The Invisibles The Children of Rural Education A web-based based presentation and dialog on rural childhood poverty, diversity, education policy and philanthropic action September 7, 2011 Sponsored by W.K. Kellogg Foundation & Dietel Partners Marty Strange, Policy Director Rural School and Community Trust
Rural School and Community Trust helping rural schools and communities grow better together Capacity building Professional development Place-based learning Research on issues Education organizing and advocacy Rural school innovation 2
Agenda The realities of rural education The changing role of federal education policy Federal education policy and high-poverty rural schools What advocates and philanthropists can do 3
THE REALITIES OF RURAL EDUCATION
Averages can be deceiving Example: The percentage of students of color in rural school districts 5
Concentration of rural childhood poverty 6
Rural 900 Schools are Majority Minority students 59% 41% 7
Student poverty rate Rural 900 Districts compared to major urban school districts 8
Rural school enrollment growth 1.2 million more rural school students within 4 years 9
Rural share of national school enrollment growth 10
Fastest rural growth is among students of color 31% increase in four years 11
Despite increase of need children in rural schools remain invisible Demographic and political minority in all but three states Geographically dispersed population Many small scale political units Statistical averages mask extremes 12
Invisible or not rural matters Our nation s goals are to improve achievement for all and to narrow the gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged groups In order to succeed, we must make the challenges facing rural schools and students visible and we must address them 13
Characteristically rural challenges Concentrated poverty in dispersed locales Small scale means higher cost High transportation costs Low levels of adult education Very little public transportation Minimal public facilities Lagging telecommunication infrastructure Poor access to health care and social services Undiversified local economies with low-paying, low-skill jobs 14
Critical challenge: Hiring quality teachers Teachers and leaders are professionally and personally isolated -- often the most highly educated people in the community Limited choices for housing, entertainment, and social networks, especially a factor for younger teachers Salaries are lower, benefits trimmer, fewer summer job opportunities Far fewer jobs for spouses in local labor markets 15
Critical challenge: Retaining quality teachers Small schools, small faculties more course preparations are therefore required of each teacher More course preparations mean teachers must have and maintain multiple certifications Fewer nearby professional development opportunities Fewer aides, special services providers, and support personnel More pressure for teachers and leaders to take on co-curricular assignments 16
Characteristically rural school assets Greater participation -- people are needed Kids experience safety and belonging Good teaching methods are easier to use Teachers feel better about their work; instruction can be individualized Less tracking and higher expectations Multi-age classes promote personalized learning and positive social skills Smaller districts mean less bureaucracy Wider grade spans mean fewer transitions to new schools Source: Jimerson, Lorna, Ed.D. The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools. Rural School and Community Trust. August 2006. 17
THE CHANGING ROLE OF FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICIES
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Centerpiece - Title 1 $14.5 billion in supplemental funding for the education of disadvantaged children ESEA has been entitlement funding if a school district was eligible, it received the money based on a fixed formula Federal funding has been passive 19
No Child Left Behind - 2002 Major shift in the policy -- from entitlement to conditional entitlement States now must adopt education accountability policies that affect all schools and children Show adequate yearly progress toward 100% proficiency Use universal standardized testing Create sanctions for poor performing schools Federal funding now activist in pushing reform agenda on states 20
Federal influence over state policy increases with competitive grants To be eligible for a Race to the Top grant, states had to demonstrate certain policy commitments: Adopting international standards and assessments Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals Building data systems that measure student success and improve teaching Turning around lowest-performing schools 21
The Current Battleground Smaller or larger federal role in funding accountability, standards, curriculum? More or less flexibility in the use of targeted federal funds? What kind of accountability? Focus on lowest performing schools? Charter schools funding and accountability? Teacher pay linked to student performance? 22
No matter the ultimate direction policy choices must take into account schools characteristically rural challenges and assets Our invisible children need visibility and voice 23
FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY AND HIGH-POVERTY RURAL SCHOOLS
Three main issues to address Inequities in Title I formula Uneven playing field in competitive grants Weak rural education research infrastructure 25
Inequities in the Title I Formula The formula for distributing Title I funds has included a weighting system designed to artificially increase the eligible student count in higher poverty districts in order to increase the share of funds going to them Good intention, many bad unintended consequences 26
The baffling variation Title I Per-Pupil funding from State-to-State (2008-09): School District Poverty rate Number of Title I students Title I funding per pupil Philadelphia, MS 41% 569 $1,246 Queens, NY 16% 58,060 $2,371 Rochester, NY 36% 14,769 $2,070 Gallup-McKinley, NM 37% 6,258 $1,320 Albuquerque, NM 17% 18,371 $1,764 Garland, TX 16% 9,002 $1,610 Edcouch-Elsa, TX 61% 2,998 $1,491 27
Two weighting methods Percentage Weighting based on the percentage of Title I students in a district. The higher the percentage, the more money per pupil Number Weighting -- based on the number of Title I students in a district. The higher the number, the more money per pupil (no matter what percentage they constitute) Both methods applied to every district. Whichever method inflates the student count more for a district is the system used for that district in the Title I formula 28
Perverse effect of number weighting Number weighting outmuscles percentage weighting The weights in the number weighting system are so powerful they completely neutralize the percentage weighting system Money is taken from the smallest 90% of school districts -- no matter how high their poverty rate and is sent to larger districts -- no matter how low their poverty rate 29
Effect of weighting system on very high-poverty districts Very high-poverty districts separated into size groupings (Congressional Research Service data, 2008-09) Size Grouping Based on Number of Number Title I Gain (Loss) Due to Title I students in the district Students Poverty Rate Number Weighting Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Districts with very large number of Title I students (6 districts) 553,779 33.5% $78,404,200 Districts with large number of Title I students (28 districts) 559,135 34.2% $15,375,800 Districts with small number of Title I students in each district (124 districts) 549,732 36.3% $64,390,200 District with very small number of Title I students (1,131 districts) 554,207 35.6% $63,374,000 30
Effect of weighting system on very low-poverty districts Very low-poverty districts separated into size groupings (Congressional Research Service data, 2008-09) Size Grouping Based on Number of Title I students in the district Number Title I Students Poverty Rate Gain (Loss) Due to Number Weighting Col.1 Col. 2 Col.3 Col. 4 Districts with very large number of Title I students (66 districts) 551,420 11.3% $82,520,500 Districts with large number of Title I students (277 districts) 553,907 10.6% $23,318,500 Districts with small number of Title I students in each district (876 districts) 553,950 9.7% $42,795,500 Districts with very small number of Title I students (4,703 districts) 552,843 9.3% $52,493,500 31
Poverty s impact is in the classroom Consider 5 th grade in two districts Small Rural School District Four 5 th Grade Classrooms 25 students per classroom Avg. children in poverty: 10 per class -- 40% poverty rate Large Suburban School District 650 5 th Grade Classrooms 25 students per classroom Avg. children in poverty: 1.5 per class -- 6% poverty rate Which classroom teacher should get more Title 1 support per pupil? 32
Number weighting takes money from the small, high poverty rural district and sends it to the large, low-poverty suburban district The result: High-Poverty Rural District gets LESS Low-Poverty Suburban District gets MORE per student $85 per classroom $850 $275 per student $412 per classroom 33
Remedies Eliminate number weighting and appropriate additional funds to hold harmless those who benefit from it Gradually reduce the weights in the number weighting bracket to weaken it relative to percentage weighting All Children are Equal Act (H.R. 2485) introduced with strong bipartisan co-sponsors 34
Uneven playing field in competitive grants The rural competitive disadvantage in high-poverty schools: Lack of program development staff capacity Preference for large scale projects Weak rural education research infrastructure to support innovations addressing characteristically rural challenges. Weak regional education service sector Digital divide 35
Build Prior Support into Competitive Grants Programs Help with inter-local planning and coordination so rural schools can help each other innovate and compete for grants Technical assistance in grant writing and research design Organizational capacity building Note: Setting aside funds for a separate rural competition is not really the solution because without these prior supports, the more well-off rural regions will simply out-compete the poorest rural regions. 36
Weak rural education research infrastructure Establish an Office of Rural Education Policy (S 946) within the U.S. Department of Education to: Better focus rural education aspects of current programs Review existing and proposed policies for relevance to and impact on rural education Commission high-quality scholarly research to inform education policy makers on rural issues 37
WHAT ADVOCATES AND PHILANTHROPISTS CAN DO TO HELP
Rural Trust priorities VISIBILITY Provide insight Develop policy alternatives Forge a stronger rural identity VOICE Organize Network Form Coalitions Advocate for Equity 39
Visibility Insight: Why Rural Matters A biennial look at 25 statistical indicators of the condition of rural education and the need for attention from policy makers Policy Alternatives: Analyze impact of current policies on rural education and construct alternatives. Taking Advantage critiques the Investing in Innovation competitive grant program and proposed changes now being implemented Stronger Rural Identity: Provide opportunities for rural groups to network nationally, share experiences, develop leadership skills, learn from each other and develop common cause Rural Education Working Group 40
Rural Education Working Group Members from Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia work through an organizing issue 41
Voice National Coalitions & Campaigns Research Networking Grassroots education organizing
Formula Fairness Campaign American Association of School Administrators National Alliance of Black School Educators Arkansas Rural Community Alliance North Carolina Rural Education Working Group California Small Districts Association Save the Children Southern Echo Center for Rural Affairs American Farm Bureau Federation Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools and 16 more organizations 43
Opportunities for philanthropy Support Advocacy - rural education needs a voice at the policy table Support Organizing - rural partners are stronger when working collectively Support Research - rural education research is woefully underfunded and could be a potent force for change Support innovation help find what works in high-poverty rural places and get recognition and policy support for it 44
Critical messages It is time to bring rural children, their schools and communities in from the cold in federal education policy They are a growing part of America s educational landscape Their needs are growing We cannot meet our nation s educational goals if we continue to act like these children are invisible
Thank you! Websites and resources Rural School and Community Trust: www.ruraledu.org Why Rural Matters 2009: State and Regional Challenges and Opportunities: http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2312 Formula Fairness Campaign: www.formulafairness.com Rural School and Community Trust Marty Strange, Policy Director Marty.Strange@comcast.net 802-728-4383 Robert Mahaffey, Director of Communications Robert.mahaffey@ruraledu.org 202-822-3919 ext. 117 Design by Folio Marketing: http://www.folio-marketing.com/ Technical Support by Sean Donahue 46