Published: September 21, 2004

Rural Education

The plight of inner-city schools has long garnered much attention among education reformers. But rural schools, and the large chunk of the nation’s students who attend them, face challenges every bit as daunting as those of their urban counterparts.

Slightly more than 31 percent of regular elementary and secondary public schools nationwide are in locations classified as rural by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Slightly more than 31 percent of regular elementary and secondary public schools nationwide are in locations classified as rural by the U.S. Census Bureau. Twenty-one percent of public school students attend rural schools (Beeson & Strange, 2003). Other reports put those percentages even higher (Loveless, 2003) due to varying definitions of “rural.” In 12 states — Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming — students in small towns and rural areas make up a majority of the public elementary and secondary school population (NCES, 2000). Those high numbers, combined with the potential advantages of small schools and the challenges that rural schools face in meeting certain mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act have prompted experts to realize that rural education merits increased attention and policy consideration.

It is important to keep in mind that rural schools differ greatly from one another. But as a group, students in these schools generally score as well as or better than nonrural students on standardized tests (Loveless, 2003; Williams, 2003; Fan & Chen, 1999). Average test scores on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that 4th and 8th grade students in rural schools perform at similar levels in reading and mathematics to students in suburban schools and slightly better than their urban peers (NCES, 2003). However, the nationwide picture obscures achievement levels that, in fact, vary greatly from state to state. Rural students perform significantly better than nonrural students in some states, but significantly poorer in others. Such differences seem to be linked to variances in a wide range of school factors such as instructional resources and advanced course offerings (Lee & McIntire, 2000). A troubling finding is that while rural schools posted the highest graduation rate of 12th grade students in the 1998-99 school year compared to suburban and urban schools, rural students were the least likely to attend colleges or universities (NCES, 2000).

The makeup of student populations in rural schools differs considerably across the country as well. As a whole, rural students are predominantly white. Approximately 10 percent of rural students are black and six percent are Hispanic (NCES, 1999). The population of minority students in rural areas, though, is growing and it is not uncommon for certain rural schools to be chiefly composed of a single nonwhite racial or ethnic group (Williams, 2003). While the typical rural school has a smaller proportion of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches compared to the typical urban school (Loveless, 2003), some rural areas struggle with extreme poverty. According to a report by Save the Children, approximately 2.5 million rural children in the United States are poor, and across the country there are rural “pockets of poverty” where the child poverty rate is two to three times the national average (2002). Similar to urban schools, many rural schools struggle with achievement gaps across racial and economic subgroups (Williams, 2003).

Studies in several states have shown that small schools and districts can overcome the adverse effects of poverty on student achievement and narrow the achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers (Johnson, 2004; Johnson, Howley, & Howley, 2002; Bickel & Howley, 2000). Such findings are particularly relevant in rural education, where the average school serves approximately 392 students, which is about 40 percent smaller than the average urban or suburban school (Loveless, 2003). Despite research that points to advantages of small schools, many rural schools and districts have been forced to consolidate with other schools and districts. In fact, consolidation has reduced the number of U.S. school districts by 91 percent since about 1930, and the number of schools by 67 percent, while the number of students has increased by 83 percent in that time (Howley & Howley, 2001). States and districts have resorted to contentious consolidation policies to combat declining enrollments, save money, and improve struggling schools. However, some research claims that district consolidation can hurt test scores overall, and in particular hurt children from low-income communities (Johnson, 2004; Johnson, Howley, & Howley, 2002).

A recent report on policies that set minimum acreage requirements for school construction claims that such policies promote large schools, encourage sprawl, and weaken small local economies (Lawrence, 2003). In addition, long bus rides for rural students whose schools have been consolidated can swell transportation budgets and have a negative effect on academic attentiveness and participation in extracurricular activities (Howley & Howley, 2001).

Rural schools have also long struggled with attracting and retaining teachers. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 adds to this challenge by requiring that every public school teacher be “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-06 school year. A highly qualified teacher is certified by the state and has demonstrated proficiency in his or her subject area, by majoring in the subject in college, passing a subject-knowledge test, or obtaining advanced certification in the subject.

The American Association of School Administrators and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory recently conducted a nationwide survey of rural school superintendents on the challenges of meeting those requirements. The superintendents identified low salaries, and social and geographic isolation as the main factors responsible for their difficulties in recruiting and retaining teachers (Schwartzbeck et al., 2003). In 44 of the 50 states, the average salary for rural teachers is less than the average salary for nonrural teachers. Nationally, the average salary in nonrural districts is about 13 percent higher than in rural areas (Jimerson, 2003). Small rural schools also heavily rely on teachers to teach more than one subject area, contributing to the challenge rural schools face in meeting the requirement for highly qualified teachers (Schwartzbeck et al., 2003).

In early 2004, however, the federal government added flexibility to the law, allowing teachers in eligible, rural districts, who are highly qualified in at least one subject, another three years to become highly qualified in the additional subjects they teach.

But some experts contend the federal government’s definition of those rural schools that will benefit from the increased flexibility is entirely too narrow. Many poor rural schools in the South do not qualify because they are a part of centralized, countywide school districts (Rural School and Community Trust, 2004).

The No Child Left Behind Act also requires states to raise all student performance up to the "proficient" level on state tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools must meet state "adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, targets toward this goal for their overall student populations and certain subgroups such as low-income students, black students, English-language learners, etc. The law poses particular problems for small rural schools that have tiny numbers of students who take state tests each year. In such schools, a relatively small amount of test data determines whether the school meets AYP targets. Some experts feel that because of this, small schools and districts face the potential of being misidentified as failing or in need of improvement. They suggest that states raise the minimum number of tests-takers for AYP purposes. But the same experts also caution that such a solution could mean that small schools that need help would not be included in the accountability system, and could slip through the cracks (Jimerson, 2004a; Jimerson, 2004b).

Rural schools also wrestle with state funding formulas that often favor larger and wealthier districts. In many states, the dependence on local property tax revenues to finance education fuels funding disparities between urban, suburban, and rural districts (Reeves, 2003; Haas, 2000). In addition, numerous policies and programs include funding formulas that set a minimum number of students as a prerequisite for funding, or tie such funding to growth in the student population (Lawrence, 2001). Also, formulas often allocate funds on a per-pupil basis, which means that small districts and schools receive relatively small amounts of money (Reeves, 2003). The federal government has tried to combat such funding disparities by establishing the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) which, for the first time, targets federal funding directly to rural schools.