The Current Status of the Work of The National Research Center on

Rural Education Support

Tuesday, November 8NREA Annual Convention

Tucson Arizona

Kirsten Kainz, Jonathan Banks, Allen Murray

The National Research Center on Rural Education Support

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

National Research Center on Rural Education Support

The Early School Transition Collaborative

NRCRES: Early School Transition Collaborative

Lynne Vernon-Feagans, PIKirsten Kainz

Barbara WasikJoe Sparling

Kate GallagherSteve Knotek

Marnie GinsbergPledger FedoraSteve Amendum

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to improve the teaching strategies of rural kindergarten and first grade teachers in the areas of literacy and behavior management, with specific focus on children who have been identified as struggling learners. Our professional development focuses on Collaborative Consultation

Justification for Focus on Rural Schools• 40% of public schools are in non-metro areas

• Rural schools generally have fewer resources

• Rural teachers indicate that distance is a factor that prevents them from pursuing professional development opportunities

• Rural schools often have the inability to attract and retain high quality teachers

• Economic strategies have resulted in the closing of community schools that have forced many children to ride buses long distances.

• Most of the research about children at risk for poor school outcomes is based on studies of urban children

• Almost half of all poor children live in rural areas.

• Children in non-urban areas on average are more poor than children in urban areas

• There is some evidence that there may be different risk and protective factors in urban versus rural areas

Percent of Children Living in Poverty by Metro/Nonmetro

Risk & Protective Factors Associated with Non-Urban Life

• More maternal depression• More tobacco use• More alcohol and prescription drug

abuse• Less access to health and mental

health services• Less access and availability to

childcare• Longer distances to work and

childcare• Less access to public transportation• Fewer good jobs

Less exposure to random violent crimeMore single family homes More homes and land owned by familiesMore access to extended familyStronger connections to religious institutionsGreater sense of community

The Family Life Project: Families and Children in Rural America

• 16.5 million program project (NICHD)• Following a birth cohort of every baby born to

mothers who reside in 3 poor rural counties in North Carolina and 3 poor rural counties in Pennsylvania (oversampling for poverty and ethnicity).

• Families are followed intensively over the children’s first three years. We are in the process of applying for the renewal of the grant to follow the children into school

Why focus on the transition to school in rural areas?

• Research has shown that the first few years of school are critical for children’s later school success (Vernon-Feagans, 1996, 2004; Alexander& Entwisle, 1992)

• Children in rural areas are often “known” by teachers

• Children in rural areas have less access to resources before formal schooling

• Children in rural areas often have a rich and supportive family life that is not understood by schools

Why focus on struggling learners?

• Struggling learners are usually the ones that do not make expected progress (Pianta, 2001; Meisels, 2001)

• This emphasis on struggling learners has been highlighted through disaggregated data mandated by NCLB

• Teachers report these struggling learners are the

children who have the least success in learning and behavior.

• Teachers often attribute poor learning by students on the children’s behavior and/or their home situation.

Why focus on literacy and behavior?

• Research and teacher reports suggest that children’s behavior can facilitate or hamper learning (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

• Reading becomes the foundation for subsequent academic learning (Snow, Burns & Griffin; Vernon-Feagans, 1996)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 high risk(6 teachers)

30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk 30 low risk

Year 124 teachers(n = 240)

Year 224 teachers(n = 240)

Kindergarten 1st Grade Kindergarten 1st Grade

Exp

erim

enta

lC

ontr

ol

Teacher Outcomes

• Improved literacy resources in the classroom• Improved behavior management in the

classroom• Improved literacy teaching strategies for

struggling learners• Improved teacher/child relationship with

struggling learners• Improved perceptions of teaching• Improved overall teaching strategies

Children’s Literacy Development

Vocabulary (PPVT-III)Oral Language (Wordless Picture Book Activity)Print Awareness (Concepts about Print)Sublexical Skills (CTOPP)Word ID ( WJ-DRB: Word Attack & Letter Word/ID)Reading Rate (Qualitative Reading Inventory)Reading Comprehension (Qualitative Reading Inventory)

Children’s Behavior

Problem Behaviors (Classroom Behavior Inventory)Engagement (One-on-One Observation)Independence (Classroom Behavior Inventory)Affect (One-on-One Observation)

Child Outcomes

Project REAL:The Rural Early Adolescent Learning Program:

Tom Farmer

Patrick Akos

Diane Gut

Jill Hamm

Carol Malloy

Judith Meece

Allen Murray

Laura Kovalchick

Victoria Scheaffer

Jana Thompson

Background • Carolina Longitudinal Study (4th grade into adulthood)

--Correlated risks linked to low achievement, school failure, and dropout --Supportive teacher relations and school engagement as protective

factors

• School Engagement Project / Developmental Pathways of Rural African American Youth (5th grade into high school)--Deep South, extremely high poverty (over 50% below poverty level) --Reflected findings of the CLS

• Project BEST – Transition to middle school • Rural Competence Support Program – Inservice/consultation

• Intervention Specialist Training – 50% annual turnover

Project Aims

• To promote rural students’ academic achievement and school adjustment during early adolescence by addressing academic, behavioral, and social factors

• To support rural teachers with high concentrations of subgroups of students who are at-risk of achievement difficulties (e.g., poverty, special education, minority, ESL)

• To promote parental involvement and support

Initial Research Sites • Two rural districts in Appalachian Mountains

--Virginia, West Virginia--20% below poverty, over 50% free & reduced lunch --Significant depopulation in last decade (closing of mines)

--High concentrations of low-achieving youth (not making AYP)

• Two Intervention and two control middle schools

--11 feeder elementary schools --Equivalent on standardized tests and other key variables--Randomly selected to condition--Correlated risks

End of Year Grade by Aggression

91.8 90.8 91.1

86.8 87.8 87.3

82.2 83.3 82.5

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Boys Girls Total sample

End

of y

ear g

rade

, per

cent

Low aggression

Average aggrression

High aggression

End of Year Grade by Social Affiliation

84.1

87 87.8 87.489.3

91.7 90.8

86.285.1

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Boys Girls Total sample

End

of y

ear g

rade

, per

cent

Low social aff iliation

Average social aff iliation

High social aff iliation

End of Year Grade by Popularity

83.3

86.184.8

87.9 88.3 88.2

91.990.5

88.8

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Boys Girls Total sample

End

of y

ear g

rade

, per

cent

Low popularity

Average popularity

High popularity

End of Year Grade by Parent and Child Factors

81.7 82.2 81.1

87 87.9 86.8

92.4 92.6 93

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Parentcommunicationw ith teacher

Parentmonitoring ofhomew ork

Completeshomew ork

End

of y

ear

grad

e, p

erce

nt

Rare

Sometimes

Often

Intervention Components

• Academic Engagement Enhancement

• Competence Enhancement Behavior Management

• Social Dynamics Training

• Parent Involvement

• Needs of Latino/a immigrant youth

Intervention Delivery• REAP leaders – Summer Institute

• Inservice training

• Directed consultation – weekly teams alternating between academic and social / behavioral

• Parent Involvement – (in development, planning to have 2-3 meetings around parent generated issues)

Research Design • Randomized control trial

• Phase 1 (years 1 and 2)--Dual cohorts in VA & WV--Face-to-face in year 1, phasing to technology delivery

• Phase 2 (years 2 and 3)--Single cohorts in Midwestern states (year 2)--Single cohorts in Southern states (year 3)--Face-to-face (summer institute) and technology

(videoconferencing)

• Phase 3 (year 4)--Single cohorts in Western states--technology delivery for all components

Planned Research Sites

• Phase 1 – Virginia and West Virginia

• Phase 2 – Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina

• Phase 3 – Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Texas

Distance Education Program

Wally HannumJim Barber

William VealJonathan BanksMichelle Phillips

DE Year One Activities

1. Staffing & Capacity Building 1. Staffing & Capacity Building

2. Literature Review 2. Literature Review

3. Survey of Distance Education 3. Survey of Distance Education

4. Planning Research4. Planning Research

Literature Reviews

• We are currently working on three literature reviews– History of Distance Education and Distance

Education technologies in Rural K-12 – Distance Education issues and problems in

rural K-12 – Effectiveness of Distance Education in rural

K-12

What We Found

• Descriptions, project reports, opinions

• Few well-conceived, scientifically-based studies using randomly assigned participants

• Often objective or standardized outcome measures were not employed

• More postsecondary than K-12 studies

• Variety of DE types

What’s Lacking

• Enough sound experimental studies

• K-12 studies

• Rural school studies

• Studies of DE pedagogy

Survey of Distance Education Use

• Who uses DE?

• What courses?

• What technology?

• How successful?

• Additional needs?

• Barriers?

Sample

• REAP– Rural low income– Small rural

• Random sample 10% – 415 school districts– 394 participated

• 294 SRSA• 100 RLIS

AL-4

AR-14AZ-8

CA-10CO-12

CT-2

MD

FL-3

GA-8

IA-13

ID-5

IL-20IN-2

KS-16KY-7

LA-2

ME-4

MI-11

MN-9

MO-19

MS-11

MT-14

NC-4

ND-17

NE-19

NH-2

NJ

NM-6

NV-2

NY-9

OH-9

OK-31

OR-9

PA

SC-4

SD-11

TN-6

TX-45

UT-1

VA-1

WA-10

WI-4

WV-1

WY-2

HIAK-5

DE

RI

MA

VT-2

Participating States with Participation Numbers

Key Findings

• 68% use Distance Education

• 70% report need for Distance Education

• Content areas– Math– Foreign language– English– Science

Key Findings II

• Technology– Two-way video– Web-based

• Barriers– Difficulty scheduling– District does not see DE as priority– Lack of trained personnel– Difficulties in implementing DE

Planning Research

How can we use Distance Education effectively to improve achievement in rural schools?

• Listening to rural communities

• Review of DE research

• National study

• Randomized controlled trials

Research Design

• We are in the planning stages of the research design.

• The results of the survey and the literature reviews will help to guide our design.

• We are looking at sites in the North East, Midwest, West, South West, and South East in order to have a national focus.

Possible Locations & Partnerships

• New England• Southeast• Intermountain• Midwest• Southwest

Year Two Activities

1. Design Research 1. Design Research

2. Identify Participating Sites2. Identify Participating Sites

3. Secure Necessary Funding 3. Secure Necessary Funding

4. Prepare for Implementation4. Prepare for Implementation