September/October 2000
You can now receive
our news and information via e-mail. Click the 'Join List' button:
Rural Schools: Making the Grade
Are rural schools making the grade in helping students
improve their academic achievement and graduation rates? According
to an analysis of the School Performance Funding program, an awards
program administered by the state Department of Education, rural
schools have been receiving awards for improvements in both of
these areas.
The School Performance Funding program (SPF) was
created by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1998 to reward
public schools for improvements in student academic achievement
and improved attendance/graduation rates. The program provides
cash awards to individual schools within a school district and
allows these schools to spend the money in a variety of ways with
one stipulation: the schools must spend at least half of the award
on the planning, delivery and assessment of instructional programs.
Up to 25 percent of the award may be used as individual staff
rewards.
For improvements in student achievement, schools
may receive awards of between $7.50 and $37.50 per student, depending
on performance levels, which are based on Pennsylvania System
of School Assessment (PSSA) tests. These are statewide, standardized
tests given to all 5th, 8th, and 11th grade students.
For improvements in attendance and graduation rates,
schools may receive an estimated incentive payment of between
$6 and $37.50 per student, again depending on increased attendance/graduation
rates.
To determine how rural schools faired in this program,
the Center for Rural Pennsylvania analyzed two years of combined
award data to develop a more complete understanding of both rural
and urban school achievements. The analysis did not include vocational/technical
schools or intermediate units.
Also for the analysis, school districts were classified
as follows:
- districts that received academic improvement awards
only;
- districts that received improved attendance/graduation
rate awards only;
- districts that received both improved academic
awards and attendance/graduation rate awards; and
- districts that received no awards.
The basics
- Between 1998 and 1999, 453 school districts received
more than $22.6 million from the School Performance Funding program:
rural school districts received 22 percent, or less than $5 million,
of the grant awards.
- The average award total that rural school districts
received was $30,212. The average award total that urban school
districts received was $61,166. On a per student basis, rural
districts received an average of $12.96 per student and urban
districts received an average of $13.46 per student.
- Regionally, nearly 60 percent of the awards went
to school districts in eastern Pennsylvania.
- Nearly 82 percent of the funding received by rural
districts was for academic achievement, and 18 percent was for
increases in attendance/graduation rates. Among urban school districts,
61 percent of the funding was for academic achievement and 39
percent was awarded for attendance/graduation rate increases.
Academic Achievement Only
- Among the 165 rural districts that received SPF
awards, 52 percent received only academic achievement awards.
Among the 288 urban districts, 43 percent received only academic
achievement awards.
- Regionally, the highest percentage of rural school
districts that received academic awards only were in central Pennsylvania.
The highest percentage of urban districts was in the southwestern
region.
- On average, rural districts received more for
academic achievements than urban districts. The average cash award
for rural districts was $27,260, or about $13 per student. The
urban districts’ average was $25,950, or $8.50 per student.
Increases in Attendance/Graduation Rates
- About 6 percent of rural districts received only
attendance/graduation awards. The average award was less than
$9,800, or $4 per student. About 6 percent of urban school districts
also received attendance awards only. The average award for urban
districts was $12,185, or $4 per student.
- Based on the Center's analysis of data, urban
districts that received awards for improvements in attendance
and graduation rates were generally more affluent than similarly
awarded rural districts. These urban districts spent about $1,000
more per student on actual instructional expenses than rural districts,
and received over 70 percent of their revenues from local sources.
Academic Achievement and Attendance/Graduation
Rates
- More than 42 percent of the rural school districts
received cash awards for both increases in academic achievement
and attendance/graduation rates. Among urban districts, more than
51 percent received both types of awards. Regionally, the highest
percentages of rural districts receiving these two types of awards
were in the central and northwest regions. Among urban districts,
the largest percentages were in the southeast and southwest regions.
- The average cash award going to rural districts
was $37,244, or roughly $14 per student. From this amount, 68
percent was awarded for academic achievement, and 31 percent for
increases in attendance/graduation rates.
No-Award Districts
- Seventeen rural school districts, or 9 percent,
either did not qualify or did not apply for the awards. In urban
areas, 31 school districts, or nearly 10 percent, either did not
qualify or did not apply for the awards.
- Nearly 60 percent of the no-award rural school
districts were located in western Pennsylvania. The largest percentage
of no-award urban districts (42 percent) was located in the southwestern
corner of the state.
Want more info?
For a more detailed fact sheet, Rural Schools:
Making the Grade, contact the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
at (717) 787-9555 or email at info@ruralpa.org.
Chairman’s Message
Getting kids to come to and stay in school is a
challenge for many school districts across the Commonwealth. Rural
and urban educators, along with state government, continue to
study methods to achieve this goal. It’s not as simple as A,B,C
or 1,2,3. As a matter of fact, one public school in my legislative
district is offering to give high school seniors who have perfect
attendance the chance to win a new car upon graduation. This idea
has been lauded by some and criticized by others, but it points
to the problem that is being tackled from many angles by today’s
schools.
A 1998 law also aims at improving student academic
achievement through incentives to school districts. Our cover
story, Rural Schools: Making the Grade, analyzes Pennsylvania
Department of Education data regarding the statutorily created
program. The department’s "report card" shows many schools
have been doing their homework and are using this new law to improve
academic achievement and graduation rates.
All of us at the Center for Rural Pennsylvania are
proud of our Penn State faculty partners who recently received
a national award for a CD-ROM that was developed with funding
support from the Center. PA BLUPRINTS is a tool that people from
all over the Commonwealth and nation have been using to help determine
what is best for their communities in terms of planning and development.
Created in 1996, PA BLUPRINTS is now in its third printing. See
page 6 to find out how you can order your copy of this award-winning
CD-ROM.
Most of us know someone who uses tobacco products.
We have all heard or read about the harmful effects that smoking
has on our health. The state Department of Health has documented
the costs of smoking to our communities in higher health care
charges, lost wages, and absenteeism. The article on page 5 gives
us more reason to "kick the habit," or better yet, to
not start smoking.
As I wrap up this edition’s Message from the Chairman,
please look at the next page. "Another survey?" you
ask. Yes, and I’d really appreciate if you would take a few minutes
after reading all the great information contained in this issue
to complete the survey and return it to us. During the past decade,
the Center for Rural Pennsylvania has been publishing a newsletter
filled with rural resources, references and contacts. In recent
years, we have made some changes to the format and content of
this publication in order to improve its value to you, our readers.
Now it’s your turn to give us some input. What do
you like? What would you like to see changed? Your feedback will
help us to continue to make positive changes to the newsletter
and to focus on the information you find valuable. If you are
among the readers who prefer electronic responses, feel free to
complete our online survey available on our website at www.ruralpa.org.
Thanks in advance for taking time to answer the survey and for
helping us to keep Rural Perspectives moving forward.
Representative Sheila Miller
Chairman
Rural Perspectives
Newsletter Survey
Help us to better serve you! By responding to the
following survey, you can help the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
make its newsletter more responsive to your informational needs.
Please take a few minutes to answer the following
questions and return the survey to the Center by mail or fax.
The survey is also available on the Center’s website
at www.ruralpa.org/survey.html.
We would appreciate your response no later than
November 3, 2000. The results of the survey will be featured in
an upcoming issue of Rural Perspectives. Thank you for your response.
Going Up In Smoke
Smoking is one of the leading causes
of preventable death in rural areas, according to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health. In 1997, nearly 5,000 rural Pennsylvanians
— which is roughly the population of Forest County — died from
smoking-related illnesses, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease
and respiratory disease.
In 1997, smoking caused 195 deaths
for every 100,000 residents in rural areas and 189 deaths for
every 100,000 residents in urban areas. In both rural and urban
areas, smoking causes about 18 percent of all deaths.
Rural males are more at risk from
smoking-related deaths than rural females. In 1997, 63 percent
of smoking-related deaths were rural males, or almost twice the
percentage of rural females. In urban areas, 60 percent of smoking-related
deaths were male.
Costs are many
In addition to the toll smoking takes
on individuals, it takes a toll on the economy. According to the
state Department of Health’s data, smoking cost rural communities
more than $885 million in 1997, or about $350 per person. More
than 36 percent, or $321.8 million, of these costs were health
care related: hospital charges, physician fees, and medication
costs. Estimates indicate that 15 cents of every dollar spent
on health care in rural Pennsylvania is for smoking-related illnesses.
In urban areas, only 6 percent of the health care costs are attributed
to smoking-related illnesses.
Other economic costs are lost wages
and productivity. In 1997, Pennsylvania’s rural areas lost about
$72 million, or about $88 per rural employee per year in wages
and productivity because of smoking related illnesses. That’s
$25 more than the urban average where the cost in lost wages and
productivity was $63 per employee per year.
Absenteeism was another problem associated
with smoking. Again in 1997, it was estimated that workers clocked
more than 884,400 days absent from work because of smoking disabilities.
Who smokes?
How many rural residents smoke? According
to the Department of Health’s data, nearly 1 in 4 residents are
smokers. This is the same rate as in urban areas. Since 1994,
the percentage of Pennsylvanians who smoke has remained unchanged
at 24 percent of the population. Nationally, it is estimated that
23 percent of the population smoke.
Within Pennsylvania, about 30 percent,
which is the highest percentage of smokers, are under 45 years
old. Also, individuals with less education and income are more
likely to smoke.
Combating use
With thousands of tobacco related
deaths each year, tobacco use is increasingly seen as a public
health issue, especially among teenagers. According to a 1995
study by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, 26 percent
of high school seniors said that they smoke cigarettes every day,
and over 42 percent of ninth graders said that they were willing
to smoke cigarettes.
To combat teen smoking, the Department
of Health has launched a number of statewide information campaigns
aimed at educating retailers of their responsibilities on the
sale of tobacco products and encouraging youth to take a pledge
to unite and promote a tobacco-free society.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) is also focusing efforts to combat smoking
by developing a list of best practice recommendations. Some relevant
practices for rural communities include the development of community
and school programs to raise awareness on the harmful affects
of tobacco usage, increased enforcement of tobacco use laws, and
instituting counter-marketing activities.
Want more info?
For more information about Pennsylvania’s
campaign to combat smoking, contact the Department of Health’s
Tobacco Control Program at 717-783-6600 or visit the department’s
website at www.health.state.pa.us.
For more information about the Centers
for Disease Control best practice recommendations, visit its website
at www.cdc.gov.
Did You Know ...
- The Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture was established in 1895 by Gov. Daniel B. Hastings.
- In June 2000, the rural unemployment
rate was 4.9 percent.
- Federal expenditures in rural areas
totaled $4,671 per person in 1999.
PA BLUPRINTS Receives National
Award
PA BLUPRINTS, an educational and interactive CD-ROM
that was supported by a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
and developed by researchers at Penn State University in 1996
has received a national award from the American Society of Landscape
Architects.
Developed by Kelleann Foster and Timothy Johnson,
associate professors at Penn State University, PA BLUPRINTS helps
communities to understand the various options they may use to
protect their cultural and natural resources while accommodating
growth. The CD-ROM includes dynamic illustrations and real-world
examples from across Pennsylvania, and is divided into six topic
areas: agriculture, community character, natural systems, sign
control, streetscapes, and trees/woods.
PA BLUPRINTS received an award of merit in the Analysis
and Planning category of the awards program. The CD-ROM was selected
because of its quality, functionality, environmental considerations,
and overall relevance to landscape architecture.
The CD-ROM is now in its third printing and has
been updated to better work on today’s computer operating systems.
To receive a copy of PA BLUPRINTS, send a check
for $14 made out to Penn State University to the Department of
Landscape Architecture, 210 Unit D, University Park, PA 16802-1429.
No Small Matter
Pennsylvania’s municipalities come
in all shapes and sizes. According to data from the U.S. Census
Bureau, the state is home to some of the smallest municipalities,
geographically, in the nation.
In Pennsylvania, 288 municipalities
are less than one-half square miles in size each — roughly the
size of two,18-hole golf courses. These "micro-municipalities,"
as we’ll call them, make up 11 percent of the state’s nearly 2,600
municipalities.
In 1998, more than 245,400 Pennsylvanians
lived in micro-municipalities, or an average of 850 residents
per municipality. More than 70 percent of these municipalities
are rural. Regionally, the largest concentration of micro-municipalities
is in southwestern and central Pennsylvania.
Between 1990 and 1998, micro-municipalities
lost nearly 4 percent of their population. Demographically, micro-municipalities
have a higher than average percentage of elderly and single person
households. They also have a higher percentage of rental units
and homes built before World War II.
According to the Census Bureau, the
average household income in a micro-municipality is about $7,200
below the state average. In addition, only 15 percent of the workforce
actually live and work in their municipality; most commute to
work.
The average micro-municipality was
incorporated in 1880. Every micro-municipality except one was
incorporated as a borough. The sole exception is West Lebanon
Township in Lebanon County.
In 1997, the average micro-municipality’s
budget was just over $282,600, and more than 40 percent of the
revenues came from taxes.
Back to the Top
