.85 3.71 1.45 3.92 3.92 0.01 5.44 5.69 -1.25 Tourism… …makes me proud to be [ ]c resident. 3.83 3.70 1.27 3.92 3.61 2.58* 3.87 3.64 1.87 4.29 4.42 -0.95 5.34 5.68 -1.52 …makes me feel special because people travel to see my area’s unique features. 3.76 3.52 2.23* 3.76 3.61 1.11 3.81 3.65 1.40 3.42 3.55 -0.99 5.34 5.57 -0.99 …makes me want to tell others about what we have to offer in [ ]. 3.92 3.76 1.65 3.85 3.72 1.05 3.86 3.70 1.35 3.64 3.86 -1.69 5.59 5.69 -0.46 …reminds me that I have a unique culture to share with visitors. 3.77 3.52 2.55* 3.91 3.80 0.94 3.88 3.78 0.98 4.00 4.09 -0.66 5.30 5.64 -1.53 …makes me want to work to keep [ ] special. 3.98 3.66 3.55*** 3.96 3.86 0.85 3.88 3.78 0.98 4.05 4.05 -0.02 5.46 5.68 -1.04 Social Empowerment 3.50 3.36 1.53 3.35 3.04 2.50* 3.51 3.25 2.53* 4.08 4.02 0.59 5.31 5.54 -1.14 Tourism… …makes me feel more connected to my community. 3.47 3.31 1.56 3.31 3.05 1.89 3.48 3.18 2.68** 3.90 4.04 -1.15 5.36 5.43 -0.32 …fosters a sense of ‘community spirit’ within me. 3.59 3.44 1.47 3.41 3.13 2.11* 3.56 3.38 1.54 3.99 4.10 -0.88 5.28 5.67 -1.79 …provides ways for me to get involved in my community. 3.44 3.34 0.99 3.34 2.93 2.95** 3.50 3.19 2.61** 4.07 4.26 -1.51 5.27 5.60 -1.51 Political Empowerment 2.77 2.83 -0.64 2.76 2.53 2.11* 2.74 2.80 -0.61 3.48 3.37 0.81 3.45 3.37 0.31 I have a voice in [ ] tourism development decisions. 2.62 2.66 -0.38 2.65 2.48 1.33 2.66 2.68 -0.16 3.36 3.46 -0.64 3.38 3.20 0.58 I have access to the decision making process when it comes to tourism in [ ]d. 2.55 2.68 -1.09 2.62 2.36 1.93 2.57 2.53 0.36 3.42 3.38 0.28 3.45 3.50 0.17 My vote makes a difference in how tourism is developed in [ ].e 3.09 3.06 0.21 2.96 2.74 1.64 2.87 3.09 -1.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- I have an outlet to share my concerns about tourism development in [ ]. 2.86 2.92 -0.53 2.87 2.53 2.63* 2.86 2.91 -0.38 3.54 3.41 0.88 3.57 3.52 0.15 a RETS items rated on 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree b RETS items rated on 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree c [ ] represents community name. d Worded as “I have the opportunity to participate in the tourism planning process in Oizumi” on Japanese Survey e Item not included within Oizumi questionnaire given residents’ lack of ability to vote on such matters in Japan. * p \u3c 0.05, **p \u3c 0.01, ***p \u3c 0.001 References Acharya, B. P., & Halpenny, E. A. (2013). Homestays as an alternative tourism product for sustainable community development: A case study of women-managed tourism product in rural Nepal. Tourism Planning & Development, 10(4), 367-387. Akyeampong, O. A. (2011). Pro-poor tourism: residents\u27 expectations, experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 197-213. Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H. (2000). Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of the tourism age

Education Reform for the Digital Era

Will the digital-learning movement repeat the mistakes of the charter-school movement? How much more successful might today's charter universe look if yesterday's proponents had focused on the policies and practices needed to ensure its quality, freedom, and resources over the long term? What mistakes might have been avoided? Damaging scandals forestalled? Missed opportunities seized