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!