**Archived Information**

**Interim Evaluation of the Appalachia Educational Laboratory**

# 

**I. Brief Overview of Laboratory**

The Appalachian Educational Laboratory (AEL) has a lengthy history
dating back to 1966. The panel conducting the Interim evaluation of the
Lab first reviewed extensive written documentation and then visited the
Lab over five days, April 12-16, 1999, to conduct extensive interviews.
Combined with the written documentation, the five days of interviews
illuminated major initiatives at the Lab. Sufficient documentation and
insights were provided to address the key evaluation questions presented
by OERI. A special note of recognition and thanks is due Decision
Information Resources, Inc. which effectively made strategic decisions
in arranging materials and the on-site visit.

**II. Implementation and Management**

**A. To what extent is the REL doing what they were approved to do
during the first three contract years?**

> **1. Strengths**

Laboratory operations exceed expectations. A major strength of AEL is
the leadership of the Executive Director whose tenure spans much of the
Lab's lifetime. He has unusual support from a very involved Board of
Directors. In a very convincing way the Director and the Board agree as
one that the mission of REL is coterminous with the mission of AEL. In
practice this means that REL's priorities are first established, then
decisions regarding the allocation of resources from throughout AEL are
made to address REL's mission.

One manifestation of effective leadership is that AEL's evolving and
dynamic contracted

work has generally been executed in a timely manner. AEL's broad vision
of service to the region often motivates revisions and extensions of
programs which extends far beyond formally contracted terms.

Several elements of the organizational structure are critical to making
certain that resources converge on a functional basis, resulting in
support for REL initiatives across and external to AEL. All of REL's key
programs report to a single individual, the Program Leader. Thus,
coordination across programs can be facilitated on a daily basis. REL's
Program Leaders join with Directors throughout AEL as a member of the
decision-making Corporate Leadership Group (CLG) headed by the Executive
Director. In this manner coordination of programs across AEL, with REL
initiatives as a priority, are facilitated. Further, a recent structure
being implemented places a Resident Director in each affected state, who
meet monthly as a group.

The organizational structure also includes a Policy Staff which target
services to key statewide policymakers to assist them in decisionmaking.
Services and products involve both publications based on requests and
needs, along with the convening of policymakers in various state or
multi-state meetings. Since AEL is viewed as neutral and impartial on
educational issues, this group serves an indispensable function.

The Scaling-Up Project disseminates both products and selected training.
Some items, such as *Family Connections* and the *ABCs of Parent
Involvement in Education,* have been disseminated broadly, both within
and the region and nationally.

Relating to needs of the area is a singular strength of AEL; this was
reflected convincingly in an interview with AEL's Board of Directors.
Upon request, AEL provided independent information to help the State of
Tennessee address a dispute between independent and public schools. AEL
has assisted the Tennessee State Department of Education in the analysis
of relevant data. In Tennessee only hard copies of the curriculum
frameworks were available until AEL provided access o the Internet.
There is the prospect that AEL will devise strategies in Virginia to
assist children of the incarcerated. All of these instances of
assistance are in addition to the more well known major efforts:
response to the request from the Commissioner of Education in Tennessee
to provide direct assistance to Hancock County; and interactions with
policymakers in Kentucky to undertake an extended study of the effects
of KERA in selected districts.

The high degree of customer satisfaction is noted in evaluations and
surveys pertaining to particular programs, and in the overall
evaluations conducted by Western Michigan University, which notes,
"There is a very high level of satisfaction with practically all
characteristics of information/materials/products received by AEL"
(L.B-11). There were no responses during the extensive interviews which
contradicted this basic position.

There is considerable evidence of AEL's effective partnering with other
labs. Ideas for various Quest initiatives, including "Data-for-a-Day,"
were learned from the NWREL.

The networks and partnerships which AEL has established within the
region, both formal and informal, are so ubiquitous that they defy easy
description or definition. The Lab views state and regional networking
and partnering as the essence of its daily business.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

There are some emphases of OERI which do not appear as high priorities
within AEL:

\*National Recognition, Research, and Presentations. At AEL there are
few incentives from the central administration and some possible
disincentives to publish in refereed journals and present at diverse
national meetings. Nothing should compromise AEL's unmistakable and
invaluable commitment to serve its region well. Yet, in doing so there
are exemplary models and practices being developed which should be
shared more broadly.

\*Internal Coordination and Collaboration among programs. The CLG and
Resident Directors provide an agency-wide structure to ensure
coordination of initiatives within AEL. After considerable discussion,
it became apparent that communication across programs occurs in informal
conversations, seminars organized by the Rural Center, the organization
of program officers and resident directors, and the newly formed
"Learning Laboratory." Nevertheless, in repeated interviews questions
were posed regarding collaboration among programs in Hancock County and
Fayetteville, TN, the Quest initiative, KERA, and others. With some
exceptions, the interfaces among programs which occurred were
serendipitous rather than by design.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

\*While maintaining its commendable traditional focus, AEL should
maintain a more balanced portfolio by providing special incentives for
staff to achieve greater recognition for major programs by making
national presentations and publishing in refereed journals.

\*Specific steps should be taken to realize the potential of the newly
formed "Learning Laboratory" and seminars organized by the Rural Center.
Specifically, in order to encourage the dissemination of useful insights
and best practices, teams working on particular projects should
periodically report to the general group in a manner which engenders
interactive discussion and follow up.

**B. To what extent is the REL using a self-monitoring process to plan
and adapt activities in response to feedback and customer needs?**

**1. Strengths**

AEL's formal organization for monitoring is reasonable and effective.
The Program Leader, who reports to the Executive Director, also heads
the R&D Evaluation Office. This facilitates the allocation of R&D
resources across programs as needed. The R&D staff emphasizes their
service role to program managers who have the broader responsibility of
ensuring overall evaluation. There is also a long-standing
evaluative/monitoring role performed by the research center at Western
Michigan University (WMU). WMU focuses on institutional surveys and
reports, which are negotiated annually with AEL staff. A "Client Survey"
and a meta-evaluation of AEL's internal evaluations are conducted
annually. The studies done under auspices of R&D are tailored to meet
particular needs of respective programs. These are generally based on or
involve participant observations and provide useful feedback to program
managers. Some notable examples of effective self monitoring and
adaptation of activities in response to feedback and customer needs are
indicated under "strengths" above (see. pp.1-3): Hancock County where
the Teaching/Learning/Mapping Strategy was produced through extensive
communications between AEL, the TN SDE and officials of Hancock County;
KERA, planned from the inception by and for policymakers in Kentucky;
and Quest, uniquely and singularly driven by the "constructivist"
commitment that affected communities, enabled by AEL, will help shape
their own goals and solutions. Self-monitoring and feedback is a common
theme throughout AEL\'s evaluations, studies and reports, conducted both
internally and externally. Considerable attention is given to developing
programs on an interactive needs assessment basis.

There is ample documentation specific to varied programs indicating
ongoing interactions and feedback with users. There is further
documentation from evaluations, materials distributed, website hits, and
attendance at varied meetings to indicate usefulness and use by
"customers." The Board of Directors and users of varied programs,
positioned to be highly sensitive to customer needs, uniformly praised
the staff for its sensitive attention to users.

AEL meets and exceeds reasonable expectations in tailoring program
activities to meet customer needs.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

\*Clearer articulation is needed in some instances between the findings
in formal recommendations and use by program staff. When relevant, this
articulation should be shared across programs.

\*AEL needs to adopt a broader definition of "customer," to include,
especially in key areas, a national as well as a regional audience.

\*Coordinated monitoring across programs would allow AEL to more
effectively serve customers by broadening the range from which best
practices could be adapted.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

\*Attention should be given to the articulation between findings in
formal recommendations and use by program staff.

\*AEL needs to be more sensitive to its responsibilities to national
customers.

\*Existing strengths and procedures should be oriented to ensure
meaningful communication of ideas and models across projects.

**III. Quality**

**To what extent is the REL developing high quality products and
services?**

**1. Strengths**

Across its many programs and initiatives, the strengths of AEL cannot be
easily summarized. All of the documents and conversations, during
diverse interviews, both with staff and a range of users, made clear
AEL's abiding dedication to advance teaching and learning within the
context of Appalachia's educational and cultural environment. This
commitment manifests itself in attitudes and understandings as well as
more formal programs and initiatives. Outcomes are equally

obvious and equally subtle.

Within the region, AEL is developing products of unusual high quality.
Quest is a prime example. Prior to the on-site visitation and during the
initial interviews with Quest personnel, no member of the review panel
had a clear and positive view of Quest, notwithstanding the obvious
confidence that pervaded written materials and presentations. The word
"Quest," combined with other descriptors such as "rainbow," "rally,"
"co-venture," "co-create," "SMART learner," and "participative
assessment" connoted, it appeared, fuzziness of language likely produced
by fuzziness of thought. Fortunately and insightfully, the Quest staff
scheduled a range of interviews with representatives from affected
schools and communities in order that the panel could directly assess
impact on users.

These interviews provided meaning and clarity. Each school, in every
state was being held accountable for traditional academic achievement.
Quest has enabled them first by enlarging the meaning of learning beyond
traditional testing, and further by assisting in building learning
communities around respective goals and objectives. A variety of schools
used the Quest-inspired "SMART learner" concept as motivational themes
at school assemblies, in classes, at extracurricular activities, and as
conversational topics. The view that students should be meaningfully
involved in educational decision-making has encouraged a number of
schools to organize parent/teacher conferences that are led by students.
Uniformly, schools reported a much greater interest and involvement
among parents in school affairs. At one school participation was
elevated from 50 per cent to approximately 90 percent. At a high school
the empowering of students led to creation of a new student newspaper to
which parents, teachers, and students contribute.

In some instances Quest serves as a conduit of good ideas which had
origins in other reform efforts. The "Data-for-a-Day" initiative, which
engages systemic school teams in assessing goals, was transported from
the NW REL's School Change collaborative program. For one school,
writing portfolios was influenced by a project with which Quest is
associated in Kentucky. Creating "microsocieties," adopted with Quest
assistance by some schools, is a concept that has national currency.

Across the schools there was a strong consensus that Quest was enlarging
the meaning of learning, concurrent with setting the stage for higher
levels of student achievement.

AEL's KERA studies constitute another area of demonstrable strength. The
panel was informed about KERA through expansive documentation, ample
opportunities to converse with relevant staff, focused discussions with
members of the peer review panel which advises the AEL researchers, and
a brief, yet insightful conversation with statewide policy
representatives, each of whom had played key roles in the development of
KERA since its inception.

AEL's attention to KERA since 1990 spans the lifetime of this seminal
statewide systemic effort. The evolution of AEL's studies also parallels
the evolution of the reform effort: attention during the first five
years to process associated with the emphasis on primary grades and the
accountability system; and growing emphasis subsequently to attaining
the content and infrastructure essential to achieve and sustain reform.

The KERA studies have constituted a natural signature focus for AEL's
Rural Specialty and general rural setting. A supporting rationale was
the inadequate attention being given nationally to research on rural
education issues. A peer review panel, which reviews documents and meets
annually, has effectively advised the AEL staff on research topics and
directions.

At both the statewide and local levels the singular impact of AEL's KERA
studies has been dramatic. Perceptions of AEL are differentiated from
other research and study done on KERA in two related and important
respects. First, AEL's approach is longitudinal, and as a consequence
there is a sequence to the research which parallels the implementation
of KERA; and second, AEL is more knowledgeable and caring about the
local area. Further, AEL's research is federally supported, which
conveys an aura of independence that would be difficult for research
sponsored by the Kentucky State Department of Education to achieve.
Finally, the direct commitment of AEL is to provide information through
the KERA studies that will address questions and issues relevant to
policymakers at the state and district levels. These factors combined
establish a widespread ambience of acceptance.

The Chair of the Kentucky State Board of Education noted that the Board
had become more data driven in its decisionmaking. AEL has provided
relevant quantitative and qualitative information which has enhanced the
Board's consideration and resolution of issues. In some instances the
impact on decisionmaking has been more direct. Apparently, AEL's report
on positive attributes of Family Resource Centers helped influence their
continuance by the state legislature. Several policy representatives
praised the "staying power" and "objectivity" of AEL in addressing
research questions. Policymakers also lauded AEL's role as a broker with
OERI during early years of KERA, when adjustments in relations were
required.

AEL has taken care to satisfy the widespread interest in their KERA
findings. Information has been disseminated through hard copy and over
websites throughout the region and beyond. Presentations at national
meetings include AAAS and AERA, and an article has recently been
submitted for publication to the Journal of Rural Education.

The Rural Center is envisioned as a broad and flexible ideal toward
which AEL is evolving. The Rural Specialty and ERIC/CRESS are identified
as delimited initiatives within the Rural Center. The Rural Center has
effectively bridged the Annenberg and ARSI efforts in furthering
initiatives related to community engagement. Insights from Quest's focus
on school change has been used to further school improvement in
Virginia. The Rural Center maintains an array of relations with national
organizations, including NREA, Foxfire, AASA, AAESA, and AERA. Two staff
serve as editors on reputable journals, and a recent addition to the
staff has exercised leadership in developing three grant proposals.
Clearly the Rural Center has a national presence and identity.

The Hancock County Project joins other AEL efforts like KERA, CSRD, and
Policy Studies in the distinctive and careful tailoring of products and
services to meet state and regional needs. In this effort AEL, with full
collaboration of the Tennessee State Commissioner, and stakeholders at
district and school levels, is fully embedded in the effort to elevate
the level of attainment of a low performing school.

The relationship of AEL to respective states regarding implementation of
the CSRD program has been exemplary. Independent conversations with
representatives of the SEA's from Kentucky and Tennessee confirmed
observations of the AEL staff. AEL has tailored its technical assistance
not only to the respective stages of SEA development regarding CSRD, but
also of schools directly affected: those preparing for competition,
those successful, as well as those who initially did not succeed in the
competition.

**2. Areas of Needed Improvement**

**Quest**

-   The program should include a fuller, more attractive description
    which includes the actual impact at school and community levels.

-   There should be broader dissemination of Quest ideas outside of
    AEL's service area.

-   Quest should supplement the insightful internal evaluations with a
    comprehensive external review.

**KERA**

There are varying perspectives among the peer review panel regarding the
degree to which the rural community setting and culture distinctively
influences systemic school reform. Approaches to KERA research would
profit from a common sense approach which recognizes commonalties and
distinctions across geographic boundaries and efforts to build learning
communities. Other initiatives at AEL could profit as

-   KERA offers AEL a singularly opportune prospect for greater national
    recognition. The KERA staff **indicates** current plans to be more
    aggressive in this regard.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Policy representatives interviewed uniformly recommended that
    continuing AEL studies adopt a "holistic" approach to systemic
    reform issues.

-   Policy representatives uniformly value the continuation of AEL's
    KERA studies and research beyond the current funding period

**The Rural Center**

-   Considerable discussion focused on the meaning of national
    recognition and leadership in relation to AEL's history, foci, and
    responsibilities to OERI. A shift toward greater emphasis on
    national presentations, publications in refereed journals, and more
    visible leadership in selected areas appear warranted. In order to
    provide a more balanced portfolio involving practice and research,
    the pendulum needs to swing more toward national recognition, though
    not too aggressively.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This reviewer departed the AEL review without a satisfactory
    understanding of the Rural Center and Specialty within the context
    of AEL's range of responsibilities The basic problem may be the
    nature of contractual obligations pertaining to programs, combined
    with the predisposition of programs to operate on a territorial
    basis. In any case, it appears unreasonable for the Center and other
    programs with rural foci to operate largely independently of each
    other.

**The Hancock County Project**

Strategies for evaluation should reflect the reality that, ultimately,
the success or failure of this project will be judged based on whether
students over time perform at higher levels on state and

national tests.

**The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Program**

Within the AEL region, the requirements for school eligibility in CSRD
necessitates a focus on rural schools. CSRD should, therefore, be highly
coordinated with other AEL programs which have rural foci.

**3. Recommendations for Improvement**

**Quest**

-   The Quest staff needs to prepare a clearer definition of the program
    that includes the actual impact at school and community levels.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Quest should be less insular regarding the dissemination of its
    ideas. Poor rural communities across the nation can learn
    considerably from successful efforts to build learning communities.
    Other initiatives at AEL could profit as well.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To the extent possible, greater emphasis should be placed on
    presentations at national meetings and research in refereed
    journals.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Quest would profit from a comprehensive external review.

**KERA**

-   It is essential that KERA researchers attain a higher degree of
    national visibility through presentations at national meetings and
    research in refereed journals.

-   In the next stages of its planned research, AEL should emphasize a
    "wholistic" approach to systemic reform consistent with stated needs
    of policymakers. The "next steps" indicated by the KERA researchers
    point in this direction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Through federal and/or private funds AEL should find a way to
    strengthen and continue its KERA research since AEL's sustained
    effort can provide unique perspectives for Kentucky and the nation.

-   Approaches to KERA research would profit from a common sense
    approach which recognizes commonalties and distinctions across
    geographic boundaries.

**The Rural Center**

-   Without during harm to its meritorious regional focus, the Rural
    Center should place increased emphasis on national leadership in
    selected aspects of its specialty: through increased national
    presentations, publications in refereed journals, and overall
    visibility in selected areas.

-   AEL should carefully explore ways to achieve greater integration of
    initiatives centered within the Rural Center with other initiatives
    which have rural foci at AEL.

**The Hancock County Project**

Longitudinal plans for evaluation should include strategies to compare
the performance of students from the beginning of the project through
selected stages of development.

**The Comprehensive School Demonstration (CSRD) Program**

Maximal attention should be given to ensure meaningful interactions
between CSRD, the Rural Center, and other AEL programs which have rural
foci.

**IV. Utility**

**A. To what extent are the products and services provided by the
Laboratory useful to and used by customers?**

**1. Strengths**

Within respective states, the region, and in many instances the nation,
the Laboratory is performing at a level which meets or exceeds
expectations in making products and services useful to and used by
customers (see above, pp. 1-11, and 14-16). In providing products and
services beyond the region, AEL is operating at a level which in some
instances barely meets expectations (see above, pp. 2-4, 10, and 11-14)

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

There are areas of improvement needed to make services and products more
useful to customers (see above, pp. 3-4, 6, and 11-15)

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

Recommendations to improve the use of services and products include a
variety of matters (see above, pp. 3-4, 6, and 11-16).

**B. To what extent is the REL focused on customer needs?**

**1. Strengths**

In its operations and signature initiatives and other programs, the AEL
far exceeds expectations in providing products and services which focus
on consumer needs (see above, pp. 1-11, and 15).

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

AEL could improve its focus on customer needs within and external to the
region in a variety of ways (see above, pp. 3-4, and 11-16).

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

Recommendations for AEL to improve its services and products to
customers span a variety of areas (see above, pp. 3-4, and 11-16).

**V. Outcomes and Impact**

**A. To what extent is the REL's work contributing to improved student
success, particularly in intensive implementation sites?**

**1. Strengths**

All of AEL's major initiatives may be viewed as contributing to improved
student success. None of them, however, can directly document a cause
and effect relationship. The reasons vary. All of AEL's initiatives,
such as QUEST, KERA, Hancock County, CSRD, and the Rural Specialty, are
collaborative efforts with states, districts, schools, and communities.
Even where increased student success may result, the issue of
attribution is unclear and in many cases uncertain. In the case of KERA,
additional attention to student achievement is planned in forthcoming
impact studies. Some initiatives are too young to have significantly
impacted student achievement. Nevertheless, in light of the research
basis for the AEL initiatives, their efforts in this arena are rated as
exceeding expectations (see above, pp. 1-11, and 15).

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

In evaluations and studies, greater emphasis on student outcomes would
illuminate the degree of progress respective programs are attaining
toward their ultimate goals of AEL's initiatives.

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

In a timely and appropriate manner, AEL should evaluate student outcomes
for all of its major initiatives.

**B. To what extent does the Laboratory assist states and localities to
implement comprehensive school improvement strategies?**

**1. Strengths**

Assisting states and localities to implement comprehensive school
improvement strategies represents the heart and soul of AEL's mission
and daily activities (see above, pp. 1-11, and 15). The Lab meets and
exceeds expectations in this area.

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

AEL could assist states and localities to implement comprehensive school
improvement strategies in ways specific to the various programs (see
above, pp. 1-11, and 15).

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

Recommendations to improve AEL's assistance to states and localities
parallel the areas identified for needed improvement (see above, pp.
1-11, and 15).

**C. To what extent has the REL made progress in establishing a regional
and national reputation in its specialty area?**

**1. Strengths**

In a variety of ways specific to Lab operations and programs, AEL has
exceeded expectations by establishing a significant regional reputation
(see above, pp. 1-11, and 15).

**2. Areas of needed improvement**

AEL should give additional attention to enhancing its national
reputation in various ways (see above, pp . 3-4, 6, and 11-13).

**3. Recommendations for improvement**

Ways recommended for AEL to enhance its national reputation parallel the
areas identified for needed improvement (see above, pp. 3-4, 6, and
11-13).

**VI. Overall Evaluation of Total Laboratory Programs, Products and
Services**

Across its many programs and initiatives, the strengths of AEL cannot be
easily summarized. All of the documents and conversations, during
diverse interviews, both with staff and a range of users, made clear
AEL's abiding dedication to advance teaching and learning within the
context of Appalachia's educational and cultural environment. This
commitment manifests itself in attitudes and understandings as well as
more formal programs and initiatives. Outcomes are both equally obvious
and equally subtle.

A major strength of AEL is its leadership team, headed by the Executive
Director whose tenure spans much of the Lab's lifetime. He and his staff
have unqualified support from a very committed and involved Board of
Directors. In a consequential way the Executive Director and the Board
agree as one that the mission of the REL is coterminous with the mission
of AEL. In practice this means that that REL's priorities are first
established, then decisions regarding the allocation of resources
throughout AEL are made to address the REL's mission.

One manifestation of effective leadership is that AEL's evolving and
dynamic contracted work has generally been executed in a timely manner.
AEL's broad vision of service to the region often motivates extensions
and expansions of initiatives that extend far beyond formal contracts.

Within the region AEL is developing and making available products and
services of unusual high quality. Quest is a prime example. Though the
impact at local levels was not clear to reviewers either from advanced
documentation or from conversations with Quest staff, interviews with
local representatives, including administrators, teachers, students, and
parents, made clear that each school, in every state was being held
accountable by local authorities for traditional academic achievement.
Quest has enabled these schools and communities, first by enlarging the
meaning of learning beyond traditional testing, and further by assisting
in building learning communities around respective goals and objectives.
Across the schools, there was a strong consensus, ultimately shared by
reviewers, that Quest was enlarging the meaning of learning, concurrent
with setting the stage for higher levels of student achievement.

The KERA studies have constituted a natural signature focus for AEL's
Rural Specialty and general rural setting. A supporting rationale for
the focus of the KERA study was the inadequate attention being given
nationally to research on rural education issues. A national peer review
panel, which peruses relevant documents and meets annually, has
effectively advised the AEL staff on research topics and directions. At
both the statewide and local levels, the singular impact of AEL's KERA
studies within Kentucky has been dramatic. Policymakers differentiate
AEL research and study done on KERA from that of national researchers in
two related and important respects: first, AEL's approach is
longitudinal, and as a consequence there is a sequence to the research
which parallels the implementation of KERA; and second, AEL is more
knowledgeable and caring about the local area. Further, AEL's research
is federally supported, which conveys an aura of independence that would
be difficult for research sponsored by the Kentucky SDE to achieve.
Finally, the direct commitment of AEL is to provide information through
the KERA studies that will address questions and issues relevant to
policymakers at the state and district levels. These factors combined
establish a widespread ambience of acceptance.

The careful and distinctive tailoring of products and services to meet
state and regional needs, amply manifested in the QUEST and KERA
initiatives, were found as well in other initiatives examined, including
the Rural Specialty, assistance to Hancock County, the CSRD, and Policy
Studies.

Recommendations regarding areas identified for improvement should be
considered in perspective of this reviewer's overall high evaluation of
AEL.

-   In some areas there is a need for sharper clarity and definition:
    Quest, in relation to its involvement and impact on local levels;
    the Rural Specialty, in relation to other initiatives with rural
    foci at AEL; and the Scaling-Up Project, involving a distinction
    between information dissemination from the actual
    institutionalization of reforms in classrooms and schools previously
    unaffected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   AEL should recognize that no dichotomy has to exist between
    effectively serving the region while achieving a higher degree of
    national recognition. The seeds have already been planted with a
    recent addition to the staff of the Rural Center and the
    consideration by CSRD of developing rural models which may provide
    additional national demonstration options. CSRD, in particular,
    concomitantly challenges AEL's claim to rural distinctiveness and
    national leadership. If there is a vacuum in national leadership and
    rural models, why should AEL not stake its claims?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   AEL provides a variety of initiatives that embody systemic
    orientations to reform. There are formal structures, including
    corporate retreats, seminars sponsored by the Rural Center, an
    organization of program officers, and the recently established
    "Learning Laboratory," combined with informal habits and a general
    collaborative spirit which encourage communication across programs.
    Nevertheless, program officers in their presentations rarely
    attributed ideas and strategies employed to other internal programs.
    It is logically inconsistent for systemic programs, which focus on a
    predominately rural clientele, to coexist in proximity, yet operate
    largely independently of each other. The "Learning Laboratory," the
    organization of program officers, and the seminars organized by the
    Rural Center all provide the needed opportunities. These should be
    used more systematically to ensure that effective "lessons learned"
    are disseminated throughout AEL.

**VII. Broad Summary of Strengths, Areas for Improvement, and Strategies
for Improvement**

See Section VI above