Rural Matters

A rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will reduce schools’ ability to access federal help to serve low-income students who receive special education services at school. More information is below. You can read the proposed changes and comment on them at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. (Rule CMS-2287-P) Deadline is tomorrow!

Under the proposed rule, schools would not be able to receive payments for “administrative” services or for most transportation provided to students in special education whose families are eligible for Medicaid.

In addition to cutting reimbursements for transportation to and from school, to school activities, and to outside therapeutic providers, the cuts would also affect administrative services such as outreach to families, referrals, or training for staff who work with these students. In addition, districts would not be able to use these funds for expanded physical, occupational and speech therapy programs for students, services which many students would not otherwise receive.

The changes are intended to meet the President’s budget goals and would cut $3.6 billion over five years. The reduction would force districts to reduce services to low-income students and/or pay for the services from the district’s general funds, which many districts find are increasingly strapped by other demands and requirements.

It is important to note that the rule change would not affect payments for direct medical services provided in schools to children who qualify through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Apart from the proposed cuts to Medicaid reimbursements for schools, however, the President’s budget also proposes additional cuts in federal funding for schools through IDEA. IDEA is the primary federal funding mechanism for supporting students who receive special education services at school. IDEA was authorized to provide 40% of funding for students with special needs in public schools. The Act has never been funded at that level, and the proposed Medicaid cuts would put IDEA funding at only 16%.

The Medicaid cuts are being carried out through an administrative process called a rule change. The public is allowed to comment on such rule changes, but the deadline is nearly here – it is November 6. To read the proposed rule, visit www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking. You can also submit your comments electronically at the site -- scroll down to CMA-2287-P for this particular rule. Comments do not have to be formally composed.

You can read more about the proposed changes at:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/392837.html

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/21/news/top_stories/19_30_6110_20_07.txt

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

The fourth report in a biennial research series from the Rural Trust is released today.

Why Rural Matters 2007: The Realities of Rural Education Growth provides essential information on the condition of rural education in each of the 50 states.

This year's report also provides perspective on state policies that help - or hinder - rural students and the schools they attend.

The report uncovered new trends and new challenges facing rural educators. Overall, enrollment in schools located in communities with fewer than 2,500 people is up by 15%. This is a reversal of a long-standing trend of in rural education.

Among rural students of color, the enrollment increases were even more dramatic, with an overall increase of 55%.

Despite these enrollment increases, Why Rural Matters 2007 also shows that many rural schools continue to face a number of challenges, including high poverty levels, low teacher salaries, uneven distribution of federal Title I funds, and low student achievement--especially in states with high challenges and weak policy supports.

Continue reading "It's Here! Why Rural Matters 2007" »

Posted by Robin Lambert at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ever wonder what makes a place rural?

Ever get in a "discussion" about it?

I once argued with a friend that her town—population somewhere around 1,800—wasn’t rural, couldn’t be, I said, because it was the county seat in a southern state. And the largest town for miles around, to boot.

My rationale was that towns—even those with fewer than 2,500 people, the census definition of rural—which control the economic and political resources of a county should not be considered rural. I beefed up my argument by pointing out that these towns often pull in more resources from surrounding rural areas than they return to those areas. And, I added, towns generally have some taxing authority and, therefore, more avenues through which to generate revenue than unincorporated areas usually do.

Maybe I’m a purist on this matter—most people don’t argue with the census definition.

But a lot of people don’t know it either.

Ever heard a tv or radio journalist describe a town you know has 17,000 people as “tiny,” or, worse in my book, a small city as “this rural" community?

I have. And it bugs me. Not out of any sense of cultural righteousness. I hate to see an opening for driving any of the tiny portion of public resources our country reserves for rural places toward influential regional “towns” instead of the surrounding areas that often need the resources (and/or a fairer return for their contributions)--and really are rural.

Which brings us back to the original question: what is rural?

Continue reading "What's Rural?" »

Posted by Robin Lambert at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Most states are trying to restrict educational costs by placing limits on school expenditures or on taxes levied to support schools. These taxing and spending limits can make it very difficult for schools to improve or expand programs, boost teacher salaries, or even maintain existing offerings.

Laws in many states, however, provide local communities a way around the limitations of taxing or spending caps through the “override” process. In such cases, local voters can choose to spend more than the law permits, or tax themselves at a rate higher than the state tax lid, if 50% or more of voters approve the override.

But some states require a so-called supermajority, in which the override depends on 60% of voters, sometimes even higher margins, to approve the override. This requirement compounds the problems that poor communities face in raising revenues for their schools.

The Problem of Supermajorities

Supermajority overrides in effect make some people’s vote worth more than others. They create “premium” voters and “discount” voters. Say for example, that 60% approval is required to override a lid. That means six votes are needed to achieve the same effect that five would have in a simple majority election. The votes of those who support the override are effectively discounted by one-sixth, or about 17%. On the other hand, the votes of those who oppose the override are inflated by one-fourth—four votes have the same power as five would have in a simple majority election, a 25% premium.

Continue reading "Supermajorities Make the Votes of Some Worth More than the Votes of Others" »

Posted by Marty Strange at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Seems there are ever more kinds of small schools every day. In recent days we have noted schools that are “necessarily small,” “small by default,” “small by choice,” “small by design,” part of “small learning communities,” and “naturally small.”

It is worth noting that the proliferation of terms to describe schools that are not big parallels a growth in awareness that, in education, small works. Make no mistake, all these terms carry the political baggage of school finance battles in which various interests are trying to win a bigger piece of the pie, or keep others from getting a bigger piece of the pie, or making sure their kind of smallness and not someone else’s kind of smallness gets a bigger piece of the pie.

It’s time we had a glossary to sort out the political nuances of these terms. Here’s my offering. What’s yours?

Continue reading "The Many Meanings of “Small”" »

Posted by Marty Strange at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)