The Essential Three (e3): A University Partnership to Meet the Professional Learning Needs of Rural Schools

Matthew Ohlson, Jerry Johnson, Shane Shope, Jennifer Rivera


The Essential Three (e3) is a professional learning series that focuses on supporting rural school districts and school leaders as they engage in the important work of prioritizing and determining areas of instructional focus. As educators transition to new rigorous state and national standards and face the challenges of learning newly adopted instructional frameworks/evaluation tools, the e3 training has offered educators much needed guidance and support within high-needs, rural districts in Florida. As the result of a partnership between the North-East Florida Educational Consortium (NEFEC) and the University of North Florida, teacher leaders and school administrators have now implemented a streamlined process to increase rigor, collaboration, and student engagement within the learning environment. This work details the comprehensive implementation process, as well as various promising practices for educators and rural school leaders to impact policies and instructional practice.



Rural schools, P-20 partnerships, instructional practices, instructional leadership, teacher evaluation, instructional frameworks


American Institutes for Research. (2014). The shape of deeper learning: Strategies, structures, and cultures in Deeper Learning Network high schools. Retrieved from

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386.

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning: Studies show deep understanding derives from collaborative methods. Edutopia. (October 2008). doi: http://www.

Christenson, S.L., Reschley, A.L., & Wylie, C. (2013). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.

Colf, M., & Harmon, H. (2011). Serving rural school districts and communities: Rethinking the ESA commitment. Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinion about Educational Service Agencies, 17, 31-40.

Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. Retrieved from

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.

Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Florida Department of Education (2012) Teacher evaluation systems alignment: The Florida Educator Accomplished Practices. Retrieved April 19, 2018 from

Forner, M., Bierlein-Palmer, L., & Reeves, P. (2012). Leadership practices of effective Title 1 superintendents: Connections to Waters and Marzano's leadership correlates. Journal of Research in Title 1 Education, 27(8), 1-13.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept: state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119.

Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2013). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (9th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Harmon, H. (2006). Tapping the potential of educational service agencies. The School Administrator, 3(63), 36-41.

Hewlett Foundation. (2012). Deeper learning: Strategic plan summary. San Francisco, CA: Author.

Jimerson, S., Campos, E., & Grief, J. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7–27.

Jimerson, S., Renshaw, T., Stewart, K., Hart, S., & O’Malley, M. (2009). Promoting school completion through understanding school failure: A multi-factorial model of dropping out as a developmental process. Romanian Journal of School Psychology, 2, 12–29.

Johnson, J., Thompson, A., & Naugle, K. (2009). Place-conscious capacity-building: A systemic model for the revitalization and renewal of rural schools and communities through university-based regional stewardship. Rural Society, 19(3), 178-88.

Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year Two of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: States' Progress and Challenges. Center on Education Policy.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of school health,74(7), 262-273.

Lamkin, M. L. (2006). Challenges and changes faced by Title 1superintendents. The Rural Educator, 28(1), 17-24.

Leithwood, K. A., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational learning in schools. Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

Liuselli, J.K., Putnam, R.F., Handler, M.W., & Feinberg, A.B. (2005). Whole-school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3) 183-198.

MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.

Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ohlson, M. (2009). Examining Instructional Leadership: A Study of School Culture and Teacher Quality Characteristics Influencing Student Outcomes. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 2(2), 102-124.

Railsback, J. (2004). Increasing Student Attendance: Strategies from Research and Practice. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory NWREL.

Shernoff, D., & Schmidt, J. (2008). Further evidence of an engagement-achievement paradox among U.S. high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 564–580.

Stephens, E.R., & Keane, W.G. (2005). The educational service agency: American education’s invisible partner. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Feedback, 70(1), 10-1

Full Text: PDF


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Publication of the National Rural Education Association -

Report problems or questions about to the website to