Why Rural Matters 2003: The Continuing Need for Every State to Take Action on Rural Education

A Forum — March 14, 2003

Background

The Rural School and Community Trust is a non-profit organization addressing the relationship between good schools and thriving rural communities. Working in some of the poorest rural places, the Rural Trust involves young people in learning linked to their communities, improves the quality of teaching and school leadership, advocates for appropriate state educational policies, and addresses the critical issue of funding for rural schools. Two years ago, the Rural Trust released its report, Why Rural Matters, analyzing the importance of rural education in each of the fifty states and documenting the urgent needs of rural schools and communities. In February 2003, the Rural Trust published Why Rural Matters 2003, which updates and enlarges on the earlier report. At this forum, participants discussed the findings from this report, the urgent needs of rural schools, and the potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on rural schools.

Forum Overview

Rachel Tompkins, President of the Rural Trust, provided an introduction to the report and the work of the Rural Trust. The report is a part of a larger mission to raise policymakers’ awareness of the needs and problems of rural schools and communities and to provide a resource for advocates of rural communities and schools. As this report shows, rural America did not go away and it has critical needs that must be addressed. Thirty one percent of public schools are in rural areas, and 21% of public school students are enrolled in rural schools. Rural communities are often poor and many of their students live in poverty. Tompkins argued that it is essential to develop specific policies that are targeted to support and meet the needs of rural school and their students.

Marty Strange, Policy Director for the Rural Trust, described the report and its findings. The data used in the report are from National Center for Educational Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. The report is framed around two gauges. The importance gauge consists of seven statistical indicators of the relative scope and scale of rural education in each of the fifty states. The indicators include such things as the percentage of the state’s population that is rural and the percentage of a state’s schools in rural areas. States very high in the importance gauge include Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Kentucky, and South Dakota as well as several other states in the mid-south delta, southeast, Appalachia, northern New England, and the Great Plains areas. In these states, the overall educational performance of that state strongly depends upon addressing the particular needs of rural schools. The urgency gauge consists of twelve indicators of the conditions faced by teachers, students, leaders, and others in rural schools and communities, plus one of the indicators from the importance gauge (the percentage of rural population). This gauge includes data on such things as average rural teachers’ salaries and percentage of rural students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The states scoring very high on this gauge include Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, and North Dakota. States scoring very high here represent a very diverse range of areas across the U.S. Placement on this gauge indicates the urgency of the needs of schools in this area and the attention that policymakers at the state and federal level should devote to addressing the problems in these states. Finally, states were given an overall ranking with respect to importance and urgency; this overall ranking then determined their rural education priority gauge. There were seven states that rank in the top quartile on both importance and urgency gauges: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, and West Virginia. In these states, rural schools figure prominently in the state’s educational landscape and these schools have urgent needs that are not currently being met.

Bill Mathis, Superintendent of Schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union in Rutland, Vermont, described the potential impact of No Child Left Behind on rural schools and districts and the need for policymakers to take into account the harmful impact of the law on rural schools. First, the law is underfunded. To implement the law will require more money than has been allotted; further, to get those students currently performing below standards up to standards, a substantial investment is required not only in education but also in health care and nutrition. There is also a problem with falsely identifying rural schools as failing. Tests scores cannot be reliably used to track changes in student learning in small schools. Generally, the larger the group, the more stable the changes. NCLB does not sufficiently take into account the fact that populations in rural schools are too small to reliably associate changes in test scores with changes in student proficiency. The requirements for teacher certification under the law are also unreasonable for rural schools; in these schools, teachers often have to teach multiple subject areas, and it would be very difficult for these teachers to be certified in all of the areas they must teach. Rural areas also have a serious problem attracting quality teachers; to increase certification requirements would make it even more difficult to attract a sufficient number of teachers. There is also a shortage of para-educators; the increased requirements for these members of the school community will exacerbate this shortage and may force districts to raise the salaries they currently offer para-educators. The accountability provisions are poorly suited to rural schools and communities, Mathis continued. The transportation costs for a child to transfer from a low-performing school to a better-performing school could be prohibitive, given the distances between schools in rural areas. There are also few providers of supplementary services in rural areas for children attending low-performing rural schools to make use of. Finally, if students transfer out of rural low-performing schools, this will be devastating for rural schools and communities. Low-performing schools may be forced to close and whole communities would be left without a school. Policymakers must consider how No Child Left Behind will affect rural schools and take the special needs of rural schools into account.

During the discussion, one participant asked about the utility of categorical funds to help meet the needs of rural schools. Tompkins acknowledged that the funds can be useful; however, the small amount that each school gets and the amount of time involved in applying limits their capacity to meet the needs of rural schools. In as sense, they are band-aids that do little to cover a gaping wound, Tompkins replied. The needs of rural schools are severe and require sustained and serious attention from policymakers at the state and federal levels.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org