Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program Grantees
Author: Schmidt, Rebecca Anne
Date: 2016-12-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Rural Education,Federal Programs,Academic Achievement,Elementary Secondary Education,Rural Schools,School Districts,Federal Aid,Funding Formulas,Resource Allocation,Competition,Data Analysis,Accuracy,Program Descriptions,Program Improvement,Public Agencies,Federal Government,State Government,Grants,Technology Uses in Education,Faculty Development,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation

Nationally, 28 percent of all public elementary and secondary schools were in rural locations in 2013-14, serving 18 percent of all K-12 students (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2015). Rural schools serve students in sparsely populated areas and have smaller overall populations than schools in other communities. Rural school districts often face unique challenges such as geographic isolation, shortages of qualified educators, and underdeveloped infrastructure, including technology systems (Consortium for School Networking 2016; Porowski and Howley 2013). Congress established the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) to provide flexible funding to help rural districts address these challenges and serve students more effectively. REAP is composed of two programs: the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program. Of the two programs, SRSA supports smaller and more isolated districts, and it provides additional funding and the opportunity for these districts to exercise &quot;REAP-Flex&quot; authority. REAP-Flex allows SRSA-eligible districts to use certain specific federal formula funds to support local activities under an array of other federal formula programs to assist them in addressing local academic needs more effectively. RLIS serves rural districts that are generally slightly larger but have substantial concentrations of poverty, and it provides additional funding only, not the authority to exercise REAP-Flex. The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) awards SRSA grants directly to eligible districts on the basis of a statutory formula, whereas the Department provides RLIS formula allocations to state education agencies, which in turn make subgrants to eligible districts, either by formula or by competition. This study's objective was to examine state and district practices and perspectives regarding REAP: the roles states and districts play in verifying the accuracy of the data used to determine district eligibility for REAP funds, how districts use REAP funds and REAP-Flex, and states' and districts' recommendations for improving program operations. This report is not intended to reflect best practices. It describes conditions as they existed at the time of data collection, but the inclusion of a description of state or district practices does not necessarily mean that all practices comply with the law governing REAP, nor that the Department approves all practices described. In addition, some challenges and grantee recommendations discussed in this report are in response to provisions set by statute and/or controlled by Congress which are outside the authority of the Department to address. Key Findings Presented are: (1) States supported the Department in determining REAP eligibility by providing district-level data and reviewing the accuracy of Department-provided data; (2) All 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts chose to make subgrants to districts on the basis of a funding formula rather than on a competitive basis, and 28 of these states based the subgrant amount entirely on average daily attendance (ADA); (3) Districts most frequently used SRSA and RLIS funds to improve or expand access to technology (71 percent of SRSA districts and 71 percent of RLIS districts) and to provide educator professional development (45 percent of SRSA districts and 58 percent of RLIS districts); (4) Forty-six percent of SRSA district coordinators reported exercising REAP-Flex; of these, 82 percent reported that they used funds eligible for REAP-Flex to maintain a stable level of funding for ongoing activities; (5) The majority of both district and state REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a whole. The following recommendations for improvement to REAP in three categories are provided: (1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination; (2) more information on allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex; and (3) revised eligibility criteria. The following are appended: (1) Full Text of the &quot;ESEA,&quot; as Amended by the &quot;No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,&quot; Title VI, Part B-Rural Education Initiative; (2) Methodology; (3) State REAP Coordinator Interview Guide; (4) District REAP Coordinator Survey; (5) District REAP Coordinator Interview Guide; and (6) Standard Error Tables and Other Supporting Data.