2005 was a pretty good year for rural schools. The U.S. Department of Education made significant efforts to better serve rural schools and one of its comprehensive centers sponsored an important rural education summit. There were also some very good rural education articles published. On the downside, the Regional Educational Laboratories continued to neglect their obligations to rural schools, but at least they’re consistent.
BEST COMEBACK
After a dismal 2004, the U.S. Department of Education made a good comeback undertaking significant efforts to improve educational outcomes for children and youth living in rural communities. The most important of these activities was the establishment of the Center for Rural Education within the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE). William L. Smith, the last U.S. Commissioner of Education, was named director. Another significant development was that Bevo Gonzalez, Acting Assistant Secretary of OVAE is now chairing the Rural Education Task Force taking over from Tom Luna. These events signal a new focus at the department on rural education—something that has been sorely missed in recent years. Rather than take these events for granted, take a moment and send Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings a letter or email thanking her for the department’s efforts on behalf of rural children and communities. Tell her Mr. Rural ED says hey!
BEST FEDERALLY FUNDED RURAL EDUCATION MEETING
In 2005, the Region VII Comprehensive Center stepped up to the plate to sponsor the Rural School Improvement Summit. Housed at the University of Oklahoma, the Center brought together educators from a six states to examine significant issues facing rural schools and to develop action plans to address those issues. The event was the last big activity for rural schools under the former Comprehensive Center structure. The University of Oklahoma was successful in winning the competition for the new Mid-Continent Regional Comprehensive Center that will serve Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. Hopefully, the new center will pickup where the old one left off in serving the needs of rural schools. Let's hope the other ones take note of their success and sponsor their own summits.
BEST RURAL EDUCATION RESEARCH ARTICLE
Nancy Jennings, Steve Swidler and Christopher Koliba get the nod for 2005 Best Rural Education Research Article for their article “Place-based Education in the Standards-based Reform Era—Conflict or Complement?” You may have missed it since it appeared in the American Journal of Education. Nancy, Steve and Christopher examined practitioner and policymaker views on placed-based education and standards-based education in Vermont, a state that includes two place-based standards in the state’s Framework of Standards. Their findings “challenge the common view of incompatibility between state standards and locally responsive curriculum.” Oh, oh, watch out for some backlash from the Rural-Cons who’ve made hay complaining that state standards push out locally responsive instruction.
BEST RURAL EDUCATION COMMENTARY
This year the name of this award could be the Shameless Self-Promotion Award since the best rural education commentary was my own “Rural Education: A New Perspective is Needed at the U.S. Department of Education.” The Journal of Research in Rural Education had never printed a commentary before, so I appreciate Ted Coladarci taking a chance on it. A key point of that commentary was that “it is time for the [U.S. Department of Education] … to back their stated commitment to rural schools with substantial and significant action that provides tangible benefits for rural Americans.” To their credit, the department has taken steps toward achieving that goal. (See Best Comeback Award). Past experience indicates, however, that the true measure of the department’s commitment to rural schools lies in its actions not its words.
BEST REGIONAL LAB PRODUCT
It was no contest for the winner of the Best Regional Educational Laboratory Product for rural schools: "How to Recruit and Retain Teachers and Other School Leaders in Hard-to-Staff Rural and Small School Districts" from SERVE. Hobart Harmon took a lead role in developing the guide that he co-authored with Charles Ahern and Jack Sanders. One small problem is that I can’t find a copy of the toolkit on the SERVE website, though it is listed on the Pulling Together R&D Resources for Rural Schools website. Nevertheless, it is the runaway winner of this years award mostly because there weren’t any other rural education products produced by the labs in 2005. I checked both the REL Network website and that of the Pulling Together and only found this one product. Evidently the $16.5 million the labs were supposed to spend on rural education products wasn’t enough to generate more than one product. We should all probably contact our congressional delegation to urge them to allocate more money for the labs to spend on rural education. Maybe if their funding for rural is doubled we might get a couple of more products. $83 million over five years doesn’t get as many products as one would think.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Curious Timing
On Friday (December 16) the U.S. Department of Education issued a press release announcing the creation of the Center for Rural Education and naming William L. Smith as its director. Some of you will remember that Dr. Smith was U.S. Commissioner of Education before the creation of the Department of Education.
What’s curious about the timing is that Dr. Smith had already been introduced as the director of the center, most notably at the National Rural Education Association Convention in November. Why did the Department issue a press release now?
My friends who believe in a vast urban/suburban conspiracy against rural schools may see the timing as an indication of the low priority that rural schools receive at the department. Those friends are thinking, “I guess it was a slow news day and they didn’t have anything else to report.”
Those who are politically inclined, or at least watch The West Wing, may see the timing as part of “take out the trash day.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term, Friday is “take out the trash day.” Since fewer people read the paper or watch the news on Saturday, Friday is the day the administration releases information they would rather people didn’t see or hear.
Another explanation is that it was announced at a meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers by Beto Gonzalez, the acting assistant secretary for the Education Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education. That an assistant secretary level official announced it to a meeting of chief state school officers trumps earlier announcements to groups that are perceived to have lower status.
The real news in the press release is the naming of an assistant secretary to head the Rural Education Task Force. In a previous post, Reforming the Rural Education Task Force, I called for naming a high-ranking Department of Education official to head the task force. Naming Beto Gonzalez to lead the group is a step in the right direction.
The creation of the Center for Rural Education and the selection of Dr. Smith to head it are indeed good news for rural children. Dr. Smith lead a department team that actively participated in the National Rural Education Convention in Tucson. I was greatly encouraged by what I saw of that group.
I am a little concerned that the new Rural Center is housed in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education because it suggests that rural school improvement should focus on vocational and adult education. That seems like a rather minor issue at this point.
What’s curious about the timing is that Dr. Smith had already been introduced as the director of the center, most notably at the National Rural Education Association Convention in November. Why did the Department issue a press release now?
My friends who believe in a vast urban/suburban conspiracy against rural schools may see the timing as an indication of the low priority that rural schools receive at the department. Those friends are thinking, “I guess it was a slow news day and they didn’t have anything else to report.”
Those who are politically inclined, or at least watch The West Wing, may see the timing as part of “take out the trash day.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term, Friday is “take out the trash day.” Since fewer people read the paper or watch the news on Saturday, Friday is the day the administration releases information they would rather people didn’t see or hear.
Another explanation is that it was announced at a meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers by Beto Gonzalez, the acting assistant secretary for the Education Department's Office of Vocational and Adult Education. That an assistant secretary level official announced it to a meeting of chief state school officers trumps earlier announcements to groups that are perceived to have lower status.
The real news in the press release is the naming of an assistant secretary to head the Rural Education Task Force. In a previous post, Reforming the Rural Education Task Force, I called for naming a high-ranking Department of Education official to head the task force. Naming Beto Gonzalez to lead the group is a step in the right direction.
The creation of the Center for Rural Education and the selection of Dr. Smith to head it are indeed good news for rural children. Dr. Smith lead a department team that actively participated in the National Rural Education Convention in Tucson. I was greatly encouraged by what I saw of that group.
I am a little concerned that the new Rural Center is housed in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education because it suggests that rural school improvement should focus on vocational and adult education. That seems like a rather minor issue at this point.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
2005 NREA Conference
It looks like the 97th Annual Convention of the National Rural Education Association is going to be a great event. Bob Mooneyham and the program committees deserve a lot of credit for developing a program that has much to offer participants.
In my admittedly biased opinion the highlight of the convention will be the 4-hour grant-writing workshop Hobart Harmon and I will be doing on Tuesday (November 8) morning. This session is a shorter version of our grant-writing institute for rural schools and communities. With state and federal funds for schools becoming scarcer, rural schools have to be able to compete for public and private grants. Our workshop is designed specifically with rural communities in mind.
The other session I'm really looking forward to attending is the U.S. Department of Education's focus group on doing another Condition of Rural Education report. It's been over a decade since the last report and a lot has changed in rural America since then. The focus group is on Wednesday (November 9) morning.
I won't be able to attend the Research Symposium on Saturday and Sunday due to a prior commitment. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to ask some questions of the presenters. I'd like to ask Tom Farmer, Director of the National Center on Rural Education Support what his center would do with an extra $1 million a year. In an earlier post (More R&D for Rural Schools) I wrote that his center should get an extra million dollars a year and it would be good to know what we would get in return.
From the representatives from any of the regional educational laboratories, I'd like to know why over the past 5 years the labs haven't fulfilled their legal obligation to develop strategies to utilize schools in revitalizing rural communities? Based on a search of the lab's network website, it doesn't look like any products have been developed in this area.
If anyone would like to ask these questions for me, I'd be happy to post their report on Mr. Rural ED. Let me know if you'd like to do it so I can give you some additional background information.
More importantly, anyone interested in rural education should register right away for the NREA conference because it will be money well spent. Speaking of money, don't forget to bring plenty of it for the NREA Foundation Auction on Tuesday night!
In my admittedly biased opinion the highlight of the convention will be the 4-hour grant-writing workshop Hobart Harmon and I will be doing on Tuesday (November 8) morning. This session is a shorter version of our grant-writing institute for rural schools and communities. With state and federal funds for schools becoming scarcer, rural schools have to be able to compete for public and private grants. Our workshop is designed specifically with rural communities in mind.
The other session I'm really looking forward to attending is the U.S. Department of Education's focus group on doing another Condition of Rural Education report. It's been over a decade since the last report and a lot has changed in rural America since then. The focus group is on Wednesday (November 9) morning.
I won't be able to attend the Research Symposium on Saturday and Sunday due to a prior commitment. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to ask some questions of the presenters. I'd like to ask Tom Farmer, Director of the National Center on Rural Education Support what his center would do with an extra $1 million a year. In an earlier post (More R&D for Rural Schools) I wrote that his center should get an extra million dollars a year and it would be good to know what we would get in return.
From the representatives from any of the regional educational laboratories, I'd like to know why over the past 5 years the labs haven't fulfilled their legal obligation to develop strategies to utilize schools in revitalizing rural communities? Based on a search of the lab's network website, it doesn't look like any products have been developed in this area.
If anyone would like to ask these questions for me, I'd be happy to post their report on Mr. Rural ED. Let me know if you'd like to do it so I can give you some additional background information.
More importantly, anyone interested in rural education should register right away for the NREA conference because it will be money well spent. Speaking of money, don't forget to bring plenty of it for the NREA Foundation Auction on Tuesday night!
Thursday, June 09, 2005
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rural Reviewers
There are new concerns about the process the U.S. Department of Education used to award the contract for the National Center on Rural Education Support. Information obtained from the Institute of Education Sciences indicate that the panel reviewing applications for the center did not include any rural education experts. This revelation raises the question of whether the panel was able to conduct a competent review of the applications for a rural education research center.
To be clear, I don't know exactly who reviewed applications for the center. I had asked for the list of reviewers but was told the Institute of Education Sciences does not identify the individuals who review particular applications or who review for particular competitions. Lynn Okagaki, Deputy Directory for Science at the Institute of Education Sciences did provide a list of everyone who served as scientific peer reviewers during fiscal year 2004.
That list included the names of 141 reviewers. Of those, only David Monk from Penn State University is recognizable as someone with substantial rural education expertise. He could not, however, have been a reviewer for the National Center on Rural Education Support because Penn State was an applicant. Ted Coladarci, Editor of the Journal of Research in Rural Education, similarly didn't recognize any other reviewers on the list having substantial rural education credentials. ("Sadly, no," he confessed.)
A reasonable conclusion is that the panel reviewing applications for the primary rural education research center lacked the expertise to make judgments pertaining to rural education issues. That's a problem! It's like having no pediatricians on a review panel for a program awarding a pediatric research center.
The department notes on its website that “to ensure a fair and competent review of all applications, program staff recruit persons who have expertise in areas pertinent to a program and from as many sources as possible.” This statement implies that not having reviewers with expertise in areas pertinent to the program creates a situation in which a review is unfair and incompetent.
To be fair to the staff at the Department of Education and the contractor that ran the review, I don’t think they purposefully left of people with rural education expertise off the panel. Rather, it probably never occurred to them that they needed some rural education expertise. Which points to the larger problem that the U.S. Department of Education has a very limited understanding of rural education issues.
To be clear, I don't know exactly who reviewed applications for the center. I had asked for the list of reviewers but was told the Institute of Education Sciences does not identify the individuals who review particular applications or who review for particular competitions. Lynn Okagaki, Deputy Directory for Science at the Institute of Education Sciences did provide a list of everyone who served as scientific peer reviewers during fiscal year 2004.
That list included the names of 141 reviewers. Of those, only David Monk from Penn State University is recognizable as someone with substantial rural education expertise. He could not, however, have been a reviewer for the National Center on Rural Education Support because Penn State was an applicant. Ted Coladarci, Editor of the Journal of Research in Rural Education, similarly didn't recognize any other reviewers on the list having substantial rural education credentials. ("Sadly, no," he confessed.)
A reasonable conclusion is that the panel reviewing applications for the primary rural education research center lacked the expertise to make judgments pertaining to rural education issues. That's a problem! It's like having no pediatricians on a review panel for a program awarding a pediatric research center.
The department notes on its website that “to ensure a fair and competent review of all applications, program staff recruit persons who have expertise in areas pertinent to a program and from as many sources as possible.” This statement implies that not having reviewers with expertise in areas pertinent to the program creates a situation in which a review is unfair and incompetent.
To be fair to the staff at the Department of Education and the contractor that ran the review, I don’t think they purposefully left of people with rural education expertise off the panel. Rather, it probably never occurred to them that they needed some rural education expertise. Which points to the larger problem that the U.S. Department of Education has a very limited understanding of rural education issues.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
More R&D for Rural Schools
Last week I received an email asking me to contact my U.S. Senators to urge them to continue funding for the Regional Educational Laboratories. I found myself torn about what to do. On one hand, the Regional Educational Laboratory system represents the U.S. Department of Education’s largest research and development effort for rural schools. In 2005, at least $16.5 million is supposed to be allocated toward issues addressing rural schools. That corresponds to a minimum of $83 million over the life of a five-year lab contract. Eliminating or reducing this funding level should be harmful to rural schools because they would have less access to products developed specifically for rural schools.
You’ll notice that I used the phrase “should put rural schools at a disadvantage” because, on the other hand, the Regional Educational Laboratory system has not produced much in the way of products designed specifically for rural school problems. The result has been a very low return on the investment. You can see my dilemma—contact my senators and urge them to support an ineffective program under the “a little is better than nothing” principle, or let them know how little rural America is benefiting from the Regional Educational Laboratory system.
I was going to exercise the safe option of doing nothing when I hit upon a compromise—contact my Senators in support of the lab system but encourage them to reallocate the funds that would go toward rural school issues. This compromise may seem contradictory given my complaints about the labs, but there are some things they do well. Rural education just isn’t one of them.
The email noted a proposal to fund the labs at $70 million in 2006. By law, at least 25 percent of that funding ($17.5 million) has to go toward issues found in rural communities. Those funds should go toward creating 4 or 5 new rural education research and development centers. The centers would develop research-based materials designed specifically to improve the educational outcomes of students and the viability of the community.
An important topic for the centers would be to find ways in which schools can work with other organizations. There are a number of organizations that have interest in child development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services come to mind. Finding ways that schools can work with collaboratively with county extension and health departments would greatly benefit rural children and their communities.
The centers should also focus on the professional development of rural educators, developing place-based instructional materials, and local policy solutions for issues facing rural schools. There should also be a center devoted to coordinating the efforts of the all the centers. This center would also manage the dissemination of materials and information to the field. I also think the National Center on Rural Education Support should also receive an additional $1 million to fund cooperative efforts with the new development centers.
There are things the labs do very well, but the Regional Educational Laboratory System has failed miserably in its responsibilities to rural schools. It makes much more sense to reallocate the funds that are supposed to go toward rural education issues to a new group of organizations devoted to improving the educational outcomes of rural students while supporting local community development. Rural communities deserve better than what they’ve gotten under the current system. Time for a change!
You’ll notice that I used the phrase “should put rural schools at a disadvantage” because, on the other hand, the Regional Educational Laboratory system has not produced much in the way of products designed specifically for rural school problems. The result has been a very low return on the investment. You can see my dilemma—contact my senators and urge them to support an ineffective program under the “a little is better than nothing” principle, or let them know how little rural America is benefiting from the Regional Educational Laboratory system.
I was going to exercise the safe option of doing nothing when I hit upon a compromise—contact my Senators in support of the lab system but encourage them to reallocate the funds that would go toward rural school issues. This compromise may seem contradictory given my complaints about the labs, but there are some things they do well. Rural education just isn’t one of them.
The email noted a proposal to fund the labs at $70 million in 2006. By law, at least 25 percent of that funding ($17.5 million) has to go toward issues found in rural communities. Those funds should go toward creating 4 or 5 new rural education research and development centers. The centers would develop research-based materials designed specifically to improve the educational outcomes of students and the viability of the community.
An important topic for the centers would be to find ways in which schools can work with other organizations. There are a number of organizations that have interest in child development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services come to mind. Finding ways that schools can work with collaboratively with county extension and health departments would greatly benefit rural children and their communities.
The centers should also focus on the professional development of rural educators, developing place-based instructional materials, and local policy solutions for issues facing rural schools. There should also be a center devoted to coordinating the efforts of the all the centers. This center would also manage the dissemination of materials and information to the field. I also think the National Center on Rural Education Support should also receive an additional $1 million to fund cooperative efforts with the new development centers.
There are things the labs do very well, but the Regional Educational Laboratory System has failed miserably in its responsibilities to rural schools. It makes much more sense to reallocate the funds that are supposed to go toward rural education issues to a new group of organizations devoted to improving the educational outcomes of rural students while supporting local community development. Rural communities deserve better than what they’ve gotten under the current system. Time for a change!
Friday, May 13, 2005
A Primer on the Regional Educational Laboratories & Rural Schools
The U.S. Department of Education makes a substantial expenditure each year for research and development for issues affecting rural schools through its Regional Educational Laboratory system. In 2005 that amount is supposed to be in the neighborhood of $16.5 million, which translates into at least $83 million of the five years of the current contract. Most rural educators are unaware of the responsibilities of the labs to support rural schools and communities and the level of resources they are given to fulfill those responsibilities. Having worked at a lab for 7 years, I’ve put together a short primer on the labs and what they are supposed to be doing for rural schools.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Regional Educational Laboratories is to conduct applied research and development, provide technical assistance, develop multimedia educational materials and other products, and disseminate information in an effort to help others use knowledge from research and practice to improve education. They have four responsibilities. (1) Collaborate with the National Education Centers. (2) Consult with the State educational agencies and local educational agencies in the region in developing the plan for serving the region. (3) Develop strategies to utilize schools as critical components in reforming education and revitalizing rural communities in the United States. (4) Report and disseminate information on overcoming the obstacles faced by educators and schools in high poverty, urban, and rural areas. Note the specific mention of rural schools and communities in items 3 and 4.
RESOURCES:
By law, the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences" shall obligate not less than 25 percent to carry out such purpose with respect to rural areas (including schools funded by the Bureau [of Indian Affairs] which are located in rural areas). The total appropriated for the five years of the current contract is $332,357,250. The minimum amount that is supposed to go to rural schools works about to be $83 million for the entire five-year contract. Notice that $83 million is the minimum amount that is supposed to go to rural schools so it could be higher. I have tried unsuccessfully to get the actual dollars spent by the labs on rural educational issues even though the labs report it to the Institute of Education Sciences each quarter.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT:
What have taxpayers gotten in return for this investment? A search of REL Network website found only six products listed under the rural education keyword for the years 2001 through 2005. Moreover, none of the six had anything to do with strategies to utilize schools as critical components in revitalizing rural communities. To be fair, there are probably some products that are not listed on the REL Network website for one reason or another. Even then the return on investment is quite disappointing.
BOTTOM LINE:
It's pretty clear that the labs have been ineffective in conducting research and development for issues specific to rural communities. It's time to look at reallocating those dollars to better serve the rural Americans. At $16 million the Institute of Education Sciences could undertake a rural education research and development program that would complement the work of the National Center on Support of Rural Education. The Department of Education could even reduce that amount and come up with better products and services than what they have now.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Regional Educational Laboratories is to conduct applied research and development, provide technical assistance, develop multimedia educational materials and other products, and disseminate information in an effort to help others use knowledge from research and practice to improve education. They have four responsibilities. (1) Collaborate with the National Education Centers. (2) Consult with the State educational agencies and local educational agencies in the region in developing the plan for serving the region. (3) Develop strategies to utilize schools as critical components in reforming education and revitalizing rural communities in the United States. (4) Report and disseminate information on overcoming the obstacles faced by educators and schools in high poverty, urban, and rural areas. Note the specific mention of rural schools and communities in items 3 and 4.
RESOURCES:
By law, the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences" shall obligate not less than 25 percent to carry out such purpose with respect to rural areas (including schools funded by the Bureau [of Indian Affairs] which are located in rural areas). The total appropriated for the five years of the current contract is $332,357,250. The minimum amount that is supposed to go to rural schools works about to be $83 million for the entire five-year contract. Notice that $83 million is the minimum amount that is supposed to go to rural schools so it could be higher. I have tried unsuccessfully to get the actual dollars spent by the labs on rural educational issues even though the labs report it to the Institute of Education Sciences each quarter.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT:
What have taxpayers gotten in return for this investment? A search of REL Network website found only six products listed under the rural education keyword for the years 2001 through 2005. Moreover, none of the six had anything to do with strategies to utilize schools as critical components in revitalizing rural communities. To be fair, there are probably some products that are not listed on the REL Network website for one reason or another. Even then the return on investment is quite disappointing.
BOTTOM LINE:
It's pretty clear that the labs have been ineffective in conducting research and development for issues specific to rural communities. It's time to look at reallocating those dollars to better serve the rural Americans. At $16 million the Institute of Education Sciences could undertake a rural education research and development program that would complement the work of the National Center on Support of Rural Education. The Department of Education could even reduce that amount and come up with better products and services than what they have now.
Monday, March 21, 2005
NREA: A Good Return on Investment
I've spent a lot of time lately looking at how little the U.S. Department of Education does for rural communities. When I compare the resources the department is supposed to be using to support rural schools with the actual outcomes I wonder why rural educators aren't fighting mad.
The antithesis of the USDE is the National Rural Education Association. I had never really thought about all the things that NREA does for rural schools on a pretty small budget. Here's a partial list of the association's efforts on behalf of rural schools and communities:
1. The annual conference
2. The Rural Educator
3. Rural Education News
4. NREA website
5. NREA listserv
6. NREA Teacher of the Year Award
7. National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition
8. NREA Essay contest
9. Research Symposium
10. Stanley A. Brzenzski Memorial Research Award
11. NREA Mini-grant Program
12. NREA Hero Award
13. Edward W. Chance Memorial Dissertation Award
14. NREA Service Award
15. Dr. Joe Newlin Scholarship Fund
16. Grant Writing Institute
17. Legislative Forum
18. Mini-grant program
19. NREA Exemplary Practices/Programs Award
20. Howard A. Dawson Memorial Award
This list doesn't include the important advocacy work that NREA does on behalf of rural school and the encouragement it gives to its affiliates and members. The upshot is that NREA is working hard on behalf of rural schools and deserves considerable credit for those efforts. You can learn more about NREA and its activities at http://www.nrea.net/.
There are NREA two events coming up that are worthy of note. The first is the Grant Writing Institute Hobart Harmon and I are doing on May 6-7, 2005 in Oklahoma City. The Institute is designed specifically for grant seekers from rural schools and communities and provides participants with strategies and tools for developing successful grant proposals. It is designed to give participants the opportunity to apply what they learn toward preparing an actual proposal for a project they would like to have funded. Participants will leave the institute with the preliminary framework of a proposal and a resource notebook. The registration deadline is April 22, 2005.
The second event is the NREA Research Symposium on November 5-6, 2005; at the Radisson Hotel, Downtown; Tucson, Arizona. The NREA Research Symposium will precede the 97th Annual NREA Convention, which is scheduled on November 7-9, 2005. NREA is returning to a format in which research sessions are held prior to the regular conference giving participants an opportunity to engage in substantive conversations about rural education research. The deadline for submitting proposals is May 1, 2005.
The bottom line is that an NREA membership is a good investment. Let Executive Director Bob Mooneyham and the Executive Committee know how much you appreciate their efforts.
The antithesis of the USDE is the National Rural Education Association. I had never really thought about all the things that NREA does for rural schools on a pretty small budget. Here's a partial list of the association's efforts on behalf of rural schools and communities:
1. The annual conference
2. The Rural Educator
3. Rural Education News
4. NREA website
5. NREA listserv
6. NREA Teacher of the Year Award
7. National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition
8. NREA Essay contest
9. Research Symposium
10. Stanley A. Brzenzski Memorial Research Award
11. NREA Mini-grant Program
12. NREA Hero Award
13. Edward W. Chance Memorial Dissertation Award
14. NREA Service Award
15. Dr. Joe Newlin Scholarship Fund
16. Grant Writing Institute
17. Legislative Forum
18. Mini-grant program
19. NREA Exemplary Practices/Programs Award
20. Howard A. Dawson Memorial Award
This list doesn't include the important advocacy work that NREA does on behalf of rural school and the encouragement it gives to its affiliates and members. The upshot is that NREA is working hard on behalf of rural schools and deserves considerable credit for those efforts. You can learn more about NREA and its activities at http://www.nrea.net/.
There are NREA two events coming up that are worthy of note. The first is the Grant Writing Institute Hobart Harmon and I are doing on May 6-7, 2005 in Oklahoma City. The Institute is designed specifically for grant seekers from rural schools and communities and provides participants with strategies and tools for developing successful grant proposals. It is designed to give participants the opportunity to apply what they learn toward preparing an actual proposal for a project they would like to have funded. Participants will leave the institute with the preliminary framework of a proposal and a resource notebook. The registration deadline is April 22, 2005.
The second event is the NREA Research Symposium on November 5-6, 2005; at the Radisson Hotel, Downtown; Tucson, Arizona. The NREA Research Symposium will precede the 97th Annual NREA Convention, which is scheduled on November 7-9, 2005. NREA is returning to a format in which research sessions are held prior to the regular conference giving participants an opportunity to engage in substantive conversations about rural education research. The deadline for submitting proposals is May 1, 2005.
The bottom line is that an NREA membership is a good investment. Let Executive Director Bob Mooneyham and the Executive Committee know how much you appreciate their efforts.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
2006 Budget: A Wakeup Call for Rural America
President Bush’s 2006 budget is mostly bad news for rural schools and communities. The good news is that both Republicans and Democrats are stepping up to the plate to fight budget cuts in areas that hurt rural communities. The bad news is that their support will not be enough if rural Americans don’t also step into the batters box.
The big picture is that the President cuts domestic discretionary funding while increasing spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security. On the domestic side, the Department of Education's 2006 budget is $530 million less than it was in 2005. To make these cuts, the President's budget eliminates 48 education programs. These cuts represents about a third of all programs proposed for elimination.
The President can take credit for funding the newly created National Research Center on Rural Education Support. He also level funded the Rural Education Achievement Program at $170.6 million. This move forces me to take back some of what I've said about the administration's commitment to rural schools, but not all of it. REAP is still only funded at about half of what has been authorized. If REAP was fully funded it would represent only 0.5% of the Department of Education's budget. That doesn't seem like a big commitment.
The list of 48 programs targeted for elimination by the Department of Education is too long to report here, but you can get it on the Departments website. Almost all of them help rural schools in some way and it will be interesting to see which ones survive. At least one program targeted for elimination is supposed to serve rural schools but its loss would probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of rural educators. Whether or not it or any of the other 47 programs survives will depend on whether some lawmaker is willing to expend political capital to save it.
It's also important to put the Department of Education's budget into the larger context of how the rest of the budget affects rural communities and their schools. Not too well according to Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). He identifies some of the other budget cuts that will hurt rural Americans:
• a 24% cut in grants for rural water and wastewater projects.
• a $40 million cut in Rural Business Enterprise grants.
• a 34% cut in broadband loan assistance.
• more than a 60% ($24.5 million) reduction in value-added grants to farmer-owned businesses.
• a $79 million reduction in the funding available for the Rural Business Investment Program.
• the Rural Community Development Initiative cut $6 million.
• the Community Facility Economic Impact Initiative Grants cut $18 million.
• the High Energy Cost Grants cut $28 million.
• a 30 percent, or $7 million, cut in grant program to fund childcare centers, fire trucks and community buildings.
• a $24 million cut in the Rural Housing and Economic Development program.
But it's Representative John Peterson (R-Pennsylvania) who, as Howard Cosell used to say, tells it like it is, "those who are currently advocating these draconian cuts would not be in office today if it weren't for rural America. These cuts disproportionately target essential programs in rural communities while turning a blind eye to the wasteful spending that is rampant in many big cities across the country. In our effort to cut the federal deficit, we should not erode progress that has been made in rural America by slashing already-strapped programs that fund rural health care, technical education, economic development, and other job-sustaining initiatives"
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) joins in, “this should be a wake up call to the heartland of this country – many of whom supported President Bush’s re-election. These programs have huge impacts on the quality of life in our rural communities. From his recent proposal to privatize Social Security, to these devastating cuts in his budget– the President has made it abundantly clear that he’s going after working families in rural America. His approach is not balanced and I intend to fight these cuts all the way.”
It's morning rural America. Stop hitting the snooze button.
The big picture is that the President cuts domestic discretionary funding while increasing spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security. On the domestic side, the Department of Education's 2006 budget is $530 million less than it was in 2005. To make these cuts, the President's budget eliminates 48 education programs. These cuts represents about a third of all programs proposed for elimination.
The President can take credit for funding the newly created National Research Center on Rural Education Support. He also level funded the Rural Education Achievement Program at $170.6 million. This move forces me to take back some of what I've said about the administration's commitment to rural schools, but not all of it. REAP is still only funded at about half of what has been authorized. If REAP was fully funded it would represent only 0.5% of the Department of Education's budget. That doesn't seem like a big commitment.
The list of 48 programs targeted for elimination by the Department of Education is too long to report here, but you can get it on the Departments website. Almost all of them help rural schools in some way and it will be interesting to see which ones survive. At least one program targeted for elimination is supposed to serve rural schools but its loss would probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of rural educators. Whether or not it or any of the other 47 programs survives will depend on whether some lawmaker is willing to expend political capital to save it.
It's also important to put the Department of Education's budget into the larger context of how the rest of the budget affects rural communities and their schools. Not too well according to Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). He identifies some of the other budget cuts that will hurt rural Americans:
• a 24% cut in grants for rural water and wastewater projects.
• a $40 million cut in Rural Business Enterprise grants.
• a 34% cut in broadband loan assistance.
• more than a 60% ($24.5 million) reduction in value-added grants to farmer-owned businesses.
• a $79 million reduction in the funding available for the Rural Business Investment Program.
• the Rural Community Development Initiative cut $6 million.
• the Community Facility Economic Impact Initiative Grants cut $18 million.
• the High Energy Cost Grants cut $28 million.
• a 30 percent, or $7 million, cut in grant program to fund childcare centers, fire trucks and community buildings.
• a $24 million cut in the Rural Housing and Economic Development program.
But it's Representative John Peterson (R-Pennsylvania) who, as Howard Cosell used to say, tells it like it is, "those who are currently advocating these draconian cuts would not be in office today if it weren't for rural America. These cuts disproportionately target essential programs in rural communities while turning a blind eye to the wasteful spending that is rampant in many big cities across the country. In our effort to cut the federal deficit, we should not erode progress that has been made in rural America by slashing already-strapped programs that fund rural health care, technical education, economic development, and other job-sustaining initiatives"
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) joins in, “this should be a wake up call to the heartland of this country – many of whom supported President Bush’s re-election. These programs have huge impacts on the quality of life in our rural communities. From his recent proposal to privatize Social Security, to these devastating cuts in his budget– the President has made it abundantly clear that he’s going after working families in rural America. His approach is not balanced and I intend to fight these cuts all the way.”
It's morning rural America. Stop hitting the snooze button.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Reforming the Rural Education Task Force
A February 2, 2005 Education Week article sheds new light on the ineffectiveness of the U.S. Department of Education's Rural Education Task Force. Author Alan Richard presents a balanced report on the task force giving voice to both critics and department spokesman. The problem for the department is that the more we learn about the task force, the surer we are that the task force is a waste of time.
The main weakness of the Rural Education Task Force is that is was created in an organizational culture that treats rural schools as though they are small, city schools. There is no recognition by department leaders that rural schools and communities are different. Nor do they realize that the department must change the way it works with rural schools. Secretary Margaret Spellings can do six things to address this problem.
(1) Create the expectation that the department will no longer treat rural schools like miniature urban schools and will work to address the unique problems facing rural schools.
(2) Reconstitute the Rural Education Task Force and name David Dunn chair. Putting your chief of staff in charge will raise the visibility and expectations of the group. A shortcoming of the current task force is that there isn't a high-ranking official who can provide some clout to its efforts.
(3) Give the Rural Education Task Force one year to publish a report outlining how the department will become more responsive to the needs of rural schools. Direct the task force to work with colleagues in other departments (e.g., Agriculture, Health & Human Services).
(4) In support of #2, order every agency and office in the Department of Education to develop and implement plans to change they way they operate to better serve rural schools. Emphasize that the status quo is unacceptable. Have agencies and offices provide this information to the Rural Education Task Force to incorporate into their report.
(5) A year after you've given the Rural Education Task Force it's task, hold a rural education summit where you release the task force's report and kick off a new era of responsiveness to the needs of rural schools and communities.
(6) Disband the task force and thank the members for their service. In its place, create a national advisory board that holds the department accountable for serving the educational needs of rural communities.
Improving the Department of Education's responsiveness to rural issues has to start some place and this is as good as any. It can be achieved if Secretary Spellings makes it a priority. She might want to consult with former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson for advice since he lead a similar effort in that department a few years ago.
The main weakness of the Rural Education Task Force is that is was created in an organizational culture that treats rural schools as though they are small, city schools. There is no recognition by department leaders that rural schools and communities are different. Nor do they realize that the department must change the way it works with rural schools. Secretary Margaret Spellings can do six things to address this problem.
(1) Create the expectation that the department will no longer treat rural schools like miniature urban schools and will work to address the unique problems facing rural schools.
(2) Reconstitute the Rural Education Task Force and name David Dunn chair. Putting your chief of staff in charge will raise the visibility and expectations of the group. A shortcoming of the current task force is that there isn't a high-ranking official who can provide some clout to its efforts.
(3) Give the Rural Education Task Force one year to publish a report outlining how the department will become more responsive to the needs of rural schools. Direct the task force to work with colleagues in other departments (e.g., Agriculture, Health & Human Services).
(4) In support of #2, order every agency and office in the Department of Education to develop and implement plans to change they way they operate to better serve rural schools. Emphasize that the status quo is unacceptable. Have agencies and offices provide this information to the Rural Education Task Force to incorporate into their report.
(5) A year after you've given the Rural Education Task Force it's task, hold a rural education summit where you release the task force's report and kick off a new era of responsiveness to the needs of rural schools and communities.
(6) Disband the task force and thank the members for their service. In its place, create a national advisory board that holds the department accountable for serving the educational needs of rural communities.
Improving the Department of Education's responsiveness to rural issues has to start some place and this is as good as any. It can be achieved if Secretary Spellings makes it a priority. She might want to consult with former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson for advice since he lead a similar effort in that department a few years ago.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Traditional School Calendar: FYI, Not Our Fault!
One of the most enduring misconceptions about American education is that the traditional school calendar is result of practices arising from 19th century rural America. It has been repeated so often that it is has become almost a cliché. Take for example a December 1, 2004 Education Week Commentary by Jennifer Davis and David Farbman: "The conventional school year of 180 six-hour days with a long summer vacation that exists today was developed chiefly to accommodate the labor needs of 19th-century farmers. Yet, at the close of 2004, this schedule is still the norm."
A funny thing about that statement is that you never hear a farmer say it. Why? Because it's not true! If you were going to develop a school schedule that accommodates the labor needs of farmers, you would have vacations in the spring when you plant the crops and in the fall when you harvest the crops.
So how did the traditional school calendar come into being? According to Kenneth M. Gold author of "Schools In: The History of Summer Education in American Public Schools," the long summer vacation is actually the result of an urban society. It turns out that it gets really hot in cities in the summer months. Before air conditioning was invented, spending summers in places like New York City was pretty unbearable. The best option for beating the heat was to get out of the city and head north, to the mountains, or the ocean. Hence, the summer vacation was born!
Why does the agrarian society myth still prevail? One reason is that fewer and fewer people come from agricultural backgrounds and have no background knowledge upon which to know the statement is false. Another reason is that their urban counterparts have long considered rural people as being backward and inferior. Don’t believe it? Look up the origins of the word villain sometime. The traditional calendar myth reaffirms people's perceptions of rural people.
Keep those emails coming.
A funny thing about that statement is that you never hear a farmer say it. Why? Because it's not true! If you were going to develop a school schedule that accommodates the labor needs of farmers, you would have vacations in the spring when you plant the crops and in the fall when you harvest the crops.
So how did the traditional school calendar come into being? According to Kenneth M. Gold author of "Schools In: The History of Summer Education in American Public Schools," the long summer vacation is actually the result of an urban society. It turns out that it gets really hot in cities in the summer months. Before air conditioning was invented, spending summers in places like New York City was pretty unbearable. The best option for beating the heat was to get out of the city and head north, to the mountains, or the ocean. Hence, the summer vacation was born!
Why does the agrarian society myth still prevail? One reason is that fewer and fewer people come from agricultural backgrounds and have no background knowledge upon which to know the statement is false. Another reason is that their urban counterparts have long considered rural people as being backward and inferior. Don’t believe it? Look up the origins of the word villain sometime. The traditional calendar myth reaffirms people's perceptions of rural people.
Keep those emails coming.
Friday, January 14, 2005
The Golden Rule
A few years ago I interviewed a husband and wife from a rural community in eastern Colorado. At the end of the interview I asked them if there was anything they wanted to add that they hadn't gotten to talk about. Their response was "tell them not to mess with our school." They being the state legislature and the Colorado Department of Education.
For many people it's hard to understand the feeling of ownership that rural people often feel toward their school and the desire not to have their school messed with. This feeling is a result of people investing tremendous time and energy in the school. Often times rural schools have been attended by multiple generations of the same family. This is not a common experience for most people.
The problem with this sentiment is the Golden Rural: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Put more succinctly and more accurately, whoever has the gold rules.
State governments have had to take on a greater share of public school funding in order to make the funding formulas more equitable. As states have provided increasing proportions of school budgets, they have also increased the expectations for schools.
States face the same issue. The federal government can't force them to implement the provisions of No Child Left Behind, but if a state wants federal money it has to implement provisions of the law.
Although we might like to believe otherwise, it's a good thing that state and federal governments have expectations for how public funds are expended. The public should not only expect accountability for how public schools use resources, they should demand it. This mean that state legislatures are going to be messing with rural schools for a long time to come.
For many people it's hard to understand the feeling of ownership that rural people often feel toward their school and the desire not to have their school messed with. This feeling is a result of people investing tremendous time and energy in the school. Often times rural schools have been attended by multiple generations of the same family. This is not a common experience for most people.
The problem with this sentiment is the Golden Rural: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Put more succinctly and more accurately, whoever has the gold rules.
State governments have had to take on a greater share of public school funding in order to make the funding formulas more equitable. As states have provided increasing proportions of school budgets, they have also increased the expectations for schools.
States face the same issue. The federal government can't force them to implement the provisions of No Child Left Behind, but if a state wants federal money it has to implement provisions of the law.
Although we might like to believe otherwise, it's a good thing that state and federal governments have expectations for how public funds are expended. The public should not only expect accountability for how public schools use resources, they should demand it. This mean that state legislatures are going to be messing with rural schools for a long time to come.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Rural Education Task Force
One of the most informative pieces you can read about the U.S. Department of Education’s commitment to helping rural schools is in Appendix II of the Government Accountability’s report “No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts.” In the appendix, Deputy Secretary Eugene W. Hickok responds to the report by identifying the activities the department had undertaken to assist small rural school districts.
One small item in Secretary Hickok’s response is mention of the department’s rural education task force. I’ve heard rumors of a rural education task force but have never seen anything from it. I did a search of the department’s website to get some information.
First I found mention of it in a Department of Education press release from April 2, 2003. As part of another press conference, Secretary Rod Paige announced the “formation of a high-level task force within the Department to help identify challenges faced by states and school districts and to work with the caucus on finding solutions.”
Another mention of the rural education task force is on a page from the Office of the Deputy Secretary. It's essentially the same information but does add that “the efforts of the task force will include the challenges and opportunities facing rural education and the promising prospects made available through the effective use of state-of-the-art technology.”
The one accomplishment I can find is a virtual town-hall meeting on how rural schools can use technology to meet the requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act. Otherwise it seems that the principle activity of the rural education task force is to ask rural parents, educators and citizens to tell them about the challenges facing rural schools.
Not finding much information, I contacted the department to find out how I could learn more about the task force’s work. I was referred to the web page from the Office of Deputy Secretary that I had already found.
It’s been almost two years and the only tangible thing the Rural Education Task Force has accomplished is a virtual town hall meeting. The purpose of a task force is to accomplish a task! What are these guys doing? If you know, send me an email.
One small item in Secretary Hickok’s response is mention of the department’s rural education task force. I’ve heard rumors of a rural education task force but have never seen anything from it. I did a search of the department’s website to get some information.
First I found mention of it in a Department of Education press release from April 2, 2003. As part of another press conference, Secretary Rod Paige announced the “formation of a high-level task force within the Department to help identify challenges faced by states and school districts and to work with the caucus on finding solutions.”
Another mention of the rural education task force is on a page from the Office of the Deputy Secretary. It's essentially the same information but does add that “the efforts of the task force will include the challenges and opportunities facing rural education and the promising prospects made available through the effective use of state-of-the-art technology.”
The one accomplishment I can find is a virtual town-hall meeting on how rural schools can use technology to meet the requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act. Otherwise it seems that the principle activity of the rural education task force is to ask rural parents, educators and citizens to tell them about the challenges facing rural schools.
Not finding much information, I contacted the department to find out how I could learn more about the task force’s work. I was referred to the web page from the Office of Deputy Secretary that I had already found.
It’s been almost two years and the only tangible thing the Rural Education Task Force has accomplished is a virtual town hall meeting. The purpose of a task force is to accomplish a task! What are these guys doing? If you know, send me an email.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Some Good News for Rural Ed
Rural schools got some good news last week when Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming assumed the chairmanship of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Senator Enzi has shown a great interest in rural schools and has put his money where is mouth is. In 2003, Mr. Enzi was the prime force behind the establishment of the bi-partisan Senate Rural Education Caucus, which he co-chaired with Susan Collins (R-ME), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and John Edwards (D-NC). He was also behind the legislation creating the National Research Center on Rural Education Support.
Mr. Enzi comes by his interest in rural education earnestly. Wyoming has 5.1 people per square miles, but he comes from Wyoming's fourth largest city, Gillette—population 22,000.
If you see Senator Enzi, tell him thanks!
Mr. Enzi comes by his interest in rural education earnestly. Wyoming has 5.1 people per square miles, but he comes from Wyoming's fourth largest city, Gillette—population 22,000.
If you see Senator Enzi, tell him thanks!
Monday, January 10, 2005
Why A Rural Education Blog?
After the euphoria of putting my first post on Mr. Rural ED subsided (about 30 seconds), a new emotion emerged: panic. What was I thinking setting up a blog where readers expect you to write something interesting? Why would anyone want to read commentary on rural education issues? What am I going to write about next? My mind was paralyzed with fear.
The panic lasted until the next morning's shower when I came up with three topics I wanted to write about and that at least a few people might be interested in. Unfortunately this post isn't about one of those but is about why the world needs a rural education blog.
The short explanation is that there are a lot of things about rural education I would like to say and that I think need to be said. I think the federal government isn't doing enough for rural schools. I think some folks are too willing to accept the periodic crumbs the federal government throws to rural schools because they don't realize they deserve more. I think rural schools should get their fair share—no more, no less.
I think every rural school can be great, but many are mediocre. I think the problems facing rural schools are complex and require multifaceted solutions. I think the following adage is true: "For every problem there is a simple solution, that is wrong."
I think No Child Left Behind is designed to address urban issues and is ill suited to rural communities. I think the Rural Education Achievement Program is a good program but isn't enough. I don't think a community of 24,000 is rural.
I think the role of public schools is to serve the pubic. I think most educators believe the role of public schools is to serve the individual student. I think those people need to go back and take an American Government class.
I think we need a thoughtful discussion about what rural schools should, can, and need to become. I don't think that discussion is going to happen unless people are willing to tackle the tough questions. I don't think that discussion will take place if the federal government or some other organization is in charge of it.
This blog is my contribution to that discussion.
The panic lasted until the next morning's shower when I came up with three topics I wanted to write about and that at least a few people might be interested in. Unfortunately this post isn't about one of those but is about why the world needs a rural education blog.
The short explanation is that there are a lot of things about rural education I would like to say and that I think need to be said. I think the federal government isn't doing enough for rural schools. I think some folks are too willing to accept the periodic crumbs the federal government throws to rural schools because they don't realize they deserve more. I think rural schools should get their fair share—no more, no less.
I think every rural school can be great, but many are mediocre. I think the problems facing rural schools are complex and require multifaceted solutions. I think the following adage is true: "For every problem there is a simple solution, that is wrong."
I think No Child Left Behind is designed to address urban issues and is ill suited to rural communities. I think the Rural Education Achievement Program is a good program but isn't enough. I don't think a community of 24,000 is rural.
I think the role of public schools is to serve the pubic. I think most educators believe the role of public schools is to serve the individual student. I think those people need to go back and take an American Government class.
I think we need a thoughtful discussion about what rural schools should, can, and need to become. I don't think that discussion is going to happen unless people are willing to tackle the tough questions. I don't think that discussion will take place if the federal government or some other organization is in charge of it.
This blog is my contribution to that discussion.
Friday, January 07, 2005
2004 Rural Education Awards
I'm starting this blog off with a look back at last year with my 2004 Rural Education Awards. It's never too late to recognize outstanding achievement.
BEST RURAL EDUCATION REPORT: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
In September, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found the U.S. Department of Education had not done enough to help small rural school districts address the unique challenges they face in improving student achievement. The Department responded with a statement that the GAO probably didn’t know about all the things they had done for rural schools. For example, Deputy Secretary Eugene W. Hickok noted that the department's Teacher-to-Teacher initiative was planning four Saturday workshops, two of which would be held in rural areas. According to the department's website those four sites were Bentonville, Arkansas; Wheeling, West Virginia; Redmond, Washington; and Madison, Wisconsin. Which are the two rural sites? Using the National Center for Education Statistics' Public School District Locator we learn that none are. I think I see the problem. The department thinks that any community smaller than a central city is rural. This explains some things. {See the Best New Rural Education Research Center Award for a related item.)
BEST MEDIUM REASSIGNMENT: JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN RURAL EDUCATION
Hats off to Ted Coladarci and Amy Cates for making the transition of the "Journal of Research in Rural Education" from a print to online journal smooth and seemingly flawless. The pipeline for getting rural education research published is now bigger and more easily accessible to those in the field. Articles are free (my favorite kind!) and past issues are available free of charge online as pdf files. Subscribers to the JRRE-L newsletter (also free!) receive email notices when new articles go online. After Nancy Jenning's success as JRRE Book Review Editor, I tried to get Ted to name me as sports editor but he wouldn't go for it. Nancy, on the other hand, thought it was a wonderful idea. Thanks Nancy!
BEST NEW RURAL EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTER:
On September 10, the Institute of Education Sciences awarded a five-year grant to establish the National Research Center on Rural Education Support, based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the new center's director Thomas W. Farmer, the center will examine students’ academic, behavioral, and social development and find ways to help educators teach rural students more effectively. Some were surprised by the selection because Mr. Farmer was not known among rural education scholars. I didn't find it surprising given the U.S. Department of Education's past record with rural education. It is surprising, however, that the Government Accountability Office (see the Best Rural Education Report Award) had to recommend to the department that the new center should "address the unique challenges small rural districts face." In spite of the Department of Education's assurances, the GAO could find "no indication that the center would direct any research to specifically focus on challenges and strategies applicable to small, isolated rural districts." On second thought, perhaps it's not that surprising.
BEST USE OF RURAL EDUCATION IN A CAMPAIGN: BUSH CHENEY
Who else could I pick? They won thanks in part to rural voters many of whom must be satisfied with No Child Left Behind. The Kerry Edwards campaign came in a close second for this award thanks to John Edwards’ support of rural schools and the Senate Rural School Caucus. The tipping point was the Bush Administration’s efforts on behalf of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), which the campaign highlighted on its website. Some might complain that the president’s budgets have either under funded the program or zeroed it out completely and so he shouldn't get credit for it. To those I say, what are you going to believe, President Bush's budget requests or a campaign website?
Here's to a great 2005! Keep those emails coming.
BEST RURAL EDUCATION REPORT: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
In September, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found the U.S. Department of Education had not done enough to help small rural school districts address the unique challenges they face in improving student achievement. The Department responded with a statement that the GAO probably didn’t know about all the things they had done for rural schools. For example, Deputy Secretary Eugene W. Hickok noted that the department's Teacher-to-Teacher initiative was planning four Saturday workshops, two of which would be held in rural areas. According to the department's website those four sites were Bentonville, Arkansas; Wheeling, West Virginia; Redmond, Washington; and Madison, Wisconsin. Which are the two rural sites? Using the National Center for Education Statistics' Public School District Locator we learn that none are. I think I see the problem. The department thinks that any community smaller than a central city is rural. This explains some things. {See the Best New Rural Education Research Center Award for a related item.)
BEST MEDIUM REASSIGNMENT: JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN RURAL EDUCATION
Hats off to Ted Coladarci and Amy Cates for making the transition of the "Journal of Research in Rural Education" from a print to online journal smooth and seemingly flawless. The pipeline for getting rural education research published is now bigger and more easily accessible to those in the field. Articles are free (my favorite kind!) and past issues are available free of charge online as pdf files. Subscribers to the JRRE-L newsletter (also free!) receive email notices when new articles go online. After Nancy Jenning's success as JRRE Book Review Editor, I tried to get Ted to name me as sports editor but he wouldn't go for it. Nancy, on the other hand, thought it was a wonderful idea. Thanks Nancy!
BEST NEW RURAL EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTER:
On September 10, the Institute of Education Sciences awarded a five-year grant to establish the National Research Center on Rural Education Support, based at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the new center's director Thomas W. Farmer, the center will examine students’ academic, behavioral, and social development and find ways to help educators teach rural students more effectively. Some were surprised by the selection because Mr. Farmer was not known among rural education scholars. I didn't find it surprising given the U.S. Department of Education's past record with rural education. It is surprising, however, that the Government Accountability Office (see the Best Rural Education Report Award) had to recommend to the department that the new center should "address the unique challenges small rural districts face." In spite of the Department of Education's assurances, the GAO could find "no indication that the center would direct any research to specifically focus on challenges and strategies applicable to small, isolated rural districts." On second thought, perhaps it's not that surprising.
BEST USE OF RURAL EDUCATION IN A CAMPAIGN: BUSH CHENEY
Who else could I pick? They won thanks in part to rural voters many of whom must be satisfied with No Child Left Behind. The Kerry Edwards campaign came in a close second for this award thanks to John Edwards’ support of rural schools and the Senate Rural School Caucus. The tipping point was the Bush Administration’s efforts on behalf of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), which the campaign highlighted on its website. Some might complain that the president’s budgets have either under funded the program or zeroed it out completely and so he shouldn't get credit for it. To those I say, what are you going to believe, President Bush's budget requests or a campaign website?
Here's to a great 2005! Keep those emails coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
