DR. DENNIS MEADE TO BECOME COALITION OF RURAL AND APPALACHIAN SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ON JANUARY 1, 2010

Meade was named executive director by the CORAS Board of Directors on September 10, 2009, following an announcement earlier this year by current Executive Director Dick Fisher of his intention to retire on December 31, 2009. Fisher, with over 50-years in education, has served as the CORAS Executive Director for the past 10-years.

COALITION OF RURAL AND APPALACHIAN SCHOOLS

NEXT SCHEDULED PROGRAM Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Scroll Down for Program and Registration Information

AGAIN THIS YEAR (2009-10)

GRADUATE CREDIT, WITH NO TUITION FEE, FOR ATTENDING CORAS MEETINGS

Graduate Credit

The Ohio University College of Education will grant one (1) quarter hour of credit to personnel from CORAS member school districts who attend the following four CORAS programs: September 15, 2009; October 20, 2009; January 26, 2010; and April 27, 2010.The College of Education will waive the tuition fee. However, Ohio University requires an $85 general fee.

Registration Fee

CORAS will charge each participant $20 to cover the continental breakfast, lunch and session handouts.

For additional information see "CORAS Meeting Dates and Programs 2009-10" below.

Registration information will be available the second week of August 2009.
Contact Lori at (740) 593-4414 or (740) 593-4445 or FAX (740) 593-9698 or email stumpl@ohio.edu

CORAS Meeting Dates & Programs

2009-10

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

9:00am - 1:00 pm

Program

FY 2010-2011 School Funding Update

Presenter

Dick Maxwell

Dick Maxwell is a highly respected school finance expert, former BASA Executive Director, former school superintendent and currently a BASA Senior Fellow.

Location

Olde Dutch Restaurant, Logan

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Program

Education and School Funding Reform in Ohio and Across the Nation

Presenter

Molly A. Hunter, Esq.

Director, Education Justice at the Education Law Center

Newark, New Jersey

Molly A. Hunter is a nationally recognized expert on issues of school funding litigation and reform. She has written and spoken extensively on these issues and is known for her advocacy of educational opportunity for disadvantaged students.

Location

Olde Dutch Restaurant, Logan

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Program

"Teacher Quality and Student Achievement/Learning in the Classroom"

Presenter

Dr. James Mahoney

Executive Director, Battelle for Kids.

Jim Mahoney joined Battelle for Kids in 2001 as the organization's executive director. Dr. Mahoney has been involved in education for over 35 years as a superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal and teacher. He has also worked as an adjunct faculty member and has published a number of professional articles and is a well-known speaker, making presentations across the United States, Canada and China.

Location

Ramada Inn, Zanesville

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Program

Standards and the Race to the Top Program

Ohio Department of Education

Location

Olde Dutch Restaurant, Logan

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Program

Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence Program

2010 Hicks Honoree

Dr. Charol Shakeshaft

Department of Educational Leadership

Virginia Commonwealth University

Charol Shakeshaft has been studying equity in schools for more than 25 years, documenting gendered practice in the classroom and in school administration. She is an internationally recognized researcher in the area of gender patterns in educational delivery and classroom interactions.

Location

Ohio University Inn, Athens

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Annual Summer Meeting and Golf Outing

Program

To Be Announced

Presenters

To Be Announced

Location

EagleSticks Golf Club and Inn, Zanesville

NEXT CORAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

The CORAS Board of Directors will meet on March 16, 2010

following the membership meeting at the Olde Dutch Restaurant in Logan

 

Concepts from the January 26, 2010 CORAS Meeting:

 

A Framework for Dramatically Improving Education in Appalachian Ohio

Introduction

Recent conversations show agreement among Battelle for Kids, CORAS, Appalachia region superintendents, teachers, principals, union leaders, ODE leadership, potential funders, representatives from higher education, business leaders, and others. All believe it is critical to provide Appalachian students with the education needed to expand their opportunities and to make successful life choices in our increasingly competitive world.

This framework describes the essence of a three- to five-year funded project with the overall goal of dramatically improving education in Ohio’s Appalachia region. The project will involve a minimum of 30,000 students in approximately 20 Appalachian school districts. The longer-term goals are to apply lessons learned in the project and expand it to impact as many of the region’s 304,000 students as possible.

A comment about culture. Throughout the conversations, “Appalachian culture” has been a frequent topic of interest. Some comments about culture highlighted ways in which history, experiences and attitudes could be barriers to successful project implementation. Others stressed the need to capitalize on cultural strengths – the Appalachian advantage – and to be sensitive and respectful while moving forward toward dramatic improvement. This is what the Framework intends to do – describe a project that equips students with the 21^st Century skills and knowledge they will need to inform and support their choices as they define “success” for their adult lives.

A historical parallel. Electric power had a profound effect on life in America’s cities for nearly a half century prior to the advent of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). As a part of the New Deal, partnerships were formed to plan a network of not-for-profit cooperatives that would provide a source of reliable and cost-efficient electric service for all rural areas of the United States. That effort encouraged businesses to enter the region, increased the standard of living and dramatically improved life in rural Ohio.

Unfortunately, an educational resource disparity exists in Appalachia – much like electricity before the REA. The people who participated in the recent conversations about Appalachian education agree it is time (actually past time) to “electrify” Appalachian schools. Doing this, they say, will capitalize on an opportunity to engage in 21^st Century educational and economic renewal.

Overall Goals

Dramatically improve the career skills and college readiness of Appalachian students while emphasizing the value of lifelong learning.

Acquire previously unavailable resources and set newer and higher expectations for all educators and students.

Show that dramatically improved teaching and learning, fueled by high expectations, are achievable and produce student academic gains.

Revitalize and realign P-16 education for 21^st Century skills, learning and jobs.

Advance access to, and the positive impact of, technologically enhanced teaching and learning.

Demonstrate quantifiable success in implementing the project model and then expand the project throughout the region.

Achieving the Goals

Goal achievement will require strong collaboration to acquire resources, develop a comprehensive improvement plan and implement the plan strategically and effectively. Potential funders and everyone involved in implementation will expect to see measureable results.

Sample results in the form of targets include:

Demonstrate dramatic improvement in academic gains for students across all performance histories as shown by multiple measures, including value-added analysis, as applicable.

Show annual improvement in teacher value-added results representing a positive trend in student academic growth and teacher effectiveness.

Increase the percentage of students who are credit proficient at the end of ninth grade with the optimal goal of 100%.

Achieve a 100% graduation rate.

Achieve 100% student participation on the ACT college entrance examination with an average score of 23.

Increase the number of Advanced Placement courses offered and students who score at least three.

Verify that every student is at or above grade level at the end of grades three through nine.

Achieve a Performance Index score of at least 100 in each district.

Project Implementation

Implementation will focus on four key areas of project activities and commitments: advocacy, acceleration, access, and acknowledgement.

Advocacy. Districts and their supporters must advocate for the region, demonstrate strong leadership, communicate a bold vision and consistently articulate the importance of achieving project goals.

Acceleration. When a group of educators from the region was asked to identify critical areas that would accelerate goal achievement and for which resources are not readily available, they listed the following – all of which will be key components of the fully developed project model:

More instructional time for students.

Time for collaborative teaching, planning and professional learning.

Embedded professional development for teachers.

Training and support for distributed instructional leadership, involving principals and teachers, which includes mentoring and coaching practices.

Accountability for the academic progress of students.

Collaborative efforts resulting in the ability to put the best teachers with the neediest children.

Financial incentives for effective teachers.

Engaging the community in conversations about the purpose and value of education as well as sharing in the responsibility for students’ readiness to learn.

A collaborative approach to school reform.

Access.To achieve the goals, “access” becomes a verb. Among their many needs, Appalachian school districts must have the ability to access:

Highly effective Teachers – hire, train and retain top teaching talent.

Rigor – as supported by AP courses, end-of-course exams, and other approaches that raise expectations.

Relevance – curriculum and teaching practices that help students see the relevance to their lives and futures of what they are expected to know and do.

Data – information that helps measure progress toward project goal achievement, holds students and educators accountable for progress, informs professional development, and rewards exemplary results.

Collaboration – link Appalachian educators with each other, and with helpful resources anywhere, to combat isolation and promote professional growth.

Materials, resources, support – acquisition of these project building blocks will be a priority.

Higher educationpartnerships – deep and bold linkage of schools, students, families and K-12 educators with universities and community colleges will help break down real and perceived barriers.

Business partnerships – business cooperation, support and resources will be essential to success, as will linking educational improvement to regional economic development. Business reinforcement in their communities for the project goals and the value of educational improvement will help the educators “keep a steady hand on the rudder” as they navigate the changes inherent in this project.

Acknowledgement. Collectively finalized strategies to acknowledge and promote the importance of excellent instruction by high quality teachers will include:

Recruitment, retention and professional development of highly effective educators.

Career ladder programs that begin with residency, encourage additional responsibilities for teachers who produce strong student results such as mentoring/coaching new teachers, and facilitate sharing the best teachers’ best practices with others. These programs also can include high quality new teacher (and new principal) induction activities.

Strategic compensation approaches to recognize and reward teaching that produces exemplary student gains. 

Participating District Expectations

To be considered for participation, districts must demonstrate:

Commitment to the overall goals and desired results of the project.

Strong board of education, superintendent and union support for, and engagement in, the project.

Willingness and ability to use district resources to support the project.

Commitment to the full project, which may cover up to five years, and an understanding that the district will be on its own to sustain the work after the formal project ends.

Agreement to carry out the items described in Advocacy, Acceleration, Access and Acknowledgement.

Willingness to work in close cooperation with other districts in the project, especially those in geographic clusters

Battelle for Kids Expectations

Battelle for Kids is committed to partnering with selected school districts, teachers unions, the Governor’s office, other policy makers, private and corporate funders, universities, community colleges, business leaders and others to:

Provide leadership, facilitation and expertise throughout the development of project elements and then helping implement those elements in close cooperation with the participating districts.

Acquire expertise and assistance from: people who have demonstrated success in dramatically improving schools with challenges similar to Appalachia, two- and four-year colleges and universities, researchers, policy makers, business leaders and others who will be valuable assets to the participating districts.

Pursue project funding from a variety of sources.

Evaluate project progress and goal achievement, making necessary adjustments, and “taking the project to scale” throughout Appalachia as the evaluation warrants and funding permits.

Battelle for Kids, district administrators and teachers’ union leadership recognize that some aspects of project implementation will be subject to Ohio’s collective bargaining statutes at the district level. In these areas, as with the entire project, collaboration will be essential to success.

Summary

Imagine:

Appalachian Ohio school districts leading a bold program that dramatically improves Appalachian education, initially benefits 30,000 students, and results in successes others throughout the region will want to replicate.

A program that infuses students, families and educators with hope for progress and turns that hope into reality.

A multi-pronged program that interlinks educational and economic renewal.

The people whose input made this framework possible envision the courage, persistence, transparency, excellent communications, and no-excuses/do-what’s-best-for-students attitude that will electrify education in this region and maximize opportunities for students.

2009 Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence Honoree

John D. Stanford J.D., Ph.D.

Governor Strickland's

Executive Assistant for Education Policy

The Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence award will be presented at a CORAS membership meeting on April 28, 2009 at the Ohio University Inn, Athens, Ohio

2008 Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence Honoree

Dr. Kern Alexander, Professor of Excellence

University of Illinois

Dr. Alexander received the Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence award at a CORAS membership meeting on April 29, 2008 at the Ohio University Inn

2004 Samuel I. Hicks Executive-in-Residence Honoree, Dr. Dennis Meade,Superintendent Minford Local School District, (left) and the late Dr. Samuel I. Hicks. Dr. Meade was serving as President of the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools in 1993 when the above picture was taken at the annual HicksExecutive-in-Residence program.

COALITION OF RURAL AND APPALACHIAN SCHOOLS

2009 Leadership and Service Recognitions

Dannie Greene, Member, State Board of Education

Lori Snyder-Lowe, Superintendent, Morgan Local

Michael Collins, Member, State Board of Education

William Phillis, Executive Director, E&A Coalition

Recognition certificates were presented on April 28, 2009 during the Hicks Executive-in-Residence program at the Ohio University Inn.

COALITION OF RURAL AND APPALACHIAN SCHOOLS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTION FOR 2009-10

President William Brelsford, Supt., Caldwell Exempted Village

President-elect Mark Miller, Supt., Buckeye Local (Jefferson County)

Immed. Past President David Branch, Supt., Franklin Local

Region 1 Jim Frazier, Supt., Brown County ESC, Supt., (elected)

Region 1 Phil Satterfield, Supt., Ross-Pike ESC (appointed)

Region 4 Dale Dickson, Supt., Perry-Hocking ESC (elected)

Region 4 Lori Snyder-Lowe, Supt., Morgan Local (appointed)

Region 6 Dick Murray, Supt., Muskingum Valley ESC (elected)

Region 6 David Branch, Supt., Franklin Local (appointed)

Region 2 Charles Shreve, Supt. Eastern Local (Pike)(elected)to complete Dennis Meade's unexpired term ending June 30, 2011

Ex-officio - Barbara Hansen, Muskingum College (appointed)

Ex-officio - Aimee Howley, Ohio University (appointed)

Coalition of Rural and Appalachian School

Ohio University College of Education

Research Project

June 2008

Superintendent-Board Communication in Rural Districts

CORAS/COE Researchers

Dr. Aimee Howley

Dr. Larry Burgess

Although it seems logical to speculate that effective communication between superintendents and school board members would lead to high performance, there is limited empirical research that investigates such a linkage (Land, 2002). In fact, the research on superintendent-board communication tends to focus on narrow issues such as the extent to which superintendents and board members share perspectives on educational issues or the frequency with which they use particular communication vectors. There are very few studies, moreover, that use qualitative methods to provide detailed and nuanced information about the dynamics of communication between superintendents and board members.

In order to investigate such dynamics in rural communities, the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools sponsored a study focusing on the commonalities and differences in practices characterizing superintendent-board communication. Because the research team was interested in how such practices might contribute to district effectiveness, the study included only districts that were reputed to be effective.

The Study

The team selected two rural districts from a list of effective districts generated by leaders of Ohio’s major educational organizations. Review of state accountability data also confirmed that the rural districts on the list were high performers. To gather data in each of the districts, one member of the research team conducted interviews with the superintendent, other central-office administrators, the board president, other board members, community members who had relevant information, the district’s principals, and the superintendent’s secretary. The interviewer asked a series of open-ended questions in an effort to ensure that responses would be detailed but also comparable across sites and informants. Using transcripts of the interviews, the researchers coded the data and then organized the codes into broader categories. This process resulted in an interpretation that used the following five categories to make sense of the data: the frequency of communication, the methods of communication, the topical focus of communication, the dynamics of communication, and the quality of communication.

The Districts

District A encompasses a small town of approximately 2000 people and the surrounding rural countryside. Located along the Ohio River, the town is situated within a relatively low-density metropolitan statistical area. Nevertheless, the district also serves students from rural places further from the river.

District B serves a mostly rural area of approximately 10,000 residents.  Located in east central Ohio, the area is home to several light industrial operations but derives most of its economy from agriculture and tourism.  The school district encompasses 119 square miles and is situated in close proximity to several large urban areas.

The Findings: Commonalities and Differences

Members of the school community in both districts talked about the frequent communication between the superintendent and board members. In fact, interviewees in both districts described the superintendent’s perspective on communication as reflective of an “open-door” policy.

Methods of communication were also common across the districts. In both, superintendents and board members used a combination of formal and informal channels for sharing ideas and making decisions. Formal channels included board meetings, packets of information sent prior to board meetings, and official newsletters. Informal channels included telephone calls, memos, emails, and occasional face-to-face meetings.

Topics of communication were also similar in the two districts. They ranged from broad considerations such as vision and mission of the district and instructional improvement to more focused matters such as personnel issues, construction projects, and specific curriculum proposals.

Despite these similarities, there were two important differences between the communication approaches in the two rural districts. First, the reported “open-door policy” was implemented quite differently in each of the districts. Second, there was a clear difference in the extent to which the two superintendents were involved in contentious relationships with certain constituencies.

The superintendents in the districts differed with regard to “openness” when this construct was taken to mean (1) involving the board in serious consideration of a wide range of issues, (2) sharing a great deal of relevant information with the board, and (3) willingly according the board an active role in evaluating the superintendent’s performance. In fact, a fine-grained comparison of what the “open-door policy” meant to participants in the two districts demonstrated how different these superintendents’ communication practices actually were. For example, in District B, the Vice President of the board reported, “If there’s something … important, he’ll catch me day or night. So, in that area, it’s pretty free and open communication. There’s no structure to it.” By contrast, the expectation in District A was that openness depended on the routine use of structured approaches to communication, as the following comment illustrates:

"This is the only district I have ever worked in where they have scheduled two meetings a month. The first meeting is always one where … issues are discussed, as kind of an information [item], asking for permission to proceed with projects. And the second meeting is one where we will actually take action: a lot of discussion in the first, and in the second, business. But in between memos, one page overviews, the superintendent’s constantly updating us the day after every board meeting, so communication is always open."

Just as “openness” differed across the two districts, so too did “contentiousness.” In particular, the superintendent in District A appeared to engage in far more amicable relationships than did the superintendent in District B.

With regard to the relationship between District A’s superintendent and board members, words like “collaborative,” “focused,” and “forthright” characterize the impressions reported by respondents. In District B, frequent communication between the board and superintendent appeared to sustain a relationship of mutual trust. In fact, the board president described communication as “family-like,” a comment certainly suggesting that the relationship between the board and the superintendent was amicable. Nevertheless, some comments from informants also seemed to indicate that the price of an amicable relationship was the board’s acquiescence to the superintendent’s point of view. Moreover, the relationship between District B’s superintendent and the teachers’ association was notably strained. By contrast, the superintendent in District A had a forthright and friendly relationship with union leadership. He met with union leaders once a month in order to engage in dialog and collaborative problem-solving.

Clear Patterns and Continuing Questions

Findings from this study provide insights about the role of communication in the governance of rural school districts. First, communication and the relationships it supports are crucial to the smooth operation of districts. In small rural communities and perhaps elsewhere, open communication between the superintendent and the board fosters collaboration and builds trust. Effective communication also appears to depend on superintendents’ use of three practices: (1) making sure communication is frequent, (2) directing the board’s attention to issues of significance to district operations, and (3) providing both formal and informal channels of communication.

Despite the apparent value of these practices, the extent to which effective communication influences district performance is not clear. After all, both districts in this study were equally effective in producing academic achievement even though the dynamics associated with their governance were markedly different.

Additional research is needed to answer the questions that findings from this study raise. Among these are research questions relating to specific dynamics in rural districts:

To what extent and in what ways are educational activities influenced by the relationship between the superintendent and the school board?

What leadership practices are effective in repairing damaged relationships between superintendents and key constituencies?

Also important are research questions focusing on the extent to which dynamics identified in these rural districts apply to other rural districts and to districts in other locales. Two questions illustrate this line of inquiry:

In what ways does the communication between urban (or suburban) superintendents and school board members affect district operations and performance?

How does the complexity of an urban district influence the dynamics of superintendent-board communications?

CORAS/COE Research Published in Teachers College Record

The Pain Outweighs the Gain: Why Teachers Don't Want to Become Principals

by Aimee Howley, Solange Andrianaivo & Jessica Perry U.S. schools are facing a crisis of leadership because many school districts are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit new principals. Whereas teachers represent the group from which the largest number of new principals is likely to be drawn, fewer and fewer of them now seem willing to seek administrative positions. Understanding their perspectives provides an important basis for addressing critical shortages.

CORAS/COE research study dealing with the "Shortage of School Administration Candidates" published in the Education Policy Analysis Archives