Carlos Barria/Reuters

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7, 2017.

Barely a week after Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin sat down in a bid to iron out their differences, the effort appears to be in tatters.

The scandal engulfing Mr. Trump's administration, over his campaign's alleged collusion with Russia, has grown so intense that leading Russian foreign-policy specialists say they fear the very principle of US-Russia rapprochement is in danger of being thrown out with the Trump bathwater. Three key deals that seemed to be struck at the meeting – to work out joint rules for security in cyberspace, a ceasefire in southern Syria, and a new US push to support the Minsk accords in Ukraine – are already floundering.

Russian cold war veterans say that efforts to maintain positive diplomatic dialogue have always been hostage to daily headlines and adverse geopolitical events. But today, they say, channels of communication appear woefully inadequate and there is no preexisting set of rules to fall back on – straining basic, practical communication between the US and Russia.

“You might think that the development of relations between the US and Russia depends upon an objective assessment of security threats, but you’d be wrong,” says Pavel Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow. “Subjective factors, such as propaganda and enemy imagery, play a huge role. We don't have any basic ideological differences as we did in the cold war, but the security threats are different.”

The need to speak with each other

In a clear sign that the Kremlin’s brief honeymoon with Trump is ending, the Russians are now threatening to expel 30 US diplomats – delayed retaliation for President Obama’s purge of Russian emissaries and seizure of two diplomatic dachas in December. That move was punishment for Moscow’s alleged interference in the US elections.

A Foreign Ministry source quoted in major Moscow newspaper Izvestia suggested that the belated return to cold war-style tit-for-tat diplomacy may be imminent. That would effectively roll things back to the dire state they were in before Trump took office.

“This diplomatic scandal is still raging. The US expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized our property half a year ago. That can’t be left unanswered,” says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the Russian Senate’s international affairs commission. But “Russia’s position is that the two nuclear superpowers need to speak with each other. We are ready to go as far as our partners are ready to go.”

Russia also put forward the need for dialogue regarding cyber-issues during Putin’s meeting with Trump, suggesting the formation of a committee to work out a set of joint rules to manage competition in cyberspace, and perhaps prevent future cyber-intrusions. But in subsequent statements about the proposal, Trump incorrectly described it as a joint enforcement body, rather than a rule-making one – leading it to be howled down by critics in Washington. Trump backed off the plan, leaving it dead in the water, even though many experts say it would be feasible if the political will to do it existed.

“In a previous generation our countries worked out rules to monitor and control nuclear weapons, and it was mutually beneficial,” says Alexei Rayevsky, director of Zecurion, a leading Russian cybersecurity company. “Of course it’s not the same, there are no physical objects in cyberspace to keep track of. There would be a lot of specific technical challenges, not to be underestimated. But if both parties were determined, it is a perfectly feasible idea.”

A US-Russian backed ceasefire in southern Syria, which is still holding, was agreed on by Trump and Putin. But without consistent follow-up, few experts think it can last. “The ceasefire is a positive step, but whether it will survive or be effective is still very uncertain,” says Mr. Klimov.

The Russians have also cautiously welcomed the Trump administration’s appointment of Kurt Volker to be the US special representative to negotiations on Ukraine, which addresses long-standing US disengagement from the Minsk peace process. But the Russians also complain that Mr. Volker is an anti-Moscow hard-liner who seems more likely to solidify differences than find ways around them.

Cold war defaults

Pavel Palazhchenko, who was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s personal interpreter during the late 1980s, when the US and the USSR were actively dismantling the cold war, says he is “surprised and perplexed that the summit did not establish some kind of a mechanism for ongoing review of the entire US-Russian agenda, such as joint working groups that would consider all issues and suggest solutions for leaders to consider.”

“When US-Soviet dialogue resumed in 1985, working groups were created to deal with key issues like human rights and arms control,” he says. “Those groups met regularly, before, during and after summits and ministerial meetings, it was a continuous process. That was an excellent way to start a durable dialogue that would go on regardless of the scandals, accusations, and unexpected events that tend to blow up all the time. That way things can be done even when the atmosphere is bad and the news cycle brings unpleasantness. Those things were happening then as well....”

“I don't understand why this obvious step isn't being taken now.”

The mood in Moscow appears to be in favor of hunkering down and waiting till the Trump-Russia storm subsides in Washington, even if that means returning to some cold war defaults – like tit-for-tat expulsions – in the meantime.

“Even if Trump wants to do something, it’s becoming clear that he can’t realize much in practice,” says Klimov. “It seems that bureaucrats of his own government, the mass media, and even congressmen from his own party have no sympathy for him and are constantly blocking him. We see that their attacks are skillful and effective, and he has to reckon with that before he can get anything done.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington on Thursday, July 13, 2017, where he is expected to present the GOP's revised health care bill and push toward a vote next week despite opposition within the Republican ranks.

For more than seven years, Republicans have been promising voters they would repeal the Affordable Care Act. The bill that GOP senators unveiled on Thursday is very far from that promise.

Yes, some Obamacare measures are out, like the individual and employer mandates. That’s a big one for conservatives who don’t believe government should force them to buy – or offer, in the case of employers – health insurance.

The bill also phases out the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid that 31 states and Washington, D.C., have used to cover more low-income Americans. That’s an attempt to rein in federal spending, another conservative goal. The bill even goes beyond repeal by eventually ending the open-ended guarantee of federal funding for the entire Medicaid program.

Still, “we’re a long way from repeal,” says G. William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, speaking about the bill that – if it passes the Senate (a big if) – could end up as the law of the land. The reason for that great distance, he says, is that it’s hard to claw back benefits that have already been conferred on millions of people.

So, what has emerged after more than 60 repeal attempts under President Obama, and six months of GOP control of the White House and Congress, is a Republican plan that keeps the broad structure of Obamacare: the marketplace exchanges where individuals purchase insurance; the healthcare benefits for those who want them, and many of the taxes and subsidies – though in different forms – to support that structure.

“I promised to repeal Obamacare, not to continue Obamacare,” Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky told “Fox & Friends” on Thursday morning. He opposes the bill.

Procedural and political constraints

Procedurally, Republicans are in a tough spot on repeal because they don’t have the 60 seats in the Senate to overcome a Democratic blocking filibuster. To pass it on their own, they have to abide by Senate rules that limit their work to tackling those parts of Obamacare that directly relate to the federal budget – such as striking the fines associated with the mandates, instead of the mandates themselves.

But politically, “it’s very hard, once you’ve created an entitlement, to take it away or even reform it,” says Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant in Austin, Texas.

That's why the GOP mantra of “repeal and replace” has proved so difficult for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky. He's been trying to find the sweet spot that will bring at least 50 Republicans to “yes” (with Vice President Mike Pence providing the tie breaking vote).

Last month Senator McConnell tried, and failed, to find that sweet spot, and had to pull the bill for lack of support from both conservative and moderate Republicans. At least 10 Republicans opposed the bill.

Revised to woo skeptical GOP senators

This revised version tries to appeal to the conservative wing by tentatively including changes based on an amendment by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah that would allow insurers to sell no-frills insurance as long as one of their plans adheres to the requirements of Obamacare – including its provisions for pre-existing conditions. The addition aims to deliver more choice and market competition, which its backers say will lead to lower premiums.

Several moderates are worried this will cause healthy people to flee to less expensive bare-bones plans, making the Obamacare-compliant plans unaffordable. 

The revised bill tries to allay those concerns by adding $70 billion to a fund to help states lower premiums. It reinstates some taxes on the wealthy to pay for beefed up spending.

Moderate senators also are very concerned about cuts to Medicaid – $772 billion by 2026, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office score on the Senate’s previous version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Medicaid covers more than 70 million people, including the poor, disabled, seniors in nursing homes, and addicts.

To satisfy the Medicaid moderates, the revision provides $45 billion to fight drug addiction in the face of a nationwide opioid epidemic. And if a public health emergency is declared, affected populations can be exempt from caps on federal Medicaid contributions to a state.

“I think right now we’re moving in the right direction but we’ve got room to make additional changes,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R) of South Dakota, speaking about Medicaid, where there is still disagreement. On Monday, the CBO is expected to report on costs and coverage under the new bill. If senators vote to begin debate on the bill, they will have an opportunity to offer amendments.

Next hurdle: Motion to begin debate

But two Republicans – libertarian Senator Paul and moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – say they will vote “no” on the motion to begin debate on the bill, and another four may not support it either, according to Politico.

It would take only three "no"s to stop the bill in its tracks – preventing it from even getting to the floor for a vote.

Senator Collins said Maine would suffer from the hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts planned for Medicaid. She also strongly objects to the partisan, closed-door process by which the bill has been fashioned, saying that the best way to build solid support for health-care legislation – and for an entitlement reform as big as Medicaid – is through the normal committee process involving Democrats. She has been talking with Democrats behind the scenes.

 “I don’t see this as the end if this bill were not to pass," she told reporters, as they clustered around her in a Capitol hallway. "I see it as the beginning of the kind of process that I would have liked to have seen in the first place.”

Yves Herman/AP

French President Emmanuel Macron listens to President Trump in the courtyard of Les Invalides after a welcoming ceremony in Paris on Thursday, July 13, 2017. The two toured the golden-domed building housing some of France's greatest war heroes, including Napoleon Bonaparte and the Supreme Allied Commander in World War I.

Who would have imagined that Donald Trump would take such a liking to Europe – and especially to France – so quickly in his presidency?

But here we are, not yet a half-year into President Trump’s tenure, and the leader who as a candidate belittled the Europeans, thrilled at the prospect of a crumbling European Union, and derided European cities as “dangerous” (Paris) and a “hell hole” (Brussels) is in Europe for the third time in two months.

And this time in Paris, no less.

Ostensibly, Mr. Trump and first lady Melania Trump are on a quick, barely 48-hour jaunt to the City of Lights because France’s new president, Emmanuel Macron, invited them to take part in the July 14 Bastille Day festivities – the pièce de résistance of which is a grand military parade down the Champs-Élysées.

And while that part is true, administration and French officials and analysts of transatlantic relations suggest there is much more to Trump’s newfound affinity for Europe than a soft spot for parades.

The opportunity to look presidential and to burnish American leadership, the relief of getting out of the Washington hothouse, the realization that America and Europe value their enduring ties despite differences – all help to explain Trump’s readiness to return to a place that by many accounts he initially dreaded visiting.

Perhaps even flattery played a role in swaying Trump in his estimation of Europe.

“Our president wanted to really make the point that he values the relationship he is already developing with President Trump, he wanted to demonstrate the importance of strong relations between France and the United States on so many issues that are important to both of us, so he invited him to be his guest at this very French celebration,” says a senior French official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s not so often that an American president has been invited to participate in our national day.”

Indeed, the last US president to attend the Bastille Day military parade was George H.W. Bush in 1989. But that was in conjunction with a G7 summit (and the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution) and included other Western leaders, from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to pre-unification West Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

This time, Trump is the guest of honor par excellence.

Macron's understanding of Trump

Mr. Macron’s invitation reflects an astute sizing up of an American president like no other, a showman with a taste for the grandiose, say specialists in the often thorny yet enduring Franco-American relationship.

The French leader will take Trump on a tour of Napoleon’s tomb, and he and his wife will accompany the Trumps to a dinner at the Jules Verne restaurant in the Eiffel Tower – with spectacular views of a gorgeous (and not so dangerous) Paris.

But the highlight will be the military parade, with the participation of American forces alongside French gunners, sailors, and air force pilots, marking the 100th anniversary of America’s entry into World War I. Macron’s message to Trump, aides say, is the value of binding ties between two great nations.

“Just as in our history, we have common issues of deep importance that we know require France and the US to work together, like fighting terrorism and finding a solution in Syria,” the French official says. “We French need the Americans with us in the Sahel,” the region in north-central Africa where France has taken the lead in defeating Islamist terrorists.

Macron realizes that a key to keeping France punching above its weight on the global stage is to cultivate relations with the leaders of world powers, as difficult as those relations might be, some experts note. Indeed, just over a month ago the young French leader invited Vladimir Putin to the sumptuous Versailles palace, where he had chefs prepare for the Russian president a meal based on the menu that Louis XIV offered to Peter the Great 300 years earlier.

Trump, too, has come to value France’s relations with the US, particularly its strong military posture and robust participation in counterterrorism efforts such as the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, aides say.

“France is far and away one of the largest and strongest military members of the [NATO] alliance” and “carries a heavy load in the counterterrorism fight,” a senior administration official said this week. Trump “looks forward to reaffirming America’s strong ties of friendship with France … and to commemorating the 100th anniversary of America’s entry into World War I,” the White House said.

Changed perspective on Europe

But other reasons also played a role in the president’s “yes” to Macron’s invitation to a quick Paris escape, experts say.

For Trump, it may have started with just wanting to get out of the house – and away from the maelstrom of the Russia hacking scandal. White House reports depict a president increasingly frustrated with the drip-drip of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russian ties.

And then the optics can hardly be beat. The trip offers Trump an opportunity to look presidential and to stand on the world stage as commander-in-chief. Indeed, shortly after arriving in Paris Thursday, Trump led a ceremony recognizing three American veterans of the 1944 D-Day invasion of German-occupied France.

But Trump’s perspective on Europe also seems to have changed to some degree, especially after his two recent visits – to a NATO leaders meeting in Brussels and a G20 summit in Hamburg. Analysts may have largely deemed those trips difficult, but the White House concluded they were successes both for the president personally and in terms of displaying a new version – stronger and tougher – of American global leadership.

And as long as he avoids declarations like “France is a disaster!” – as he said at a campaign rally last September – there’s no reason Paris shouldn’t join the list of reasons Trump loves Europe.

Courtesy of Rebecca Spindler/Taronga Zoo

The southern Great Barrier Reef is still relatively intact despite massive losses in other parts of the Great Barrier Reef. Reefs in that area, like the one pictured here from November 2014 near Lady Elliot Island, are a focus of conservation efforts.

Conservation is often a race against the clock. But one scientist has taken it upon herself to find a way to freeze time – literally. 

Armed with liquid nitrogen and freezers, marine biologist Mary Hagedorn of the Smithsonian Institution is fighting to save the spectacular diversity of the world’s coral reefs before too many of the thousands of coral species and other marine life that depend on them go extinct. 

In the face of such a daunting endeavor, Dr. Hagedorn’s laboratory is small and nondescript. At a glance, it looks a bit like the average high school biology laboratory. But there, tucked among other marine biology offices on the 28-acre Coconut Island in Hawaii’s Kāneʻohe Bay, Hagedorn and colleagues are working on a science-fiction solution: cryopreservation.

Hagedorn and collaborators from around the world are developing techniques to build a reef sperm bank of sorts by freezing the reproductive cells of corals, algae, and even the fish that populate reef ecosystems. The idea is that such a resource would effectively preserve the genetic diversity of today’s reefs. 

But Hagedorn’s chilly plan hasn’t received a warm reception by all conservationists. 

While coral researchers generally agree that reefs are in peril and want to do all they can to save the spectacular marine ecosystems, they differ vastly on how best to do that. And that question largely comes down to the level at which humans should interfere and try to manage the ecosystem – a debate that extends to conservation beyond the reefs.

“It’s not a question of should we save reefs – they have to be [saved] – it’s a matter of how do we do that and how much of it can we save,” says Ohio State University marine scientist Andréa Grottoli.

A 'magical' sight

Coral reefs today are still largely vibrant ecosystems. Flashy fish, like the bright yellow forcepsfish, redlip parrotfish, spotted boxfish, and rainbow butterflyfish zip around reefs, stopping occasionally to nibble on the algae growing on the hard coral structures. Hagedorn calls it a “magical” sight.

But back-to-back mass bleaching events in recent years have ravaged many reefs, leaving the colorful marine structures dotted with white splotches and the coral polyps making up the foundation of the reefs fighting for their lives.

“There’s no sugarcoating it,” Professor Grottoli says. “It’s dire.”

XL Catlin Seaview Survey/AP

A bleached coral is shown in Kāneʻohe Bay off the east coast of Oahu, Hawaii, Aug. 13, 2015.

At stake are not just species-rich ecosystems, but also an economic resource worth about $29.8 billion in tourism and fishing each year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hagedorn and Grottoli aren’t the only marine biologists who aren’t ready to give up on the reefs just yet. Many coral reef researchers are working doggedly to come up with ways to save the coral. But conservationists are divided as to whether it’s important to give each individual threatened species life-saving attention or focus on the overarching threats.

Cryopreservation, for example, could help scientists preserve the genetics of individual species so that it isn’t completely lost if the animal itself goes extinct in the wild. In Hagedorn’s vision, a bank of frozen coral gametes (sperm and eggs), or even embryos or coral fragments, would enable scientists to draw from that diversity for future endeavors – be it out-planting, hybridization, or just exploratory research.

'A sense of hope for the corals'

As a conservation option, Grottoli says, cryopreservation is not scalable. With ideas like cryogenic preservation and her own work identifying resiliency in corals, she says, “You can try to harness the genetic strengths of some species or populations and transplant them elsewhere as a way to mitigate reef loss. But those are all ideas that really can only be implemented on small, local scales.”

Small-scale restoration projects aren’t the best way to save coral reefs, opines Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. “We need to address the causes of the decline,” he says. 

Although corals face local challenges, such as pollution and overfishing, warming ocean temperatures is largely thought to be triggering the large-scale bleaching events impacting coral reefs worldwide. 

“There’s no point in putting corals that you’ve reared in a lab or frozen in a freezer back out on the reef if the reef is still a dangerous place to live,” Professor Hughes says.

Pollution and overfishing can be mitigated with local protections like marine parks, and replenished with small-scale projects, Grottoli says. But, she agrees with Hughes, “The only way that you can really preserve reefs on a global scale is by controlling climate change.”

That doesn’t mean scientists should rule out all other efforts to save the reefs, says David Vaughan, disagreeing with Hughes.

“All of the [current conservation efforts] put together really make a sense of hope for the corals,” he says.

Dr. Vaughan himself, as executive director of Mote Tropical Research Laboratory's Moore Center in Summerland Key, Fla., has been growing corals in his lab to out-plant in the Caribbean. He argues that, just as a doctor can treat a patient with a gunshot wound without advocating for lawlessness, coral reef scientists should be able to save species without condoning rampant anthropogenic climate change.

One aspect of the debate boils down to a broader question of whether coral reefs, or any threatened ecosystem, can still function without human intervention – a question that dogs conservationists outside of marine biology as well.

Some conservationists say that preserving an ecosystem and its precise biodiversity in the face of changing conditions is a futile effort, while others say the risk of losing too much biodiversity is too high.

“The challenge is to steer these changing ecosystems to a place where they’ll continue to be functional,” Hughes says. This, he suggests, may happen by natural selection if climate change is reined in, as the corals that survive bleaching will be more resilient and will evolve to fill the necessary ecological niches.

But if too much diversity in an ecosystem is lost, the ecosystem can collapse, Grottoli says.

With reefs being “one of the most important ecosystems in our ocean,” Hagedorn says, “my feeling is that you just do what you can.”

A breakthrough for cryo-corals

Still, developing cryopreservation techniques that work on reef species has proved tricky. So far, Hagedorn has successfully frozen coral sperm that, when thawed, is viable and can create new coral using fresh eggs. Hagedorn and colleagues have also figured out how to cryopreserve the algae that is symbiotic to the coral, and the sperm and embryos of sea urchins, which help maintain the balance of algae in a reef ecosystem. 

Coral and other fish’s eggs and embryos proved more of a challenge to cryopreserve – until now. Hagedorn and colleagues in the engineering department at the University of Minnesota have now honed their technique to be able to cryopreserve zebrafish embryos, according to a paper published Thursday in the journal ACS Nano. And this same technique could work on coral embryos and eggs, Hagedorn says, as well as other fish and even frogs.

“It has taken me 14 years,” Hagedorn says. But “this technology will completely transform how we conserve wildlife,” she says, in confidence of her work.

As for the reefs, Hagedorn says, “Things are really bad, but there still is time.” And that’s why she hopes to train coral researchers out in the field to use her cryopreservation techniques so as many species’ genetics can be banked as possible.

Hagedorn brushes off criticism that such species-specific work is futile in the face of global threats to reefs. “These are just some of the tools that we are hoping to use to get us through this really hard time and also maintain the biodiversity for the future,” she says. 

Jessica Reilly /Telegraph Herald/AP

Second-grader Acxel Ortiz-Hernandez reads last May at Darlington Elementary-Middle School in Darlington, Wisconsin, which has a population of about 2,400. Recruiting teachers in rural areas is difficult, but communities are trying new approaches to fill vacancies.

During a bus ride outside of the Orlando, Fla., city limits this spring, Yvonne Clark didn’t know what to expect.

“You have this picture of a place in the middle of nowhere, [with] no resources. You think, ‘Is it going to be a terrible situation?’ ”  Ms. Clark remembers thinking. A University of Central Florida (UCF) education student, Clark participated in the school’s Planting Seeds program, which as of January sends student teachers into rural areas populated with low-income migrant workers – areas desperate for teachers.

“You get in there and it was completely different. I think it should be mandatory that teachers are given this opportunity,” she says, “seeing that these children deserve the same kind of education. It definitely changes your perspective.”

As states scramble to fill vacancies before school starts in the fall, those tasked with bringing teachers and pupils together in rural areas are relying on a variety of efforts – such as exposure from programs like Planting Seeds – to help them. From town hall meetings to persuading town natives to return, administrators and state education leaders are looking for better ways to woo teachers to places without the amenities of urban destinations.

Their task is made more difficult by the fact that the United States is currently experiencing an unprecedented teacher shortage due to high teacher attrition, increasing student enrollment, and efforts to reduce pupil-teacher ratios, according to a 2016 study by the Learning Policy Institute (LPI). By 2018, the US is predicted to need an additional 112,000 teachers to meet the country’s education demands, with rural communities particularly hard hit. If current trends continue, the supply gap is expected to widen even further.

Rural districts, which make up more than a quarter of US schools, are at a competitive disadvantage, say researchers, because they don’t have the tax base to prop up comparable teaching salaries. According to a recent study published by the Rural School and Community Trust (RSCT), rural teachers make, on average, $57,798, compared with $68,850 for urban teachers, and $70,830 for suburban.

“The inequalities that we have in our school funding systems show up in rural districts,” says Linda Darling-Hammond, president of LPI and co-author of that organization’s recent study on teacher shortages. “We talk about urban schools, and high-needs students in cities, [while] kind of ignoring the high-need rural communities that also exist… It goes under the radar.”

A dearth of qualified teachers

One of those communities is Aberdeen, Miss., where the population is less than 5,500 and the poverty rate is 35 percent.

The first day of school is less than a month away, and Aberdeen Elementary School is still searching for a new special education teacher. Experience isn’t required, says Principal Leigh Todd. Last year, for example, the school hired a former factory worker with some experience teaching music.

“There were times when we wouldn't have any applicants,” says Principal Todd, who is retiring this summer after working in Mississippi public education for 27 years. “Pretty much the [entire] state is a critical shortage area right now.”

Many teachers are reluctant to move to rural districts because they lack many amenities sought by college-educated professionals. One school in southern central Colorado, for example, had a difficult time staffing teachers because there was no gym or coffee shop in the town, explains Colleen O’Neil, executive director of educator talent at the Colorado Department of Education.

“By and large, the early teacher is young, out of college, and they want access to live music and Thai food,” says Jerry Johnson, an education professor at UCF and co-author of the recent report on national rural education by RSCT. “It’s tough to recruit them to go live in a community that doesn't necessarily have those things.”

Changing perspectives

However, communities across the country are looking past culinary and monetary difficulties and experimenting with local solutions to close the teacher gap, such as teacher training and grow-your-own programs.

Many young teachers are eager to make a difference, an incentive that education professionals can capitalize on, says Dr. Johnson.

“It’s largely a matter of exposure,” he explains. “Give them an opportunity to see the benefits of living in that community and experience it firsthand.”

Because of her experience in the Planting Seeds program, Clark is considering working in a rural district after graduation – a prospect she had not previously considered. The program was funded by a grant obtained by Johnson and his colleagues. Six students participated this year, but thanks to good reviews from both UCF students and partner schools, additional funding is being sought to expand the program next year.

Another key is focusing on understanding the perspectives of those in the towns themselves. To address teacher recruitment issues, Colorado’s Department of Education scheduled 10 town hall meetings across the state this summer. At the first meeting in June in Ridgway, Colo., a town of less than 1,000 people, Ms. O’Neil learned that residents didn’t consider teaching a “good career.”

Working in favor of small towns is the fact that studies have shown that teachers are more likely to return to their hometown, which can be helpful when they have a smaller pool of eligible educators to begin with. But observers say towns have to cultivate this resource. 

“If you are from this area and you go to college to become a teacher, are you going to go back home?” asks Kenneth Anthony, an education professor at Mississippi State University. “The people who leave these communities are the most capable of turning these communities around.”

Shifting this mindset through “Grow Your Own” programs is the most effective solution to rural teacher shortages – along with uplifting the local workforce – agrees Dr. Darling-Hammond.

“You can entice some people [into a rural district], but they may not stay very long,” she says. “It is often better to work with folks who know they want to be in the community… [W]ork with kids who are coming out of high school, see them through college, do collaborative teaching programs to create teacher residencies while also getting them certified.”

The education community is working on filling in such gaps, with those who are both familiar and new to rural areas. In addition to UCF’s Planting Seeds program, last year The University of Northern Colorado (UNC) in Greeley received a $2.2 million state grant to address rural shortages, creating the Colorado Center for Rural Education. Through the center, students enrolled in a teacher preparatory program at a Colorado college can apply for a $2,800 stipend to student teach in a rural district for a semester. Stipend recipients are expected to apply for a position in a rural school district after graduation.

The center has funding to supply 200 stipends over the next five years. This spring, 23 student teachers took advantage of the pilot program and another 22 stipends have already been awarded for the fall. The school is in the process of getting feedback from the students and seeing how it influenced their decisions.

"The financial aspect is huge," says Harvey Rude, director of the center. "Most student teachers think that it would be really great to be in the bright lights of the big cities.... But the reality is there are great opportunities for teachers who would commit to student teaching in rural districts. We want to offer this as an incentive for them."

In Colorado, where 83 percent of school districts are rural, as many as 3,000 teachers are needed ahead of the upcoming school year.  

“We are never going to get away from the money conversation,” says Colorado’s O’Neil. “But those grassroots efforts that the community can do… to mentor teachers and [gain] friends who support you – it's really important.”

[Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct Kenneth Anthony's last name.]

Reuters

Brigitte Macron, wife of French President Macron (R), and U.S. First Lady Melania Trump await French President Emmanuel Macron and US President Donald Trump (L) at Les Invalides museum in Paris July 13.

Just six months in office, President Trump has made no less than three trips to Europe, a place he calls a “blessing to the world” – that is, if it remains “strong.” During his travels he found a kindred spirit in another new and mold-breaking president, France’s Emmanuel Macron, who warned this month that Europe has “lost its way” and needs new leaders to revive it.

No wonder then that the two presidents met in Paris this week to celebrate two key anniversaries in the history of Western civilization: Bastille Day, which marks the French Revolution, and the centennial of the entry of the United States into World War I – and the start of its long defense of transatlantic values. In their joint press conference July 13, they spoke of a shared vision on security threats, trade, and economic reform.

In a little-noticed speech in Poland on July 6, Mr. Trump seemed to defy the nationalist rhetoric of his 2016 campaign and his tweets by offering a full-throated affirmation of the Western tradition. He called on the West to assert “the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.” The Western alliance must also adapt to confront “powers” – implying Russia and the so-called Islamic State – that seek to test the confidence of Western democracies and “to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are.”

In particular, Trump finally affirmed his support of NATO’s Article 5, which requires mutual defense of nations in that alliance, and demanded that Russia stop its destabilizing actions in Ukraine.

For his part, Mr. Macron affirmed in a recent speech that he does not accept all the doubts within Europe about its future. “I believe firmly in Europe,” he said, but it has been “weakened by the spread of bureaucracy.”

Both men, who are relatively new to politics, have found that their respective offices as president demand they look beyond narrow nationalist interests. Defending Western civilization, at least for now in either speeches or meetings, is a good start. The bonds of history between the US and Europe, especially France, run deep. Many new leaders in the West have had to learn not to ignore them.