1. The Current Status of the Work of The National Research Center on Rural Education Support Tuesday, November 8 NREA 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

2. National Research Center on Rural Education Support The Early School Transition Collaborative

3. NRCRES: Early School Transition Collaborative Lynne Vernon-Feagans, PI Kirsten Kainz Barbara Wasik Joe Sparling Kate Gallagher Steve Knotek Marnie Ginsberg Pledger Fedora Steve Amendum

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Percent of Children Living in Poverty by Metro/Nonmetro

8. 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 crime More single family homes More homes and land owned by families More access to extended family Stronger connections to religious institutions Greater sense of community

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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)

13. 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 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 Year 1 24 teachers (n = 240) Year 2 24 teachers (n = 240) Kindergarten1 st GradeKindergarten1 st Grade Experimental Control

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Background Carolina Longitudinal Study (4 th 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 (5 th 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

18. 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

19. 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

24. Intervention Components Academic Engagement Enhancement Competence Enhancement Behavior Management Social Dynamics Training Parent Involvement Needs of Latino/a immigrant youth

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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

28. Distance Education Program Wally Hannum Jim Barber William Veal Jonathan Banks Michelle Phillips

29. DE Year One Activities 1. Staffing & Capacity Building 2. Literature Review 3. Survey of Distance Education 4. Planning Research

30. 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

31. 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

32. What’s Lacking Enough sound experimental studies K-12 studies Rural school studies Studies of DE pedagogy

33. Survey of Distance Education Use Who uses DE? What courses? What technology? How successful? Additional needs? Barriers?

34. Sample REAP –Rural low income –Small rural Random sample 10% –415 school districts –394 participated 294 SRSA 100 RLIS

35. AL-4 AR-14 AZ-8 CA-10 CO-12 CT -2 MD FL-3 GA-8 IA-13 ID-5 IL-20 IN-2 KS-16 KY-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 HI AK-5 DE RI MA VT -2 Participating States with Participation Numbers

36. Key Findings 68% use Distance Education 70% report need for Distance Education Content areas –Math –Foreign language –English –Science

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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.

40. Possible Locations & Partnerships New England Southeast Intermountain Midwest Southwest

41. Year Two Activities 1. Design Research 2. Identify Participating Sites 3. Secure Necessary Funding 4. Prepare for Implementation