make rural schools a priority

8/6/2019 Make Rural Schools a Priority

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/make-rural-schools-a-priority 1/9

1 Center or American Progress | Make Rural Schools a Priority

Make Rural Schools a Priority

Considerations for Reauthorizing the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act

Jeremy Ayers August 2011

Introduction and summary

Te public usually hinks o large urban schools when i considers reorms o he

American educaion sysem. Bu rural sudens accoun or a large and growing segmeno he school-age populaion, and heir needs have oo oen been overlooked in school

improvemen eors. Policymakers and he public mus make rural educaion a prioriy

i he naion as a whole is o make marked gains in suden oucomes.

One in ve sudens atends a rural school, and more han hal o all school disrics and

one-hird o all public schools are in rural areas.1 Rural suden enrollmen grew 15 per-

cen beween 2002 and 2005, an increase o 1.3 million sudens. Ta compares o only

1 percen growh in naionwide enrollmen during he same ime period.2

Deniions o “rural” vary. Te U.S. Census Bureau denes rural areas by heirgeographic disance rom urban ceners, and as communiies ha conain ewer han

2,500 people.3 Te Deparmen o Educaion denes rural schools as hose locaed in

disrics wih ewer han 600 sudens.4 Some rural educaion advocaes ideniy rural

schools as hose residing in communiies wih ewer han 2,500 residens, ollowing

he Census classicaion, bu also argue or including schools in owns up o 25,000

people.5 Te exac deniion maters less han he realizaion ha a large number

o rural schools exis and ace unique challenges and opporuniies. Ten here are

“ronier” schools ha may have only dozens o sudens, locaed in very remoe or

isolaed pars o he counry such as Alaska, Appalachia, he prairies o he Plains

saes, and he Mounain Wes.

Many rural areas o he counry conain concenraed povery, jus as urban areas do.6

Rural schools ace paricular diculy in recruiing and reaining eachers and prin-

cipals. Rural schools coninue o lag behind ohers in Inerne access, and rural high

schools are no able o provide advanced coursework such as AP and IB classes in he

way more urban and suburban areas can.7 Research on rural educaion has, a imes,




been underunded or no encouraged.8 And, overall, rural areas have experienced

shrinking ax bases, shiing local economies, and brain drain among young people who

move o more urban areas aer high school graduaion.9

A he same ime, rural schools possess unique srenghs and opporuniies. Tey

usually enjoy srong communiy suppor, including opporuniies or sudens o

connec direcly wih uure employers. Oen, rural schools are a he oreron inusing disance echnology o provide educaional services.

Unorunaely, ederal educaion eors do no always consider he issues o rural

sudens and schools in ways hey could, despie heir unique challenges. A ew

examples sand ou.

Funding. ile I o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac, or ESEA, is he larges

ederal unding sream designed o suppor educaional services or schools wih con-

cenraions o low-income sudens. wo o ile I’s our complex ormulas, however,

unairly seer more unds o large disrics, despie some disrics’ comparaively lowerconcenraion o povery.10 And some evidence exiss ha rural high schools receive

less unding han high schools in suburban or urban areas due o he ways in which high

schools can be unded in ile I allocaions.11

Competitive grants. Some ederal educaion programs are compeiive grans designed

o reward saes and disrics ha bes mee esablished crieria. Compeiive unds can

encourage reorm and reward granees who make valuable changes. Bu some compei-

ive grans may make i more dicul or rural disrics o compee. For example, he

rs round o he Invesing in Innovaion Fund compeiion asked applicans o dem-

onsrae how much heir innovaive pracices would cos o scale up o serve 100,000 o500,000 o 1 million sudens.12 Rural disrics—and even whole saes—do no have

his many sudens, capaciy o serve hem i hey did, or abiliy o esimae such a cos

in heir rural conex. For example, Monana only has 140,000 sudens saewide. Plus,

or any compeiion, many rural disrics call on he principal or superinenden o wrie

a gran applicaion while large disrics may have he resources o employ ull-ime gran

wriers. Tereore, i may make sense o ake his ino accoun when reviewing gran

applicaions rom rural disrics.13

Congress has he opporuniy o move orward on educaion reorm by reauhorizing

ESEA o ensure all children achieve heir greaes poenial. ESEA is he larges and

mos signican ederal educaion law supporing public schools. Te law, currenly

known as No Child Le Behind, was due o be reauhorized in 2007. Congress now

has he opporuniy o x numerous faws in NCLB and o ensure he needs o rural

sudens and schools are me.




Congress should keep he ollowing consideraions in mind so ha ederal educaion

law beter addresses he needs o rural sudens and schools:

1. Ensure rural schools and disrics have air chances o receive and compee or ederal

educaion unds

2. Make school-based wraparound services available o rural sudens in recogniion o

he special circumsances and someimes limied capaciy o rural schools3. Ensure opions are available o rural disrics or he successul urnaround o low-

perorming schools

4. Enhance suppors or building he eacher and principal workorce or rural schools

Tese poins are by no means exhausive. Ohers have done imporan work on how o

improve rural educaion. We oer here a ew key consideraions or how a new ESEA

can improve he way ederal programs and policies ser ve rural ineress.14

Make federal education funding more fair and efficient for rural students

ile I, Par A o ESEA, is he larges program operaed by he U.S. Deparmen o

Educaion. Congress appropriaed $14.46 billion or ile I in scal year 2011. Te

program reaches 95 percen o school disrics naionwide, and is goal is o help

disrics wih concenraions o children rom low-income amilies o expand and

improve heir educaional programs. Over ime, ile I’s goal has evolved o ensure

an equiable educaion or disadvanaged sudens and o bolser economic compei-

iveness by promoing higher academic achievemen. Ye, ile I has some glaring

problems. Due o cumbersome allocaion ormulas, some saes and disrics receivea disproporionae amoun o money while ohers do no receive heir air share. Te

resul is ha small disrics and hose serv ing medium-sized ciies, including many

serving high concenraions o povery, receive less proporional unding han dis-

rics wih larger numbers o sudens.

Federal recommendation

Congress should streamline the four Title I formulas into a single, fairer formula.

Te Deparmen o Educaion applies our ormulas o deermine ile I grans o

disrics: Basic, Concenraion, argeed, and Educaion Incenive Finance Grans.

Because he ormulas are needlessly complex, sae agencies exhaus capaciy

re-calculaing grans o disrics ha remain oblivious o he number o ormulas.

Tereore, we propose consolidaing he our ile I ormulas ino one.




Our proposal uses he eligibiliy crieria o argeed Grans, which sipulaes ha eligi-

ble disrics mus ser ve a leas 10 low-income children represening a leas 5 percen o

all children served by he disric. In addiion, we recommend seting he minimum sae

allocaion o a level ied o he xed coss o operaing public schools. Lasly we propose

ha he auhorized amoun or each disric would be he produc o our acors:

• An amoun o $2,250, which pus he produc in dollar erms and deermines anauhorized oal

• A rescaled weighed-cos acor based on sae and local values on he Deparmen o

Educaion’s Comparable Wage Index • A scal-eor acor using a renemen o he measure used by he curren Educaion

Finance Incenive Gran ormula• A weighed coun o qualiying children, employing only he concenraion-based

weighing scale in he curren argeed gran ormula

Te nal poin is imporan because a concenraion-based weighing scheme is air

o small and large disrics alike. Furhermore, because esimaes o he number o qualiying children served by small disrics are volaile, replacing he raw esimae wih

a hree-year running average would make allocaions o small disrics more sable.

Changing unding ormulas would be challenging o implemen and some saes and

disrics may gain unds while ohers do no. We recommend creaing a emporary

equiy und o help implemen ormula changes and o lessen he impac or disrics

acing a lower allocaion. Disrics would receive equiy unds based on he old ormulas

or allocaions gradually approaching higher levels due o he new ormula.

Proposed legislation

Te All Children are Equal Ac inroduced by Reps. Glenn Tompson (R-PA) and

G.K. Butereld (D-NC) would weaken he size advanage buil ino he ile I

ormulas, hus soening he blow o low-income children in small- and medium-

sized disrics. Te bill’s approach is sraighorward. I would simply lower each o

he weighs associaed wih he number-weighing scheme by an amoun equal o 10

percen o is curren value or our consecuive years.

Provide wraparound services for rural students in need

Some sudens come o school wih signican nonacademic challenges ha inerere

wih heir abiliy o learn. Such problems can include healh and denal issues, social or

emoional problems, low levels o paren educaion or involvemen, or lack o beore-

and aer-school opporuniies. Wraparound services, which include physical and men-




al healh care, adul lieracy classes or parens, and ou-o-school ime programming,

ormally address sudens’ nonacademic needs and connec heir services o classroom

aciviies so ha suden achievemen improves.

Te Full-Service Communiy Schools Program is one ederal unding sream ha

provides wraparound services o low-income sudens and can be o paricular value inrural setings where hese services may be scarce and geographically dicul o access.

Ohers include School Improvemen Grans, 21s Cenury Communiy Learning

Ceners, and Promise Neighborhoods.

Communiy schools can become he cener o rural communiies by providing

services or sudens and parens in a cenral and accessible locaion, such as school-

based healh services and aer-school learning, while aduls are oered such hings as

English classes or language learners, job raining, and anipovery assisance.15 Tey

are especially helpul in rural communiies, where sudens are oen unable o ake

advanage o public healh services, ood disribuion, and aer-school enrichmenaciviies because o heir locaion.

Communiy schools can be an economically easible way o reduce he eecs o

povery on a rural child’s academic achievemen. Building operaion coss and

mainenance are lowered by bringing several services in one place, while he join

purchasing o co-locaed services can reduce boh he cos o supplies and he srain

on local resources. Combining services wih a srong academic ocus may hold he

greaes poenial or addressing rural educaion’s challenges and ensuring ha every

child has an equal opporuniy o succeed.

Federal recommendations

Increase funding for the Full Service Community Schools Program and Promise

Neighborhoods through a streamlined wraparound services program. As Congress

moves o reauhorize ESEA, i should auhorize a program o provide comprehensive

wraparound services. Currenly, wo ederal programs ha suppor wraparound ser-

vices—Promise Neighborhoods and Full-Service Communiy Schools—have signi-

can areas o overlap ha indicae poenial or consolidaion.16

Provide incentives for providing wraparound services in the School Improvement

Grant program and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Tese ederal programs

currenly allow ederal unds o be used o provide wraparound services and should

coninue o do so.





Te Full Service Communiy Schools Ac, sponsored by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and

Tad Cochran (R-MS) and Rep. Seny Hoyer (D-MD), auhorizes grans o consoria com-

posed o one or more local educaional agencies and one or more communiy-based,

nonpro, or oher public or privae eniies o assis public elemenary or secondary

schools o uncion as ull-service communiy schools. Te bill would also und sae col-laboraives o suppor he developmen o ull-service communiy school programs.

Te Promise Neighborhoods Ac o 2011, sponsored by Sen. om Harkin (D-IA) and

Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), auhorizes grans o nonpro organizaions parnering

wih local educaion agencies o implemen a comprehensive coninuum o suppors

and services o improve academic and social oucomes o children in disressed

neighborhoods.

Turn around low-performing schools in rural areas

Saes and disrics across he counry are ocusing on urning around he naion’s

lowes-perorming schools. urnaround has proven dicul o do a scale, however,

as well as in some rural and ronier areas. Many disrics inroduce piecemeal reorms

and neglec larger issues o human capial such as how o prepare, recrui, and reain

educaors or work in high-needs schools. Rural disrics in paricular ace diculy in

recruiing and reaining sa, as well as coordinaing resources across large expanses o

erriory in some sparsely populaed ronier areas. Sae laws, policies, and lack o capac-

iy preven sae educaion agencies rom eecively managing or supporing disricurnaround eors.

Sysemic, susained inervenions are needed o break cycles o underperormance. Federal

policy can help by supporing saes and disrics ha commi o eecive urnaround

reorms, paricularly in rural areas where some urnaround sraegies and suppors have

no ye enabled success.17


Target funds to states and districts that have comprehensive plans to recruit and retain

educators for high-needs schools. Te compeiive process o urnaround grans should

be used o encourage disrics o hink more comprehensively abou recruiing and reain-

ing eachers. And saes should be required o show hey are helping rural disrics and

schools mee heir human capial needs in order o receive a gran.




Provide flexibility in the models and strategies used to turn around schools. Disrics

using he ransormaion or urnaround models should use evaluaion measures o

screen he eeciveness o heir sa and make hiring and replacemen decisions accord-

ingly—raher han dismissing a se number or percenage o sa. Disrics should also

have he fexibiliy o ry a model o heir own choosing i hey can demonsrae i has

successully improved suden achievemen.

Encourage grouping of low-performing schools across states. Saes can help ruraldisrics and schools by grouping low-perorming schools ino a cenralized uni or dis-

ric, similar o Louisiana’s Recovery School Disric or ennessee’s Achievemen School

Disric. Such a move could help share resources, spread bes pracices, and conain coss.

Ensure turnaround funds can be used to provide wraparound services. Wraparound

services hrough programs such as ull-service communiy schools have been valuable

resources o rural schools wih concenraed povery. A new ederal urnaround program

should coninue o encourage and allow unds o be used o provide wraparound services.


Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) inroduced a bill in 2011 ha would provide resources and

suppor o saes and disrics ha agree o urn around heir lowes-perorming schools.

Ta bill, he School urnaround and Reward, or SAR, Ac, would boh reward schools

ha make progress and suppor schools in need o dramaic improvemen.

Build the teacher and principal workforce for rural schools

Eecive eachers are criical o raising achievemen and closing longsanding gaps

beween suden subgroups such as low-income sudens and sudens o color. Tereore,

we mus ensure ha all sudens have he srong eachers ha hey need and deserve i

our naion is o remain a global economic leader. In reauhorizing ESEA Congress should

mainain ormula unding ocused on eachers and principals, while increasing compeiive

unding programs ha suppor promising reorms ye ensure rural disrics and schools

can airly compee. Te Cener also believes ha ederal unding should be used more

sraegically o ensure ha all sudens, in all schools, have access o eecive eachers.18


Broaden the current Teacher Incentive Fund to become a new Teacher and Leader

Innovation Fund. A eacher and Leader Innovaion Fund would provide suppor or

saes and disrics o beter rain, recrui, place, evaluae, develop, reward, and reain

eecive educaors or high-needs schools, subjecs, geographic areas, and sudens.

Our proposal would require saes seeking a gran o serve high-needs geographic areas.




Require states to ensure students have equitable access to good teachers, both within

and between school districts. As a requiremen o receiving ile II unds, saes should

monior, repor, and ac on he access sudens have o eecive eachers.19 Saes wih

inequiies beween and wihin disrics mus use ile II unds o redress hose inequi-

ies. Tis would ensure ha rural disrics and schools are no shorchanged in heir

educaor workorce.

Ensure states and districts receiving School Improvement Grants build pipelines of

effective teachers and principals for rural schools. As menioned above, school urn-

around grans have he power o encourage sysemaic approaches o sang rural

schools. For example, Louisiana rains eachers and principals paricularly or heir

rural urnaround schools in order o assis sparsely populaed disrics ha lack he

capaciy o do so. Disrics desiring a ederal gran should demonsrae commimen

o recruiing and reaining educaors or heir sruggling schools, and saes should

ideniy heir role in creaing or incenivizing educaor pipelines or high-needs areas

such as rural and ronier disrics and schools.

Proposed legislation and policies

Te SAR Ac, sponsored by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and summarized above, would

require saes o demonsrae how hey build pipelines o eecive educaors or high-

needs schools and would provide a prioriy o disrics seeking a school urnaround

gran ha have a comprehensive approach o building heir eacher and principal

workorce.

Te Obama adminisraion recommended auhorizing a eacher and Leader Innovaion

Fund in a newly revised ESEA, and i requesed unding or such a program in is FY 2012 budge. No legislaion has been inroduced o dae on his opic, or on he opic o

eacher access. Te Securing eacher Eeciveness, Leaders, Learning, and Resuls, or

SELLAR, Ac does address some o hese proposals. Te SELLAR Ac is sponsored

by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-C) and Scot Brown (R-MA), and he House compan-

ion bill is sponsored by Reps. Susan Davis (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO).

Conclusion

Rural schools consiue a signican proporion o America’s schools and school

disrics. So i is imperaive ha heir needs are aken ino accoun. Te ederal

governmen canno singlehandedly solve every educaional problem, in rural or urban

setings. Bu i can leverage is role in ways—oulined above—ha improve oucomes

or he naion’s sudens in all geographic areas.




Te promise o ederal educaion law is o ensure all sudens have equal access o a high

qualiy educaion. Ta promise canno maerialize i cerain geographic segmens o he

populaions are no equiably served by he educaion sysem. Te ederal governmen

has aken cerain seps o ensure he needs o rural sudens are me, bu more can and

should be done. Reauhorizing ESEA in a way ha beter addresses rural concerns is a

rs and good sep o ake. We sand ready o work wih Congress o reauhorize ederal

educaion law in such a smar, progressive way.

Endnotes

1 Stephen Provasnik and others, “Status o Education in Rural America” (Washington: U.S. Department o Education, 2007). In2003-2004 more than hal o all operating school districts were lo cated in rural areas (56 percent), while 20 percent o districtswere located in suburban areas, 18 percent in towns, and 6 percent in cities (8). U.S. Department o Education, National Center orEducation Statistics, Common Core o Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey” and “Local EducationAgency Universe Survey” (2003–04).

2 Johnson and M. Strange, “Why Rural Matters 2007: The Realities o Rural Education Growth” (Washington: Rural School andCommunity Trust, 2007).

3 “2010 Census Urban and Rural Classication and Urban Area Criteria” available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html (last accessed July 2011).

4 For the purposes o the Small, Rural School Achievement Program, the U.S. Department o Education denes a rural district as alocal educational agency, or LEA, in which the total number o students in average daily attendance at all o the schools served bythe LEA is ewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total popul ation density o ewerthan 10 persons per square mile.

5 Elisabeth Beeson and Marty Strange, “Rural Matters 2003: The Continuing Need or Every State to Take Action on Rural Education”(Washington: Rural School and Community Trust, 2003).

6 Carolyn Rogers, “Rural Children at a Glance, Economic Inormation Bulletin Number 1” (Washington: U.S. Department o Agriculture Economic Research, 2005).

7 See Provasnik and others, “Status o Education in Rural America.”

8 See Topper Sherwood, “Where Has All the Rural G one?: Rural Education Research and Current Federal Reorm” (Washington RuralSchool and Community Trust, 2001).

9 Alliance or Excellent Education, “Current Challenges and Opportunities in Preparing Rural High School Students or Success in

College and Careers: What Federal Policymakers Need to Know” (2010).

10 Raegen Miller, “Secret Recipes Revealed: Demystiying the Title I, Part A Funding Formulas” (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2010) and Rural School and Community Trust, “Title I Weighted Grants Skewed Toward Largest Districts: Per PupilFunding Varies Sharply by District Size” (2007).

11 Alliance or Excellent Education, “Current Challenges and Opportunities.”

12 Oce o Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department o Education, “Applications or New Awards; Investing in InnovationFund,” Federal Register 76 (107) (2011): 32148- 32159.

13 In recognition o such issues, the Department o Education made serving rural areas an absolute priority in the second roundo Investing in Innovation grants. See “New i3 Guidelines Better or Rural Schools” available at http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2717 (last accessed July 2011).

14 For a comprehensive approach to ESEA reauthorization, see Jeremy Ayers and Cynthia Brown, “A Way Forward: A ProgressiveVision or Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ” (Washington: Center or American Progress, 2011).

15 Doris Terry Williams, “The Rural Solution: How Community Schools Can Reinvigorate Rural Education,” (Washington: Center orAmerican Progress, 2010).

16 Theodora Chang, “Maximizing the Promise o Community Schools: Streamlining Wraparound Services or ESEA” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2011).

17 Jeremy Ayers and Melissa Lazarín, “Incentivizing School Turnaround: A Proposal or Reauthorizing the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act” (Washington: Center or American Progress, 2011).

18 Ulrich Boser and Robin Chait, “Advancing Teacher and Principal Efectiveness: Four Recommendations or Reorming theElementary and Secondary Education Act” (Washington: Center or American Progress, 2011).

19 Center or American Progress and The Education Trust, “Essential Elements o Teacher Policy in ESEA: Efectiveness, Fairness, andEvaluation” (2011).

make rural schools a priority

Documents