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!
Thursday, May 26, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
