Rural Matters

You can help make sure that your views on educational technology--and the views of others in your community and school--are heard in an influential national survey.

The fourth annual NetDay SpeakUP survey is underway and will be open through the end of November.

The survey, which includes sections for students and teachers, is used to inform policy makers and education interests about the attitudes and opinions of students and educators toward technology. This year's survey also includes a section for parents.

Registration for the survey is free and easy.

By participating, you can help make sure the perspectives of rural educators and students are included in this important survey. In addition, each school will receive a report on the survey results from their own school, which can be used in local efforts to improve access to and use of technology for educational purposes.

You can find out more about NetDay, the non-profit organization that sponsors the survey here, and you can sign your school up to participate in the survey here.

Posted by Robin Lambert at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Voters in Alabama passed "Amendment 2" on Tuesday (59% /41%), requiring each school system (district) in the state to contribute 10 mills of property tax toward the school system's budget.

Prior to the passage of Amendment 2, local school systems were required to contribute the equivalent of 10 mills toward the state school funding formula for their system. Thirty of the state's 101 school systems collected less than 10 mills of property tax and made up the difference, usually through local sales taxes. A mill of property tax is $1 dollar tax for each $1,000 of assessed valuation.

Property taxes in Alabama remain the lowest in the nation, but the constitutional amendment will shift some of the local tax requirment for schools from sales taxes, which are more subject to economic variation and fall more heavily on low and middle income people who spend a higher share of their income on necessities, to property taxes, which are more stable and predictible and tend to fall more heavily on people who own more valuable homes and land.

Although the shift from 10-mill equivalent to 10 actual mills is viewed in some ways as a tax fairness measure, it is widely expected to generate more income for local schools. Most school systems will continue to collect all or part of their local sales tax for schools, which will now supply additional income above the 10 mill requirement.

Posted by Robin Lambert at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Beware! There are some new and very serious pathological syndromes going around our country. This outbreak is being spread by illogical belief systems, catchy terminology, and unidentified political agendas. And unfortunately these disorders are quite contagious.

I'm referring the latest new "cures" being proposed to solve our (perceived) national problems of low achievement and funding inequities, namely The 65% Solution and The 100% Solution.

In case you missed the headlines, the 65% Solution is supposed to cure low academic achievement by mandating that at least 65% of educational expenditures go directly into the classroom. By contrast, the 100% Solution proposes to attack funding inequities by attaching money to each child based on the achievement challenges that child brings with him or her – poverty, special needs, poor English speaking -- and letting this funding follow the child to any school of choice.

Both treatments are characterized by faulty diagnostic categories, anemic data, ineffective cures and irrational theories of causality. Sounds ominous? You bet.

Here are a few of the menacing warning signs:

Diagnostic Flatulence:
This particular delusion is the foundation of the 65% Solution. It is based on the false premise that putting 65% or more of educational budgets into classroom expenditure will increase academic performance. Designed to eliminate "waste," this solution proposes that other expenses must be eliminated or reduced if they total over 35% of the school budget. The leftover 35% includes "non-essential" items such as administration, student services (e.g. counselors, librarians, nurses), food services, transportation and professional development. That's right. This solution proposes to increase academic performance while cutting down on guidance, school nurses and transportation. Don't worry about Johnny's nosebleed, just keep his No. 2 pencil sharpened for the standardized test.

This is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it should come as no surprise that there is not a scintilla of research to support the magic 65% classroom spending quota. Most public schools, including the best, don't currently meet this threshold and data on student achievement does not support the theory behind the proposal. Sixty-five is not a miraculous number. This “solution” is about the shock and awe its proponents hope to engender among the public when people discover that, horror upon horror, most schools don’t already meet the standard. It’s about as helpful as plastering leeches on a feverish patient to suck out impure blood.

Percentile Dysfunction:
This is an affliction that is common with funding formula solutions. It consists of a lethal combination of Numerator Obsession and Denominator Phobia.

Both proposals seek to obsessively manipulate the "numerator" of education funding. The 65% Solution obliges every school to spend at least 65 out of every 100 educational dollars in the classroom. The 100% Solution proponents covet all education dollars, 100 out of every $100, and assign this amount as per-pupil costs that migrate with the child, even if those costs support buildings that serve other children.

Both procedures, however, ignore the denominator---or how much money do we actually have to spend on children's education. It is as if these folk are afraid to tackle the big question: How much will it take to provide all kids an excellent education? Certainly a classic and serious case of "bottom line" phobia.

Displacement Syndrome:
Lastly, both treatments suffer from an irrational and noxious denial of the importance of “place.” The 100% Solution is premised on the assumption that all costs are inherent in the child. Just implant this funding amount into a student's buttocks and allow him/her to choose where to sit. (Ouch!) This simplistic notion ignores that some per-pupil costs vary substantially in different settings. Schools located in cold places cost more to heat than schools in warmer locales. Try teaching Algebra in International Falls, Minnesota on January 15th with the thermostat set at 60 degrees. A chilling prospect.

And both Solutions assume that what works in urban/suburban areas will work in rural locales. For example, proponents of the 65% Solution imply that over-paid district superintendents are prime sources of the high costs of education. Tell that to rural superintendents who earn a whopping $70,000, drive the school bus, teach a few classes, organize the food services and plow the parking lot.

The 65% and 100% Solutions have a simple, if austere and even unpleasant ring. We don’t like it, but it’s good medicine. But like blood sucking leeches, they don’t work.

They are impotent snake oil, not miracle cures. Prolonged exposure to these false cures will result in a spread of anti-public school sentiment, a lack of will for adequately funding public schools and decreased energy for pursuing meaningful and effective education reform. For rural students, these solutions are especially toxic since they are a back-door route to forcing consolidation of small schools by financial starvation. The anorexic approach to education reform?

Given how infectious this outbreak appears to be, we are alarmed. We need effective remedies for real educational problems, not worthless placebos, false promises and dangerous myths.

Posted by Lorna Jimerson at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As voters across the country go to the polls next week, many will be asked to cast a ballot on one or more tax initiatives--or on measures to limit government's taxing authority or its spending. Many of those initiatives could have far-reaching implications for schools. One initiative that has received little national attention is in Alabama.

In that state a measure known as Amendment 2 would require all school systems in the state to contribute 10 mills of local property tax toward the support of local schools. That's just $1 in taxes on each $1000 in valuation, or $100 a year for a $100,000 house. Hard to believe, but true.

Part of the reason the measure has gotten so little attention is that it's a somewhat embarrassing situation, even for the most strident anti-tax advocates. Less than $100 a year on a $100,000 house is very little to ask citizens to provide toward the support of local schools.

Another reason that the measure has gotten relatively little attention outside the state is that it will apply primarily to rural counties. The most powerful advocates for low property taxes in Alabama have traditionally been large corporations and individuals that hold huge tracts of "unimproved" (mainly forest) acreage-- acreage that is mainly in rural places.

All this matters, in part, because Alabama funds schools through a "minimum foundation" formula that calculates a total budget for each school system based on a variety of factors. The local school system is required to put up the equivalent of 10 mills toward that budget, and the state provides the balance of funds. Local school systems have some additional ways to supplement funding through local revenues, but those options are limited and vary widely across the state.

Currently, school systems that don't have 10 mills of property tax must make up the equivalent in other taxes, mainly sales tax.

Most of the state's 131 school systems do make the ten mill contribution from property taxes, but 24 county-wide school systems (out of just 67 county-wide systems statewide) and six city school systems (most of which happen to be in small towns) levy less than 10 mills and make up the difference with sales taxes.

If you've read this far it will come as no surprise that Alabama's property taxes are the lowest in the nation--by a long, long shot. And you will surely see that rural districts, especially, must rely very heavily on the state for the funding of schools, and that poor people who bear the brunt of the sales tax burdern (in Alabama sales tax is applied to food and medicine) disproprotionately fund schools, especially in rural areas where "unimproved" land is concentrated.

Alabama's constitution is a labyrinth of rules and restrictions that apply unevenly across the state (hence the wide variation in the kinds of local revenue options that are available). In addition, complicated and extremely limited provisions for "home rule" mean that all kinds of local decisions cannot be voted on by the people whom those decisions affect and, instead, must be decided by the legislature and/or a statewide ballot vote.

So it is that voters across Alabama will decide on Tuesday whether 30 school systems will be required to raise 10 mills of local property tax for the support of local schools.

In some ways it takes pressure off voters in the rural counties where anti-property tax interests have traditionally focused their anti-tax dollars, ad campaigns, and, in some cases, scare tactics and intimidation campaigns.

The vote won't make a lot of difference in how much money schools actually get; in that regard it's as much a tax fairness vote as a funding adequacy vote (because Amendment 2 would shift more of the tax burden to people who actually own valuable goods and, at least potentially, off the people who are simply buying food for their families). It won't resolve the larger problems of an unfair and antiquated revenue system or a dysfunctional constitution or inadequate school funding.

But Tuesday Alabama voters will get to say a little something about what they're willing to do for schools, and particularly what they expect property owners to do for schools in some of the state's most rural counties.

It will be interesting to see how that vote goes.

Posted by Robin Lambert at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that the filing window for e-rate applications will open November 14 and run until February 7.

The federal eRate program provides discounts for certain technology and technology services to schools and libraries.

The FCC has also released its annual Eligible Services List (ESL). Several changes have been made to the ESL this year, including the addition of voice over internet protocal (VoIP) services. VoIP enables users to place and connect calls over the internet, rather than traditional phone lines. The FCC also clarified several rules, including when technology training is eligible for funding through the program and rules related to wireless networks.

You can find more information about eRate and this year's programs, forms, and instructions at the Universal Service Administrative Company/Schools and LIbraries Division.

Posted by Robin Lambert at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)