81. The Precarious State of Public Education with Paige Shoemaker DeMio and Dr. Steven L. Johnson
Michelle Rathman: Hello, one and all, and welcome back to a brand-new episode of The Rural Impact. I'm Michelle Rathman, and once again, I thank you, and I really mean it when I say, for coming back for another conversation that does work hard to connect the dots between policy and rural everything, or say it with me, rural quality of life.
Well, today we are back with another installment in our series that's focused on the state of education in rural places. And you may recall in our last episode, we heard from Dr. Melissa Sadorf, and Dr. Sadorf is the Executive Director of the National Rural Education Association. And of course, we covered a lot of important territory on matters pertaining to a rural school of funding and the challenges of school choice in Rural America.
And we also heard from a vocal critic of the rural Missouri school voucher program, a former educator herself, Jess Piper. She shared with us the realities that is leaving, quite frankly, rural students with no options when it comes to school choice, ironically so.
So today, we continue this conversation, and we also go deeper into the impacts of the policies that are now really dismantling the Department of Education. As well as what the proposed severe funding cuts, budget cuts, I should say, will mean for so many programs that make a significant difference for rural students and their families. Millions of them, as a matter of fact.
So again, really important conversation for us to continue having. Now my guests for this dot connecting conversation are two experts. Of course, they are on the matter, and they are, Paige Schoemaker DeMio, and Paige is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress. And by all counts, our second guest is a rock star in this space. You may know his name, Dr. Steven L. Johnson. And Dr. Johnson is the Superintendent of Fort Ransom School District in North Dakota.
Now, before we get started on that conversation, I wanna remind you that I am recording this introduction on April 13th. So, by the time you hear this, I'm sure that there might be some changes to these numbers, but I do think it's relevant for context now. I'm an avid reader of the Education Week publication; you might be as well.
And on April 3rd, Mark Lieberman, we've had Mark on our show before, he wrote a piece titled, 'Trump Again Proposes Major Education Cuts and New Budget Proposal.' So that was on April 3rd. Here are a few of the staggering numbers that Mark shared. And again, this is from his piece, and so I'm gonna quote it directly.
"For the second year in a row, Trump is proposing to zero out longstanding federal education programs that support educators' professional development, currently 2.2 billion a year services for English learners, 890 million for academic enrichment, and student supports. That's at 1.4 billion before and after school programs, 1.3 billion rural schools, 220 million, and support for students experiencing homelessness, 129 million."
Also in the story, Mark shared that Head Start, you know, the Nationwide Education program for low-income children, ages zero to five, a very important program for urban and rural alike, would see an 85 million per year cut under Trump's budget cut for a total allocation of roughly 12 billion.
Now, as you recall, in 2025, Head Start Operators, of course, they experienced significant challenges when trying to pull down their allocated funds, leaving some providers to temporarily shut down their operations as a result of not having their promised funding available to simply pay the bills.
Now there's a lot more to this story, of course, and I'll put the link to Mark's article in our show notes, which of course you can find on theruralimpact.com. But here's one last takeaway and a good jumping point for our conversation today.
Mark's last line is this. "One new wrinkle is a nod to the Trump administration's ongoing push to close the Department of Education. The new budget proposal appears to pitch permanently shifting funds for career and technical education to the Department of Labor."
This will be interesting to watch, but before we get ahead of our skis, because you know we don't have a crystal ball here, it is time for us to have that dot connecting conversation with my two guests.
So, I invite you to put yourself in that podcast listening frame of mind and hear my conversation with Paige Shoemaker, DeMio, and Dr. Steven L. Johnson. Are you ready? I hope so. I sure am. So, let's go.
Michelle Rathman: Well, as promised, I am joined by Paige Schoemaker, DeMio Senior Policy Analyst for K through 12 education policy at the Center for American Progress. Paige, thank you so much for joining us on the Rural Impact. We have a lot to unpack today.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Thank you so much for having me. I'm really excited to be here.
Michelle Rathman: Well, we're so glad you're here because, you know, in our last, our first part of this series, we're of course in the middle of a 2026 series on the State of Rural Education, and I share with our listeners that we had already. If you have not gone back and listened to this one yet, I encourage you to do so.
We had Dr. Melissa Sadorf from the National Rural Education Association on, as well as Jess Piper, and both of them, as you know, Jess Piper from Blue Missouri, are for our listeners who's very much watching what's happening with the privatization of public education in her state of Missouri. So, we wanna talk to you about that page because in May of 2025, almost a year ago, which seems, in my view, hard to believe, you authored a report called "How School Choice Agenda Harms Rural Students."
And I read that report back then, and I reread it because, gosh, since a year, I'm really curious to talk to you about what, let's talk about that, and then what might have changed. But, 'cause there are a lot of policy shifts right now for rural education, mostly uncertain. Although we do know that there's a certainty around the kind of harm that it's doing, school choice is one of them.
So, before we move on to some other things we wanna talk about today, let's talk about this report. And then specifically get into what's happening in West Virginia, Indiana, and Vermont. And one note that I found across, you know, specifically one line that really kind of reached into my heart, kind of the sales pitch, if you will, of the school voucher programs, is that it will benefit students experiencing poverty.
And that is not the case, especially in West Virginia. So, Paige, dive right into that report. Let's talk about what compelled you to write it, what you found, and then we'll move on from there.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yes, absolutely. Yeah. At the Center for American Progress, we've been doing a lot of work around the effort to privatize education. And personally, I just, you know, we have all these conversations, but a lot of times we forget about rural schools and conversations, and so I wanted to make sure that we were putting something out in our work that was also talking about rural schools and the impact that private voucher programs can have on them.
'Cause, it’s a very unique population in how these programs impact rural schools. So two big things, really, rural schools are unique in that they face diseconomies of scale, which basically just means you have fewer students, but that increases the cost per pupil. 'Cause you still have these fixed costs.
No matter how many students you have, you still have to pay for the building. You have to pay for at least one teacher per 20, 30 students. You have these fixed costs that don't change, no matter how many students you have. So, you have that, and you also have a very heavy reliance on state and federal funds.
'Cause in rural communities, it's usually harder to raise local revenue. And so, when voucher programs cause state or federal funding cuts, rural schools are usually hurt the most by that.
So, in my research, I really wanted to be able to tell specific stories. I didn't wanna just say, well, this could happen. I wanted to look at what is actually happening and be able to tell that. And I saw how those two aspects played out across three states. As you mentioned, West Virginia, Indiana, and Vermont.
West Virginia they're one of the states where, as you mentioned, we have all these counties, districts where not a single student is using a voucher. These are very low-income districts; not a single student is using a voucher. A lot of times, what that comes down to is most of the times these vouchers, they are not enough money to actually cover tuition at a private school. So, for a low-income family, whether they want to or not. That voucher isn't enough money for them to go anyway.
So that alone kind of, you know, breaks the myth of vouchers are to help low-income families. They, they don't actually make it possible for a low-income family to access a private school.
Michelle Rathman: Paige, let me ask you this before we move on. That is such a really good point because that money then, it doesn't go to that student, it doesn't go to the school. Where, where's, can you answer that question? So, if, so, and I'm reading in your report, and again, this is from 2025, but in 2025 to 2026 school year, the voucher amount in West Virginia is, was at the time expected to increase to more than $5,200 per student.
So, if that student isn't, even if that money can't go to them because there's no other, they can't afford it, what happens to that money?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: A lot of times, it's going to students who are already in private school. Most of the time, it's going to families who could already afford it. Students who were already in private school anyway, and now they're just getting their family's, basically getting a discount from the federal government to go to a private school. They've already been going to, that they've already been affording on their own.
So, it's yeah. And that money is taking funds away from the general public education funding pool, especially in states where the pro-voucher programs are more expensive than the government originally thought they would be. And so, they have to pull money from somewhere to cover it. A lot of times, that comes from public education funding. So, as you mentioned, West Virginia's expanding their program, and as they've been expanding their program, we've also been seeing alongside that dozens of public schools across the state, many of which are rural, planning to close their doors.
So, you know, we have some districts that are just losing a very, very, very small percentage of students. But because of these diseconomies of scale, because of these fixed costs, losing just a few students in a rural school can make a huge difference.
Now they're having to close doors, consolidate schools, and that not only impacts students, but also communities as a whole. In these, in these rural communities, schools are community hubs. There's oftentimes the largest employer. These are very important institutions to a rural community that can really change the success of that community.
So it's really, you know, I think the teacher that I interviewed in West Virginia for this, she made a great point when she said that, "you know, when 10 kids leave, and they take that money with them, schools have to shift expenditures." And now they might have to deny the remaining kids opportunities that they could have had if those 10 kids left had stayed, or if the money tied to them had stayed. So, it's really impacting all the kids who are stuck, who they don't, they can't go anywhere else. This is their public school. This is where they have to stay, and now their school's losing, losing more programs.
Michelle Rathman: And it's, it's writing their future without their consent. And I was thinking about this this morning in preparing this conversation, one of the quotes that I'm reading before we move on to Indiana was, "there would be funding available to fix some of those buildings that are facing closure to, or provide more programs for students that might," you know, but this money is going elsewhere.
So, we're now just talking about taking away from the student directly, but now we're talking about the facilities and taking it away from, you know, really programs that we take for granted, I think that are essential for their mental and emotional wellbeing, physical wellbeing, and whatnot.
Let's talk a little bit about Indiana. I say most of my money went to Indiana. Both my kids. I was fortunate enough to send 'em to college there. So what's going on in Indiana with their school voucher program?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah. Something that's interesting that Indiana is that they have one bucket of funds that goes towards both public schools and private school vouchers. So, if you imagine you've, you've got one bucket for both, and if we are pulling more and more and more to go to the vouchers, that means there's less and less left for public schools. Which, of course, is going to disproportionately impact rural schools as I mentioned at the top. So, you've got this bucket, it's got a hole in it that's just leaking out to send all this money to students who are taking it to private schools. Fewer and fewer dollars are left for public students and for public schools.
So, we're facing declining general funds for schools, and with tighter budgets, schools are forced to turn to referendums, to levies, and different ways to raise local revenue to make up for that funding gap. But in rural communities, it's so much harder to pass these levies, and there's, you know, in Indiana, rural referendums are the least likely to pass out of any, you know, if you look at urban, suburban, or rural, the rural are least likely to pass. So, they are just stuck with declining general funds, which again, cutting programs.
I think something else that's really interesting about Indiana is that it has a declining youth population. Despite that, they are now funding over 40,000 additional students than they were before. So, you might look at that and think, okay, there's less students, but for some reason we're funding even more students. Why? It goes back to what I mentioned earlier, that the state is really picking up the bill for families who were already sending their children to private schools, and they're doing so at the cost of public education.
Michelle Rathman: Talk about inequity. I mean, I just really, no other work comes to mind. Let's talk a little bit about Vermont, because Vermont, as you write, is considered the most rural state in the United States, with more than half of the public-school students attending a rural school. While about half of the eligible students use the town tuitioning vouchers, as they're called, to attend a neighboring public school. What are the implications of what's happening in Vermont?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Vermont is also very unique. As you mentioned, most rural state, they have a relatively small voucher program compared to other states, but their very unique problem is that small states. There's lots, you know, you have borders of other states, but also borders of another country, Canada, right on the other side. And students who are using vouchers in Vermont have been doing so to attend private schools outta state or even out of the country.
So, in the 2020-2021 school year, $1.5 million of state taxpayer money was going to schools outside of Vermont and even outside of the United States. So, we have students who are, you know, crossing the border to go to boarding school in Canada and using state taxpayer money to do that. I think you know, I can't speak for everybody but myself. I would want my state taxes to go towards educating people in the state, not paying to cover a student's boarding school in a different country, but that's happening.
Michelle Rathman: How, how well known do you, I mean, from your research, are you able to ascertain, like do people in Vermont understand that this is, in my mind, and listen, I'm not putting words in your mouth, but it feels very schemey. So, I mean, do people understand that this is where their tax dollars are going?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: There was a lot of conversation about it around that 2020-2021 school year. So, you know, there's been a lot of press around it in Vermont. I do think that that's part of the reason why Vermont has a very small voucher program, and they have not expanded their voucher program any further.
So, I think that, you know, I think people might know about it. I think that there's not; there has been some small efforts to try to change wording on the voucher program to ensure that students cannot take this out of state and out of country, but there hasn't been enough to actually make that change.
And, but I know that, you know, people that, a local principal there I talked to, he's very concerned about how a universal voucher program would impact his community. And that, you know, now with the federal voucher program coming in, it doesn't matter what the state, what the, you know, voters say. At this point, I don't believe Vermont has yet announced if they're gonna opt into that program or not, but that could dramatically change how many students are using vouchers in Vermont as well.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up because in our last, our last episode of this series, I did talk about the fact that at one point it was very state specific, but now with the expansion of federal interest in expanding these efforts, can you just talk a little bit about this and then I wanna move on to some of your recommendations 'cause you've got some doozies.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah, I mean, yes, it's been a very local issue and we've seen time and time again when this issue goes to the voters, they usually don't, they don't pass it, they don't vote for it. But with the federal program, it kind of bypasses voter input, and the governor gets to decide whether or not they're going to opt into the federal program.
So, there is still state say, but not necessarily voter say, depends how much the governor is going to listen to their constituents or not when it comes to this.
Michelle Rathman: My goodness. All right, so let's talk about some of your recommendations. On a higher note, you've got a whole list of them here. Just go, kind of go through the ones that come to mind. Of the most that could make the most impact in the shortest period of time.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: I think the most impact shortest period of time. I think two come to mind. One, we have to increase investments in rural districts, and we have to make sure that those increased investments stay in the public rural district and are not used to go elsewhere. We really need to work on how are we funding rural districts equitably, how we are offsetting the diseconomies of scale to improve the quality of education?
If there are so many states, some states have an adjustment in their state funding formula to give rural districts a little bit more. But I think a lot of those times we're not actually sitting down and looking at what it would cost to educate a rural student and making sure that the funding matches that. So, I think, you know, adjusting state funding formulas to really get at the root of what the cost would be and making sure we're providing that funding.
And then also at the federal level, increasing the funding for the Federal Rural Education Achievement Program certainly puts more dollars into rural schools so that they can support their students and provide them the education they need.
And then on the other hand, I mean, we just have to end the redistribution of public funds away from public schools and into private schools. Even when no rural students leave to use a voucher, these programs often harm state budgets and therefore take away money from rural schools.
So, increase the investments and make sure they're staying in public schools.
Michelle Rathman: Right. And you know, Paige, I wanna just bring something up that, you know, we connect the dots. Everyone knows that on this podcast between policy and rural quality of life. And as we record this at the end of March of 2026, I just feel like I need to consciously say, whether it's annoying to folks or not, I apologize, but we are looking at states coming up with major shortfalls on their budgets as a result of H.R.1, cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and so forth. And so, I mean, the budgets aren't getting any bigger, and my fear is that the redistribution is gonna look at covering other things that no longer. And I think it's, I really, really important for us to say a year from now, when you and I have this conversation again, I hope, where might we be?
So, okay, school choice is, but one challenge for rural K through 12 education, but you've also reported a lot, and we're gonna make sure that everyone knows where to read your research and your reports, but you've talked a lot about how to prepare rural students for college and beyond by improving access to coursework.
Again, I think so many of us out here take that for granted because it's not where we sit every day. So let's talk about what your research found on that front, just on the access to coursework, which seems so logical, and yet it feels very unattainable for some right now.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah. So in these rural schools, especially small rural schools, there are a lot of challenges when it comes to the expenses to educate students. There are also challenges with recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. Accessing reliable internet, transporting students across far distances.
And all of this makes it more challenging to offer students a wider range of courses, and also things like programs with local community colleges to expand access to advanced work or college prep work. So, one example that I found in my research, only 50% of rural districts offer AP Advanced Placement courses compared to 76% of urban districts in 85% of suburban districts. It is a huge difference.
And AP courses are so important. They can make students more competitive for acceptance into higher education institutions. They help students be more prepared. They also can they lift the burden of the cost of higher education. If you're able to complete those courses in high school. You don't have to pay for them in college.
And so all of these things are really limiting how prepared rural students are for the application process, for being accepted, and then for ultimately succeeding in higher education if they have those courses in high school, which can make all of the difference. And then at the same time too, students who lack access to foundational and advanced courses, they might need to enroll in remedial courses to catch up, which are costly and time-consuming.
So not only are you know, you're not getting these courses in high school, and now you're gonna have to pay for them in college, which is going to make it take extra long. It's gonna take more time to finish your courses because you're gonna have additional courses that you should have gotten in high school, but because you were in a small school that just didn't have the capacity to offer those courses, you're not getting that.
Michelle Rathman: Paige, are we going backwards? I mean, I'm struggling because isn't the point that we lift, I tell you we do on this show, policy can lift you up or let you down. It just feels like a huge letdown to me. You know, we were striving to get to that point, and we put on the brakes and now it feels like we're going backwards.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah, I think, I feel that too. I mean, one thing that comes to mind, particularly when you said that, is thinking about increasing access to broadband internet in rural communities. We've had grant programs recently throughout the, in response to the pandemic, that we're going in flux to increase internet access in rural communities.
And all of those have now, or maybe not all, but there have been many that have been cut off now. Now those programs are ended, which certainly feels like it's pushing us back, and it makes it harder 'cause schools can rely on, if schools have reliable internet, they can use that to bring in these different courses.
Now that might not necessarily be the same quality of having an instructor with you in person, but it is a step towards breaking that barrier for rural communities, of, oh, I can take AP Chemistry online, but if you don't have reliable internet at your school, you don't have that.
Michelle Rathman: That’s exactly the point. Or at home to complete your studies. Let's talk a I'm gonna, we're gonna talk about this because it's happening, it's a rollercoaster ride at this point, but the impact of the dismantling of the Department of Education, I read this morning, you know, on rural in particular, but across the board, but the rural districts across the country.
I read this morning, and I won't go into the details, but I just read about just even the offices now are being vacated from where they were for the longest period of time, and that disruption and so forth. So, talk about some of the major impacts that I really believe our listeners will have a genuine interest in understanding, to the Department of Education, because this was not a surprise. This was a promise. A campaign promise was to dismantle the Department of Education.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah, it definitely was, and I think it's important to always remember that dismantling or ending the Department of Education is not an authority that the President has. It is an authority that only Congress has. They created the Department of Education. They are the only ones who can get rid of it.
Despite that, we are seeing staffing cuts. We are seeing transfers of programs from the Department of Education to other agencies. Seeing as you just mentioned, they recently announced that they will, I think, a Department of Energy is gonna be moving in there now. So, the office itself they're moving elsewhere, which all of these things just make things more complicated and more timely, and more chaotic.
So as districts across the country are trying to reach out to the Department of Education to ask questions, to receive technical guidance, things that they have relied on historically, now they can't get answers and sometimes they don't necessarily trust the answers anymore because we're moving programs from deep expertise in the Department of Education over to other agencies who don't hold that expertise.
So, there's a lot of concern that when this happens. Can district leaders trust the answers that they are getting from these agencies when it's no longer the people who have the expertise providing the answers? So, it's, you know, it's causing delays in all of these different resources. I have heard the ways that this is impacting districts already.
A rural superintendent I've spoke with many times in regards to my rural work shared that, this school year was the first year his Rural Education Achievement grant was late. The program started in the early two thousands. He has never had it be late until this year. Which causes a lot of confusion around budgeting decisions for the school year, and you don't know, okay, is it coming or is it not? Maybe this, this grant is paying for the salary of a teacher. Now you have to tell that teacher, I don't know if I'm gonna be able to keep you on next year or not. These are real things that are happening already, and it's just going to get worse as there are even more delays and more confusion.
Michelle Rathman: And this is at the, this is at the ground level, and I had to think about again, the trajectory of the, the young people's career and where or their, their life, what happens next? What happens next to their earning potential, their quality of life as a result. Oh my gosh.
Paige, before we let you go, let's talk about the policy recommendations that you have on this one, because you do, again, I mean, these seem to me so incredibly logical.
So, if anyone's listening with that frame of mind, one of the things that you talk about is to create partnerships to expand access to coursework. Go into that a little bit if you please.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah. Yeah, I think that is a huge way, 'cause if we look at it, at the end of the day, these rural districts, they don't necessarily have the small ones particularly, they don't have the resources, the capacity to bring these programs on, on their own. So how can we create partnerships with either higher education institutions that are in the area? Obviously, that is a little bit more of a challenge 'cause rural communities are not as close to a bunch of colleges. But there are still ways that we can do that, especially if we can have, you know, professors come out or create more online options.
But also creating partnerships between districts. I think that's something that we've seen examples of in Colorado, for example, that have been very impactful when districts are allowed to share funding together, and maybe as a district, maybe as the two districts together, they have enough money to cover something like a mobile STEM lab. And now this mobile STEM lab can be shared between both of the districts, so the students can access it. They wouldn't be able to do that on their own, or maybe they're able to purchase professional development opportunities for their educators that they wouldn't have been able to do on their own.
So, creating those collaborations between districts is a really strong way to, to create more access.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, and there's no better time like today to do that. And it's a, it's a great, I mean, we think about that across many, many sectors is to build your bench and how can you be stronger together, especially knowing the headwinds that you have. Another thing that you put in here that I just wanna touch on a little bit is supporting English learners in rural schools.
And of course we are, I don't need, some days I find myself at a loss for words. This is a challenge for us right now. Significant.
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah, it, it absolutely is. And it's, I mean, when I wrote this piece, it's just a totally different world than what we're facing now. But even looking at then, like they're the percentage, I don't remember off the top of my head, but the percentage of students in rural communities who are English learners and they're not receiving the support that they are federally required to receive is astounding. So, just thinking about that already on top of everything else that's going on, it is a time where our English learners need a lot, a lot of support.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, they do. Oh my gosh. Well, what are you working on now before we let you go? What are you working on now?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Working well, you know, it's funny, you mentioned H.R.1 earlier. I'm actually working on kind of looking at how that could impact school meals as well. So, beyond the lookout for that, that should be coming out in the next couple months.
And then also just looking a lot about like, what is our path forward? How, what? Policies can we put together that will actually support students, and, you know, in their academic achievement, student achievement has, has not been great. So, what are the policies we can create, put out there that will actually help increase student achievement and help students be prepared for what's beyond post-secondary?
Michelle Rathman: Our next generation of leaders, it is so important to invest in them. Oh my gosh, Paige Shoemaker DeMio. We are so appreciative. We're gonna make sure that we put links to your pieces on our website, the real impact.com. Where can people follow you if they want to on social?
Paige Shoemaker DeMio: Yeah, on social, on Twitter, on X and on Blue Sky. I am on there at PB Shoemaker, so follow me there. And I love to share about all things about our work and everything that's going on in the education world.
Michelle Rathman: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for being here. It's even though we have to say goodbye to Paige. Everyone, stick around. We are not done with this dot-connecting conversation, because we are gonna hear next from a superintendent. Who better to talk to us about this topic than somebody who is absolutely in the know?
We'll be right back.
=====
Michelle Rathman: Thanks for staying with us, everyone, because as I promised you, this dot-connecting conversation, this courageous conversation we're having about rural public schools is not over, because right now I am so pleased to be joined by Dr. Steven L. Johnson, Superintendent of the Fort Ransom School District in North Dakota.
Welcome to The Rural Impact. We are sure glad to have you here today. And I really mean that. Thank you.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Thanks for having me, Michelle.
Michelle Rathman: Alright.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Proud to be on here.
Michelle Rathman: Oh, thank you so much for that. You know, I shared with our listeners before the break, we heard from someone that I found out, you know, what a small world it is, Paige Shoemaker DeMio at the Center for American Progress, and we touched on so many high-level issues with some of the great research that they do there, from school choice to policy shifts happening, and shifts might be an understatement at the Department of Education, among so many other things. Honestly, I cannot think of anyone more germane to this conversation. Someone who really understands it. Not only someone with your experience, but you are a superintendent with boots on the ground experiencing these kind of like tsunami effect impacts firsthand.
So, I really wanna start there. Kind of give us a lay of the land, because I found you in a piece that you wrote in the 74, in January of this year. And the piece was titled, "Fragmenting the US Department of Education Creates Chaos for Rural Schools." So, you spell it out in very clear terms, multiple lines of authority, blurred accountability, and conflicting priorities. Give us your, like in a nutshell.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Well, really what I'm at is, you know, North Dakota is a little bit different than a lot of areas in rural areas in the Midwest we're starting to see in, out in the country. When I say the country, we're starting to see a real demographic shift, especially in my home state of North Dakota, where populations are moving more towards the city areas.
And so, in the rural areas, we're declining. There is a population shift to declining and or aging. So, the little school that I'm at in Fort Ransom, actually right now, we're non-operating. We have a declining enrollment. We were down to a very few kids, and then we lost a teacher and we couldn't find a replacement.
So, we had to make the decision that we then reorganized last year, right? May that we had to make the decision of whether or not we were gonna operate this year. And so right now we're going through the legal process of reorganizing, and the school is non-operating. So we joined in with a neighboring school district and sent all of our kids that direction.
And, it's just a fact of life. We're down. We're seeing the same thing in other organizations, such as churches. You know, they're not having the number of people that they had before, or that they can't get, they can't get help. The pastors, for example. So that was an issue that we had to, we had to evolve and make some changes.
So, when it comes to federal, just so you understand that our whole system was based on the federal law. Our federal government set up our free and appropriate education system. It was built into our constitution by federal law. In order for us to become a state, we had to set up a system of free and appropriate public education that designated the 16th and 36th section of land in each township for the purpose of educating the kids.
Michelle Rathman: Wow.
Dr. Steven Johnson: So.
Michelle Rathman: You just educated us on a little history there.
Dr. Steven Johnson: And that was from the, the Northwest Ordinance that came in 1787.
Dr. Steven Johnson: So, in the very beginning. So, when states that became, before the, or after the original United States, all the new states that came in, they had to set up an education system. And in North Dakota, that's how we developed. And so when we've talked about our system, then you look at the economy of scale.
So, in a big school, a title program may not be as a big of an issue as it is in a small school. So, for example, if I'm getting $28,300 for a Title program in my little school of Fort Ransom, that may be the aide. The one aide that I have that may be designated for the aide that I'm getting. So, when we have delays in funding, or they mess around and say to us, well, we're gonna hold back this Title program, Title Two, or the after-school program, and we're not gonna let you know until July, late July, whether or not you're gonna have those funds. And actually, what you're doing is you're telling people that we don't know if you're gonna have a job when school starts in the fall.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. And let's rewind the clock because that's what happened. And you know, we are recording this April 2nd, and what happened the very beginning of the year is that funding was just frozen and everyone was kind of in limbo.
Dr. Steven Johnson: And that funds, and those funds were already allocated by Congress.
Michelle Rathman: Right. And we've had.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Even though they were allocated by Congress and we're running in some of those same things already this year.
Where we're already seeing some of those things that are funded, what we call funding year '26, have already been allocated. We're already seeing some of those projections are being delayed. And especially in what we call REAP funds. And I don't wanna get into the weeds, Michelle, because I mean, school financing, I got 49 years in school finance, and I mean, I could just go on and on and on.
But there are certain funds that are just designated for rural schools, and one of them is REAP, it's called Rural Educational Achievement Program, and that's just for small schools. Schools that have enrollments of 600 students or less. It allows you to co-mingle funds. You can use them, whatever you wanna within the title programs of the federal government. And it cuts the bureaucracy because it's a straight from the federal government to the school districts itself, so there's no go betweens, and it's been around for just about 25 years now.
We've seen delays over the last two years in those funding, and although they've been appropriated.
Michelle Rathman: I have a lot of questions for you, and you know, none of us have a crystal ball here. We can't crawl inside the minds of people who are making these, you know, in my view, very ill policy decisions. What is the motivating factor behind, you know, I I'm liking it to like, death by a thousand cuts because it's just, it's funding, it's programs, it's all sorts of other impositions like saying you can have your money as long as you don't do this, or if you do this, so what, what is, what are you all being told about the actual reasons why this is happening? Or is it just radio silent? I'm not sure.
Dr. Steven Johnson: It's radio silence, Michelle. I, I was out in Bismarck, or excuse me, I was out in, in Washington DC and we had somebody from the REAP program. Very nice. But there've been cuts. Huge cuts. A lot of people are gone,
And new people are coming in, and so there's, there's not the institutional knowledge.
You know, I've been in this business for a long time, and I also farm, so you know, and I go down to the Farm Service Agency, I can go down there, and I can get answers. People are more than happy. You know, right now I can call the education department, and I can't get 'em to return phone calls.
Michelle Rathman: And I don't, I don't think that condition's gonna change anytime soon. And so, with that, you know, a lot of time, a lot of the conversations we're having here, we know what's happened, and it's fresh, fresh, fresh in our rear-view mirror. We don't know what the future holds, but so we have to figure out what, here's the present. So how do we figure things out?
And I'm having a lot of conversations with county officials. That's one of our next episodes, dropping it. We're talking to county officials about the impacts of their budgets and these funding cuts, and you know, where is the county going to be expected to make, what happens to a county?
I mean, maybe you better than anyone else. What happens to a county when the school
Dr. Steven Johnson: North Dakota, the county doesn't have a whole lot to do with the schools, but then again, when I look at the essential federal, what the federal government does with home homestead states like North Dakota, then you look at the Moral Act.
Dr. Steven Johnson: And you look at land grant colleges and the extension service. And they're all connected. So almost every one of the Western states or the Midwestern states have a land grant college that also does research in Ag and mechanical engineering, or they have engineering departments. They don't only have football at NDSU, you know, they have research that they're doing, but they also have extension in each county.
And so it'd be interesting to see how those go. I know that, Hovan, our senator, uh, has been, Senator John Hovan has been very supportive of those grants and making sure that everything is. They're very, very supportive of NDSU and, making sure that we get those.
So that is a source that we, as public schools, I think can use more as the extension services and the education that we have, but they're not directly affiliated with one another.
Michelle Rathman: You know, it's interesting you brought up population and kind of population drain. And I read a piece the other day about, you know, some, some rural populations are expanding, but it's around things like AI and things like that. But farming communities and communities that are below the poverty level, those are not growing.
And then I think about the, the door, the pathway that education provides young people, and I would imagine in your position, you've gotta be quite concerned about what opportunities are gonna be there for young people if they cannot rely on a solid K through 12 education? And if you're seeing any of those early signs of what's to come for them.
Dr. Steven Johnson: You know, when I first came to, I was the Superintendent of Lisbon, which is the largest school district in the county, which is my hometown. Which, you know, my dad was on the school board, my grandpa was on the school board. When I left, I never was gonna come back. And then I came back.
I mean, you don't come back to your hometown 20 years later and look at the top of your boots. You just don't do that. So anyway, but we had over 750 students K-12. When I came back, when I graduated in 19, I'm telling you my age. When I graduated in 1973, I was in a class of 88 students.
My daughters graduated in a class in 1999 of 65. They are now graduating classes of 40 and 45.
Michelle Rathman: And every single one of them deserves a quality education.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Education, and they're down now to under 600 students. At about 500 and some, but that's, my research will show that there are seven out of our 53 counties. It's that zero to 18 population.
Which you specialize in healthcare.
That's becoming more of our population of the city of Lisbon hasn't changed in 40 years.
It's the age.
Michelle Rathman: Yes.
Dr. Steven Johnson: The population of the of the city has changed. So that zero to 18 year olds has very much decreased.
Michelle Rathman: That's right.
Dr. Steven Johnson: So,and I think it's important that we do a lot of what I call smart decline.
So, how do we do that? How do we have programs, that are, are done well, and we educate? I think that we do as good a job as we have, but it has to take some really strong strategic planning, long range planning, and it takes some really strong staff members. You need to get the right people in the right places. Staff that have multi-talented areas that are effective. Staff is the key.
Michelle Rathman: Yes,
The technology is there. I mean, you know, right now, uh, I go nationally, I'm on the Executive Committee of the NREA, the National Rural Education Association.
Data Centers are going up all over this nation. I think schools need to get in there close to them and see what they can get from them. You know? It's not always the local business community and tax breaks that they can get in there, is what can the schools, what can data centers do in return to the schools?
What can they offer to the schools and the students in the schools? So really, all the years that I was a superintendent, and I still am a superintendent, every time we made a decision, I always ask the question, what is that and how is that going to affect kids?
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. I love that you said that because you know. There was a day not too long ago when I was, I woke up every morning quite optimistic about many, many, many, many things. Not so much right now, because I think if it's not profitable, I mean, I work in so many rural communities where there are these data centers that are being debated.
There's the wind energy and so forth and so on. The solar energy. And there should be, and there should, I don't like to should on things, but there should be a benefit to the local community and not just a drain on their resources. You know, if we were to look at this as an equation of investing in our future, which I think that is just so lost in this conversation.
And you write about, you write about the fact like, listen, if the administration really wants to support states, there are common sense steps that won't plunge schools into chaos, such as streamlining federal grant applications, reducing duplicate reporting requirements, updating outdated data systems. So, you lay out, you know, what you wanna do to make this not chaotic, but it seems to me like chaos is probably more of the strategy than the logical things you suggest.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Just, think about it. If you're shifting all these people, just finding a new office.
Michelle Rathman: Yes, I heard that this week, too.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Just finding your new office,
Dr. Steven Johnson: You know, if you look at stress in your own personal life. What are some of the big stress things that people personally go through?
Michelle Rathman: Moving.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Moving, changing a job,
Michelle Rathman: Yes.
Dr. Steven Johnson: divorce.
Michelle Rathman: Right. All of those things. Yep. Yeah. Oh my gosh. Iwanna shift a little bit here because, you know, again,
Dr. Steven Johnson: So now you take somebody, and you take them from the Department of Public, or you take them from the Department of Education, and you move 'em over to Department of Labor,
And all of a sudden, they don't even know where your office is going to be. I,
Michelle Rathman: It's like, uh, what is that type? Shuffleboard on the Titanic.
Dr. Steven Johnson: How do you do that?
Michelle Rathman: Shuffleboard on the Titanic. Yeah. And it, and it is crazy. It's creating, and the other thing is, is that so much of what the policy shifts that have been made are now sitting with the courts. You know, Elizabeth Warren, I don't know if you read this, you know, this week again, we're recording on Thursday the second. Just talked about a new Save Our or Save Schools act, kind of a mission that she's on.
But at the end of the day, the courts are packed with cases for that which has been taken away from schools that people are fighting to get put back in. So there's the chaos of just the legalities of all of this as well.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Yeah, but I was raised in a way that you can't wait for all of that.
Michelle Rathman: Yes.
Dr. Steven Johnson: You know, if I break down on my tractor out in the middle of nowhere, and it's happened to me more than once, I either gotta fix it, or I'm walking eight miles.
Michelle Rathman: Yes. Right. We can't wait.
Dr. Steven Johnson: The assumption that government's gonna fix everything, I can't do that. So, I told those people, even last year, I said, you know what, either you're going to give me the money or you're not. Just tell me. Don't drag me out forever.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. I say there, you know, we can walk and chew gum. That's not my saying, but I think while the legal minds work on the courts to remedy some of the wrongs, some of the things that have been taken away, we, to your point, local schools have got to do what they need to do to be able to help young people learn and thrive. A couple of things I wanna make sure that we talk about, 'cause
Dr. Steven Johnson: Because I've never been as scared of doing the tough discussions. I mean, if you gotta have, I mean, I've had gyms packed with, I mean, I go through a firing in a small town of a basketball coach or you know, of a well-loved English teacher, whatever. I mean, those are community decisions, and they're tough decisions.
And I've been through a lot of things over my career, and they're never pretty; they're messy. But you know, you, you get done with them. You shake people's hands, and you gotta have 'em.
Michelle Rathman: Right, right. Yeah. And you, and you have some shared values about, you know, what is the A pathway forward for the community? Again, there's the word thrive.
I want to make sure we talk about a few other things, because there's also been major policy shifts in other departments that impact young people and education.
We know. And anyone who argues with me on this one, I double-dog dare you. We know that nutrition, it's an imperative for young people to learn. We know that hungry bellies are, you know, make for minds that are not able to focus. So, another policy shift we're watching is what's happening with USDA essential programs, such as the school and summer meals programs.
We're watching kind of data disappear. As someone in your position, are you seeing any local conversations, shifts in conversations that say, 'Hey, how are we gonna fill these gaps? Should these programs not deliver? How dependent are kids in your state on these school meal programs?
Dr. Steven Johnson: In North Dakota, you know, we had a special session in just in January
Michelle Rathman: Okay,
Dr. Steven Johnson: And it failed by one vote to pay for lunch.
Michelle Rathman: Now you're breaking my heart.
Dr. Steven Johnson: And so now there is a constitutional amendment to come out of our legacy fund. They have already had more than 20,000 signatures needed for that constitutional measure. It is very popular in the state of North Dakota for them to, I mean, you come to my house, you get fed.
It’s Midwestern. It's Midwestern. Whether you're in Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, I mean, you come to somebody's house, you feed 'em. And so, it's very, very interesting to see whether or not that's gonna just come. It's not something that I, as an old superintendent wanna get into and discuss because I, I think that, the trouble I'm having in the policy level is I think that there is some politicians that will argue that if they do use this and it does pass, that they're gonna threaten to reduce the dollar amount that they pay to school districts,, for state aid. But that looks like it’s gonna be on the ballot this fall.
If the research is correct, it could pass in North Dakota.
I look at it as something different. I look at it a little bit differently. We don't have a lot of young working families that have kids anymore in rural.
Why not give them a little tax incentive? You know, if I'm a senior citizen, I go to the local grocery store on Wednesdays, I get a discount.
If you know, what do we have for two working parents that have three kids in school, why not give them a little incentive here to give them a little extra break? I've got a daughter that teaches and her husband works, and boy, I'd be kind of, I see what they pay for daycare and what they pay for health insurance.
Have, have, have we forgotten America, what it's like to be young and raise kids and pay college loans and all those other things?
Michelle Rathman: Oh my. Don't even get me started on the childcare because again, I mean, what are we doing? It just makes no sense to me.
Dr. Steven Johnson: I see what she pays for daycare and, and then just to get in. Unbelievable.
Michelle Rathman: In particular in rural. I mean this is, this is well everywhere. It's a challenge.
Dr. Steven Johnson: And then I have those people that say, well, I had, I worked my way through college. Yeah, you probably paid two grand for tuition, room, board for college back in 1960. I mean, it's a different ball game today.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. And quality of life is not something we should need to be struggling so hard just to survive. It, you know, flourishing rural communities all over. I mean, they have a strong education. They've got, they've got solid food and nutrition supplies. They've got great access to healthcare, mental health, and behavioral services.
You know, that's what we're, that's what we're aiming to do. All right. Before we let you go, because I mean, you've got stories, I'm sure. So for those who are listening, who are especially who are educators, parents of students attending rural schools right now, not just in your state, all over the place, and other parties who are impacted by the current events that are happening with the Department of Education, let me ask you, in your wisdom, how would you finish this sentence?
A few tangible ways you can advocate for policies that lift up our rural schools and education instead of letting them down,
What say you?
Dr. Steven Johnson: Well, first of all, I think it's a nonpartisan, it’s a nonpartisan issue. We need to make sure that the money goes directly to kids and into the classroom. Too many times, the way we try to fix things is we get a program, and we create new bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. So, I am for eliminating that when I talk about the REAP, I was on the ground level of the REAP program because it eliminated all the middlemen down there, and it went directly from the federal government.
It was the first program that I'd ever seen that eliminated the middleman and went directly into the school. And most of us, like myself, we, I never had three assistants underneath me that worked so, you know, we do it all in a small school.
And by doing that, I am all for more efficiency. So, let's find ways like that. When I mentioned farm service agency, I don't need to go down there. They've become more efficient. I can go down there and electronically sign papers, but I've talked a lot today. I like to go down and visit a little bit, so I go down there and visit, but I could sign those papers online if I wanted to.
There are ways to make things more efficient. Let's look for those.
Michelle Rathman: Without blowing them up.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Without blowing them up completely.
And not blowing up all the data out there and redundancy. You know, we don't need to create all kinds of redundancy, so that's another thing that we need to do.
Michelle Rathman: Well, you wrote your piece in the 74. We're gonna make sure that we put that link on our website back in January 2026. I wonder where we're gonna be in January 2027. If you are so inclined, Dr. Steven L. Johnson, we'd love to have you come back, and we'll do kind of a retrospective and see where things are.
Dr. Steven Johnson: I hope I'm still around.
Michelle Rathman: Well, I'm sure you will be, but you might not have time to do our show, so I'm just gonna put the invitation out there and if you, if you were to come my way, I'd feed you.
Dr. Steven Johnson: Yes.
Michelle Rathman: Wonderful. Oh my gosh. Thank you for joining us again, and let me just tell for the rest of you, do not go away, 'cause I've got some closing thoughts, and we've got some new information that will be coming your way on what's happening at the Department of Education. So, stay with us. We'll be right back. Okay.
My thanks to Paige and Dr. Johnson for their time and their information, and to all of you for again tuning in for this dot-connecting conversation. You know, these are not light subjects; we know that. But I do hope that what you've heard today and some of the research that we'll put on our resource page at theruralimpact.com has enlightened you to be sure.
I wanna remind you that you can watch our podcast on YouTube. You can listen to us anywhere you like to. Whatever you do, we hope that you will make sure that you like us, rate us, share your comments. We do appreciate that. I wanna remind you that if you have not gone to our merch store@theruralimpact.com, we would love to have you go there, check out our wares, doodads, and what have you, and maybe pick yourself something up.
And when you do, you are showing your support for these continuing, sometimes courageous conversations, is sometimes the way I like to put it. So, with that said, I also wanna make sure that I thank Brea Corsaro and Sarah Garvin for all their hard work behind the scenes, and to remind you, to the best of your ability, please take care of yourself and all those around you.
We will see you again soon on a new episode, and you're not gonna wanna miss this one to be sure of the rural impact.
