Principals’ Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter Schools Compared to Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania A Dissertation Presented to The College of Graduate and Professional Studies Department of Education Slippery Rock University Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Morgan Ostasewski Baker Proposed Graduation May 8, 2026 © Morgan Ostasewski Baker, 2026 Keywords: homelessness, cyber charter schools, brick-and-mortar schools, principals, high school 2 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Committee Members Committee Chair: Dr. Whitney Wesley, Ed.D Professor for the Department of Curriculum, Instruction & Educational Leadership Graduate Coordinator for the EdD Educational Leadership & Administration; Pk-12 Slippery Rock University Committee Member: Dr. Mark Hogue, Ph.D Associate Professor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational ​ ​ Leadership Slippery Rock University Committee Member: Dr. Michael Panza, Ed.D Instructor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational Leadership Slippery Rock University Committee Member: Dr. Tricia Shelton, Ed.D Professor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational Leadership Slippery Rock University 3 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Abstract Youth homelessness continues to rise in Pennsylvania, with over 40,000 students identified as experiencing homelessness (SEH) in 2023. As a result, educational leaders are tasked with creating equitable support systems. This study investigated the perceptions of high school principals regarding SEH in cyber charter schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools, examining their support strategies, their preparedness to implement the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), and actual student graduation outcomes. Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN), the research explores how school settings and systemic layers influence the academic pathways of vulnerable students. This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, collecting qualitative and quantitative data concurrently from a purposive sample of forty-four Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with at least 5% of their enrollment experiencing homelessness. Data was gathered through a seventeen-question survey completed by twenty-six high school administrators ( nbrick-and-mortar=21, ncyber=5) and graduation rate data retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection database. The findings revealed that while principals in both school models prioritize social-emotional support and basic needs, their operational strategies diverge based on the medium of instruction. Cyber charter principals placed a statistically higher priority on technological infrastructure (p < .05), such as providing hardware and hotspots, whereas brick-and-mortar leaders focused more heavily on transportation and extracurricular access. Notably, 40% of cyber principals emphasized that virtual settings protect the “dignity” of SEH by maintaining confidentiality regarding their housing status. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in principals' perceived preparedness or understanding of MKVA across school types, leading to the retention of the null hypothesis for research question two. Furthermore, research question three found no 4 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS statistically significant difference in the graduation rates of SEH between cyber charter and brick-and-mortar schools. These results validate school choice, suggesting that cyber charter schools provide a viable and effective alternative for SEH by achieving academic parity with traditional models while offering a more flexible learning environment. This study offers critical insights for policy and practice, advocating for data-driven leadership training and the preservation of diverse educational options to meet the foundational and academic needs of Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students. 5 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to four individuals who provided unwavering support and encouragement throughout this journey as well as the millions of children experiencing homelessness. First, to my husband, Blailin: I am profoundly grateful for all the ways you encouraged and supported me throughout this journey; both big and small. Thank you for being my thought partner when my ideas lacked words; your patience in listening to my endless rambling helped more than you’ll ever know. I recognize and appreciate the dinners cooked, the children entertained, and the personal sacrifices you made to give me the space to dive into a topic so close to my heart. To my boys, Cohen and Jaxon: I carry so much gratitude for the grace you showed when I needed space to write. Those unexpected hugs while I sat typing for hours were the fuel I didn't know I needed. I hope you see this accomplishment as a goal you can strive for, and more importantly, a reminder that hard things are worth the effort and when you are passionate, it will never feel like work. To Dr. Whitney Wesley: While our time together was short, your advice and feedback were invaluable. I am deeply appreciative of your willingness to support me despite our paths having only recently crossed. Your kindness and expertise gave me the strength to continue when I questioned my own abilities. I am forever grateful that you took a chance on me. Finally, I dedicate this work to the children currently experiencing homelessness whose lived experiences are at the core of this study. While this dissertation is an academic milestone, its true purpose is to advocate for you. It is my deepest hope that the findings within this dissertation contribute to meaningful change, no matter the scale. Your resilience is the heartbeat of this research, and you deserve to be seen, heard, and supported. 6 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Acknowledgements First, I wish to acknowledge the children experiencing homelessness. I also wish to acknowledge and thank my dissertation committee of both my chair, Dr. Whitney Wesley, and committee members Dr. Tricia Shelton, Dr. Mark Hogue, and Dr. Michael Panza. When seeking committee members, I knew, without a doubt, who I wanted on my team. Whether I had you as an instructor or this is our first time working together, I knew each of you had special abilities that would help this journey be meaningful. I have received praise from all of you throughout this process and crucial feedback to help me push to create a product I’m so proud of. I was able to share my love and passion for my dissertation topic with each of you and you all recognized the importance of my research in the field of education. I appreciate you all dedicating your time to supporting me throughout this process. Without the passion for education each of you have, I would not have felt as comfortable as I did during each step of the dissertation process with any other dissertation committee. 7 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table of Contents Abstract..........................................................................................................................................3 Dedication......................................................................................................................................5 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................6 List of Tables................................................................................................................................10 List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 12 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 12 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................... 12 Purpose of Study................................................................................................................... 13 Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................... 14 Research Questions and Hypothesis.................................................................................... 16 Research Methods.................................................................................................................17 Terms and Definitions............................................................................................................ 19 Summary............................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Literature Review....................................................................................................... 22 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 22 Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................... 23 Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory................................................................. 23 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.......................................................................................... 26 Impact of the Theoretical Framework on the Study......................................................... 27 The Youth Homelessness Crisis............................................................................................ 28 The Data.......................................................................................................................... 28 Defining and Identifying Homelessness...........................................................................29 Risk Factors of Homelessness........................................................................................ 31 Academic Outcomes of Homeless Youth...............................................................................32 Student Achievement.......................................................................................................32 Post-Secondary Outcomes.............................................................................................. 33 Unique Needs of Homeless Youth......................................................................................... 34 Student Needs................................................................................................................. 34 Importance of Relationships............................................................................................ 35 Additional Best Practices................................................................................................. 36 Impact of Deficit Thinking.................................................................................................36 Policy to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness...................................................... 39 The Requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act................................................................ 39 Act 1 of Pennsylvania...................................................................................................... 40 Barriers to Implementation...............................................................................................40 Overcoming Barriers of Implementation.......................................................................... 41 School Choice Matters...........................................................................................................42 Educational Philosophy....................................................................................................42 8 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Schooling Options in Pennsylvania..................................................................................43 Cyber Charter Schools Versus Brick-And-Mortar Schools.................................................... 45 Different Models...............................................................................................................46 Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes................................................................. 47 Cyber Learner Profile & Enrollment Factors.................................................................... 49 Funding Controversy........................................................................................................52 The Role of School Leaders.................................................................................................. 54 The Need for Further Research.............................................................................................56 Summary............................................................................................................................... 56 Chapter 3: Research Method.......................................................................................................58 Research Questions and Hypotheses................................................................................... 58 Research Design................................................................................................................... 60 Population and Sample..........................................................................................................61 Instrumentation...................................................................................................................... 62 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................63 Ethical Considerations........................................................................................................... 66 Validity and Reliability............................................................................................................ 67 Limitations..............................................................................................................................69 Summary............................................................................................................................... 69 Chapter 4: Findings..................................................................................................................... 71 Review of Research Design.................................................................................................. 72 Review of Analysis Methods..................................................................................................73 Participants............................................................................................................................ 77 Presentation of the Findings.................................................................................................. 79 Research Question 1....................................................................................................... 79 Research Question 2....................................................................................................... 88 Research Question 3....................................................................................................... 97 Summary............................................................................................................................. 101 Chapter 5: Discussion................................................................................................................106 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 106 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................106 Strategies to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ1).............................107 Preparedness and Implementation of MKVA (RQ2)...................................................... 107 Graduation Rates of Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ3).............................. 108 Discussion of Results.......................................................................................................... 108 Research Question 1..................................................................................................... 109 Research Question 2..................................................................................................... 114 Research Question 3..................................................................................................... 115 Implications.......................................................................................................................... 116 Enhancing MKVA Oversight........................................................................................... 119 Strengthening Leadership through Data-Driven PD...................................................... 120 9 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Validating School Choice for SEH..................................................................................120 Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................... 121 Recommendations for Future Research..............................................................................123 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 124 References................................................................................................................................ 126 Appendix A: Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 139 Appendix B: Request to Use Questionnaire.............................................................................. 145 Appendix C: Consent to Use Questionnaire.............................................................................. 146 Appendix D: IRB Approval......................................................................................................... 147 Appendix E: Informational Letter............................................................................................... 147 Appendix F: Recruitment Email................................................................................................. 153 10 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS List of Tables Table 1. Research Question Data Analysis Summary...............................................................76 Table 2. Participant Responses to Demographic Survey Items.................................................78 Table 3. Participant Demographics Percentages.......................................................................79 Table 4. Open-Ended Emerging Themes by School Type.........................................................80 Table 5. MKVA Success Measures by School Type..................................................................83 Table 6. Services for SEH by School Type................................................................................85 Table 7. Communication Methods by School Type....................................................................87 Table 8. MKVA Professional Development by School Type.......................................................89 Table 9. Perception of Principals’ Preparedness by School Type..............................................91 Table 10. Comparison of Hypothesis Results of Graduation Rates of SEH versus School Type Using Different Approaches to Interval-Censored Data...........................................................101 11 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS List of Figures Figure 1. Ecological Systems Theory..........................................................................................24 Figure 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.......................................................................................27 Figure 3. Guide to Choosing an Education Model for Your Child................................................45 Figure 4. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Understanding Between School Types...........................................................................................................................................93 Figure 5. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Effectiveness Between School Types...........................................................................................................................................95 Figure 6. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Knowledge and Training Between School Types ..............................................................................................................................96 Figure 7. Graduation Rates of SEH by School Type...................................................................98 Figure 8. Comparison of Graduation Rates for SEH Between School Types..............................99 Figure 9. Needs of SEH Withing the MHN Framework..............................................................112 Figure 10. Ecological Systems of SEH......................................................................................118 12 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction ​ Students experiencing homelessness (SEH) face profound barriers to education that extend beyond academics. Homelessness affects attendance, academic performance, social relationships, and access to essential services such as meals and counseling (Morgan, 2018). SEH continues to rise, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 40,000 students were identified as homeless in 2023, reflecting a 5% increase since 2019 (National Center for Homeless Education, 2023). As the number of SEH rises, educational settings must evolve to meet their needs. Schools play a crucial role in supporting SEH. As a result of the growing population of SEH, The McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) was passed in 1987. The MKVA defined homelessness and created safeguards to ensure SEH had equal access to free and appropriate education and in 2022 Pennsylvania passed additional legislation under Act 1 to support on-time graduation for SEH. While these policies have positive intentions, there are many barriers that still limit academic achievement and outcomes of SEH. School staff report feeling inadequate in understanding the requirements and strategies for SEH and the need for adequate funding (Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2019). Statement of the Problem Schools serve as the epicenter of communities and provide academic support, counseling, mental health support, and resources to secure appropriate housing and other basic needs (Havlik et al., 2014; Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). However, many SEH and their families report having many negative experiences in school. There is a stigma around homelessness and some staff experience deficit thinking (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021) leading to negative 13 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS academic outcomes. In addition, the rigidity and lack of flexibility in most schools heavily impacts attendance and achievement (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). While schools may be the epicenter of communities, principals are the crux of effective schools with their impact being only second to effective teachers. Principals are crucial to ensuring a purpose and vision, developing their staff, and strengthening school culture (Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition, prior studies conducted regarding SEH found school staff advocated for strong school leadership and sought their guidance on effective systems and strategies to support SEH (Harris, 2012). In addition, they are key to implementing MKVA and Act 1 (Ferguson & Francis, 2024). To support SEH and ensure positive academic outcomes, principals must ensure understanding of MKVA at their schools, advocate for student needs, implement school-based programs to meet the needs of SEH, and build strong relationships with families, SEH, and staff (Jones, 2024). While principals play a crucial role in SEH, not all schools have the structure to support SEH, and policies such as MKVA and Act 1 of Pennsylvania are not enough. School choice allows students and families to select schools that meet their needs. The flexibility of cyber charter schools makes them a potential option to meet the needs of SEH in a way that traditional brick-and-mortar schools cannot. However, there is political controversy around cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania due to their general lack of academic performance (Cordes, 2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022). This has led to additional inquiries into their funding and current legislation in Pennsylvania seeks to decrease their funding significantly (Scolforo, 2025). Purpose of Study Despite the protections afforded by MKVA (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.) and state-level policies like Act 1, SEH continue to face inequities in education. There is limited empirical 14 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS research comparing the perspectives of school leaders across these models, particularly at the high school level. In addition, previous studies indicate cyber students have lower academic achievement than brick-and-mortar schools; however, they fail to address the exact cause. Further questions have been raised to perpetuate a “chicken or the egg” debate. Do students attending cyber charter schools perform poorly because of the instruction they receive at the cyber charter school or were these students already struggling at their brick-and-mortar schools and they sought cyber programs to better meet their needs? ​ ​ Just as the population of SEH continues to rise in Pennsylvania, so does the enrollment of cyber charter schools. In addition, principals play a crucial role in the implementation of policies meant to support SEH and general achievement of schools (Harris, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2004). This study focused on the intersection of SEH, cyber charter education versus brick-and-mortar education, and the role of principals by studying principals’ perceptions of SEH in cyber charter school compared to brick-and-mortar high schools in Pennsylvania. The outcomes of this study can inform policy, training, and practices across Pennsylvania addressing SEH and the options available to them via school choice. Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in two interrelated theoretical models: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN). These frameworks are essential for understanding how external systems and individual needs intersect to shape the experiences and academic outcomes of students experiencing homelessness (SEH). EST states that human development is influenced by five nested systems: the microsystem (e.g., family, school), mesosystem (interactions between microsystems), exosystem (community influences), macrosystem (societal values and policies), and chronosystem (historical and temporal factors) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). 15 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Each of these layers plays a role in shaping the educational environment of SEH. For example, school staff, peers, and access to extracurricular support exist within the microsystem, while laws such as the McKinney-Vento Act and school funding decisions reside in the exosystem and macrosystem. This study applies EST to explore how these systemic layers affect principal perceptions and responses to SEH across different school models. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN) complements EST by emphasizing the foundational needs that must be met for individuals to achieve personal growth and academic success. Maslow’s model is organized into five tiers: physiological needs (e.g., food, shelter), safety (e.g., stability, health), love and belongingness (e.g., peer and teacher relationships), esteem (e.g., achievement, respect), and self-actualization (e.g., personal growth) (Guy-Evans, 2025a). For SEH, physiological and safety needs are often unmet, limiting their ability to engage fully in school. Principals play a critical role in recognizing and responding to these barriers by fostering safe, supportive environments and ensuring access to services. In cyber charter schools, meeting these needs may be particularly complex due to the lack of physical space, while brick-and-mortar settings may offer more direct support but face challenges in consistency and outreach. MHN helps frame how principals conceptualize their responsibilities in meeting these layered student needs. Together, EST and MHN provide a conceptual foundation for this study’s inquiry into how high school principals perceive and respond to the needs of SEH in cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools. EST allows for analysis of how school setting, policy implementation, and community structures shape principal actions, while MHN underscores the urgent, individualized needs of SEH that schools must address. These frameworks will guide the analysis of principal survey responses and inform the interpretation of how school leaders navigate their roles within diverse educational models. Previous research has also employed these theories to examine SEH, reinforcing their relevance to this study (Jones, 2024; 16 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Wagaman et al., 2022). By drawing on these established models, this study offers a structured lens through which to explore the systems, relationships, and responsibilities influencing the academic pathways of students experiencing homelessness. Research Questions and Hypothesis The fundamental questions associated with this research study are: RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar 17 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​ versus brick-and-mortar schools. ​ H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​ versus brick-and-mortar schools. ​ H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar Research Methods ​ This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to examine and compare principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber and brick-and-mortar high schools across Pennsylvania. In this design, qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed separately, and then integrated to produce a holistic understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative components included Likert-scale survey responses, select multi-select questions, and graduation rate data from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), while qualitative components consisted of open-ended survey responses from principals and assistant principals. The independent variable for this study was the type of school (i.e., cyber or brick-and-mortar) and the dependent variables were the principals’ perceptions, strategies, and SEH graduation outcomes. This design was selected over other mixed-methods models because it allowed both data types to be collected in a single 18 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS phase, enabling a comprehensive and simultaneous analysis of measurable trends and contextual insights (Shahbaz, 2021). ​ The mixed-methods approach was particularly well-suited to this study because it addressed all three research questions: (1) identifying support systems and strategies used by principals; (2) exploring differences in perceptions and understanding of McKinney-Vento Act implementation; and (3) comparing SEH graduation outcomes between school types. The quantitative data captured generalizable patterns, such as graduation rates and levels of preparedness, while the qualitative data offered depth, voice, and nuance to interpret those patterns meaningfully. The integration of both data types strengthened the reliability and richness of the findings and mitigated the limitations inherent in relying solely on one methodological approach (Wasti et al., 2022). This methodology supports the study's goal of capturing both the systemic and interpersonal dynamics that shape how principals support SEH across educational settings. ​ The study used purposive sampling to identify Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Pennsylvania with high concentrations of SEH, specifically targeting those with at least 5% SEH enrollment. This resulted in a final sample of forty-four LEAs including forty brick-and-mortar and four cyber charter schools. A seventeen-question survey, adapted from a validated instrument created by Dr. Brian Jones (2024), was disseminated using Qualtrics. The survey included Likert-scale, multi-select responses, and open-ended questions designed to assess participant demographics, MKVA knowledge, and perceived strategies for supporting SEH. Survey responses were analyzed in IBM SPSS (Version 29) using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests such as Mann-Whitney U-Test (ordinal and interval data) and the Fisher’s exact test (nominal data) to identify differences between school models. Open-ended responses were analyzed through a two-cycle coding process (Saldana, 2018; Saldana & Omasta, 2016) using In Vivo and Pattern coding to identify themes across responses. Graduation rate data, 19 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS serving as a quantitative measure of student achievement, was collected from the SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) database and used to compare SEH outcomes in cyber and traditional schools. This comprehensive and intentional research design ensures that the study’s findings are both data-driven and contextually grounded. Terms and Definitions ​ For this study, the term Students Experiencing Homelessness will be referenced as SEH and defined according to the guidelines presented in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MKVA). As stated by the MKVA homelessness is defined as: ●​ children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; or are abandoned in hospitals; ●​ children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings; ●​ children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and ●​ migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii) (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.). Throughout this research, the term cyber charter school will be used when referring to public, tuition-free, fully online schools that deliver instruction remotely via the internet, often with asynchronous and synchronous components. Students attending cyber charter schools attend classes and complete assignments virtually from their homes. In Pennsylvania, cyber 20 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS charter schools are considered public schools and operate independently from local school districts, while still being held accountable to state performance standards and funding laws (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2024). For the purpose of this research, the term brick-and-mortar refers to traditional, physical public school buildings where students attend classes in person. This includes both public school districts and charter schools that operate from a physical facility with face-to-face instruction, as opposed to virtual learning environments (Education Commission of the States, 2022). The term local education agency will be referred to as LEA and includes public school districts, intermediate units, and charter schools that are legally constituted within a state to provide educational services to students in a defined geographic area. LEAs are responsible for the administration of public education, including compliance with state and federal laws, budgeting, and staffing (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). For the purpose of this study, principals refer to any individual serving in the role of building-level school administrator responsible for the academic, operational, and leadership functions of a high school. This includes principals and assistant principals who are responsible for implementing educational policy, managing staff and resources, supporting student outcomes, and ensuring compliance with federal mandates such as the MKVA (National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2023). Summary This study investigates how high school principals perceive and respond to the needs of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools across Pennsylvania. As homelessness among students continues to rise, educational leaders are increasingly tasked with creating equitable, responsive school environments. Despite legal protections offered by the McKinney-Vento Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.) and Pennsylvania's 21 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Act 1, SEH face continued barriers to academic success, including stigmatization, inflexible school structures, and inconsistent staff preparedness (Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wagaman et al., 2022). Principals play a critical role in shaping school responses and ensuring the implementation of these laws, yet there is a lack of comparative research examining how school leaders in different educational models such as cyber and brick-and-mortar schools address these challenges. This study is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The researcher utilizes a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to explore the intersection of school type, student homelessness, and principal leadership. Through the integration of survey data, qualitative responses, and SEH graduation outcomes, this research aims to illuminate both measurable differences and contextual insights. By examining the perspectives and strategies of high school principals, this study contributes to a growing body of literature and offers practical implications for policy and practice. The findings are intended to inform state-level education leaders and local education agencies (LEAs) as they refine practices and expand school choice to better serve one of the most vulnerable student populations. In addition, school leaders can utilize the findings of this study to inform their practices on identifying and supporting SEH. 22 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction Homelessness among youth is a growing crisis in the United States, affecting over 1.37 million school-aged children, with Pennsylvania alone accounting for more than 40,000 of those students (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). For these students, school is often more than a place of learning, but can be a critical source of stability, safety, and support. As educational settings continue to diversify, particularly with the rise of cyber charter schools, understanding how different school environments serve students experiencing homelessness (SEH) has become increasingly essential. Despite the expansion of school choice and the prominence of cyber education, little is known about how these varied settings impact SEH, particularly from the perspective of those leading the schools. The purpose of this study is to examine principals’ perceptions of SEH in cyber charter schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania. While research has documented the academic challenges and unique needs faced by SEH, there remains a substantial gap in the literature examining how school leaders perceive and respond to those needs across different educational models. Much of the existing literature focuses on elementary populations, school counselors, or legislative frameworks such as the McKinney-Vento Act and Pennsylvania’s Act 1. However, research on secondary-level students, particularly within the context of cyber schooling, is sparse. Additionally, while cyber charter schools have been criticized for lower academic outcomes, the existing data do not clearly disentangle whether these results stem from the virtual model itself or from the complex socioeconomic circumstances that lead families to choose cyber education in the first place. 23 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Theoretical Framework This study is rooted in the Ecological Systems Theory (EST) established by Bronfenbrenner in 1977. Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides a framework that connects student’s identity, impact of school setting, school staff influence, and policies written to support students experiencing homelessness (SEH). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory In 1977, Bronfenbrenner proposed the socio-ecological model, later becoming the ecological systems theory, to demonstrate the complexity of human development. Before his research, psychologists maintained a simplistic view on factors that contributed to a child’s development. These factors were often simplified to the individual and their immediate environment. Bronfenbrenner outlined five systems that shape behavior and growth. These systems are the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. Each system heavily influences the other systems, and the individual is rooted in the center of all five (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). Figure 1 displays a model of the EST framework. 24 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Figure 1 Note. The five systems of the Ecological Systems Theory. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#) The Individual. The purpose of the ecological system is to demonstrate the dynamic and evolving influence of several factors that influence the development of individuals. At the core is the individual and their identity. This includes their age, gender, ethnicity, disabilities, socio-economic status, lived experiences, and housing status (UNICEF, n.d.). These 25 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS characteristics heavily influence how the individual can grow and develop and will be used to establish demographics of the samples used in previous studies and provide context for this study’s data analysis. The Microsystem and Mesosystem. The system that immediately influences the individual is the microsystem. The microsystem includes their immediate family, school environment, friends, and any other persons or environment with which the individual has immediate and frequent contact. The mesosystem is the system in which the components of the individual’s microsystem interact. For example, when teachers and parents or guardians discuss the academic progress of the individual, this is part of the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). These two systems have a significant amount of influence on the outcomes of a child, or in the context of this study, the student. When discussing the perception of administrators on SEH in cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools, the staff, mode of education, peer interactions, and extra-curricular support play a role in demonstrating the significance of this study. In addition, the researcher will address the interactions between each and how that impacts the achievement of SEH. The Exosystem. The next layer is the exosystem. The exosystem includes extended family, caregivers’ employers, local organizations, the media, and government policy. These factors have less of an impact than the microsystem, but still heavily influence the outcomes of the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). An example of an exosystem is the legislation discussed later that supports SEH and promotes school choice. In addition, the researcher will discuss how the media and local organizations play a role in identifying SEH and the perceptions of others. The Macrosystem. The fourth layer of Bronfenbrenner’s original theory of ecological systems is the macrosystem. The macrosystem includes society and cultural norms (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). This includes things such as gender norms, 26 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS parenting styles, valued skills in education, and stereotypes. In this study, the researcher will discuss how stereotypes and desired skills influence the achievement of SEH. The Chronosystem. The final stage of the ecological systems is the chronosystem. The chronosystem addresses the significant changes that impact a person’s environment over time. This can be things such as major historical events, technological advances, changes to family dynamics, and more (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). Similarly to the other systems, this layer will be addressed through the discussion of the expansion of cyber education through technology and the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the political movements that address the school funding systems in Pennsylvania. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs The ecological systems theory discusses the numerous factors that influence the development of a person and how they are interconnected. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN) takes many of these factors discussed in the EST and establishes a rank from the most important to least important as seen in Figure 2. According to MHN, the most urgent needs are physiological. This includes things crucial to survival, that without, would result in immediate physical harm or even death. These items are things like air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing, and reproduction. The next level of need is safety. Safety includes personal security, employment, resources, health, and property. Safety items ensure the level of stability required for the next level. Level three is “love and belonging” and this represents our social needs. Items such as familial relationships, friendships, and romantic partnerships are part of our psychological safety. The fourth level is our esteem needs. Our self-worth and achievements are a part of this level. Finally, is the self-actualization need which is personal growth and achievement of our highest potential. The levels go from most urgent to least urgent need, but also from simplest to more complex. While Maslow originally created this framework to indicate 27 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS a sequential order, recent studies suggest various levels can be pursued simultaneously and are influenced by individuals’ culture (Guy-Evans, 2025a; Yardakul & Arar, 2023). Figure 2 Note. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025a, March 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#) Impact of the Theoretical Framework on the Study Maslow created the Hierarchy of Needs to demonstrate physical and psychological needs and demonstrate the importance of each item. Bronfenbrenner proposed EST to reframe psychological research and demonstrate the complexity of environmental factors and how they influence human development. According to both theories, individuals are complex, require nurturing, and are influenced by a dynamic network of factors. 28 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS EST has been used to form best practices and frameworks for recognizing the relationship between multiple factors (Jones, 2024; Wagaman et al., 2022). Specific factors observed in this study include the individual and their identity as a student experiencing homelessness, the impact of student needs, educational relationships, deficit thinking, legislation impacting students, school models, and the role of school leaders. MHN demonstrates the significance of not only physical and psychological needs, but also emphasizes that humans cannot begin to develop psychologically until physical needs have been met (Guy-Evans, 2025a; Yardakul & Arar, 2023) These theoretical frameworks set the context for the review of current literature, will guide the analytical process of this study, and inform the data collection focusing on the perceptions of school leaders on supporting SEH in cyber and brick and mortar schools. Additionally, many articles cited utilized EST and MHN as the theoretical framework for their studies. Finally, EST and MHN provide evidence for the significance of this study and help guide the topics addressed in Chapter 2. Further discussion of these factors and systems will be provided throughout the remainder of the Literature Review. The Youth Homelessness Crisis The Data According to the SchoolHouse Connection, approximately 1.37 million school aged children were identified as homeless in the United States in 2023. An additional 446,696 children three and under experienced homelessness. In Pennsylvania alone there are over 40,000 students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and an additional 14,000 preschoolers (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Alarmingly, these numbers have risen significantly over the last decade, with Pennsylvania experiencing over a 5% increase in SEH since the 2019 school 29 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS year (National Center for Homeless Education, 2023). Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have the highest rates of SEH across the Commonwealth (Lapp & Shaw-Amoah, 2024; National Center for Homeless Education, 2023). Defining and Identifying Homelessness Identifying SEH can be challenging for a multitude of reasons. Most significantly, there are the inconsistencies in definitions of homelessness across agencies. It is customary practice for different governing bodies to have their own definition of homelessness, but schools are bound by the definition found in the McKinney-Vento Act (Barfield, 2018; Navarro, 2021). The McKinney Vento Act of 1987 defines “homeless” as any child or youth who lack a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” including: ●​ children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; or are abandoned in hospitals; ●​ children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings; ●​ children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and ●​ migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii) (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.). 30 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Where many definitions deviate are those more commonly identified as “doubled up.” The term “doubled up” describes youth living with others outside of their immediate family, and many agencies do not include this category in their definition of homelessness (Bowman, 2016; Navarro, 2021). This is particularly alarming considering that the SchoolHouse Connection identified 75% of students identified as homeless during the 2022 school year were “doubled up” (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Similarly, in Pennsylvania, the School District of Philadelphia reported “doubled up” as the most frequent living arrangement amongst homeless youth during the 2023 school year (Frisone and Karakus, 2025; SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). In addition to the inconsistent definitions of homelessness, identifying students can be challenging. Concerns over the stereotypes and stigma surrounding homelessness have led to underreported statistics. Studies on staff and family perception regarding homelessness indicated parents feared judgment, students were hesitant to share their housing status and staff maintained stereotypical views of homelessness influenced by the media (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021). This is evident in a study conducted by Cumming and Gloeckner where their survey yielded a significantly higher number of SEH than the district reported. In the study, the sampled school district reported twenty-one SEH, but the survey conducted anonymously reported 584 SEH (Cumming and Gloeckner, 2012). Another study conducted by Cutuli et al. suggested nine strategies to improve the identification of SEH. They found they were able to identify more SEH through district level identification, use of an address shared by multiple families, addresses registered to a shelter, substandard housing, or hotel, certain medical diagnosis, or general health care notes. In their study, they found these nine strategies yielded anywhere from 34% to 454% more students than traditional identification strategies (Cutuli et al., 2024). 31 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Risk Factors of Homelessness While students and families can be hesitant to share their housing status with schools, there are several risk factors or indicators that can help educational establishments improve their identification and support of SEH. Most schools rely on self-disclosure or staff referrals to identify these students, but a study conducted by Cutuli et al. provided data to support the usage of nine indicators of homelessness found in data collected by schools during the registration process. Their study found routine identification during enrollment, address data, and health conditions helpful in determining if a student is homeless. Specifically, students that shared an address with other families with students enrolled in the school, addresses from shelters, mobile homes, and substandard housing were all more likely to be homeless. They also found health records provided insight into housing status, specifically in notes left on student files by the medical provider indicating their patient was experiencing homelessness. Finally, the researchers concluded attendance rates, and frequent transfers are indicative of homelessness (Cutuli et al., 2024; Howland, 2017; Miller, 2011). Additional studies further supported chronic absenteeism as a significant indicator of unstable housing (Howland et al., 2017; Navarro, 2021). Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing at least 10% of the school days and according to SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), half of students experienced homelessness and struggled with frequent absences. These findings indicate the need for more in-depth analysis of enrollment data to improve identification of SEH and not relying on self-advocacy or staff observation. Additional risk factors include socio-economic status such as race and income. The data indicates that black and brown students are more likely to be identified as homeless than white students and is more prevalent in urban settings (Havlik & Bryan, 2015; SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Of the students identified as homeless in 2022, 73% were students of color and 24% were white. In addition, 20% of SEH were identified as needing special education 32 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS services. In Pennsylvania, black and brown students made up over 63% of SEH with only 33% of white SEH and 28.9% of homeless youth requiring special education services (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). This data is impacted by additional systemic issues leading to black and brown students being unfairly impacted in all aspects of life. Academic Outcomes of Homeless Youth It is undeniable that homelessness significantly impacts students’ ability to be successful in and out of school. However, it is difficult to discern if the academic achievement of SEH is a direct result of their housing status or economic stability. A study conducted by Morgan et al. (2009) concluded students from low socioeconomic status develop academic skills more slowly than their counterparts from higher socioeconomic status groups. Additional research indicates that SEH experience lower achievement than their poor, but stably housed peers (Mushonga et al., 2024; Parrot et al., 2022). For this study's purpose, the researcher will focus on the academic outcomes of homeless students. Student Achievement Homeless youth experience various negative academic outcomes because their physiological and safety needs, as indicated by MHN, are not being met. Research indicates students experiencing homelessness (SEH) have lower grades, lower grade point averages (GPA), and lower scores on standardized and state assessments (Barfield, 2018; Fantuzzo et al., 2013). In addition, they are more likely to be retained and fail to earn credits in secondary school (Parrot et al., 2022; Uretsky & Stone, 2016). Uretsky and Stone (2016) also found that these students are likely to have no scores at all for standardized and state assessments. This is likely due to the absenteeism, suspensions, and frequent transfers common for this population (Fantuzzo et al., 2013; Miller, 2011). In addition, homeless youth reported significant 33 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS mental health struggles and battles with depression (Kornbluh et al., 2024; Morgan, 2018) As a result, students with unstable housing are at risk for dropping out, increased violent behavior, and criminal activity (Barfield, 2018; Miller, 2011). Post-Secondary Outcomes The impact of youth homelessness does not end with high school but continues well into adulthood. There is a greater impact younger students have when experiencing homelessness (Fantuzzo et al., 2013; Prinz, 2023). Failure to obtain a diploma from high school has dire impacts on the success of students into adulthood. In 2012, high school dropouts earned an average of $9,200 less than those who graduate. That is a difference of $375,000 over their lifetime. Dropouts are also significantly more likely to be unemployed than high school graduates (Burrus & Roberts, 2012; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). With the increased likelihood of SEH to dropout, their outcomes are similar, if not worse. A diploma itself does not necessarily equate to more positive outcomes for students that experienced homelessness as a child. When comparing high school graduates, those that experienced housing instability still earned less income after graduation than their housed peers. In addition, homeless youth are more likely to continue criminal activity after high school, including informal methods of income (Almquist & Walker, 2022; Barfield, 2018). Interestingly, one study found students impacted by homelessness that enrolled in college earned more immediately after high school than their housed peers. The researchers hypothesized this is due to students from economically disadvantaged groups needing to work to pay for classes and housing compared to high socioeconomic classes’ ability to obtain loans, scholarships, or pay directly for college courses (Mushonga et al., 2024). 34 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Unique Needs of Homeless Youth The EST demonstrates how factors such as identity, relationships, policy, society, and history impact human development. MHN establishes specific physical and psychological needs and the order in which they must be satisfied with human fulfillment. When applied to educational outcomes for all students, it provides guidance for educators when considering best practices for the greatest student outcomes. Many of these factors are heavily influenced by schools and their staff. When considering SEH, they have a niche set of needs due to the lack of basic physical needs being met. Many studies have indicated that schools play a crucial role in meeting these needs. Studies find staff perceived school as the epicenter for physical, psychological, and emotional needs of students (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). Another study interviewed homeless youth, and they consistently expressed that they saw education as the key to achieving housing stability. They also noted that they were only able to overcome their circumstances with the support of their school (Pescod, 2024). Student Needs For students with stable housing and higher socioeconomic status, schools can focus on curriculum and instruction. However, SEH has a much more complex set of needs. In a study conducted by Havlik et al., school counselors advocated for survival and healthy development, emotional connection, academic support, and access to knowledge of services when supporting homeless youth. Participants indicated they required support obtaining food, clothing, safe shelter, clean uniforms, and stable income avenues. They also needed a supportive school environment, strong relationships with peers, consistent parental involvement, mental health counseling, support managing stress, and guidance on setting goals. Academically, counselors said SEH needed help securing locations for studying, obtaining school supplies, and college and career counseling. Finally, they found these students needed knowledge of services 35 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS accessible to them. This included transportation information, general knowledge of services, connections with shelters and residential options, and information on the McKinney-Vento Act (Havlik et al., 2014). The physical needs such as clothing and mental health support were reiterated by Morgan in 2018 but added personal hygiene and access to healthcare. Cutuli and Herbers (2019) further emphasized the need for immediate rehousing. While these studies focused on staff perceptions of student needs when experiencing homelessness, a study conducted by Kornbluh et al. (2024) interviewed SEH. Participants also indicated mental health support and access to housing programs to be high on their needs list. Students also expressed that while their physical and emotional needs often go unmet, they excelled in self-awareness (Ferguson & Francis, 2024) and resilience (Hatch et al., 2022). The needs expressed by students and staff are directly connected to MHN. According to MHN, physiological needs such as food, shelter, and safety needs such as employment and property, are urgent needs and when those needs are unsatisfactorily met, students may struggle to meet higher levels such as self-actualization (Guy-Evans, 2025a). Importance of Relationships One of the most consistent themes across literature is the significance of strong relationships. MHN and the EST emphasize the need for strong emotional connection, parental support, peer relationships, mentorship, and positive school environments. This is evidenced by the Microsystem of the EST and the “love and belonging” found in MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a; Guy-Evans, 2025b). This is further supported by numerous studies focusing on supporting SEH. Homeless youth communicated the top three reasons for being able to move beyond their circumstances was due to their close friends, caring teachers, and churches. All three provided emotional support, academic guidance, potentially meeting housing needs, or providing an environment for studying (Edwards, 2019). School counselors have also emphasized the significance of having at least one strong connection with a staff member or trusted adult at 36 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS school (Havlik et al., 2024). This was further supported by additional studies emphasizing the need for effective communication between the school and parents of SEH (Lafavor et al., 2020). These relationships most significantly relate to the microsystem and mesosystem of the EST and social needs in MHN. Additional Best Practices Parents, counselors, teachers, and students impacted by homelessness also advocated for other supports to help students overcome unstable housing. The research emphasized the role of the school counselor. Most prevalent was their role in establishing networks and resources with external organizations and other counselors to meet the physical, psychological, and emotional needs of homeless youth (Edwards, 2023; Havlik, 2015). In addition, school counselors discussed wrap-around services, mental health counseling, and college and career counseling (Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Havlik et al., 2024). Ultimately, counselors served as a liaison or bridge between schools, families, and students (Harris, 2012; Murphy & Tobin, 2012). This is supported by the significance of the Mesosystem established in the EST where members of the individual’s immediate environment, such as counselors and parents as part of the Microsystem, interact with local governments and agencies. This need is also crucial to the higher levels of self-actualization in the MHN where students are provided with the tools and skills to plan for a future and improve their socioeconomic status. Impact of Deficit Thinking As previously discussed, there is a significant stigma associated with homelessness (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021). This contributes to stereotypes and deficit thinking, particularly with SEH. Deficit thinking is a symptom of systemic oppression and is characterized as rationalization or even blaming a 37 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS person or demographic for specific outcomes because of their circumstances (Murphy & Tobin, 2012; Patton Davis & Museus, 2019). In the context of this study, deficit thinking would be the achievement and outcomes of SEH and the persistence of expectations, or lack thereof, that many staff have for these students. Unfortunately, SEH has discussed a lack of school quality. While students have expressed the overwhelmingly positive impact of positive relationships, negative relationships with school staff have been insurmountable. One theme of the current literature indicates teachers failing to provide appropriate rigor in classes, lack of response or support from teachers, punitive approaches to punish poor academics or attendance, and general lack of understanding when it came to housing status (Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Murphy & Tobin, 2012). This is also evident in parents’ perceptions of their children compared to staff perceptions. A study conducted in 2020 by Lefavor et al. compared the perceptions of parents experiencing homelessness and staff. They found that parents believed their children were engaged in their schooling and competence, but teachers believed otherwise. Rather, teachers expressed concerns over low academic achievement for homeless students (Lafavor et al., 2020). Rottermond and Regan (2025) suggest five practices to overcome deficit thinking. First, it is important for staff to conduct an appraisal of current beliefs. Part of being an effective educator is believing all students can learn. Educators must be honest about their perceptions, beliefs, and implicit biases to assess if they believe all students can learn and ensure their actions match their thoughts. The next strategy is to ensure the use of a variety of data resources when assessing the current progress of students and supporting their academic growth (Rottermond & Regan, 2025). Standardized assessments are historically biased in favor of white students and can be unfair measurements of achievement for students of color (Riebe, 2024; Rosales & Walker, 2021). As a result, it is important to use a variety of data collection tools to ensure a more reliable picture of current academic progress. In addition to data 38 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS collection, the third practice suggested is conducting a survey of a student’s strengths and including them in setting goals. This is also consistent with the EST and MHN. The fourth strategy is to use asset-based language and thinking. This includes practices such as avoiding the use of phrases such as “homeless kids” or “SpEd kids.” Instead, language such as “students with IEPs” or “students experiencing homelessness” should be used. In addition, it is important to view differences between students as a benefit to growth and a launching point rather than something that needs to be “fixed” or overcome. The final suggested practice is to implement high quality and grade level instruction. Too often teachers fall into the trap of saying things like “they just aren’t there” when a student is underperforming. Similarly to the opportunity myth, staff will then “dumb down” the instruction to meet students where they are. This limits students’ opportunity for growth and perpetuates the notion that students’ ability to succeed is linked to their socioeconomic status (Rottermond & Regan, 2025). The strategies suggested by Rottermond and Regan (2025) are consistent with studies conducted by Murphy and Tobin (2012) and Patton and Museus (2019). The five practices suggested by Rottermond and Regan are aligned with the EST and MHN in which they discuss the psychological and emotional needs of students. These practices ensure the Microsystem is functioning to its fullest potential while ensuring the physiological and safety needs of students are being met. However, preconceived notions about student achievement, perceptions of SEH, and social norms and stigma are prevalent within the Macrosystem of EST and can significantly impact the development of a person. Ensuring instructional rigor and a positive school environment is part of being culturally responsive, but when students are academically challenged and included in the goal setting process, they begin to satisfy the esteem and self-actualization stages of MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a). 39 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Policy to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness In 1987, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MKVA) was enacted to provide support for students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and ensure they have equal access to free and appropriate public education. MKVA has been amended numerous times in compliance with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In 2022, Pennsylvania added additional legislation under Act 1 to further support students experiencing educational instability due to factors such as homelessness. Act 1 was written to further support on-time graduation for these students. As indicated by EST, policies such as MKVA and Pennsylvania’s Act 1 are part of the Macrosystem and heavily influence the development of a person (Guy-Evans, 2025b). The Requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act The McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) ensures equal access to education for SEH. As previously discussed, “homeless” is defined as students lacking “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including those who are sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason’ staying in motels, trailer parks, or camp grounds due to the lack of an adequate alternative; staying in shelters or transitional housing; or sleeping in cars, parks, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, or similar settings” 42 U.S.C. §11434a(2). They can also be “unaccompanied youth” which includes those living separately from their parent or guardian 42 U.S.C. 11434a (6). Within the legislation, there are several requirements set forth for the state educational agency (SEA) and local education agency (LEA). The SEA must designate a state coordinator responsible for responding to inquiries from parents and unaccompanied youth, provide professional development (PD) for liaisons, and monitor and enforce MKVA at LEAs. LEAs must designate a liaison that is responsible for identifying SEH, removing barriers from enrollment, staying up to date on the regulations, providing PD to LEA staff, supporting students’ access to college financial aid, 40 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS connecting them to local organizations and services, and ensuring distribution of information on MKVA. Additional steps LEAs must take include immediate enrollment without documentation and ensuring continuation of education when students are transitioning between residencies (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025b). Act 1 of Pennsylvania MKVA ensures SEH can attend school, but Pennsylvania determined this policy was not enough to support these students. As a result, in 2022 the General Assembly of Pennsylvania enacted Act 1 of 2022. This legislation's purpose was to further remove education and graduation barriers for students experiencing educational instability due to homelessness, adjudication, foster care, and court-related placements. The guidance includes the identification of these students, assigning a point of contact, supporting record transfers, ensuring proper integration into school activities, and developing a graduation plan for students in grades nine to twelve. This also provides schools with the flexibility to award partial or complete credit for courses from previous schools or waiving specific graduation requirements. If a student is still unable to graduate, the school can apply on behalf of the students experiencing educational instability to receive a diploma from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. This policy piggybacks MKVA to further support high school graduation for these students, especially those experiencing homelessness (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025a). Barriers to Implementation While MKVA and Act 1 were established to ensure equal access to education for SEH and educational instability, there are many barriers to implementation. Principals in New York City expressed frustration over the need to track students between schools and districts and the lack of funding to implement the requirements of MKVA. Many leaders expressed a desire for 41 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS MKVA status to be available via academic records or within district databases (Navarro, 2021). In addition, school staff expressed struggles to support SEH because their housing status was considered confidential information and often not shared with staff (Prinz, 2023). Other issues raised by school staff included a lack of knowing procedures for identifying and supporting homeless students, general inadequacy, and indicating little to no PD on MKVA (Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2019). Counselors specifically referenced feeling more knowledgeable than teaching staff on policy, support, and student needs but reported not knowing the state coordinator or their role (Havliks & Bryan, 2015). In the researcher's experience, a consistent barrier between MKVA and Act 1 of Pennsylvania is the lack of educational records for most SEH. To develop a graduation plan for students in high school, a realistic picture of courses taken and grades received is crucial. However, the lack of academic records requires schools to waive many credits, which raises ethical concerns around awarding a diploma without educational services. Overcoming Barriers of Implementation While there are several challenges to implementing MKVA and Act 1, there are several strategies to overcome or limit the barriers. First, researchers suggest using counselors’ knowledge and expertise to support staff (Havliks & Bryan, 2015). More specifically, their connections with community organizations can be leveraged to meet the needs of students (Havlik & Bryan, 2015; Havlik et al., 2024; Miller, 2018). Additional research emphasized overall improvement in communication between counselors, liaisons, school leaders, families, and sending schools (Navarro, 2021; Prinz, 2023; Harris, 2012). Most consistently, researchers advocated for improved professional development and staff training (Harris, 2012; Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019). Finally, researchers discussed the importance of effective 42 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS leaders and principals in ensuring compliance, communication, and training (Harris, 2012; Jones, 2024). The role of an effective leader will be discussed thoroughly in a later section. School Choice Matters While policies such as MKVA and Pennsylvania’s Act 1 seek to remove barriers to education for SEH, they do not address educational models. As a result, schools across Pennsylvania vary in strategies and systems built to meet the needs of their students. SEH have a unique set of needs, requires more intense interventions, and seeks flexibility (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). Schools serve as a major component of the Microsystem in EST and support students in meeting their physiological and safety needs found in MHN. For many families, particularly those facing instability, the landscape of school choice becomes a critical factor in finding an environment that can meet their unique needs. Educational Philosophy Educational pluralism is a structure in which the government values, funds, and regulates various schools. This includes a focus on different religions, models, backgrounds, and values (JHU School of Education, 2023). This model is common in democratic societies and is driven by the desires and needs of taxpayers. The United States utilizes school choice to establish pluralism, though it is debatable as to the effectiveness of this model. School choice is defined as “any policy that allows families to take their children’s education dollars to the approved education provider for their choosing- be it traditional public schools, public charter schools, private schools, virtual learning, or home schooling” (American Federation for Children, 2023). Ashley Rogers Berner is a strong advocate for educational pluralism and addresses it at length in her book Educational Pluralism and Democracy: How to Handle Indoctrination, 43 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Promote Exposure, and Rebuild America's Schools. She outlines five arguments for a greater variety of schooling options. Her first argument is that for families to effectively have school choice, they must be able to access all the options. In other words, “financial means should not determine whether or not a child has educational options.” Berner’s second argument is that “education cannot be neutral with respect to values” (2024, p. 18). The reality is that no school can truly be neutral. The third argument is that education is the key to the common good. This means student achievement is linked to the betterment of our society. The fourth argument is that “education belongs within civil society” (2024, p. 19). In other words, what is taught belongs to those that fund it. Finally, argument five states pluralism leads to student success because they can learn best in a community that represents who they are. True school choice and educational pluralism can be an avenue for culturally responsive practice. Pluralist systems ensure a core curriculum that is rigorous while leaving space for additional instruction or methods aligned to the values of the families the school serves. In addition, the current value of a high school diploma is drastically different from other democratic states. A true school choice would ensure a high school diploma means something. Part of this is also preparing college ready students (Berner, 2024). Schooling Options in Pennsylvania In the state of Pennsylvania, there are several options from which families may select. According to PaFEC (2025), there are public cyber charter schools, traditional public, public magnet schools, public charter schools, private schools, home schools, and microschools. The different options and their location can be found in Figure 3. Public cyber charter schools are monitored and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, publicly funded, and operate virtually. Traditional public schools and public charter schools are both brick-and-mortar schools, publicly funded, and operated by the local chartering district. However, charter schools have significantly more flexibility in their model and curriculum. Magnet schools are an offshoot 44 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS of public schools and focus on specialized curriculum, are publicly funded, and managed by the LEA. The most common example of a Magnet school in Pennsylvania is a Career and Technical Education (CTE) school. Homeschooling and microschools are not publicly funded and are run by parents of students. Academic progress is reviewed annually by the state to ensure compliance, but families have flexibility in what content is taught. Similarly, microschools are groups of homeschooled students that can be taught in groups or outsourced instructors and are monitored and funded in the same way as homeschooled students. Finally, private schools are tuition based and have immense flexibility in the content they teach. They are specialized in mode and curriculum (PaFEC, 2025). 45 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Figure 3 Note. Guide to Choosing an Education Model for Your Child. PaFEC. (2025). Types of school choice programs. PaFEC. https://paedchoice.org/types-of-school-choice-programs/ Cyber Charter Schools Versus Brick-And-Mortar Schools As indicated in the EST, schools play a crucial role in the development of individuals (Guy-Evans, 2025b) and communities rely on their support in meeting basic needs (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). This study focuses on the achievement of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in brick-and-mortar schools compared to cyber 46 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS charter schools to assess which model more effectively meets the needs of this population. To do this effectively, it is important to understand the current context of these models in the state of Pennsylvania. In the last five years, enrollment in cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania has increased 500% (Cordes, 2025). As a result, a spotlight has been shown on their enrollment trends, academic struggles, and funding concerns. Within the context of school choice and serving SEH, it is important to first discuss how cyber charter schools differ from brick-and-mortar schools. In addition, it is important to emphasize that school choice should be utilized to select the model that best meets the needs of students and their families. That means brick-and-mortar schools may be better for one type of learner, while cyber charter schools are better for another. Different Models There are fourteen cyber charter schools, 500 public school districts with several brick-and-mortar schools, and an additional 160 brick-and-mortar charter schools in the state of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025b). For this study, the researcher will combine public brick-and-mortar schools and brick-and-mortar charter schools as “brick-and-mortar schools.” Brick-and-mortar schools follow traditional bell schedules, are bound by state curriculum requirements, and provide instruction in person. Cyber charter schools offer either synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid instruction via virtual platforms where students take classes from their homes. They meet with their teachers virtually and rely heavily on a variety of virtual platforms to receive their education. While their mode of instruction differs from brick-and-mortar schools, they are still required to follow the state requirements of instruction including standards and state assessments (Nespor, 2019). Of the fourteen cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Charter Academy is the largest serving 23,593 students across the state. According to their website, they boast of 47 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS providing an individualized education to meet the needs of each student through a variety of platforms, online classes, and supporting students beyond high school. They emphasize their program is meant to improve access to a quality education for students “in remote locations, unsafe neighborhoods or other situations where challenges like low enrollments make the traditional school model impractical (CCA, 2025)”. They also advertise a flexible learning environment, student-centered approach, personalized academic curriculum, family and student resources, and student life opportunities as the benefit of online education not only for their platform, but other cyber charter schools (CCA, 2025). These benefits are stated across websites for other cyber charter schools in the state such as Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, Reach Cyber Charter School, Agora Cyber Charter School, and Insight PA Cyber Charter School. In addition, other schools promote high quality instruction and caring teachers as part of their model (PACyber, 2025). Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes While cyber charter schools across the state advertise their flexible learning models and meet the needs of students while ensuring social and emotional needs of students are not jeopardized, several studies have raised concerns over the academic outcomes of students that attend these schools. According to Cordes (2024), students attending cyber charter schools beginning in 9th grade are 9.5% less likely to graduate, 16.8% less likely to attend college, and 15.2% less likely to continue college beyond their first semester. In addition, they are more likely to repeat a grade and have lower standardized test scores (Cordes, 2024). The lower academic achievement was supported by additional studies such as Kingsbury et al. (2022) and Ulum (2022). Both studies found students performed worse academically in cyber charter schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools. 48 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS While the lower academic achievement of students attending cyber charter schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools is well established in the research, not all outcomes are negative. Cordes (2024) found students attending cyber charter schools were less likely to be chronically absent. Cordes (2024) also expressed concern that the number of years of enrollment had no impact on outcomes of cyber charter schools but did improve outcomes of students enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools. As a result, data comparing the two models should eliminate any other variables to ensure the conclusions are supported by the data, and previous studies that failed to do that should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, Ulum (2022) found students attending cyber charter schools have stronger “21st century skills” compared to brick-and-mortar schools such as their ability to use technology. Kingsbury et al. (2022) presented unique data suggesting lower academic achievement of students attending cyber charter schools may not be a result of the education and services received in a cyber charter school, but rather an outcome of their circumstances. The study compared student achievement of students before, during, and after the Covid-19 pandemic. Their data identified trends in enrollment and achievement before, during, and after the pandemic. First, they found enrollment of cyber charter schools increased during the pandemic because parents were seeking a more stable remote experience during the pandemic. However, once brick-and-mortar schools resumed in person instruction, these students returned to brick-and-mortar schools. Second, during the pandemic, cyber charter schools saw an improvement in overall student achievement but then decreased again after the pandemic. Kingsbury et al. (2022) suggest this is due to the general lower achievement of students that seek cyber charter schools prior and after the pandemic as a result of their already poor achievement in brick-and-mortar schools and the growth they observed during the pandemic was the enrollment trends of students doing academically well in brick-and-mortar schools prior to the pandemic. They go on to explain the decrease in achievement after initial growth may be 49 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS attributed to those students returning to brick-and-mortar platforms once schools returned to in person instruction (Kingsbury et al., 2022). Bradley-Dorsey et al. (2022) proposed that improving student outcomes and academic performance in cyber charter schools can be achieved by fostering positive peer and student-teacher interactions, which can lead to higher proficiency in state assessments for math and reading. They also emphasized that while flexibility is often a reason for students and families to select cyber charter schools, those attending synchronous classes fared better than those asynchronously. In addition, just as it is evident in brick-and-mortar schools, their data supported an inverse relationship between negative peer interactions and student outcomes and a positive relationship between teacher-student interactions during synchronous lessons and student outcomes (Bradley-Dorsey et al., 2022). Meeting the social needs of students is supported by MHN level of belonging (Guy-Evans, 2025a). Cyber Learner Profile & Enrollment Factors ​ In addition to achievement, studies have also investigated enrollment trends of students in cyber charter schools and the type of learner that performs well. Rice (2006) stated “...the effectiveness of distance education appears to have more to do with who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished, and less to do with the medium” (p. 440). Rice found, like any schooling model, some students are successful in virtual schools, and some are not, just as they would be in a traditional school setting. In Rice’s (2006) literature review, they identified three categories of success for virtual learners. First, learner characteristics such as learning style, self-esteem, autonomy, and responsibility all play a role in whether a student is successful in a virtual environment or not. In addition, cyber students sought convenience, flexible scheduling, credit recovery opportunities, accelerated learning opportunities, conflict avoidance, and a greater variety of course offerings as reasons for enrolling in cyber charter 50 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS schools. This data implies many students experienced inaccessibility to brick-and-mortar schools as well as already falling behind in brick-and-mortar models (Rice, 2006). The second category of success Rice (2006) identified was the support cyber charter schools offered to battle the isolation and socialization barriers students experience in virtual platforms. This includes instructional support from teachers, technical support when navigating platforms, an increased focus on promoting a sense of community, and creating an inclusive classroom environment (Rice, 2006). Finally, “affective learning domains” are the third category of success for virtual students. Rice (2006) found cyber charter schools invest many resources into ensuring the social needs of students are met. This includes learner interactions with the material, teachers, and peers. In addition, strategies such as consistent communication to combat decreased student achievement, isolation, and increased likelihood of cyber students dropping out. Rice’s findings are supported by several studies. Wolfinger (2016) conducted interviews, in-home observations of students, and teacher focus groups to study learner characteristics, academic supports and social supports middle school students received in a virtual school. They identified learners as being driven, independent learners, diligent, self-aware, confident, communicative, engaged, cooperative, and computer literate. They found the participants discussed synchronous instruction, increased teacher responsiveness, routine, attentiveness, general assistance from staff, flexibility, educational videos, and tech support as factors contributing to student and guardian satisfaction. The participants also discussed synchronous peer interaction, extracurricular activities, and school-sponsored events as socialization opportunities for students (Wolfinger, 2016). Lesisko and Sraiheen (2016) reiterated many of these characteristics and motivation factors for parents enrolling their students in cyber charter schools. They found students appreciated the flexibility of a virtual program and reported needing that option because of health-related conditions or conflicts with other students at their 51 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS previous brick-and-mortar school. Students also said they felt they had fewer distractions in a cyber charter school but disliked the amount of work they had to dedicate to their studies (Lesisko & Sraiheen, 2016). While student feedback is valuable and their inclusion in deciding what school best meets their needs, parents and guardians decide where to enroll their student (Lee & Figueroa, 2012). Lee and Figueroa (2012) also emphasized the importance of parental involvement and support as a crucial factor in student success. Bradley-Dorsey (2022) reported parents that enrolled their students in cyber charter schools had previous negative interactions with teachers at previous brick-and-mortar schools and this heavily influenced their decision to withdraw them and enroll in a virtual program. In addition, they felt teachers were more responsive, offered more support for their students, and their students received more opportunities to engage an individualized support in the virtual school compared to a brick-and-mortar school (Bradley-Dorsey, 2022) As previously discussed, students experiencing homelessness struggle to meet their physical needs, are highly mobile, seek rich relationships, and look to schools to help meet these needs (Kornbluh et al., 2024; Edwards, 2019; Havlik et al., 2024). The schools’ role is evident in the Microsystem of EST and the ability to choose schools is heavily influenced by government policy as part of the Macrosystem (Guy-Evans, 2025b). Cyber charter schools’ aptitude for providing a supportive and flexible learning environment (Lesisko & Sraiheen, 2016; Wolfinger, 2016) and meeting physiological, safety, and belonging needs outlined in MHN makes their model an attractive choice for SEH (Guy-Evans, 2025a). 52 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Funding Controversy School funding is part of the Macrosystem of EST and influences the development of students. As a result, it is important to analyze how the funding structure of schools in Pennsylvania impacts school choice. Part of the discussion surrounding the effectiveness of cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania is funding. In 2023, the Commonwealth Court deemed the Pennsylvania school funding system unconstitutional (ELC, 2025). Since their ruling, the funding system, including how charter schools and cyber charter schools receive their funds, has been scrutinized. Up until this ruling, most funds provided to school districts came directly from the property taxes residents pay in each municipality (Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009). In 2009, Forest Area School District spent the most in Pennsylvania with approximately $13,668.53 per pupil while Reading School District spent the least at $5380.30 per pupil. Due to the funding system, wealthier districts can provide a better education to their students compared to less wealthy districts such as Reading, PA. Furthermore, a study conducted by Kelly & Maselli (2023) found the Pennsylvania finance policies disproportionately impacted black and brown students. They stated “First, we find that districts with the highest concentrations of Black and Latinx students are receiving millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars less in funding than they would if lawmakers used current formulas” (Kelly & Maselli, 2023, p. 528). Charter schools receive 80% of the per-pupil expenditure from the district in which the student resides. The state of Pennsylvania then reimburses the local school district anywhere from 30 to 45% of this cost (Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009). However, concerns have been raised on whether cyber charter schools need as much funding as brick-and-mortar schools. Districts in rural regions of the state have been disproportionately impacted by cyber charter schools than urban districts due to the increased likelihood of students in rural regions enrolling in cyber charter schools. The enrollment disparities are likely due to the increase in schooling options in urban settings within a closer proximity than in rural areas. As a result, rural school 53 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS districts have struggled to meet their students' needs. In addition, school districts in rural municipalities tend to be a major employer of the region, meaning the funding gap has led to not only an inability to meet the needs of students and fewer students, but a significant economic decline for these regions (Mann et al., 2016). As part of Governor Shapiro’s attempt to resolve these funding issues, the proposed spending on cyber charter schools is to decrease the amount of funding a cyber charter school receives from the sending LEA (Scolforo, 2025). This is not a recent trend and attempts to reform cyber funding have happened in other states such as Ohio and Georgia. Budget cuts targeting cyber charter schools in those states have resulted in financial struggles or even failure for more cyber charter schools to open (Kingsbury, 2021). The bill that recently passed by the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania was sponsored by the Democratic party and seeks to limit the per-pupil for students attending cyber charter schools to $8,000. The Democratic party, supported by Governor Shapiro, argued this would help school districts retain more funding from taxpayers (Scolforo, 2025). While this would not benefit any school district that spends less than $10,000 per pupil, it would reduce costs for 484 of the 500 school districts in Pennsylvania. In 2024, Canon-McMillan School District spent per student at $10,053 while Bryn Athyn School District spent $44,005 per student (Walker, 2025). This means, this bill would decrease per-student funding for cyber charter schools anywhere from $424 to $27,204 per pupil depending on the residence of students. While public school districts support this bill, cyber charter schools have continuously pushed back. However, the lack of transparency around exactly how much it costs cyber charter schools to serve students has fueled the fire. Sternberg (2006) found that the start-up costs for cyber charter schools were significant but spent less time on brick-and-mortar schools. However, cyber charter schools argue they may not have to maintain buildings, but they are still responsible for state and federal mandates, pay more for curriculum and software, and supply 54 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS students with technology. A more recent study found cyber charter schools were more cost effective, meaning they required less funding. This, and the result of current funding practices, led to many public districts opening their own virtual schools to combat concerns over cyber funding (Kingsbury, 2021). The Role of School Leaders Schools and their staff are rooted in the Microsystem of EST and play a crucial role in the development and achievement of students (Guy-Evans, 2025b). More specifically, several studies investigated the impact of school principals on student achievement. In 2004, Leithwood et al. conducted a study in partnership with the Wallace Foundation to evaluate the impact school leaders had on student learning. In their study, they determined teachers impacted student learning the most, but second were principals. They went on to outline the “basics of school leadership.” The first practice is setting directions in which the school principal supports the school in developing a shared purpose and vision. The second practice is developing people. This means supporting school staff in being the best educators they can be. The third strategy is redesigning the organization, which is described as strengthening school culture to facilitate the work of the school and ensuring a level of “malleability” in routines and structures (Leithwood et al., 2004). These practices can be used to directly impact SEH. Principals have a responsibility to create a shared vision that includes meeting the needs of all students, including groups such as SEH and cultivate the right staff, professional development, and school systems to support the vision. Within the context of supporting SEH, studies emphasize the role of an effective principal. Harris (2012) found school staff perceived school leadership as the most crucial factor in being able to support SEH. Studies mentioned previously addressed the concerns of staff feeling unprepared and inadequate in supporting SEH (Wagaman et al., 2022; Havliks & Bryan, 55 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS 2015). In addition, many barriers to implementing MKVA include the stigma around homelessness and how it leads to deficit thinking (Ferguson & Francis, 2024). Combining Leithwood et al.’s study of effective principals and the barriers that exist in supporting SEH, it is evident that Principals play a crucial role. One of the suggested strategies for principals to combat these challenges is to provide staff with effective PD, establish systems, and communicate these policies with staff (Von Dohlen et al., 2019). Jones (2024) identified four themes that are present in Principals and their role in supporting SEH: understanding and implementation of MKVA, barriers to implementation, support systems and strategies, and emotional and social impact of homelessness on students. First, they found that Principals had a mixed level of understanding of MKVA and it directly influenced how the school implemented it. Leaders also played a crucial role in advocating for student and staff needs in implementing MKVA. Principals advocated for more training and awareness, improved documentation, overcoming family distrust, and lack of resources. When asked how they overcame these issues in their school, they said they implemented school-based programs, provided items to meet physical needs such as school supplies and uniforms, established community partnerships, developed training to ensure staff were prepared to meet the needs of SEH, and developed creative ways to support students. The fourth and final themes focused on building strong relationships with students, reducing stigma, and creating safe spaces in the school. All leaders reported on the growth and resilience of students demonstrated as an outcome (Jones, 2024). It is evident that there are numerous barriers and concerns surrounding supporting SEH. This is true for students, staff, and families. Effective leaders can recognize these gaps and develop a strategy to ensure SEH receive a complete education. 56 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS The Need for Further Research This study analyzes principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber–School Compared to brick-and-mortar schools. Articles addressing SEH, the impact of effective principals, and the current context of cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools set the foundation for this study. However, significant gaps remain. First, while student achievement in cyber charter schools is well established, it is important to note there is limited data comparing the academic performance of students who have attended both platforms. As a result, many conclusions drawn about the lower academic achievement of cyber students are unclear if it is a result of the setting or a result of the circumstances leading to their need to attend cyber charter schools. In addition, there is a large gap in research on SEH. The articles focused on strategies and perceptions of school counselors and the identification and support in primary school. Limited research exists addressing the unique challenges of students in secondary school. In addition, this study focuses on the perceptions of principals at high school level which will help address the gap in the current research that focuses on primary students. Summary Students experiencing homelessness (SEH) experience significant barriers in meeting the most basic needs. This impacts their ability to achieve in schools. Cyber charter schools may be the key to ensuring equal access to education, but the current political context of Pennsylvania seeks to significantly decrease their funding. While increased monitoring of student achievement and how spending occurs in cyber charter schools may be prudent, school choice remains the right of students and families. ​ SEH faces a wide array of academic, emotional, and structural challenges that significantly hinder their educational success. These challenges are compounded by 57 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS inconsistent identification practices, systemic inequities, and a lack of comprehensive support services, particularly in secondary education. While frameworks such as Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs provide a foundational understanding of the interconnected variables affecting SEH, existing studies primarily emphasize counselor perspectives, elementary contexts, or general policy implementation. There remains a notable gap in research addressing how these challenges manifest differently within cyber and brick-and-mortar settings, especially through the lens of educational leaders. This study aims to address that gap by examining the perceptions of high school principals who are uniquely positioned to influence how schools identify, support, and respond to the needs of students experiencing homelessness. As cyber education continues to grow in popularity and accessibility, it is vital to understand how this model compares to traditional schooling in terms of student support, academic outcomes, and relationship-building; particularly for vulnerable populations. The complexity of this topic lies in the intersection of student needs, school structures, and policy implementation. By centering principal perspectives, this research will offer practical insights and inform policy, training, and practices that can better serve homeless students across diverse educational environments. 58 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Chapter 3: Research Method ​ This chapter explains the methods and procedures used in this mixed-methods study. Detailed descriptions of the research questions, design, sample, instrumentation methods, and data collection and analysis are presented below. Research Questions and Hypotheses ​ The purpose of this study is to use aspects of quantitative and qualitative research to create a mixed-methods approach to assess the perceptions of principals of SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber high schools and compare them to the actual achievement of SEH in each model. The goal is to inform policy for schools across Pennsylvania in support of school choice, particularly within the current political debate of cyber charter schools. The methodology, research design, sample, data collection, and analysis are rooted in three research questions. Research questions two and three are also accompanied by a null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (H1). A null hypothesis states there is no relationship between variables and an alternative hypothesis states there is a relationship between variables when conducting inferential statistical analysis. For simplicity, the first population (μ1) is “cyber”, and the second population (μ2) is “brick-and-mortar”. The research questions and corresponding hypotheses are listed below: RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? 59 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​ versus brick-and-mortar schools. ​ H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​ versus brick-and-mortar schools. ​ H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar 60 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Research Design This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and then integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of principals’ perceptions and their relationship to student achievement outcomes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this design, the mode of education (cyber or brick-and-mortar) served as the independent variable, while principals’ strategies, perceptions, and the achievement outcomes of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) were the dependent variables. Quantitative data included graduation rates of SEH, demographic information, Likert-scale survey responses, and multi-select responses, while qualitative data consisted of open-ended responses from participating principals and assistant principals. The convergent parallel approach was selected over other mixed-methods design because it allowed both data types to be collected and analyzed within the same phase of the study, enabling a more immediate and integrated interpretation of findings. Unlike an explanatory sequential design, which prioritizes quantitative data collection and uses qualitative data to explain results, or an exploratory sequential design, which begins with qualitative data to inform subsequent quantitative measures, the convergent parallel design equally emphasizes both data types (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This approach was most appropriate for this study’s purpose of capturing both measurable trends (e.g., graduation rates and survey responses) and the nuanced perceptions and strategies principals use to support SEH. Furthermore, this design leverages the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methods while minimizing their individual limitations. Quantitative data identified trends in graduation rates, demographics, and survey responses, whereas qualitative data provided deeper insights into the reasoning, strategies, and perceptions underlying those trends. 61 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Integrating these datasets yielded a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of principals’ experiences supporting SEH across both school models (Shahbaz, 2021). Finally, the convergent parallel mixed-methods design is also well suited to address the study’s three research questions. RQ1 and RQ2 explore principals’ perceptions and the unique strategies implemented to support SEH, generating both qualitative and quantitative data through open-ended, multi-select responses and Likert-scale survey items. RQ3 examines graduation rates of SEH, using publicly available data to compare achievement outcomes between brick-and-mortar and cyber charter schools. A mixed-methods approach provides a stronger and richer understanding of the research problem than a purely quantitative or qualitative design, enhancing both descriptive and interpretive insights (Wasti et al., 2022). Population and Sample The target population for this study consisted of high school principals and investigated how they support students experiencing homelessness (SEH) enrolled in public schools across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The state’s public education system includes fourteen cyber charter schools, approximately 500 public school districts encompassing numerous brick-and-mortar schools, and an additional 160 brick-and-mortar charter schools (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025b). In total, there are 740 high schools in Pennsylvania, of which fourteen are cyber charter schools (Fox 29 Philadelphia, 2024). For the purposes of this study, all brick-and-mortar public schools and brick-and-mortar charter schools were grouped under the category of “brick-and-mortar schools” to simplify classification and analysis. In addition, public school districts were considered “brick-and-mortar.” A purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure that participants were selected based on their direct relevance to the research focus. This approach was particularly appropriate for this study because it allowed for the intentional inclusion of Local Education 62 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Agencies (LEAs) with significant SEH populations, thereby increasing the likelihood of obtaining informed perceptions and insights from principals who regularly work with this student population. Preliminary enrollment data were reviewed to identify LEAs with the highest proportions of SEH, and those with at least 5% SEH enrollment were considered for inclusion. Three intermediate units (IUs) and eleven schools that did not serve high school students were excluded from the pool, resulting in a final sample of forty-four LEAs. Of these, forty were classified as brick-and-mortar schools, and four were classified as cyber charter schools (Ed Data Express, 2024). All high school principals within these twenty LEAs were invited to participate in the survey. Principals were provided with the option to forward the invitation to participate to one of their assistant principals if they wished not to participate. Graduation rate data for SEH were also obtained from the SchoolHouse Connection Database to provide additional context for interpreting the survey responses. This sample, which incorporates both cyber and brick-and-mortar schools, was intentionally designed to support the comparative analysis central to the study’s research questions. Instrumentation ​ The research utilized a seventeen-question survey (see Appendix A) adapted from a study conducted by Dr. Brian Jones (2024) to collect demographic and perception data using a combination of open ended, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions. The approval to use the pre-existing survey with one modification is included in Appendices B and C. The original survey included sixteen questions. Questions one to six collected demographic information including years in their current role, total years in leadership, their highest degree attained, and the grade level in which they were a school leader. Questions seven to sixteen include open-ended, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions addressing the participants' knowledge, perception, and strategies of MKVA and meeting the needs of SEH. Dr. 63 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Jones (2024) created this survey to collect the necessary data to generate descriptive data and obtain reliable information on the familiarity of school leaders and MKVA. The demographic data was used to demonstrate trends in principal experience and their implementation of MKVA. For this study's purpose, an additional demographic question was added to determine if the principal is currently in a brick-and-mortar or cyber charter school. In addition, question three was modified to remove “school counselor” as a choice as the sample only includes school principals. Although the intended sample is high school principals, question five was left to ensure its validity. Any respondent indicating they were in a role other than at a high school was removed from the data set. The questionnaire was disseminated using Qualtrics, and an anonymous link was sent to participants via email once approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). A copy of their approval can be found in Appendix D. The survey was estimated to take fifteen minutes and was completed in Qualtrics. Informed consent from each participant was obtained prior to participation (see Appendix E). ​ In addition to the data collected from the questionnaire, achievement data was retrieved from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a). SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) provides detailed data regarding SEH. This includes the ability to isolate data by state, county, and district. It also provides information on absenteeism, category of homelessness, SEH with Individualized Education Plans (IEP)s, demographic data such as race, funding amounts, and enrollment numbers. For the purpose of this study, graduation rates of SEH were used to indicate “achievement.” The most recent data available is from the 2022-2023 school year (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Data Analysis Survey responses were collected and stored in Qualtrics. The researcher reviewed all responses for clarity and completion, and any incomplete surveys or responses from individuals 64 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS indicating they worked in elementary or middle schools were excluded from the study. Initial descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies and percentages) were generated in Qualtrics to summarize participant demographics, multi-select responses, and Likert-scale responses. All quantitative data, including demographic information, multi-select responses, Likert-scale survey responses, and achievement data obtained from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), were exported into IBM SPSS Statistics software (Version 29) for further analysis and confirmation of descriptive results. The graduation data retrieved from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) included numerous values as ranges (e.g., 40-59%, ≥80%). In addition, some values were denoted with a “S” indicted insufficient data. This is due to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which requires data suppression or “blurring” when student subgroups are small enough to potentially identify individual students. The results are presented as interval-censored data (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). For the purpose of this study, the interval data was translated using the midpoint of the provided range. For example, the mid-point of the range 40-59% was converted to the value of 49.5%. This approach was used for all data ranges and inequalities. To ensure the use of this method did not influence the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the minimum and maximum values of each range and inequality to determine if the results of the statistical analysis changed (Sun, 2006). Qualitative data from open-ended survey questions were analyzed through a two-cycle coding process, following the approach outlined by Saldana and Omasta (2016). In the first cycle, In Vivo coding was used, which involved using participants’ own language to develop codes, thereby preserving the authenticity and meaning of their responses. For example, the code “flexible” might represent a statement such as “students appreciate attending classes on their own time.” In the second cycle, Pattern coding was employed to group the initial codes into broader themes and categories by identifying similarities, differences, and patterns within the 65 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS responses (Saldana, 2018). Descriptive statistics were then used to calculate the frequency of each theme or code, allowing for comparisons between principals from cyber and brick-and-mortar schools. Fisher’s exact test was utilized to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the survey responses of cyber charter and brick-and-mortar high school principals for nominal data such as the multi-select survey items. For ordinal data such as survey questions or interval data such as graduation rates, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Although functionally similar to a Chi-square analysis, Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test are the rigorous choice for smaller sample sizes. For this analysis, significance was established at the p < .05 level. To evaluate the practical magnitude of these findings, the effect size was calculated. Following standard conventions, values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 were used to denote small, medium, and large effects, respectively. By reporting the effect size alongside p values, the study accounts for both the statistical probability and the practical strength of the observed differences (Field, 2013). The following analyses were conducted to address the three research questions: ●​ To answer RQ1, qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using In Vivo and Pattern coding to identify strategies and support systems implemented by principals to address the needs of SEH. A thematic analysis was conducted to compare these strategies across cyber and brick-and-mortar schools. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts of specific codes, were used to summarize and contrast the findings between the two school models. ●​ To answer RQ2, a Fisher's exact test was conducted on the multi-select responses and the Mann-Whitney U test was conducted on likert-scale questions to determine whether statistically significant differences existed between principals in cyber and 66 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS brick-and-mortar schools regarding their perceptions, preparedness, and understanding of SEH. ●​ To answer RQ3, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the mean ranks of graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools and brick-and-mortar schools, as reported in the SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) database. Ethical Considerations ​ There were no major risks associated with participation in this study. Detailed information regarding the study’s purpose, target population, potential risks, and anticipated benefits was provided to each participant prior to obtaining written informed consent (Appendix E). The researcher completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) as required by Slippery Rock University, and all necessary documentation was submitted to and approved by the Slippery Rock University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data collection commenced only after receiving IRB approval. Data was collected anonymously and shared exclusively with the researcher’s dissertation committee. Participants were assured of confidentiality throughout the study. All data was stored on password-protected platforms and devices, and no paper copies were printed or disseminated. Electronic data files will be securely destroyed three years after the conclusion of the study. The researcher has professional experience as a high school assistant principal, having supported many students experiencing homelessness in both brick-and-mortar and cyber charter school settings. Furthermore, the researcher maintains a personal relationship with current administration from one of the cyber charter schools included in the sample. To mitigate potential bias arising from this relationship, participants' responses associated with that school 67 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS will be treated with particular care, ensuring that data are analyzed objectively and confidentially. Reflexivity and validity were further supported by employing a consistent, externally developed survey instrument administered uniformly across all participants. Additionally, purposive sampling was utilized to select participants, reducing selection bias and enhancing the study’s rigor. This study was guided by the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Respect for persons was upheld by ensuring informed consent and allowing participants to voluntarily engage or withdraw without penalty. Beneficence was addressed by minimizing potential risks and maximizing benefits through anonymous data collection and secure data management procedures. Justice was ensured by purposive sampling that aimed to represent the population of principals across cyber and brick-and-mortar schools fairly, providing equitable opportunity for participation. These principles collectively safeguarded the rights, dignity, and welfare of all participants throughout the research process. Validity and Reliability ​ To strengthen the reliability and validity of this study, multiple strategies were employed, including data triangulation, statistical analysis conducted at the standard level of significance, and the use of a mixed-methods approach. Triangulation involves using multiple data sources, research studies, theories, methods, analysis strategies, and conclusions to develop a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the research problem (Moon, 2019). This study applied triangulation during the development of the research questions to ensure the topic’s relevance, achieve a deep 68 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS understanding of existing knowledge, and design a methodology grounded in prior evidence. The use of survey instruments adapted from previous research further enhanced the study’s reliability and validity by building upon established measurement tools. The researcher also applied statistical analysis with a conventional significance level of ɑ = .05. For inferential tests such as the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test, hypotheses are established where the null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables, and the alternative hypothesis assumes a relationship exists. The Mann-Whitney U test evaluates interval data to determine whether differences between the two groups are statistically significant. Fisher’s exact test reports statistical differences between two groups for nominal data. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test are preferred over the independent samples t-test and Chi-square analysis because this study includes a small sample size, thus causing normality to be challenging to achieve (Field, 2013). Conclusions are drawn by either rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis based on the significance level. A α of .05 indicates that the researcher accepts a 5% chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis (Type I error) (Tokunaga, 2019). All inferential statistics in this study adhered to this threshold. P-values are limited by statistical power in small samples; therefore, the effect size was calculated to determine the practical significance of the findings, utilizing Cohen’s (1988) thresholds for interpretation. Furthermore, the choice to employ a mixed-methods design was deliberate to enhance the study’s reliability and validity. By collecting data through multiple sources and strategies, mixed-methods research increases the depth and breadth of understanding (Shahbaz, 2021). Quantitative data identify trends and patterns, while qualitative data provide contextual explanations for those phenomena. This study’s use of open-ended survey questions, multi-select responses, Likert-scale items, and external databases collectively strengthened the validity of the findings and conclusions. Additionally, the use of a consistent, externally 69 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS developed survey instrument ensured all participants received identical questions, thereby enhancing the study’s reliability. Limitations ​ This study had several limitations, including a small sample size between brick-and-mortar and cyber charter school principals leading to an increased risk of Type II error. The sample consisted of high school principals from twenty Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of which four are exclusively cyber programs, and sixteen are public districts with brick-and-mortar schools. Additionally, the study collects principals’ perceptions, rather than lived experience. This means responses are subject to the participants’ perceptions and experiences. Furthermore, the study may experience non-response bias, meaning participants may elect to be a part of the study because of their own interest, awareness, or confidence in MKVA. Finally, the findings of this study are specific to Pennsylvania and, while aligned with the study’s goals, have limited generalizability beyond this context. Broader applicability would require further research in other states or regions. Finally, the LEA data on percent of SEH was used to isolate the sample, however it is important to note this metric is representative of the entire LEA. This means that LEAs with multiple schools may have a total percent of SEH that is not necessarily representative of individual schools participating in this study. Summary ​ The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of high school principals regarding supporting SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter schools and how their perceptions compare to the graduation rates of SEH in each school model. The goal is to inform policy in Pennsylvania and provide evidence in support of school choice. This study has three 70 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS research questions including what strategies and supports high school principals in cyber and brick-and-mortar schools use to support SEH, their perception regarding their understanding and preparedness of MKVA in each setting, and the graduation rates of SEH in each setting. To answer the research questions, a mixed-methods approach was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. High school principals from ten LEAs with the most SEH enrolled were invited to participate in a survey via Qualtrics. The survey included a variety of open-ended, demographic, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions. Additional data on graduation rates of SEH was retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection database. Coding cycles were used to process and analyze qualitative data while descriptive and inferential statistics were used for the quantitative data with the support of Qualtrics and IBM’s SPSS. The researcher was cognizant of potential bias and implemented strategies such as triangulation, mixed-methods approaches, and standard research practice to strengthen reliability and validity of the study. 71 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Chapter 4: Findings This study investigated the perceptions of principals of SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber high schools and compared them to the actual achievement of SEH in each model. The goal is to inform policy for schools across Pennsylvania in support of school choice, particularly within the current political debate of cyber charter schools. The methodology, research design, sample, data collection, and analysis are rooted in three research questions. The research questions and corresponding hypotheses are listed below: RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​ schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​ schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar 72 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar This chapter aims to report the results of the data analysis gathered from the graduation rates of SEH as reported to Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) via SchoolHouse Connection database and survey responses from the high school principal questionnaire (Appendix A). This chapter is structured as follows: introduction, review of research design and analysis methods, analysis of data by research question, and summary. The quantitative and qualitative data will be presented as it addresses each research question. Review of Research Design The results detailed in this chapter were derived using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design in which principal survey data was collected concurrently with achievement data for the select population. In this design, the mode of education (cyber or brick-and-mortar) served as the independent variable, while principals’ strategies, perceptions, and the achievement outcomes of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) were the dependent variables. To collect data on principals’ perceptions of SEH and their general 73 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS preparedness to implement MKVA, a questionnaire from a previous study conducted by Dr. Brian Jones (2024) was modified to meet the needs of this study (Appendix A). The survey included demographic questions, likert-scale, select multi-select, and open-ended responses to address RQ1 and RQ2. A purposive sample strategy was implemented to identify high school principals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that serve at least 5% of SEH based on the reported Local Education Agency (LEA) data from the 2022-2023 school year. The sample was narrowed to forty-four LEAs. The questionnaire was disseminated via an email addressed to each Principal within the forty-four LEAs inviting principals to participate in an anonymous survey through the platform Qualtrics (Appendix F). The recruitment email was sent each week on Monday directly to the principals’ LEA email for six weeks. While principals were recruited to participate in the survey, the graduation rate data for SEH for the sample LEAs was retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection database to investigate RQ3. The most recently available data year was from the 2022-2023 school year. This dataset included the LEA’s enrollment data for SEH and their graduation rates. Review of Analysis Methods The survey collected data for RQ1 and RQ2 via Qualtrics. IBM SPSS was used to conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses. All open-ended responses were coded through a two-cycle coding process. First, responses were analyzed to isolate phrases that represented the principals’ attitudes towards the question. These phrases were direct quotes of the responses from principals. The phrases were then analyzed for patterns. Similar phrases were grouped under the same theme, and descriptive statistics such as frequency were used to demonstrate trends. Demographic questions, Likert-scale questions, and multi-select responses were analyzed quantitatively using a coding method. Each response was assigned a numerical value (e.g., 1=cyber school, 2=brick-and-mortar). Once coded, descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate general trends. To assess what, if any, relationship exists between school type 74 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS and participant responses, nominal data was further analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test and effect size (ɸ). Ordinal and interval data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and effect size (r). The Mann-Whitney U test was selected over the independent samples t-test due to the small sample size of the data set. All analysis was conducted with a confidence level of 95% and a significance level of 5% (α=.05). Prior to the analysis of quantitative data, the distribution of each data set was conducted. For each research question, the data was not normally distributed. This further supported the justification of using the Mann-Whitney U test versus an independent samples t-test. The graduation rates of SEH for the selected forty-four LEAs were retrieved from the SchoolHouse connection database to address RQ3. The analysis was conducted using quantitative methods. The model of school was coded in preparation for analysis in IBM SPSS (i.e., 1=cyber, 2=brick-and-mortar). No other data from the RQ3 dataset required quantitative coding. The data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test. Similarly to the survey data, the Mann-Whitney U test was selected over the independent samples t-test due to the small sample size of the data set and the lack of normal distribution. While the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate for small sample sizes, the limited number of participants, particularly in the cyber school group (n=5), constrains the statistical power of this analysis. Consequently, the probability of a Type II error is increased. These sample constraints should be considered when interpreting non-significant results, as the study may not have been sufficiently powered to detect subtle but meaningful differences between the two school models. All data was analyzed and presented within the context of the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable for this study was the type of school (i.e., cyber or brick-and-mortar), and the dependent variables were the principals’ perceptions, strategies, and SEH graduation outcomes. For data to be statistically significant, the results of the Fisher’s exact test (nominal data) or Mann-Whitney U test (ordinal and interval data) must be less than 75 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS .05 (p<.05) with a 95% confidence level. The effect size was used to further confirm the practical difference of the variables. If the effect size is greater than .1, the effect is considered slight, moderate if the value is greater than .3, and large if the value is greater than .5. A summary of the data sets, research questions, and analysis methods are found in Table 1. 76 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 1 Research Question Data Analysis Summary Research Question Type of Data Analysis Methods Survey items RQ1: What specific strategies and 10-15 support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Qualitative Quantitative 2 cycle coding Descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies, percentages, effect size) Fisher’s exact test Survey items 7-9;16 Quantitative Descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies, percentages, effect size, mean ranks) Fisher’s exact test (nominal data) Mann-Whitney U test (ordinal data) Graduation Rates of SEH via SchoolHouse Connection Database Quantitative Descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies, percentages, effect size, mean ranks) Mann-Whitney U test (interval data) RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? Data Note. RQ = research question; SEH = students experiencing homelessness; MKVA = McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Survey item numbers correspond to the study instrument. Graduation rate data were obtained from the SchoolHouse Connection Database. Fisher’s exact test was used for nominal data, and Mann–Whitney U tests were used for ordinal and interval data. 77 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Participants Participants in this study represent principals and assistant principals in brick-and-mortar and cyber high schools across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of their student population experiencing homelessness according to the 2022-2023 school year data. The survey was sent to high school principals at forty-four LEAs meeting these criteria. They were invited to forward the email to an assistant principal in the event they did not wish to participate. Participation in the survey was completely confidential, therefore no personally identifying information was collected. In total, twenty-six principals and assistant principals completed the survey, for a completion rate of 59%. Of those that participated, five were administrators at a cyber high school, and twenty-one were administrators at brick-and-mortar high schools. Table 2 shows the responses of each participant to the first five survey questions, which asked demographic questions. Survey item #5 asked participants to indicate if they served any other role at their current school. No participants served in another role; therefore, the question was omitted from Table 2. Survey item #6 asked participants to indicate if they were an administrator of a brick-and-mortar and cyber school. 78 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 2 Note. Brick-and-mortar schools (n = 21); cyber schools (n = 5). 10 participants serve as principal and 11 serve as assistant principal to either a brick-and-mortar or cyber high school. In addition, all participants had at least a master’s degree, with four doctorates. Two participants selected “other” when asked their highest education level attained but wrote that they were pursuing doctorate degrees. Therefore, their response was coded as the highest education level attained was a master’s degree. The majority had at least four years of leadership experience overall and were in their current position for at least a year. Table 3 shows the average percentage of key demographic data. 79 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 3 Participant Demographics Percentages Note. N = 26 school leaders. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Leadership experience is reported as the mean number of years in a formal school leadership role. Cyber schools refer to fully online public schools, whereas brick-and-mortar schools refer to traditional in-person public schools. The average years of leadership experience for cyber charter administrators was 5.8 years, while the average was 5.95 years for brick-and-mortar administrators. Most of each group’s highest attained degree was a master’s degree, with 80% of cyber administrators and 85.71% of brick-and-mortar administrators. 20% of cyber administrators and 14.29% of brick-and-mortar administrators had a doctorate. Presentation of the Findings Research Question 1 The first research question of this study posed what specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Questions ten to fifteen of the survey addressed the strategies principals used to support SEH. The questions included open-ended questions and multiple-response questions. 80 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS To answer RQ1, qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using In Vivo and Pattern coding to identify strategies and support systems implemented by principals to address the needs of SEH. A thematic analysis was conducted to compare these strategies across cyber and brick-and-mortar schools. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts of specific codes, were used to summarize and contrast the findings between the two school models. The themes of the coding results can be found in Table 4. The results are presented to compare cyber school and brick-and-mortar school principals. Table 4 Open- Ended Emerging Themes by School Type Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the proportion of participants within each school type who referenced a given theme in their open-ended responses. Open-ended responses were coded using thematic analysis, and participants could reference multiple themes; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s 81 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS exact test was used due to small cell sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice. Nine consistent themes appeared throughout the survey for the open-ended responses. Most common responses for brick-and-mortar principals included social and emotional support, basic needs, community partnerships, and academic support. Most cyber school principals mentioned social and emotional support, basic needs, community partnerships, and collaboration. Social and emotional support included responses that mentioned social work, counseling services, homeless liaisons, and case managers. Basic needs codes include food, clothing, housing, transportation, hygiene supplies, and school supplies. Community partnerships included a broader reference, or in some cases, participants listed specific organizations within their community. Academic support included 1:1 check-in meetings and other academic interventions such as MTSS. Collaboration refers to meetings between staff members and families. These themes were woven throughout various responses from school leaders. One brick-and-mortar principal shared “we are a trauma informed school, and our training includes supporting homeless students. In addition, we make sure to address their basic needs and help them connect with local agencies. We are flexible with grading and assignments also”. This was echoed by a cyber charter principal that said “We create a supportive and inclusive environment for homeless students by providing access to meals, school supplies, clothing, transportation, and safe spaces within the school. Our own social-emotional team made up of counselors, social workers, a mental health specialist, and MV/ELECT staff, works alongside local partners like Project HOME, Bethesda Project, and Valley Youth House to provide counseling, tutoring, mentorship, and family support that ensures academic success and social-emotional well-being". In addition, one participant shared “An overall school culture of understanding that our students live complicated lives that affect academics. We accept late work, keep the building 82 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS open early and late, MTSS Problem Solving Meetings. MTSS Meetings help us to determine the root cause of student issues and implement interventions to assist”. These leaders exemplify the unique needs of SEH and their work to establish impactful relationships and counteract deficit thinking. It is evident that school leaders are cognizant of a holistic approach to supporting and meeting the needs of all their students, especially those experiencing homelessness. In addition to more broad themes, it is worth noting that two principals explicitly stated students feel safe due to the confidentiality their school provides. One principal wrote, “Being in an on-line cyber charter school, other students do not know that the student is homeless or facing financial difficulties. This helps make the student feel safe knowing that they are not being judged.” A brick-and-mortar high school principal wrote “We operate with ensuring the child and parent don’t feel diminished and keep their dignity. Any help we provide is confidential and supportive.” Only two themes appeared in one school type, but not the other. First, technology was mentioned in 40% of cyber principal responses, but by 0% of brick-and-mortar principals. Each participant referenced providing the student and families with computers, access to the internet, and providing families with hot-spot devices. One cyber leader stated they “Provide students with technology and hot-spots as needed”. Second, 9.5% of brick-and-mortar principals mentioned ensuring equal access to extracurricular activities such as athletics, while 0% of cyber principals stated something similar. One brick-and-mortar leader shared they promote “participation in athletics, music and drama programs, waiving dance and prom ticket prices”. In addition to the frequencies in which each theme was represented in the two-cycle coding process, Table 4 also displayed the results of Fisher's exact test and effect size. The Fisher’s exact test is an inferential statistic for nominal data that calculates a p-value just as a two-sample t-test; however, it is preferred when the sample size is small. The effect size (ɸ) is used to determine the strength of the correlation. According to the results, cyber principals 83 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS prioritize technology more than brick-and-mortar principals (p<.05). While not as statistically significant (p>.05), according to the effect size, cyber school principals supported social-emotional, basic needs, community partnerships, financial support, and collaboration more than brick-and-mortar principals (0.30<ɸ<0.50). Results demonstrating no significant difference or meaning between brick-and-mortar principals and cyber principals was providing a safe space and extracurricular activities (p>.05 and ɸ<0.10). High school principals were provided three multi-select survey items to provide further information on the strategies to support SEH, communication methods with families of SEH, and the measures they use to determine the success of SEH. The results of these survey items are found in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7. Table 5 MKVA Success Measures by School Type Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option. Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to 84 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice. Survey item eleven asked “How do you measure the success of MKVA programs on homeless students’ academic performance and overall well-being?” Brick-and-mortar principals selected attendance (76.19%), graduation rates (57.14%), and student feedback (57.15%) as their most frequently used metrics. Cyber principals selected graduation rates (100%), attendance (60%), and state test scores (60%) as their most frequently used metrics. Four brick-and-mortar high school principals and one cyber charter high school principal indicated they used metrics not listed, by selecting “other.” Two of the four brick-and-mortar principals wrote they do not measure the success of SEH. The other two brick-and-mortar principals wrote in other testing platforms (e.g., IXL) and parent meetings. The cyber principal indicated their academic interventionist conducts progress monitoring. When comparing the principals from each type of school, there is no statistically significant difference between the selected measures of success for SEH between cyber high school principals and brick-and-mortar high school principals (p>.05). However, the effect size indicates cyber charter high school principals are more likely to use graduation rates to determine success of SEH than brick-and-mortar high school principals (0.30<ɸ<0.50). 85 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 6 Services for SEH by School Type Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option. Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice. 86 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Survey item fourteen asked “What services does your school provide to students facing homelessness?” Brick-and-mortar principals selected school supplies (90.48%), counseling (85.71%), hygiene products (85.71%), and clothing (80.95%) as their most frequently provided services. Cyber charter principals had 100% of participants select school supplies, tutoring, counseling, hygiene products, housing, family services, and technology support as services they provide SEH. According to Fisher's exact test and effect size, there is no statistically significant difference between the services for SEH between cyber high school principals and brick-and-mortar high school principals (p>.05). However, cyber high school principals are approaching significance in their support of housing and legal assistance (approaching p<.05) with a practical and large effect (0.30<ɸ<0.50). In addition, cyber charter high school principals are more likely to support SEH with family services (0.30<ɸ<0.50) and moderately more likely to support with technology needs and tutoring (0.10<ɸ<0.30). With that being said, brick-and-mortar high school principals are more likely to support SEH with transportation (0.30<ɸ<0.50). 87 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 7 Communication Methods by School Type Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option. Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice. Survey item fifteen asked “How do you communicate with families about the available services for homeless students?” Brick-and-mortar principals selected phone calls (66.67%), school website (61.90%), and family conferences (57.14%) as their most frequently used communication tools. Cyber principals selected email (100%), phone call (100%), text (100%), 88 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS and family conferences (80%) as their most frequently used methods of communication. According to Fisher's exact test and effect size, cyber charter high school principals are significantly more likely to communicate with families of SEH via text (p<.05 and ɸ>0.50). In addition, cyber charter high school principals are more likely to communicate with families and SEH by email (0.30<ɸ). They are also slightly more likely to communicate via school newsletter, phone call, and conferences (.10<ɸ<.30). Brick-and-mortar high school principals are more likely to communicate through their school website (0.30<ɸ). Research Question 2 The second research question of this study asks what are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Questions seven to nine and sixteen of the survey addressed the perceptions of the principals. Three of the questions were likert scale responses, and one question was mulit-select. To answer RQ2, all data was coded to conduct a quantitative analysis. The multi-select question was coded based on the answers selected. The likert-scale questions were coded similarly to assign a numerical value to their selected choice (e.g., 1=not effective, 2= slightly effective, etc.,), Descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts of specific codes, were used to summarize trends. For nominal data in survey item eight, Fisher’s exact test and effect size were calculated to assess if there are differences between the two school models. For the ordinal data of survey items seven, nine, and sixteen, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate the relationship between the perceptions of preparedness of principals at cyber charter high schools and brick-and-mortar high schools. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test were used to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis (H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar). Survey item eight asked principals to indicate the training and professional development they have received on MKVA. Their options included district-based workshops, state-sponsored 89 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS training, online courses, or other activities. The results of the principals’ responses are displayed in Table 8. Table 8 MKVA Professional Development by School Type Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option. Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice. Survey item eight asked “What type of training or professional development have you received regarding the MKVA?” Out of the twenty-six participants, two brick-and-mortar principals did not select any professional development options or indicate a choice not listed. Brick-and-mortar and cyber principals selected district workshops most frequently (brick-and-mortar=66.67%, cyber=100%). One brick-and-mortar principal selected “other” but 90 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS did not specify. When comparing brick-and-mortar principals to cyber charter principals, there is not a statistically significant difference in the selected professional development (p>.05). However, cyber charter principals were slightly more likely to indicate their attendance of district workshops and state-sponsored trainings (.10<ɸ<.30). 91 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Table 9 Perception of Principals’ Preparedness by School Type Note. N = 25 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 20; cyber, n = 5). Values represent the number and percentage of principals within each school type who selected each response option for each Likert-scale item. Differences between school types were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test due to small sample sizes and the ordinal nature of Likert-scale data. All tests were two-tailed with statistical significance evaluated at α = .05 and a 95% confidence 92 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS level. Effect size (r) indicates practical differences, where values of approximately .10, .30, and .50 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Survey items seven, nine, and sixteen assessed principals’ understanding and perceptions of preparedness of MKVA in cyber charter versus brick-and-mortar high schools. The results of the survey are shown in Table 9. Most participants, regardless of school type, indicated they had either a good or excellent understanding of MKVA. In addition, most participants indicated their schools were moderately to extremely effective in implementing MKVA. When asked to what extent they agree with the statement “As a school leader, I have adequate knowledge and training on MKVA implementation,” most participants, regardless of school type, reported they either agreed or completely agreed with the statement. The p-values for the Mann-Whitney U test (p>.05) indicated no statistically significant difference in perceptions between school types; therefore, the null hypothesis is retained. This retention must not be misinterpreted as proof of equivalence between school models; instead, it reflects the methodological constraints of the study's small cyber school sample (n=5), which resulted in limited statistical power to detect differences. The interpretive weight of these findings is strengthened by moderate effect sizes (r=0.35) for both MKVA understanding and perceived training adequacy, as well as the divergence in mean ranks for understanding (Brick-and-mortar = 14.05 vs. Cyber = 8.80) and training (Brick-and-mortar = 13.11 vs. Cyber = 8.00). These distributional differences, illustrated in Figures 4, 5, and 6, suggest potential trends that warrant further investigation with a larger, more balanced sample. 93 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Figure 4 Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Understanding Between School Types Note. This figure displays principals’ self-reported understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) provisions by school type. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with lower values indicating greater perceived understanding. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 8. 80) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 14. 05) did not differ in their ratings of their own understanding of MKVA, U=29.00, z=-1.732, p= .169, with a moderate effect size r=.35. The statistical significance of the results were evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. The data was not normally distributed. While not statistically significant according to the p values reported in Table 9 (p=.169), the mean rank in Figure 4 and the effect size reported in Table 9 (r=.35) demonstrate brick-and-mortar principals are moderately more confident in their understanding of MKVA (Mean Rank=14.05, .30.05 and r<.5, therefore the null hypothesis is retained. The maximum value yielded r=.372, which is considered moderate practical significance. However, when combined with the p value and the results of the other approaches to the interval-censored data, the null hypothesis was retained. ​ Summary This study explored the perceptions of high school principals regarding students experiencing homelessness (SEH) across both brick-and-mortar and cyber charter school settings and examined how these perceptions align with actual student achievement in each model. While the final report includes the decision to either retain or reject the null hypothesis, 102 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS the statistical significance must be considered within the context of the data. The calculations were conducted with a 95% confidence interval (α=.05). Due to the small sample size and lack of normal distribution, the effect size was used to further support the decision for each hypothesis. For the results of the Mann-Whitney U test to be considered statistically significant, p<.05. The effect size (ɸ or r) was further used to assess any practical differences that may exist between school types. When determining if the null hypothesis should be retained or rejected, p values and effect size should be interpreted together. While a p value of greater than .05 indicates the null hypothesis should be retained, the effect size of either ɸ>.30 or r>.30 indicate a moderately to strong practical difference exists between school types. These sample constraints should be considered when interpreting the non-significant results as the study may not have been sufficiently powered to detect subtle, but meaningful differences between the two school types. The conclusions by research question are as follows: RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Results: Principals from brick-and-mortar and cyber charter high schools shared strategies to address social-emotion support, meeting basic needs, establishing community partnerships, technology support, providing safes spaces, academic support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaboration. According to open ended questions, cyber charter principals prioritized technology support such as internet more than brick-and-mortar principals (p<.05; r>.5). In addition, cyber charter principals were more likely to support social-emotional, basic needs, community partnerships, financial support, and collaboration more than brick-and-mortar principals (p>.05; ɸ >.30). There were no significant differences 103 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS between principals at each school type regarding safe spaces, academic support, or access to extracurricular activities (p>.05; ɸ <.30). When asked about the metrics used by school principals to measure the success of support for SEH, cyber charter principals are more likely to use graduation rates to determine the success of SEH (p>.05; ɸ>.30). There was no statistical or practical difference between school type and their use of state tests scores, attendance, or student feedback to assess the success of support offered to SEH (p>.05; ɸ <.3). Finally, when asked to check off the services schools provide for SEH, cyber charter principals are more likely to support housing, legal assistance and family services (p>.05; ɸ >.30). Brick-and-mortar principals reported more frequent interventions involving transportation (p>.05; ɸ>.30). There was no statistical or practical difference between school type and the support of school supplies, tutoring, counseling, hygiene products, clothing, healthcare, school programs, summer programs, and counseling (p>.05; ɸ<.30). RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​ schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar 104 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar Results: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 14. 05) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 8. 80) did not differ in their ratings of their own understanding of MKVA, U=29.00, z=-1.732, p= .169, with a moderate effect size r=.35. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 16. 30) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 12. 18) did not differ in their perceptions of their school’s implementation of MKVA, U=66.50, z=1.182, p= .272, with a small effect size r=.24. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 8. 00) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 13. 11) did not differ in their self-assessment of their knowledge and training on MKVA, U=25.00, z=-1.677, p= .150, with a moderate effect size r=.35. As a result of the three survey items addressing RQ3, there is no statistically significant difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools (p>.05), however there is a medium practical difference according to the effect size (r> .30). Considering the sample size, p values, and effect size, we retain the null hypothesis. RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? 105 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools. H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar Results: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed SEH in cyber charter schools (n = 4, 𝑅 = 9. 75) and SEH in brick-and-mortar schools (n = 17, 𝑅 = 11. 29) did not differ in their graduation rates, U= 29.00, z=-.463, p=.698, with a small effect size r=.10. There is no statistical or practical difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools (p>.05; r≤.10), therefore we retain the null hypothesis. 106 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Chapter 5: Discussion Introduction The purpose of this convergent parallel mixed-methods study was to examine high school principals' perceptions of supporting students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and to compare the strategies, preparedness, and student outcomes between traditional brick-and-mortar and cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. As the population of SEH continues to rise, the principal serves as the primary arbiter of school culture implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA). This chapter discusses the implications and meaning behind the findings presented in the previous chapter. By interpreting the data through the dual lenses of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN), this discussion highlights the intersection of systemic policy, leadership efficacy, and the foundational needs of students who face significant barriers to academic success. The following analysis bridges the gap between the measurable trends in graduation rates and the nuanced, qualitative voices of school leaders navigating the complexities of homelessness. It also addresses the current political focus on the efficacy of cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania and provides evidence to support the need for school choice. By integrating the quantitative results of the Mann-Whitney U-Tests with the thematic coding of principal responses, this chapter provides a holistic understanding of how school setting influences the equity of educational opportunities for Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students. Summary of Findings The findings of this study provide a nuanced look at how high school principals in Pennsylvania navigate the complexities of supporting SEH within two distinct educational models. While the quantitative data suggests a level of parity in policy knowledge and student graduation outcomes, the qualitative data reveals significant divergence in the leadership strategies and priorities utilized by brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter principals. 107 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Strategies to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ1) The data indicates that both school types utilize a broad range of support. including social-emotional learning (SEL), community partnerships, and academic interventions. Cyber charter principals demonstrate a more intensive focus on technological infrastructure, financial assistance, and direct family services. Cyber leaders are notably more likely to facilitate legal assistance and tutoring as part of their support framework, whereas brick-and-mortar principals remain the primary providers of transportation services. Furthermore, cyber charter principals appear more inclined to use graduation rates as a primary metric for determining the success of their SEH support initiatives, suggesting a results-oriented approach to leadership in the virtual space. Preparedness and Implementation of MKVA (RQ2) Regarding the implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), the study found no statistically significant difference in how prepared or knowledgeable principals felt across the two school models. However, there are practical differences including cyber charter principals’ preference for district and state professional development. In addition, brick-and-mortar principals reported having a stronger perception of understanding and implementation of MKVA, while cyber charter principals reported a higher level of effectiveness. Based on the results of the Mann-Whitney U test, the analysis resulted in the retention of the null hypothesis: H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​ understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​ schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar (p>.05) ​ ​ 108 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Graduation Rates of Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ3) Finally, this study examined the achievement of SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter schools. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the graduation outcomes of SEH between cyber charter and brick-and-mortar high schools but did demonstrate a practical difference in favor of brick-and-mortar high schools. Consequently, the null hypothesis was retained: H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus ​ brick-and-mortar schools. H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar (p>.05) Discussion of Results Schools serve as essential hubs for community-based support, providing the foundational physiological and psychological resources identified in MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a). These academic, mental health, and stabilizing resources are vital for SEH (Havlik et al., 2014; Prinz, 2023). This role is further underscored by Bronfenbrenner’s EST, which situates the school within the student's microsystem (Guy-Evans, 2025b). However, the efficacy of these supports is often compromised by institutional barriers, such as the stigma of housing instability, deficit thinking among staff, and a lack of systemic flexibility (Wright et al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2022). Principals take on the role of the mesosystem and bridge the gap between the school microsystem and the policies such as MKVA within the exosystem. School leaders are uniquely positioned to dismantle these barriers by establishing a clear vision, fostering a supportive school culture, and ensuring the robust implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act and Pennsylvania’s Act 1 (Leithwood et al., 2004; Ferguson & Francis, 2024). While traditional brick-and-mortar schools have historically functioned as the primary hubs for student support, the emergence of cyber charter schools offers a flexible alternative 109 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS that traditional models may lack (Kingsbury et al., 2022). Currently, cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania face significant political scrutiny and legislative challenges regarding funding and comparative academic performance (Scolforo, 2025). However, research indicating lower performance in these settings frequently fails to establish a causal relationship, raising the question; does the virtual instructional model itself hinder achievement, or are these schools attracting high-needs students who were already struggling within the rigid structures of brick-and-mortar settings? Analyzing the perceptions of high school principals is critical to understanding how these distinct school choice models either mitigate or exacerbate the barriers faced by SEH. The following interpretation synthesizes these leadership voices to provide actionable insights for policy, professional development, and practice within the evolving landscape of Pennsylvania’s educational systems. Research Question 1 The first research question addressed the strategies and support high school principals offer in their schools. Multiple survey items, including open ended responses and multi-select questions asked principals to share their strategies to support SEH, how they communicate with students and families about the services the school provides, and how the measure the success of SEH. Strategies. Principals responded to two questions regarding specific strategies they use to support SEH. First, an open-ended question, then a multi-select question. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data was used to identify specific strategies and then provide an opportunity for school leaders to elaborate on the specifics of how they support SEH. Nine key themes presented themselves during the qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey items. High school principals, regardless of school type, identified social-emotional learning, meeting 110 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS basic needs, community partnerships, technology support, creating safe spaces, providing academic support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaborative approaches. The findings for the first research question reveal that while both brick-and-mortar and cyber charter principals prioritize social-emotional support, basic needs, and community partnerships, their specific operational strategies diverge significantly based on their educational model. Qualitative thematic analysis indicates that cyber charter principals place a statistically higher priority on technological infrastructure (p < .05), such as providing hardware and hotspots, which was a theme absent from brick-and-mortar responses. Conversely, brick-and-mortar leaders focus more heavily on physical access, specifically through transportation services and ensuring participation in extracurricular activities. These priority differences are logical within the context of each setting. Cyber charter school students require internet access to attend classes. They also do not require transportation to and from school. In addition, cyber charter schools do not have sports programs or extensive extra-curricular activities in a way that brick-and-mortar schools do. Another trend that was evident is the effort to create safe spaces for SEH. While one brick-and-mortar principal shared that they keep the buildings open beyond the school day for any student that may need it, 40% of cyber principals explicitly stated the “dignity” of SEH is protected in a cyber setting because of the confidentiality that is awarded to students when they attend classes virtually. This emphasis on anonymity represents a specific leadership influence aimed at disrupting the relational dynamics of stigma. By prioritizing virtual confidentiality, cyber principals are actively countering the deficit thinking often found in physical school settings, where the visible 'stigma of housing instability' can trigger lower expectations from staff. Numerous studies have detailed the stigma SEH face and how they have been impacted by the deficit thinking from staff (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021) which leads to negative academic outcomes. In theory, affording a SEH anonymity while attending school can have academic benefits. 111 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS The results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis for research question 1 are well supported by the current literature. Eight of the nine themes presented in the open-ended responses fit into MHN. Basic needs such as food, clothing, housing, and hygiene products fit within the physiological needs outlined by Maslow. Financial support can be considered a component of safety needs. Principals also reported the need for community partnerships, academic support, extracurricular activities, creating safe spaces, and a collaborative approach. These strategies all fit well within the “love and belonging” component of MHN. Finally, social emotional support including counseling and mental health support fit within the esteem of MHN. The ninth theme, technology support, was unique to cyber schools. Principals of cyber charter schools indicated they provide their students with hot spots and support with the internet. While this is not explicitly stated as a “need” according to MHN, it can be argued that the internet is crucial to the success of students in modern society and a “need” more than a want (Datrika & David, 2022). The strategies school leaders utilize as found in this study and how they seek to satisfy the needs as identified according to MHN can be found in Figure 9. 112 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Figure 9 Needs of SEH Withing the MHN Framework Note. This graphic represents the interventions and support school leaders revealed during this study. The graphic is modified from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025a, March 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#) In addition to its strong alignment with MHN, the findings of research question 1, demonstrate the magnitude of responsibility schools have to meet all needs of students, especially those experiencing homelessness. The results of this study further support previous findings of studies conducted by Lafavor, et al (2020), Prinz (2023) and Wagaman et al. (2022) in which staff perceived schools as the epicenter of student needs. An additional study conducted by Pescod (2024) found students credited their school as the main reason for their ability to overcome their circumstances. 113 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Communication. One of the biggest challenges to supporting SEH is identifying them (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021). In addition, resources for SEH and their families are only effective if families and students know what is available to them. To improve identification and ensure accessible resources, students must communicate effectively with SEH and their families. Within the context of EST, how schools communicate with families and students is a significant part of the microsystem and mesosystem. The results of this study found cyber charter schools rely heavily on email, phone calls, texts, family conferences, and school newsletters. However, brick-and-mortar schools were more likely to use their school website. Neither school type uses social media or flyers frequently. The theme of cyber charter schools promoting technology platforms continues. In addition, it is important to note that cyber charter school principals reported a wider variety of communication tactics. This is likely influenced by the lack of face-to-face opportunities with cyber charter school students and their families. The variety of communication tools as well as the consistency of using more direct and personal methods is supported by previous research on cyber charter schools. In a study conducted by Wolginer (2016) found students and their guardians appreciated the increased responsiveness of staff members compared to their previous experiences in brick-and-mortar schools. This was further supported by research conducted by Bradley-Dorsey (2022). These results suggest that while brick-and-mortar schools focus on the student's physical presence and integration within the school building (microsystem), cyber charter principals operate more within the student’s home and community environment (mesosystem and exosystem) to mitigate the external barriers associated with homelessness. The increased responsiveness reported in cyber settings suggests that these leaders are deliberately re-engineering the relational dynamics of the mesosystem. By operating more within the 114 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS student's home environment, they exert a leadership influence that compensates for the lack of physical presence, challenging the assumption that virtual models are inherently detached. Success Metrics. The final aspect of strategies used to support SEH is how school leaders determine if their strategies are working. Cyber charter school principals reported relying on graduation rates and state assessment data to determine the success of supports, while brick-and-mortar principals reported using attendance more frequently. Interestingly, the success metrics cyber charter schools use are achievement based, while brick-and-mortars focus on attendance. While attendance is a predictor for achievement, it is not achievement itself. The reliance of brick-and-mortar principals on attendance highlights a divergence in leadership influence and further demonstrates deficit thinking. The decision to utilize attendance data over achievement data demonstrates that some brick-and-mortar leaders do not maintain a high academic bar for students and demonstrate a concern over compliance rather than instructional rigor. In addition, the failure of some traditional leaders to measure SEH success entirely may inadvertently reinforce deficit thinking, suggesting a lack of agency in changing outcomes, whereas the cyber leaders' achievement-based approach shifts the relational dynamic toward one of high expectations and accountability. In addition, cyber charter principals are more aligned with Rottermon and Regan’s recommendation to ensure a variety of data and resources are used to monitor student progress to overcome deficit thinking (2025). Alternately, two brick-and-mortar principals indicated they do not measure the success of SEH. Not only does this make it difficult to determine what and if strategies to support SEH and their families are working, but it also means their self-reported understanding and implementation of MKVA are influenced by their perception rather than data. Research Question 2 The second research question sought to collect data on the perceived understanding and implementation of MKVA. Professional development is key to the continued improvement 115 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS and effectiveness of educators (Harris, 2012; Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019). This is true for teachers and school leaders. In addition, training regarding MKVA and its implementation is required as part of the policy (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.). The results of the survey found cyber charter principals utilized district and state workshops to stay up to date on MKVA. Brick-and-mortar principals did not report a preference for a specific type of workshop. However, two brick-and-mortar principals did not select an option for professional development but continued with the survey indicating the lack of response was intentional. This indicates a breakdown between the LEA and policies (exosystem), the school and its leaders (microsystem), and the communication between the two (mesosystem). In addition to the professional development they attend, principals were asked to reflect on their understanding and implementation of MKVA. Brick-and-mortar principals reported a slightly stronger understanding and implementation of MKVA, while cyber charter principals felt their schools were more effective at implementing MKVA. Notably, the two brick-and-mortar principals that indicated they do not measure the success of SEH reported they were “very effective” at implementing MKVA and had a “good” understanding of MKVA. In addition, the two brick-and-mortar principals that did not select a professional development option reported they were at least “moderately effective” at implementing MKVA and agreed they had a “good” understanding of MKVA. While this survey assessed principals’ perceptions of preparedness, it raises concerns over how valid their actual implementation can be without proper training on how to support SEH as well as the data to determine if they are successful. Research Question 3 The final research question analyzed the achievement data for SEH for the brick-and-mortar and cyber charter high schools in the commonwealth that had at least 5% of their population experiencing homelessness. This quantitative data set is meant to determine the validity of principals’ perceptions on their ability to support SEH. In addition, it provides 116 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS further evidence of the relationship between the exosystem (PDE, LEA, and MKVA) and the microsystems (high school) in which students are enrolled. The results found there is no statistical difference between the graduation rates of SEH at brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter schools within the sample. This is particularly meaningful within the larger context of student achievement at cyber charter schools. There is significant research indicating students, regardless of circumstance, perform worse at cyber charter schools than brick-and-mortar schools (Cordes, 2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022). This has led, in part, to cyber charter schools being scrutinized. However, it has also been established that students and their families enroll in cyber charter schools to have a more flexible schedule (Bradley-Dorsey et al., 2022). This is particularly useful for SEH (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). While it is evident, students do not perform as well in cyber charter schools as they do in brick-and-mortar schools, this study found achievement is similar within the subgroup of SEH. This means, the strategies and supports cyber charter schools are providing to SEH are equally as effective as brick-and-mortar schools. The finding that achievement is similar within the SEH subgroup suggests that the virtual model is not the primary variable in academic failure. If the model were the cause, one would expect SEH to perform significantly worse in cyber settings due to their existing vulnerabilities. Instead, the parity in graduation rates suggests that the primary driver of the broader performance gaps reported in literature. Implications The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between SEH, cyber schools versus brick-and-mortar schools, and the role principals play in supporting SEH. The findings of this study offer a critical lens through which to examine the systemic and leadership-level factors influencing the success of SEH across diverse educational settings. Figure 10 demonstrates the systems that play a role in the development and achievement of SEH. By situating these results within the frameworks of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems 117 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes evident that while graduation outcomes may reach parity between brick-and-mortar and cyber charter models, the pathways to those results are often marked by systemic inconsistencies and variations in leadership efficacy. These implications underscore a pressing need for enhanced accountability and oversight from the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) liaisons, as well as a reimagining of professional development that prioritizes objective metrics and goal-setting. Furthermore, the data provides a compelling argument for the preservation of school choice, positioning it as a vital mechanism for educational equity that allows families to select the environment best suited to their unique socio-economic challenges. The following section outlines how these findings should inform future policy and practice to ensure that the educational "microsystem" is equipped to meet both the foundational and academic needs of SEH. 118 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Figure 10 Ecological Systems of SEH Note. This graphic demonstrates the systems that influence the achievement of SEH as found in this study. The graphic is a modification of the five systems of the Ecological Systems Theory are correct. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#) 119 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Enhancing MKVA Oversight A critical implication of this research is the apparent disconnect between principals' perceived effectiveness and their actual engagement with systemic support. While the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) mandates specific training and implementation, the data revealed a breakdown between the Local Educational Agency (LEA) and school-level leadership, particularly among brick-and-mortar principals who neglected to report any professional development workshops they’ve attended. To strengthen the mesosystem, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and regional liaisons must move beyond baseline compliance toward rigorous monitoring of implementation. This includes more frequent and intentional professional development opportunities, including training school leaders regarding best practices, funding, and equitable strategies to meet the needs of SEH. However, the MKVA requires local liaisons to equal access to education regardless of subgrant funding. Specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Education should explore equity-based funding models that are directly tied to student mobility and housing instability. In addition, this study indicated that many school leaders either do not track achievement of SEH or have varying data to indicate success. Policy makers should consider universal accountability measures to ensure appropriate and effective use of funds such as graduation rates. Furthermore, given the unique operational strategies of virtual models identified in this study, the PDE must develop virtual school context-specific implementation guidance to ensure MKVA compliance is tailored to the digital environment. Finally, the current MKVA policy requires each LEA to have at least one liaison. However, especially in areas with large populations of SEH, this study emphasizes the need for more staff dedicated to supporting these students. Policy makers should consider adding language that ensures the number of staff required to serve as liaisons is directly linked to the number of students enrolled. Ultimately, strengthening these systemic links ensures that the policy intent of MKVA is fulfilled through institutionalized support rather than relying on the varying leadership efficacy of individual principals. While the researcher recommends several 120 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS specific adjustments to supporting SEH, policy makers, LEAs, and school leaders should gain input from the students and families impacted to determine how to best support this population. Strengthening Leadership through Data-Driven PD The divergence in how principals define and measure success highlights a significant need for professional development focused on leadership efficacy and goal setting. While cyber charter principals utilized achievement-based metrics like graduation rates, some brick-and-mortar counterparts relied solely on attendance, a predictor rather than a result, or failed to measure SEH success entirely. This lack of objective measurement calls into question the validity of a principal's self-reported effectiveness and highlights their contribution to deficit thinking. Future leadership training should emphasize Rottermon and Regan’s (2025) recommendation for diverse data sets to overcome deficit thinking and ensure that school initiatives are grounded in measurable student outcomes rather than subjective perceptions. By standardizing data-driven expectations at the state level, the PDE can mitigate the risks associated with individual principal capacity, ensuring that all SEH, regardless of their school's delivery model, are supported by evidence-based leadership practices. Validating School Choice for SEH Perhaps the most significant finding for the current political landscape in Pennsylvania is the consistency in graduation outcomes for SEH across both school types. Despite broader scrutiny of cyber charter performance, these results suggest that for the specific subgroup of SEH, the virtual model provides a viable and effective alternative. The qualitative emphasis on confidentiality in the cyber setting, combined with the flexibility to mitigate physical barriers like transportation, underscores the importance of maintaining robust school choice. For SEH, the ability to choose a model that aligns with their unique needs is essential for educational equity. In addition, this study helps provide answers to the previous “chicken or the egg” debate. Previous studies found students had lower academic achievement in cyber charter schools 121 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS compared to brick-and-mortar schools (Cordes, 2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022). However, studies also indicate students enroll in cyber charter schools seeking credit recovery opportunities (Rice, 2006). This means that many cyber charter students pursue a platform different from brick-and-mortar schools because they are already underperforming. This study provides evidence that marginalized students, such as SEH, were able to perform just as well as brick-and-mortar students with similar circumstances. This study pushes the conversation further by suggesting that for SEH, the virtual model may act as a protective factor rather than a hindrance. The lack of statistical difference in graduation rates implies that the rigid structures of brick-and-mortar schools provide no inherent advantage for students in crisis. Consequently, the prevailing critique of cyber schools as academic failures may be a misdiagnosis that overlooks how these schools effectively stabilize the 'microsystem' for Pennsylvania's most marginalized learners. Limitations and Delimitations The primary limitation of this study involves the sample size and composition. The small sample size restricts the generalizability of the quantitative findings and is further complicated by the potential for non-response bias. In addition, the possibility of a Type II error increases as the sample size decreases. It is probable that participating principals already possessed a heightened interest in SEH advocacy or higher confidence in their programs, potentially skewing the data. Furthermore, the sampling structure allowed for data clustering; because some Local Education Agencies (LEAs) included multiple high schools, some districts provided more than one participant. This overlap may influence the independence of data points, as participants from the same district operate under identical policies and resource allocations, thereby narrowing the diversity of organizational perspectives. Beyond sampling constraints, the study’s reliance on self-reported data introduces a risk of perception bias. Participants may rank their own efficacy and preparedness higher than 122 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS objective evidence suggests. This gap was evidenced by a notable contradiction: while many principals reported high confidence in their leadership, these assertions were often decoupled from formal professional development or specific metrics. This suggests that self-reported efficacy may be an inflated measure of actual practice, influenced by social desirability or professional expectations rather than daily operational reality. To address the limitation of the research, the scope was intentionally narrowed to high school principals within Pennsylvania leading either traditional brick-and-mortar or cyber charter schools. While this provided a focused comparison of two distinct delivery models within a shared legislative microsystem, it inherently excluded the perspectives of elementary leaders, McKinney-Vento liaisons, and students. These boundaries were necessary to maintain a manageable investigation into the intersection of leadership perception and school setting. Additionally, the study was delimited using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. The conclusions are bounded by the specific qualitative and quantitative instruments used during the data collection phase. To account for the small sample size and decrease the possibility of a Type II error, non-parametric tests (such as the Mann-Whitney U-test) were used in place of traditional inferential statistics that require normality. While the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to establish a statistical difference between school types, the effect size (ɸ,r) were used to determine any subtle, but practical differences. While performing multiple statistical assessments increases the risk of a Type I error, this study mitigated that risk by delimiting the analysis to three primary research questions. Rather than conducting independent tests for every survey item, the analysis focused on overarching constructs: perceptions of MKVA preparedness, success metrics, and graduation outcomes. By pre-specifying these variables, the number of statistical comparisons was intentionally limited. This approach ensures that the findings remain grounded in the study's theoretical framework rather than resulting from exhaustive, exploratory testing across unrelated data points. 123 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Recommendations for Future Research To build upon the findings of this study, future research should explore the specific mechanisms that allow cyber charter schools to offer a more diverse array of supports and determine how these strategies might be replicated within traditional brick-and-mortar settings. While brick-and-mortar principals were represented in the thematic analysis of RQ1, cyber charter principals demonstrated a more intensive focus on technological infrastructure, financial assistance, and direct legal services. Qualitative data specifically highlighted that 40% of cyber leaders believe their model protects the "dignity" of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) through virtual confidentiality. Future investigations should examine whether the flexible, tech-enabled communication tactics used by cyber schools can be integrated into brick-and-mortar microsystems to overcome the physical and social stigmas often associated with housing instability. Additionally, there is a clear need for larger-scale and longitudinal studies to address the limitations of the current small sample size and to establish more definitive causal relationships. Future research should utilize a larger population of Pennsylvania high schools to validate these findings and conduct comparative analyses of students who spend their entire educational careers in a single model versus those who transition between brick-and-mortar and cyber settings. Other options that can be used to further support if students struggle prior to, or because of their enrollment in cyber charter schools, growth metrics such as PVAAS and various diagnostics can be used to compare academic growth of students in various school types. Such longitudinal data would clarify whether the virtual model itself impacts achievement or if cyber schools primarily attract high-needs students who were already struggling in rigid traditional structures. While this study focused heavily on urban centers like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, future research should investigate regional differences across Pennsylvania. Comparing rural, suburban, and urban contexts may offer unique findings regarding how geographical resource disparities impact SEH support. Furthermore, future studies should 124 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS investigate if a difference exists between the four-year graduation rate and the five-year graduation rate for SEH. Given that these students face significant barriers to stability, a five-year metric may provide a more equitable and accurate representation of their academic persistence and school success than the standard four-year window. Finally, while this dissertation focused on leadership perceptions, incorporating student voices is a critical next step. Future studies should include the perspectives of SEH to provide insight into how policy implementation is perceived and experienced in practice. Their lived experiences would offer a meaningful complement to the leadership data provided here, revealing whether systemic supports are effectively reaching the students they are intended to serve. Conclusion This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to examine and compare principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber and brick-and-mortar high schools across Pennsylvania. The study had three research questions which addressed the strategies principals used to support SEH, their perception of preparedness to support SEH, and the achievement of students in brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter schools. The first two research questions were answered using a survey shared with high school principals in forty-four LEAs with at least 5% of their student population experiencing homelessness. The final research question was investigated through the analysis of graduation rate data for the same sample as reported on the SchoolHouse Connection database. A total of twenty-six principals participated in the survey. Twenty-one were principals at brick-and-mortar high schools, and four were principals at cyber charter high schools. In response to the strategies and support principals offer SEH, nine themes of support emerged: social-emotional, basic needs, community partnerships, technology, safe space, academic support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaboration. Cyber charter schools were statistically more likely to provide technology support (p<.05). In addition, cyber 125 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS charter schools were more likely to provide social-emotional support, help meeting basic needs such as food and housing, establish community partnerships, provide financial support, provide legal assistance, provide financial assistance, offer tutoring, and promote collaboration. Brick-and-mortar schools were more likely to aid transportation. When asked about their perceptions of preparedness and implementation of MKVA, there was no statistical difference between high school principals at cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools (p>.05). The achievement data of SEH also provided support to indicate there is not a statistical difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools and brick-and-mortar schools. This dissertation validates the importance of school choice; demonstrating cyber charter schools are a viable option for SEH. ​ 126 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS References Almquist, L., & Walker, S. C. (2022). Reciprocal associations between housing instability and youth criminal legal involvement: A scoping review. Health & Justice, 10(1), 15. American Federation for Teachers. (2025). School choice facts: AFC Growth Fund. School Choice. https://www.schoolchoicefacts.org/ Barfield, C. B. (2018). Administrators' perspectives and strategies regarding student homelessness [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Berner, A. R. (2024). Educational Pluralism and Democracy: How to Handle Indoctrination, Promote Exposure, and Rebuild America's Schools. Harvard Education Press. Bowman, D. (2016). Definitions of Homelessness for Federal Program Serving Children, Youth, and Families. The Administration for Children and Families. Bradley-Dorsey, M., Beck, D., Maranto, R., Tran, B., Clark, T., & Liu, F. (2022). Is cyber like in-person? Relationships between student-student, student-teacher interaction and student achievement in cyber charter schools. Computers & Education Open, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100101 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. (2012). Dropping out of high school: Prevalence, risk factors, and remediation strategies. R & D Connections, 18(2), 1–9. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections18.pdf 127 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Marsh, R. M. (2009). Pennsylvania Cyber charter schoolFunding: Follow the Money. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(4), 49–55. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0306-6 CCA. (2025). Discover the benefits of Cyber charter schoolLearning: CCA. Commonwealth Charter Academy. https://ccaeducate.me/why-cca/ Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2025). Act 1 of 2022 supporting graduation for students experiencing education instability. Pennsylvania Department of Education. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/education/resources/policies-acts-and-laws/basic-educatio n-circulars-becs/purdons-statutes/act-1-of-2022/act-1-of-2022-supporting-graduation-forstudents-experiencing-education-instability.html Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2025). Types of Schools. Pennsylvania Department of Education. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/education/resources/types-of-schools.html Cordes, S. A. (2025). Cyber versus brick and mortar: Achievement, attainment, and postsecondary outcomes in Pennsylvania charter high schools. Education Finance and Policy, 19(3), 361–384. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. Cumming, J. M., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2012). Homeless high school students in America: Who counts? Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice & Research, 2(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.5929/2012.2.2.9 128 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Cutuli, J. J., & Herbers, J. E. (2019). Housing Interventions and the Chronic and Acute Risks of Family Homelessness: Experimental Evidence for Education. Child development, 90(5), 1664–1683. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13041 Cutuli, J. J., Torres Suarez, S., Truchil, A., Yost, T., & Flack-Green, C. (2024). Strategies to better identify student homelessness using data in an urban school district. Educational Researcher, 53(3), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231215347 Datrika, V. M. R., & David, A. (2022). Refined Model of Maslow’s Needs Theory in Internet Era. Organization and Human Capital Development (ORCADEV), p-ISSN, 2807-6699. Ed Data Express. (2024, December 11). Homeless Students Enrolled. Data Download Tool. https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/ Education Commission of the States. (2022). Understanding school types: Traditional public, charter, virtual, and more. https://www.ecs.org/understanding-school-types/ Edwards, E. J. (2019). Hidden success: Learning from the counternarratives of high school graduates impacted by student homelessness. Urban Education, 58(4), 559–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919877928 Edwards, E. J. (2023). Resource hopping: Examining the policy barriers faced and strategies used to establish partnerships for students experiencing homelessness. Urban Education, 60(5), 1331–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859231214179 ELC. (2025). Historic Victory in Fight for Fair Funding!. Education law center. https://www.elc-pa.org/historic-victory-in-the-fight-for-fair-funding/ 129 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Erickson, P., Cermack, A., Greylord, T., Benning, S., Michaels, C., Lynn, A., & Blake, L. (2025, February 18). Mental health and well-being ecological model. Leadership Education in Maternal & Child Public Health. https://mch.umn.edu/resources/mhecomodel/ Fantuzzo, J., LeBoeuf, W., Brumley, B., & Perlman, S. (2013). A population-based inquiry of homeless episode characteristics and early educational well-being. Children & Youth Services Review, 35(6), 966–972. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.02.016 Ferguson, A., & Francis, Y. J. (2024). “I may be vulnerable, but I have strengths too”: A systematic literature review of young homeless people’s educational experience. Educational & Child Psychology, 41(3), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.6 Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. London, England: SAGE. FOX 29 Philadelphia. (2024, April 29). Top 10 best high schools in Pennsylvania, according to US News. https://www.fox29.com/news/top-10-best-high-schools-in-pennsylvania-according-to-us-n ews Frisone, M., & Karakus, M. (2025). Education of children and youth experiencing homelessness in the School District of Philadelphia, analysis of 2023-24 data. School District of Philadelphia. Future Ready PA Index. (2025). Future Ready PA Index. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. https://futurereadypa.org/ 130 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Guy-Evans, O. (2025, March 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html# Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html# Harris, S. E. (2012). Education preparation to respond to the needs of homeless children & youth: Perceptions of school personnel. Hatch, E., Villagrana, K., Wu, Q., Lawler, S., & Ferguson, K. (2022). Predictors of secondary completion among homeless youth in three U.S. cities and the potential application of national policies. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 39(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00826-8 Havlik, S., & Bryan, J. (2015). Addressing the needs of students experiencing homelessness: School counselor preparation. Professional Counselor, 5(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.15241/sh.5.2.200 Havlik, S. A., Brookover, D., & Rowley, P. (2024). School counselors’ perspectives on preparing students experiencing homelessness for college. Journal of College Access, 9(1), 8–24. Havlik, S. A., Brady, J., & Gavin, K. (2014). Exploring the needs of students experiencing homelessness from school counselors’ perspectives. Journal of School Counseling, 12(20), 1–38. Howland, A., Chen, L. T., Chen, M. E., & Min, M. (2017). Exploring socio-demographics, mobility, and living arrangement as risk factors for academic performance among children experiencing homelessness. Preventing School Failure, 61(4), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1272541 131 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats?. In The economics of school choice (pp. 287-342). University of Chicago Press. JHU School of Education. (2023). Educational pluralism. John Hopkins University School of Education https://education.jhu.edu/impact/educational-pluralism/ Jones, B. T. (2024). Bridging gaps: A narrative inquiry into school leaders’ implementation of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to support homeless students (Publication No. 31637749). [Doctoral dissertation, Abilene Christian University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Kelly, M. G., & Maselli, A. (2023). School Finance Policies, Racial Disparities, and the Exploding Educational Debt: Egregious Evidence from Pennsylvania. Journal of Education Human Resources, 41(3), 514–533. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.3138/jehr-2022-0003 Kilanowski, J. F. (2017). Breadth of the Socio-Ecological Model. Journal of Agromedicine, 22(4), 295–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2017.1358971 Kingsbury, I. (2021). Online learning: How do brick and mortar schools stack up to virtual schools?. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6567-6588. Kingsbury, I., Beck, D., & Bradley-Dorsey, M. (2022). What kind of students attend cyber charter schools? pandemic enrollment as evidence of negative selection. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.901319 Kornbluh, M., Wilking, J., Roll, S., & Donatello, R. (2024). Exploring housing insecurity in relation to student success. Journal of American College Health, 72(3), 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2068016 132 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Lafavor, T., Langworthy, S. E., Persaud, S., & Kalstabakken, A. W. (2020). The relationship between parent and teacher perceptions and the academic success of homeless youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09538-0 Lapp, D., & Shaw-Amoah, A. (2024). Students experiencing homelessness in Pennsylvania: A 2024 update. Research for Action. Lee, M., & Figueroa, R. (2012). Internal and External Indicators of Virtual Learning Success: A Guide to Success in K-12 Virtual Learning. Distance Learning, 9(1), 21-28. http://proxy-sru.klnpa.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/internalexternal-indicators-virtual-learning/docview/1014187293/se-2 Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Lesisko, L. J., & Sraiheen, A. (2016). K-12 student perceptions of learning through cyber school. Online Submission, 11(1), 65–79. Mann, B., Kotok, S., Frankenberg, E., Fuller, E., & Schafft, K. (2016). Choice, cyber charter schools, and the educational marketplace for rural school districts. The Rural Educator, 37(3), 17–29. McKenna, G., & Scanlon, G. (2024). Parental perspectives on how homelessness affects children’s access and participation in education in an Irish context. Educational & Child Psychology, 41(3), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.40 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.) Miller, P. M. (2011). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415120 133 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Moon, M. D. (2019). Triangulation: A method to increase validity, reliability, and legitimation in clinical research. Journal of emergency nursing, 45(1), 103-105. Morgan, H. (2018). What Every Educator Needs to Know about America’s Homeless Students. Clearing House, 91(6), 215–221. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1524357 Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk Factors for Learning-Related Behavior Problems at 24 Months of Age: Population-Based Estimates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(3), 401–413. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9279-8 Murphy, J. F., & Tobin, K. (2012). Addressing the Problems of Homeless Adolescents. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 633–663. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1177/105268461202200308 Mushonga, D. R., Uretsky, M. C., Rose, B. A., & Henneberger, A. K. (2024). Linking homelessness in secondary school to postsecondary and early labor market outcomes in Maryland using a continuum of risk framework. Applied Developmental Science, 28(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2022.2156343 National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2023). Role of the principal. https://www.nassp.org National Center for Homeless Education. (2023). Data and statistics on homelessness. https://nche.ed.gov/data-and-stats/ National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the 134 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html Navarro, B. (2021). How principals of New York City urban high schools address the unique needs of students who are homeless (Publication No. 28411401). [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Nespor, J. (2019). Cyber schooling and the accumulation of school time. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(3), 325–341. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/14681366.2018.1489888 PA Cyber. (2025). Why PA Cyber?. The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School | PA Cyber. https://pacyber.org/why-pa-cyber PaFEC. (2025). Types of school choice programs. PaFEC. https://paedchoice.org/types-of-school-choice-programs/ Parrott, K. A., Huslage, M., & Cronley, C. (2022). Educational equity: A scoping review of the state of literature exploring educational outcomes and correlates for children experiencing homelessness. Children and Youth Services Review, 143, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106673 Patton Davis, L. & Museus, S. (2019). What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research. Currents, 1(1), 117-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110 Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2024). Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. https://www.education.pa.gov 135 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Pescod, M. (2024). Understanding motivation towards education through exploring the educational experiences of young homeless people. Educational & Child Psychology, 41(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.55 Prinz, A. M. (2023). Supporting elementary youths experiencing homelessness in public schools (Publication No. 30424769). [Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Rice, K. L. (2006). A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K-12 Context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448. Riebe, P. (2024). Overcoming Bias in Standardized Testing. Rosales, J.. & Walker, T. (2021). The racist beginnings of standardized testing. neaToday. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing Rosales, J., & Walker, T. (2021). The racist beginnings of standardized testing. neaToday. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing Rottermond, H., & Regan, B. (2025). The Dangers of Teacher Deficit Thinking and Language: Practices to Disrupt the “They’re So Low” Literacy Paradigm. Michigan Reading Journal, 57(3), 35–45. Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918801717 Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2016). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage. SchoolHouse Connection. (2025). Child and youth homelessness in the United States: Data profiles. https://schoolhouseconnection.org/article/data-profiles 136 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS SchoolHouse Connection. (2025). What is the McKinney-vento act?. https://schoolhouseconnection.org/article/mckinney-vento-act-quick-reference Scolforo, M. (2025, June 4). Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under Bill passed by the State House. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-cyber-charter-school-funding-cea2869433dc8f2 0c283ea8f22420f5b Shahbaz, M. K. (2021). Global Academic Journal of Linguistics and Literature. Sternberg, R. (2006). Fuzzy Funding of Online Delivery. School Administrator, 63(7), 13. Sun, J. (2006). The Statistical Analysis of Interval-Censored Failure Time Data. Springer. Tokunaga, H. (2019). Fundamental statistics for the social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc. Ulum, H. (2022). The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10740-8 UNICEF. (n.d.). Brief on the Social Ecological Model. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/media/135011/file/Global%20multisectoral%20operational%20fra mework.pdf Uretsky, M. C., & Stone, S. (2016). Factors associated with high school exit exam outcomes among homeless high school students. Children & Schools, 38(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw007 137 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025, April 22). College enrollment and work activity of high school graduates news release - 2024 A01 results. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm U.S. Congress. (2002). McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq. U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Local educational agencies (LEAs). https://www.ed.gov U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Suppression. Protecting Student Privacy. https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/content/suppression Von Dohlen, H. B., Moore, J., Von Dohlen, L. J., & Thrift, B. E. (2019). Aspiring administrators' knowledge and leadership capacity to mitigate issues of poverty and homelessness in schools. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3(2). Wagaman, M. A., Gattis, M. N., Watts, K. J., Yabar, M. P., Blair, D., Haynes, T. S., & Williams, E. G. (2022). The role of schools in supporting students experiencing homelessness: Perceptions of school staff. Children & Schools, 44(2), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdac002 Walker, M. (2025, January 23). Spending. Open PA Gov. https://www.openpagov.org/spending/ Wasti, S. P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. R., Sathian, B., & Banerjee, I. (2022). The growing importance of mixed-methods research in health. Nepal journal of epidemiology, 12(1), 1175. Wolfinger, S. (2016). An exploratory case study of middle school student academic achievement in a fully online virtual school (Publication No. 10129096). [Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. 138 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Wright, T., Nankin, I., Boonstra, K., & Blair, E. (2019). Changing Through Relationships and Reflection: An Exploratory Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Young Children Experiencing Homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(3), 297–308. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0921-y Wright, T., Ochrach, C., Blaydes, M., & Fetter, A. (2021). Pursuing the Promise of Preschool: An Exploratory Investigation of the Perceptions of Parents Experiencing Homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(6), 1021–1030. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01109-6 Yurdakul, G., & Arar, T. (2023). Revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Is it still universal content? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 33(8), 1103–1130. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/10911359.2023.2177227 139 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix A: Questionnaire Demographic Information How long have you been a school leader? ●​ Less than 1 year ●​ 1-3 years ●​ 4-6 years ●​ 7-10 years ●​ More than 10 years What is the highest education level you have attained? ●​ Bachelor's degree ●​ Master's degree ●​ Doctorate ●​ Other (please specify) Which of the following most accurately defines your current position? ●​ School principal ●​ Assistant Principal ●​ Other administrative role (please specify) How long have you been in your current position? ●​ Less than 1 year ●​ 1-3 years ●​ 4-6 years ●​ 7-10 years 140 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS ●​ More than 10 years Besides your current position, what other positions/titles do you currently hold in K-12 public school education? (If any) Which of the following best describes your current school? ●​ Brick-and-mortar public school ●​ Cyber Charter School Have you ever served as a principal in a cyber charter school? * ●​ Yes ●​ No Have you ever served as a principal in a brick-and-mortar school? * ●​ Yes ●​ No How long were you a principal in a cyber charter school? ●​ Less than 1 year ●​ 1-3 years ●​ 4-6 years ●​ 7-10 years ●​ More than 10 years 141 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS How long were you a principal in a brick-and-mortar school? ●​ Less than 1 year ●​ 1-3 years ●​ 4-6 years ●​ 7-10 years ●​ More than 10 years Understanding of McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) How would you rate your understanding of the McKinney- Vento Act’s provisions? ●​ Excellent ●​ Good ●​ Fair ●​ Poor ●​ Very Poor What type of training or professional development have you received regarding the MKVA? (Check all that apply) ●​ District-provided workshops ●​ State-sponsored training ●​ Online courses ●​ Other (please specify) Implementation of MKVA 142 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS How effectively do you feel your school has implemented the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act? ●​ Not effective at all ●​ Slightly effective Moderately effective ●​ Very effective ●​ Extremely effective Please list the specific initiatives or programs your school has implemented to support homeless students under the MKVA. Impact on Students How do you measure the success of MKVA programs on homeless students' academic performance and overall well- being? (Check all that apply) ●​ Standardized test scores ●​ Graduation rates ●​ Attendance records ●​ Student feedback ●​ Other (please specify) Collaboration and Support Please list how you collaborate with community organizations and social services to support homeless students. School Environment and Culture 143 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Please list strategies you employ to create a supportive and inclusive environment for homeless students in your school. In What Ways? What services does your school provide to students facing homelessness? (Select all that apply) ●​ School Supplies ●​ Transportation assistance ●​ Tutoring and academic support ●​ Counseling and mental health services ●​ Access to hygiene products ●​ Clothing and uniforms ●​ Housing referrals ●​ Healthcare referrals ●​ After-school programs ●​ Summer programs ●​ College and career counseling ●​ Legal assistance referrals ●​ Parent and family support services ●​ Access to technology (e.g., laptops, internet access) ●​ Other (please specify) How do you communicate with families about the available services for homeless students? (Select all that apply) 144 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS ●​ School newsletters ●​ Emails ●​ Phone calls ●​ Text messages ●​ Parent-teacher conferences ●​ School website ●​ Social media ●​ Flyers and brochures ●​ Community meetings ●​ Other (please specify) Professional Development and Knowledge To what extent do you agree with the statement: "As a school leader, I have adequate knowledge and training on MKVA implementation." ●​ Completely agree ●​ Agree ●​ Somewhat agree ●​ Disagree ●​ Completely disagree Powered by Qualtrics 145 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix B: Request to Use Questionnaire 146 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix C: Consent to Use Questionnaire 147 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix D: IRB Approval 148 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix E: Informational Letter ​ ​ RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATIONAL LETTER Principals’ Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter Schools Compared to Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania Whitney Wesley, EdD. whitney.wesley@sru.edu Phone: 724-738-2282 Morgan Baker, MAT mlb1064@sru.edu Phone: 901-201-2499 Invitation to be Part of a Research Study You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be a school administrator currently employed at a cyber charter high school or brick-and-mortar high school in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of the student population identified as “homeless”. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. Important Information about the Research Study Things you should know: 149 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS ●​ The purpose of the study is to compare the perceptions, preparedness, understanding of MKVA, strategies, and academic outcomes (graduation rates) of high school principals in cyber charter schools to those in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania regarding students experiencing homelessness. ●​ If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey via Qualtrics which includes 16 questions (Likert-scale, demographic, and open-ended items). This is expected to take approximately fifteen minutes. ●​ Risks or discomforts from this research include minimal risk. You may feel mild psychological discomfort related to discussing sensitive topics such as homelessness or self-reflection on your understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA). ●​ The study will not provide direct benefits to you as a participant. However, the outcomes of this study may benefit others by informing policy, training, and practices across Pennsylvania Local Education Agencies (LEAs) as they work to better serve students experiencing homelessness. ●​ Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to participate, and you can stop at any time without penalty. Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this research project. What is the Study About and Why are We Doing it? The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceptions of high school principals regarding the support and achievement of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber charter schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania. With the gap in literature 150 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS surrounding the academic achievement of cyber charter schools and SEH, a need is presented to focus on the perceptions of high school principals in supporting the needs of SEH. What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study? If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire using the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire, which is adapted from a validated instrument developed by Dr. Brian Jones (2024), contains seventeen questions. The survey includes demographic questions, Likert-scale items measuring your knowledge and perceptions of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), and open-ended response questions regarding strategies and support systems for SEH. I expect this to take about fifteen minutes. How Could You Benefit From This Study? Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because the study's outcomes can inform policy, training, and practices for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) across Pennsylvania in order to better support SEH and navigate school choice options. What Risks Might Result From Being in This Study? The primary risk is informational, involving a breach of confidentiality. To minimize this risk, data is collected anonymously, and all responses are stored on password-protected devices. How Will We Protect Your Information? I plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, I will not include information that could directly identify you. The survey is collected anonymously in Qualtrics. I will protect the confidentiality of your research records by storing the data on a password-protected computer and on password-protected cloud platforms. 151 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over? I will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Your survey responses will be stored securely, and all electronic data files will be securely destroyed three years after the conclusion of the study. What Other Choices do I Have if I Don’t Take Part in this Study? If you choose not to participate, there are no alternatives. Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary It is totally up to you to decide to be in this research study. Participating in this study is voluntary. Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. If you decide to withdraw before this study is completed, your data will be destroyed and not included in the final study’s analysis. Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research If you have questions about this research, you may contact Morgan Baker MAT., mlb1064@sru.edu or the dissertation chair, Dr. Whitney Wesley EdD., whitney.wesley@sru.edu . Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please contact the following: Institutional Review Board Slippery Rock University 152 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS 104 Maltby, Suite 302 Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Phone: (724)738-4846 Email: irb@sru.edu Your Consent By clicking on the survey link below, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you understand what the study is about before you click on the link. I will give you a copy of this document for your records. I will keep a copy with the study records. If you have any questions about the study after you click on the link, you can contact the study team using the information provided above. By clicking on the survey here, I understand what the study is about and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. A copy of this signed Consent Form has been given to me. Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmjxr66twnb.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_daO8a8L1SSYLRtA 153 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS Appendix F: Recruitment Email Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Research Study on Supporting Homeless Students Attachment: Informational Letter Dear Principal, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Morgan Baker, and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Slippery Rock University. I am conducting a research study titled "Principals’ Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter Schools Compared to Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania”. The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceptions of high school principals regarding the support and achievement of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber charter schools compared to brick - and - mortar schools in Pennsylvania. In order to participate, you must be a school administrator currently employed at a cyber charter high school or brick - and - mortar high school in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of the student population identified as “homeless”. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire using the Qualtrics platform. I expect this to take about fifteen minutes. Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because the study's outcomes can inform policy, training, and practices for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) across Pennsylvania in order to better support SEH and navigate school choice options. Participation in this study involves: 154 HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS ●​ A 15 minute survey completed via the Qualtrics platform. Additional information on the purpose of the study, risks, and benefits can be found in the informational letter attached to this email. Please review the letter in its entirety before clicking on the link to the survey. By clicking on the survey link below, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you understand what the study is about before you click on the link. If you have any questions about the study after you click on the link, you can contact the study team using the information provided above. By clicking on the survey here , I understand what the study is about and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. A copy of the informational letter has been given to me. Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmjxr66twnb.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_daO8a8L1SSYLRtA Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at mlb1064@sru.edu. With Gratitude, Morgan Baker Doctoral Candidate Slippery Rock University