Technology Course-Taking in High School: Insights for Underrepresented Populations

This study explores who takes technology courses in high school, with a particular focus on students from underrepresented populations. Using detailed data from seven public school districts in a northeastern U.S. state, the study examines how student demographics and school-level factors influence enrollment in three types of high school technology courses: any technology course, computer science (CS)-focused courses, and applied technology courses. The findings reveal persistent inequities in access to and participation in these courses, especially for students from historically marginalized groups.

Key results show that male and Asian students are significantly more likely to enroll in any type of technology course. For applied technology courses, which are more vocational in nature, Hispanic students and those in schools with higher rates of economic disadvantage also showed higher enrollment. Notably, schools with a larger share of English learners had substantially lower technology course participation rates across the board. The availability of CS-focused courses within a school was a strong predictor of student enrollment, highlighting the role of institutional policy and access in shaping student participation.

These findings underscore the importance of distinguishing between different types of technology education when assessing both access and participation. While applied technology courses appear to provide an entry point for some underrepresented students, they may also reflect a systemic divide that tracks students into vocational rather than academic or CS-intensive paths. Simply offering CS in middle school or high school is not enough; disparities in enrollment remain, especially for Black, Hispanic, and female students. Meaningful progress toward equity in CS education requires more than increasing course availability. It also demands coordinated strategies to address structural barriers, from chronic absenteeism to teacher preparation and curriculum design.

This paper was developed with funding from U.S. Department of Education (grant number S411C200084). The contents of this paper do not necessarily represent the policy or views of the U.S. Department of Education, nor do they imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.