Services in a Rural High Wealth and Low Wealth School District

Abstract

Using a comparative analysis of two rural school districts with similar demographic profiles in Mississippi, the impact on special education programming of disparate school district wealth was studied. The study revealed that the wealthy school district had far greater local revenues supporting special education that was not offset by either state or federal dollars. This revenue difference was most obvious in differences in the quality of special education personnel, with the wealthier district employing teachers with higher academic degrees and with more teaching experience. Implications for resource equalization are also discussed.

Addressing Personnel Needs for Rural Areas

“…Studies from Florida, Mississippi, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington (Bina, 1987;Bornfield, et al, 1997;Johnson, Elrod, Davis & Smith, 2000;Theobald, 1991;Westling & Whitten, 1996) indicate that the particular characteristics of a rural area make a great deal of difference in its recruitment of personnel, but then the ''rootedness,'' or the personal relationships, of the employees help to determine whether they stay or move on. Accordingly, a project director from California State University-Chico, reported (email survey) that she helps to foster support networks for students living in rural areas as a strategy to promote job satisfaction for graduates.…”

“…While funded projects file continuation and final reports, these data are not easily accessed in a timely manner by the public or even by Federal workers. Pro- Artesani, & Brown, 1998Berkeley, & Bull, 1995 Case study (Maine) Philosophical exploration Bina, 1987 Survey (Texas) Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terhanian, 1998 Analysis of national probability sample Bornfield, Hall, Hall, & Hoover, 1997 Comparison research (North Dakota) Christie, 2001 Review of recent rural state reports (national) Cook, & Boe, 1995Summarization Foster & Harvey, 1996 Survey (British Columbia & Saskatchewan) Garnes, Menlove, & Adams, 2002 Survey (Utah) Helge, 1991 Literature review Johnson, Elrod, Davis, Debbie, & Smith, 2000 Comparison study (Mississippi) Magrab, 1992 Topical review; policy recommendations Martin, Williams, & Hess, 2001 National survey Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1998 Summary of data (national) Ryan-Vincek, 1995 Interview research (Alaska) Theobald, 1991 Literature review; interview data (Washington) Tickamyer, 1996 Synthesis of rural demography to guide rural early intervention Weiss, & Correa, 1996DELPHI survey (Florida) Westat, 2002 Stratified national study of 8000ϩ special education professionals and paraprofessionals Westling, & Whitten, 1996 Survey; predictive modeling (Florida) Yellin, Bull, & Warner, 1988 Survey research (Oklahoma) Rural Competencies Dempsey, 1990 Literature review Forest, 1995 Program report (Montana) Diverse populations Delany-Barmann, Prater, & Minner, 1997 Interview research (Arizona) Jacobs, Wounded Head, Forest, Struck, Pituch, & Jacobs, 2001 Program description (South Dakota) Powers, 1997 Program description (Alabama) Prater, Miller, & Minner, 1996 Program description (Arizona) Savelsbergh, 1994 Editorial (California) Sealander, Eigenberger, Pet...…”