The Condition of Education in Rural Schools

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 371 935 RC 019 692

AUTHOR Stern, Joyce D., Ed. TITLE The Condition of Education in Rurvl Schools. INSTITUTION Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Programs for the Improvement of Practice. REPORT NO ISBN-0-16-045034-9; PIP-94-1106 PUB DATE Jun 94 NOTE 163p.; Photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMU.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Statistical Data (110) Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Demography; Economically Disadvantaged; Educational Change; *Educational Finance; *Educational Improvement; *Educational Policy; Educational Research; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Schools; *Research Needs; *Rural Education; Rural Schools; *Rural Urban Differences; School Commur / Relationship; School Districts; School Size; School Statistics IDENTIFIERS National Center for Education Statistics

ABSTRACT This report focuses on the status of rural education and is intended to provide information to education researchers, policymakers at the federal and state levels, as well as others concerned about issues in rural education. Specifically, the goal is to increase federal policymakers' attention to rural education problems, promote improvements in rural schools, and stimulate further research on rural education. This report documents how rural conditions are sufficiently different from urban ones to warrant being examined independently, and it endorses the hypothesis that a single set of public policies may not adequately address educational issues in rural versus urban settings. National data, mainly from surveys by the National Center for Education Statistics, are synthesized covering the following topics: (1) economic and demographic context of rural education; (2) location and characteristics of rural schools and school d;stricts;(3) relationship between the rural school and its community; (4) policies and programs benefiting rural education;(5) profiles of educators in rural schools;(6) effects of education reform in rural schools; (7) public school finance policies and practices affecting rural schools; (8) assessment of student performance in rural schools;(9) education and work experiences of rural youth; and (10) the future of rural education. The report contains numerous data tables and a section describing statistical data sources and methodology. (LP)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** :''"*e» lortor_ The Condition of Education R Schools

",! -**.Z.;.*.e.,-

^A.r PYINENN.

007,,*7 -

r15.4,"=.

gm' 4

S1'

4,e,t

UJ OVPARTININT Of SINICAllON CAN ol Educed/NO Remerce Weleemerdwd EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ENO Pmrue document Ms beenreproduced es OrKewed from dte puma or erlferemerre CI MHO( ~OH Nu. Men reedsKt ~eft teproducem emery BEST COPY AVAILABLE RPM Of ore or opinune reeledla due (1--ip mom do rug remmenly reereseel ed OEI$IotlsI MOW 2 ,

' 'II .,4,...,4

01.

' '0" tl - e , 14CIelWr--.71rd "kr

4 vrf,

4411..

, 1;101010;aSella av-

C.NA`j.- 411110,"17-7'..

- ;

.,A,'If.

*AA, A ^it 4.4 .;

3 BEST COPY AV E 1

The Condition ofEducation in Rural Schools

AkOrt-w-c-ra

Joyce D. Stern Editor and Project Director

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement Programs for the Improvement of Practice

4 U.S. Department of Education Richard W. Riley Secretary Office of Educational Research and Improvement Sharon P. Rob:nson Assistant Secretary Programs for the Improvement of Practice Eve M. Bither Director

June 1994

Cover photo End of the day at Solon Elementary School (enrollment: 145 students, grades K-8), Solon, Maine. Photo by Julie Searis. Inside front cover photo Morning rush h Jur, country road, Cockeysville, Maryland. Photo by J. Norman Reid, Falls Church, Virginia.

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents. Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington. DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16-045034-9 Foreword

Publication of TheCondition of Education in Rural Schoolsrepresents an important contribution to education policymaking in this country. To be effective, policy and practice must be informed by current and accurate information. Toward that end, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERD within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has been charged with reporting on "the condition and progress of education" and diffusing information that will "promote the cause of education throughout the country."

Over the years, many OERI publications have taken note of education in rural areas of the nation, but only a few have been specifically dedicated to some aspect of rural schooling. And none has attempted to describe a full range of data on elementary and secondary education in rural schools. This report seeks to fillthat gap. Indeed, the scope of the information gathered here about rural education may be unprecedented.

This report is well-timed. The nation has embarked on a strategic mission to upgrade the quality and outcomes of education throughout the country. The Naf.onal Education Goals articulated in 1989 are beacons, not just for an elite but for every citizen. For its part, one of OERI's goals is to raise the achievement level of each child. The nation' s investment in educational research has demonstrated student performance will improve under certain conditions, that is, when expectations are high and clear; when students and teachers are challenged and modvated through curricular demands that provide all students with opportunities to learn; and when parents are actively involved in supporting their children's academic progress.

OERI is not alone in this sense of mission. In January 1992, the report of the nonpartisan National Council on Education Standards and Testing gave voice to the growing consensus that all students should learn challenging subject matter to prepare them for citizenship in a democratic society, for further education, and forrewarding careersregardless of race, sex, or social background.

Nor should location present a barrier to educational opportunity. Rural schools educate a large percentage of America's students under sometimes daunting conditions. At the same time, many of these institutions have had notable success in educating generations of students for productive lives and citizenship. Yet until now, information about school-age children and youth in Rural America, drawn as it has been from small studies and occasional state reports, has been sketchy. National education data could sometimes be found in the appenCces of statistical reports and the occasional journal article that tapped into a national data base. But comparatively little was known on a broad scale about such basics as the number and location of rural schools, teachers, and students, or about the unique circumstances and outcomes of rural education. This information deficit has been unfortunate from the standpoint of policymaking.

A few years ago, when Congress charged OERI to carry out a rural education initiative through the federally funded regional educational laboratories, it requested preparation of a report on the condition of education in rural, small schools. OERI complied with a document composed of regional perspectives drafted by each laboratory. While useful for regional planning, such a document had obvious limitations for wider utility. Thus, OERI staff drew up plans for a more comprehensive report that would give an updated picture nationally about rural schooling.

6 The resulting report constitutes a source of information on education in rural communities that will be usefulfor education researchers, policymakers at the federal and state levels,as well as others concerned about issues in rural education. Specifically, we hope this report wiil increase federal policymakers' attentionto rural education problems, promote improvements in rural schools, and stimulate further research on rural education.

The report offers significant amounts of information as well asa structure for considering the issues. It does not, however, prescribe how these issues should be addressed. Problems confronting rural educationare many and complex, and rural settings are too diverse for simple or universal remedies. But this report should help insure that the ruralperspective is not ignored as the nation goes about creating new approaches to education appropriate for the 21st century.

Sharon P. Robinson Assistant Secretary Office of Educational Research and Improvement U.S. Department of Education

7 iv Contents

Foreword iii

1.Introduction 1

2.Context of Rural Echration: The Economy and Population of Rural America 7

3.Location and Citatucteristics of Rural Schools and School Districts 13

4.The Rural School-Community Connection 21

5.Policies and Programs Denefiting Rural Education 27

6.Educators in Rural Schools 33

7.Effects of Education Reform in Rural Schools 41

S. Public School Finance Policies and Practices Affecting Rural Schools 47

9.Assessment of Student Performance in Rural Schools 53

10. Education and Work Experiences of Rural Youth 61

11. Looking Ahead 69

Figures

2-1.Urban-rural difference in earnings, full-time workers aged 25-34: Males 8

2-2.Urban-rural difference in earnings, full-time workers aged 25-34: Females 8

2-3.Net migration of nonmetropolitan population aged 25-64: 1988-89 average 10

2-4.Production sector job growth, by education level of job: 1980-88 10

3-I.Regular public schools per 100 square miles, by division and region: 1991-92 13

3-2.Percentage distribution of schools, by school enrollment size and locale: 1991-92 .. 14

3-3.Percentage distribution of students, by school enrollment size and locale: 1991-92 15 3-4.ERS county types 17

3-5.ERS nonmetropolitan socioeconomiccounty types 18

6-1.--Degree attainment of teachers, by setting and schoollevel taught: 1987-88 33

6-2.---Average scheduled salary for rural and nonrural teachers 34

6-3.Degree attainment of public sLiool principals, by settingand sex: 1987-88 37

6-4.Average annual salaries of rural and nonrural publicschool principals, by sex: 1937-88 38

6-5.Percentage of rural and nonrural school principals receivingvarious benefits: 1987-88 38

8-1.A state system of public school finance: Acommon example 47

8-2.Characteristics of rural schools and rural school districts 48

8-3.Current education expenditure, elementary andsecondary education 49

9-1.Percentage of rural eighth graders with vorious risk factors 55

10-1.Postsecondary educational plans of 1980 senion., bylocation 61

10-2.High school program enrollment, by type and lix:ation 62

Appendices 75

A. Supporting Tables 77

Table 3-1. Number and percentage of regular publicschools, students, and average school enrollment, by NCES locale code: 1991-92 77

Table 3-2. Percentage distribution of regular publicschools and students by school enrollment size and type of school, by rural and urban locale:1991-92 78

Table 3-3. Student teacher ratios, by schooltype, size, and locale: 1991-92 78

Table 3-4. Number and percentage distribution of ruralschools and students, by division and state: 1991-92 79

Table 3-5. Number of rural schools andpercentage, by enrollment size, by division and state: 1991-92 80

vi 9 Table 3-6. Number and percentage distribution of school districts, by percentage of students attending rural schools: 1991-92 81

Table 3-7. Number and percentage distribution of districts, schools, students, and teachers, by rural or urban type of district: 1991-92 81

Table 3-8. Number of rural and urban school districts and percentage by enrollment size, by division and state: 1991-92 82

Table 3-9. Selected population indicators, by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county type 84

Table 3-10. Number and percentage of schools, rural schools, students, rural students, and density, by metropolitan and nonmetvopolitan county type: 1989-90 85

Table 3-11. Number and percentage of schools by selected enrollment sizes, by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county type: 1989-90 86

Table 3-12. Selected population and education statistics, by nonmetropolitan county policy impact type 87

Table 5-1. Tactical objectives of the 1983 U.S. Department of Education's Rural Education and rural family education policy for the 1980s 88

Table 5-2. Percentage of public and private school students receiving publicly funded ECIA Chapter 1 services, by selected school characteristics: School year 1987-88 89

Table 5-3. Ten largest providers of federal education funding for all levels of education: Fiscal year 1992 90

Table 5.-4. Summary of basic strategies and tactics used by the states to enhance rural education: 1990 91

Table 6-1a. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by sex and age: 1987-1988 92

Table 6-1b. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by years of full-time teaching experience: 1987-88 92

Table 6-2. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by highest earned degree, sex, and level: 1987-88 93

Table 6-3. Percentage of rural and nonrural public schools whose districts offered certain benefits in teacher pay packages, by type of benefit: 1987-88 94 Table 6-4. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who had nonschool employment, by time of year employed outside school: 1987-88 94

Table 6-5. Percentage of rural and nonrural public schools whose districts used various criteria for teacher employment, by type of criteria: 1987-88 95

Table 6-6. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who used various strategies to compensate for unfilled vacancies: 1987-88 95

Table 6-7. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who reporteda high level of control over selected areas in their classrooms: 1987-88 96

Table 6-8. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who reported havinga great deal of influence over school policy in various areas, by level: 1987-88 97

Table 6-9. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers whowere highly satisfied with various aspects of their working conditions, by level: 1987-88 98

Table 6-10. Number of rural and nonrural public school principals, bysex and age: 1987-88 99

Table 6-.11. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principals, by sex and age: 1987-88 99

Table 6-12. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principals, by race and ethnic origin: 1987-88 100

Table 6-13. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principals, by highest degree earned, level, and sex: 1987-88 101

Table 6-14.-- Avenge years of experience of rural and nonrural public school principals, by type of experience and sex: 1987-88 102

Table 6-15. Average annual salary of rural and nonrural public school principals, by length of work year and sex: 1987-88 103

Table 6-16.-- Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals receiving various benefits: 1987-88 103

Table 6-17. Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who reportedthat various groups had a great deal of influence on different activities, by level: 1987-88 104

Table 6-18.-- Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who ratedselected problems in their rchools as "serious," by level: 1987-88 105

Table 8-1. Classification of major state basic education aidprograms, by state: 1986-87 106

viii Table 8-2. Mean and percent variation in per pupil expenditure, by county type in order of decreasing variation, by state: 1982 107

Table 8-3.-- Provisions in state funding fonnulas for additional revenue for rural school districts: 1989-90 108

Table 9-1. NAEP reading assessment: national and extreme rueal mean proficiency levels, by age and year of assessment 109

Table 9-2. NAEP writing assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by grade and year of assessment 109

Table 9-3. NAEP mathematics assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age and year of assessment 110

Table 0-4. NAEP science assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age and year of assessment 110

Table 9-5. Recent NAEP assessments: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment 111

Table 9-6. Recent NAEP assessments: disadvantaged urban and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment 111

Table 9-7. Recent NAEP assessments: advantaged urban and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment 112

Table 9-8. NELS:88 eighth-grade test scores in four subject areas, by urbanicity 112

Table 9-9. Percentage of 1988 eighth graders with one or more risk factors, by urbanicity 113

Table 9-10. Percentage of 1988 eighth graders with various risk factors, by urbanicity 114

Table 9-11a. Percentage of schools offering levels of mathematics courses, by graduating class size: 1980 115

Table 9-11b.Percentage of schools offering levels of science courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Table 9-11c.Percentage of schools offering levels of foreign language courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Table 9-11d.Percentage of schools offering different foreign language courses, by graduating class size: 1980

ix 1 2 Table 9-12. NELS:88 eighth-grade test scores in four subject areaq by school size 117

Table 10-1. Jobs 1980 nonrural and rdral high school seni.,a reported they expected to have by age 30 117

Table 10-2. Educational expectations of the high school class of 1980, by location 118

Table 10-3. Lowest acceptable level of education expressed by the high school class of 1980, by location 119

Table 10-4. Postsecondary educational plans of 1980 high school seniors, by SES quartile and location 120

Table 10-5.-- 1980 high school program type, by SES quartile and location 121

Table 10-6. Parental expectations of children's post-high school experience as reported by nonrural and rural students 122

Table 10-7. Persistence in postsecondary education by members of the high school class of 1980 who had entered college between 1980 and 1984, by location 122

Table 10-8. Education aspirations and attainment of niral, suburban, and urban youth: 1980-86. . , 123

Table 10-9. Percentage of adults who have completed 4 or more years of high scnool byyear, race, and community type 124

Table 10-10.---Percentage of adults who have completed fewer than 5 years of elementary school by year, race, and community type 124

Table 10-11.Status dropout rate ages 16-24, by region and metropolitan status: selectedyears, October 1975 through October 1990 125

Table 10-12.Educational attainment of 25-44-year-olds by county type, selectedyears 126

Table 10-13.Share of counties with one or more colleges and universities: 1986 127

Table 10-14.Educational attainment by rural youth in the high school class of 1980, by census division: 1986 128

B. Statistical Data Sources and Methodology 129

Acknowledgments 139

13 1. Introduction

This comprehensive overview of the staffing manufacturing plants, and la- block scheduling, the community as the condition of education in Rural Amer- boring in fields, farms, mines, and for- focus of study, older students teaching ica today has been prepared to assist ests. But the surge in emigration from younger ones, site-based management, policymkers and practitioners by pro- the countryside in the last decade is a and close relationships between teach- viding concise and current information current and urgent reminder of the need ers and studentsall characterize rural on education for a major segment of to invest in Rural America, including its and small school practices. As the na- America's population. That the nation, human resources, for the betterment of tion experiences its second decade of indeed, the world, has become an in - the country as a whole. education reform, many feel the rural creasingly urban domain is beyond dis- school still "has the potential to be a pute. What, then, should prompt an Less considered today, but of equal im- wonderful laboratory for educational interest in rural areas and in rural edu- portance, is that Rural America has innovation and improvement" (Sher cation in particular? contributed ideas to the intellectual 1991). treasure of American thought. Thomas Importance of Rural Jefferson, the agrarian philosopher and Focus of This Report statesman, became the major architect America of American democracy. And rural The health and prospects for the coun- trY's more isolated settlements and All Americans have a stake in the health Americans like Henry David Thoreau, communities have been the subject of and well-being of Rural America. Tak- John Muir, and, in the 20th century, periodic study throughout this century, ing first a completely utilitarian view of Wendell Berry, offer the vision of a current circumstances, the importance positive connection between econom- leading to major changes in state and of the countryside is evident. It is the ics and nature. The American agrarian national policy, including education source of the goodsfood, fiber, min- tradition articulated by these thinkers policy. Today, concerns about the vital- erals, timber, and their productsfrom emphasizzs diversification rather than ity of postmodern rural life are being which Lie United States has built its specialization, cooperation rather than voiced once again. One outcome of recent attention at the federal level has material wealth. Resources from rural competition, conservation rather than areas not only provision the nation, but blind efficiency, and reinvestment been a growing awareness of the need they also help provision the world rather than sheer profit. These ideas to better inform education policymaking through expanded research and im- through extensive trading networks. provide a crucial link to a sustainable future. Indeed, the agrarian uadition in proved data gathering. This report is a But goods and materials are not the only America suggests that " ... care, com- contribution to that end.' products of Rural America, nor neces- mitment, stewardship, and husbandry The following are some of the ques- sarily its most significant export. Since are essential elements of the human ex- tions posed as this project was under- the 1920s, and especially after World perience[J" (Theobald 1992). Thus, taken: War II, millions of Americans born in Rural America may be seen as offering rural areas have migrated to urban cen- one of the important spiritual and ethi- Context ters, directing their intelligence and en- cal anchors for the nation. ergy to build the nation's cities, From what range of employment ac- factories, and offices and to construct This legacy holds true as well in the tivities do rural residents gain their communication and transportation ar- field of education. Many so-called "in- livelihoods? teries. Their investment in the nation's novations" being championed today strength and fortune is incalculable. were born of necessity long ago in the What do economic and social indi- Those who stayed in the countryside rural schoolhouse. Cooperative learn- cators reveal about the health of Ru- also contributed to America's well-being, multi-grade classrooms, intimate ral America today? What do they ing, creating stable families and settle- links between school and community, imply about educating rural resi- ments, establishing small businesses, interdisciplinary studies, peer tutoring, dents for the future?

1 1 4 Rural Students, Schools, and Education Reform and Rural sources for the structure of and infor- Districts Schools mation in this document.

What are the numbers of rural stu- Has reform impacted differentially Absent a single large-scale study with dents and schools, and where are on rural and nonrural schools? a unitary definition of "rural," this re- they located geographically? port drew on many sources with differ- What innovations have been devel- ent definitions, presenting obvious Are rural schools and districts oped in rural settings? analytical challenges. For example, smaller than nonrural ones as has sometimes "rural" is conservatively de- been claimed? What is the mix of Public Financing of Rural fined as having no settlement with a rural and nonrural districts? To what Schools population larger than 2,500. But when extent are rural schools located in What state financing policies exist using sources grounded in metropolitan metropolitan counties? that assist rural schools? and nomnetropolitan contrasts, which How is the concentration of rural are county-based terms, "rural" can ex- What financing issues particularly schools and students distributed in pand to include small towns of consid- counties defined by proximity to confront rural schools? erable size. In other surveys, respondents were free to select a loca- metropolitan centers or by primary Outcomes of Rural Schooling economic activity? tion category themselves, including Are rural students receiving educa- "rural." The only practicable way to Rural Communities and Schools tional opportunities comprable to deal with this diversity of definitions was to be specific about the one(s) used Is there a unique interdependence those of nonrural students? in each chapter. Readers should be between the school and the commu- Are students in rural settings per- aware of these distinctions as they in- nity in rural settings? How has the forming at levels comparable to their terpret discussions in this report. relationship evolved in recent years? nonrural peers?

Rural Education Programs How do the post-high school expe- Selected Findings riences of those educated in rural What programs and policies at the In addressing the goals set for this pro- settings ;ompare to those educated ject, there have been several distinct federal and state levels are designed in nonrural settings? to assist students who attend rural achievements. Documented for the first schools? time are the number of rural schools and Sources districtsteachers and students, and where they are locatedinformation Teachers and Principals In Rural Lack of adequate statistics has long Schools critical for policy development. Like- hampered research in rural education. wise for the first time, this report com- Yet this report is largely grounded in How do school personnel in rural pares rural and nonrural teachers and national data. Opportune timing made areas compare to those in nonrural principals nationally for income, expe- this possible. Results of an expanded areas in terms of education and ex- rience, training, and opinions. perience? set of surveys by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) were The sensitive issue of rural school Are there significant differences in becoming available and were tapped to finance and previously unpublished in- the pay and benefit packages for ru- tell the rural educatien story with much formation about the outcomes of rural ral and nonrural school staff? greater precision than was possible be- schooling have also been brought to- fore. Special analyses of other data sets gether for the first time. This report Are there significant differences in were arranged and current research lit- presents such essential information in the conditions of work in rural and erature included. Appendix B identifies the context of the tension between nonrural schools? the major surveys cited. The acknow- funding constraints and the evolving ledgments section lists the authors of agenda for education reform. It identi- background essays used as primary re- fies how certain educational weak-

2 nesses (e.g., isolation, limited re- density of the populations they Likewise, little information exists sources) may impede student progess, serve. The primary exception is in on rural school finance or on how but how strengths of rural schools (e.g., the Southeast where, depending on rural schools are responding to small classes, community involve- the state, from 25 to 62 percent of the reform measures. Analyses, how- ment) may serve to instruct the nation local districts have enrollments ex- ever, suggest rural schools have lim- in ways to meet its goals for education. ceeding 2,500. ited fiscal resources to address the It considers the potential rural schools rising costs of education in general The number and proportion of rural have for improving the economic and and of reform in particular. In spite schools and rural school districts social conditions in their communities. of limitations that come with rela- vary widely among the states and Finally, it discloses gaps in what is tively sparse settlement, however, known with confidence about the con- different sections of the country. many rural schools participate dition of education in rural settings. The following information helps en- hardily in reform initiatives. For example, the U.S. Department of Edu- This document presents the following large the picture: cation reform strategy for achieving information that is central to a basic Rural America is economically di- the National Education Goals is be- understanding of rural education: verse, but the shifting employment ing embraced in many rural commu- Rural students are found in all parts picture has caused significant levels nities across the country. of the country and in every state of poverty, with many rural citizens Teachers and principals in rural often in large numbers. But the num- ill-prepared to meet the challenges bers and proportion that rural of the modern economy. Large seg- schools are generally younger, are students are of a state's student ments of the older population re- less well educated, and receive lower pay and benefits than their population are independent of the m ai n comparativelypoorly nonrural counterparts. Evidence state's geographic size. Locating ru- educated, while the departure of the suggests many leave the countryside ral students can serve to challenge young and the well-educated, drawn for better paying jobs elsewhere. popular conceptions. For example, a by higher wages and faster job growth elsewhere, is draining intel- state with a predominately urban In recent years, rural performance lectual resources from the country- settlement pattern may still have a has risen on selected national assess- side. large number of rural residents, ments so it now approximates the while a state with much land area, a Rural residents contribute a greater national mean. Performance is be- condition suggestive of a rural set- percentage of their income for low that of suburban students, but tlement pattern, actually may have schooling, but hampered by the high higher than that of urban students. many or even most of its residents cost of education in settings with concentrated in a few urban centers. Students in nonmetropolitan coun- low population density, they face ties have less opportunity to con- major difficulties in meeting de- Many schools that meet the Census tinue their education. As a result, mands of the evolving federal and Bureau definition of "rural" are lo- fewer dropouts return to complete state reform agendas and in training cated in counties defined as metro- high school, and fewer graduates as- students for the challenges of the politan. They account for 12 percent pire to and go on to higher educa- information age. With the departure of metropolitan county schools and tion. Those who do, however, persist of their youth, rural communities ad- a quarter of all rural schools, and and perform as well as nonrural ditivnally fail to get a return on their they enroll nearly two out of five graduates. rural students. educational investment. The high incidence of poverty is a A sizable number of rural programs Two major characteristics of rural controlling factor in much that is may be identified at the state and schools were quantified as follows: reported about rural education out- federal levels. However, there is no comes. When economically similar Most rural schools and rural districts federal policy on rural education, students are compared, there is little are small (district enrollments of and state approaches are varied difference in academic perform- less than 2,500), reflecting the low where they exist at all. ance.

3 1_6 Challenges to settlement, isolation from a population do exist in the Garden State where the center, or both. size of the rural student population is Understanding Rural significant. Education Rurality as defined in state statutes, moreover, often varies depending on Recent steps by NCES address these Rural education research.Im- the program authorized. The defini- problems. Its forthcoming School Dis- pediments to a full understanding of tions in federal statutes, regulations, trict Data Book will offer the richest rural education remain. The variables and surveys also lack consistency. The ever set of demographic data on school- of small scale, isolation, and sparsity of differences between the two most com- age children and their households population are still not considered im- mon federal terms used"rural" and linked with descriptive data on school portant by many researchers, and most "nonmetropolitan"illustrate the district personnel, operations, and fi- studies ignore them. Rural research, problem: nances. The data will be available on particularly education research, is un- CD-ROM, a form that will make analy- dertaken by comparatively few schol- (a) The Census Bureau in its decen- sis possible for a greatly expanded nial survey defines "rural" as a residual ars. To help correct this situation, in number of potential users. In addition, category of places "outside urbanized 1991, the U.S. Department of Educa- this new resource will introduce pa- areas in open country, or in communi- tion released a brochure entitled An rameters of the term "rural" including ties with less than 2,500 inhabitants," Agenda for Research and Develop- measures of population density and iso- or where the population density is "less ment on Rural Education, outlining the lation that are both precise and flexible. than 1,000 inhabitants per square mile." topics that representatives of the mral This definitional breakthrough was ar- research community, education asso- (b) In monthly household sample rived at jointly by the Office of Educa- ciations, and federal agencies deemed surveys, the Census Bureau contrasts tional Research and Improvement most pressing. data in metropolitan and nonmetropoli- (OERI) staff and the rural program di- rectors at the regional educational labo- Limited awareness of rural di- tan counties. It uses the term "non- ratories. versity.Another problem concerns metropolitan" to describe counties outside of, or not integrated with, large stereotypical images of rural life that The resulting wealth of data, ease of population concentrations of 50,000 or inhibit understanding the wide diver- access, and inclusion of rural variables sity that exists not only across regions more. "Nonmetropolitan" takes in will be a boon to rural education re- larger areas than does the term "rural" of the country but even within states. searchers and policymakers alike. Not and ones that are politically defined For example, the rural South and the only will more finely tuned research be (i.e., counties, not just places). In cov- Pacific region obviously have distinc- possible on the location and charac- tive characteristics and needs, but var- ering large geopolitical units, it thus teristics of rural districts, personnel, encompasses larger populations. ied terrain and resources may also students, and households, but such re- dictate differei 'es even within a state, Many major surveys and federal or- search can be conducted easily and on (e.g., eastern and western North Da- ganizations follow the Census Bureau site for state and local purposes. The kota). In short, statements about the lead and contrast metropolitan and non- potential at every level for improved general rural situation may not match a metropolitan settings. Writers often analysis to inform policymaking is particular rural circumstance. consider "nonmetropolitan" to be enormous. To ensure new data resources reach potential users as soon as Multiple definitions of rural. roughly equivalent to and therefore a Few possible, a series of training seminars issues bedevil analysts and planners practical substitute for "rural." But the for rural education researchers spon- concerned with rural education more terms are not synonymous. The distinc- sored by OERI in collaboration with the than the question of what actually con- tion between the decennial census and regional educational laboratories were stitutes "rural." This is of more than the monthly surveys may be illustrated conducted in late 1993. academic interest. Funding eligibility by noting that areas meeting the defini- and policy issues are frequently linked tion of "rural" place may be found in to a school's or school district's rural- meuopolitan as well as noninetopoli- Conclusion tan counties. For example, New Jersey ity, usually measured in terms of sparse The cultural and social health of Amer- is the one state without a single non- ica's rural sector depends on how it metropolitan county. Yet rural places participates in the national and global

4 17 economy. At present, the terms of this ers devise more meaningful options tion process in 10 rural communities par- participation are not clear, but educa- and formulate better decisions. ticipating in its Experimental Schools pro- tion is key. The nation faces momen- gram. In 1979, NIE co-sponsored a national tous choices. Policymakers could, for Given the range of rural diversity and seminar to consider federal policy options in rural education. A decade later, the Of- example, presume Rural America has the scope of different needs, there are fice of Educational Research and Improve- few unique characteristics or particular no simple solutions, just as there is no one best system of schooling. But by ment published Rural Education: A dilemmas that distinguish it from the Changing Landscape, a collection of sym- bringing to researchers and policymak- nation as a whole. But that would be a posium papers, and in 1991 disseminated a mistake. The information and analyses ers new knowledge about the condition rural education research agenda developed presented in the following pages dem- of rural education and by describing an in collaboration with other agencies and onstrate the desirability of devising tar- expanding variety of data bases that associations. That year also, the National geted policies based on the distinct can be tapped in years to come to up- Advisory Council on Educational Research needs of rural studentswherever they date this knowledge, this report should and Improvement drew attention to rural needs in its annual report. may be located. facilitate the task of improving the educational experiences of the millions of Offering rural students an equitable children who attend school in Rural References education can be met by a community America. Berry, W. 1990. What are People For? San of interests at the local, state, and fed- Francisco: North Point Press. eral levels. Clearer thinking about rural Notes education, achieved by exploring its Sher, J. 1991. "Common Problems, Un- 1. It should be seen in the wider context of dimensions and establishing a better cdmmon Solutions." Rural Education previous departmental documents address- 2:1. descriptive basis, caa help policymaking rural education issues. For example, in 1975, the National Institute of Education Theobald, P. 1992. "Agrarian Visions." (NIE) documented the education innova- Country Teacher 15:9.

8 5 "I? 04,!,

-0

req...i

\he

Ticf

f ,

Food for America,a program of instniction for elementary school-age children conducted by students in the Future Farmers of America (FAA) program. Photo from the National FFA Center, Alexandria, Virginia.

19 MT MAME 6 2. Context of Rural Education: The Economy and Popt.dation of Rural America

"(In the 1980s], many rural Ameri- tion, but greatly hinder Rural Amer- Current Economic cans, unable to earn a decent living, left ica's ability to participate in the their communities. Businesses closed, emerging national economy as well. Picture entire towns died, and a valucil le piece Economic reversals in the 1980s. of American heritage was lost." Employment Profile From 1979 to 1982, the nation suffered National Commission on Agriculture one of the worst recessionary periods in and Rural Development Policy, 1990 Economic diversity.Although the popular perception equates rural areas its history. While strong national Rural America' has been buffeted by with agriculture, the modern reality is growth followed, a number of circum- powerful economic and social forces quite different. The mechanization of stances conspired to keep the boom during much of the last decade. These farming released millions of rural from reaching most nonmennpolitan forces have shaped the experience of workers, many of whom took jobs in counties. the country's rural population, bringing manufacturing plants that had relocated Early in the decade, a financial crisis about significant demographic change. to rural areas in the 1960s and 1970s. in agriculture cost thousands of This change is a story of economic dis- Farming now employs fewer than 1 in farmers their land and also produced ruption, significant outmigration, and 10 rural workers. In fact, employment a severe business downturn on the growing poverty particularly affect- in all rural industries based on natural main streets of many farming coming children. The education ramifica- resources (e.g, mining, fishing) stands munities. tions for school planners, practitioners, at less than 12 percent (Reid 1990a). and policymakers are immense. Manufacturing employs one rural At the same time, rural communities worker in six. that relied on manufacturing saw Location and their employment base erode as In fact, jobs that undergird the rural Settlement Patterns many industriesfaced with stiff economy are surprisingly similar to foreign competitionsubstituted Rural America's defining features are those in urban areas. The largest rural machines for jobs or moved away. its low pop- Ilion density and the great industries are service producing. Retail distances separating rural communities and wholesale trade; hotel and tourist In the aftermath of a sharp drop in from one another and from urban cen- operations; and financial, health, legal, energy prices, unemployment sky- ters of economic activity. and government services together ac- rocketed in areas dependent on oil counted for two-thirds of rural jobs by drilling and mining. Not until the On the whole, Rural America is the end of the last decade (Butler 1991). decade's end did rural job growth sparsely populated, averaging fewer begin to catch up to urban area rates than 40 residents per square mile. Regional variations.While the ru- (Reid 1990a). But with the most re- ral economy is diverse on a national Eighty percent of Rur' America's cent recession, the rural economy scale, individual rural counties often nearly 2,400 counties nave fewer stalled once again (Swahn 1991). depend on a limited range of industries than 40,000 residents, less than a (Reid and Frederick 1990). About 500 Emerging employment pattern. moderate-sind city; half have popu- rural counties, mainly 4.1 the Great With the clari..-; if hindsight, it is now lations smaller than 20,000. Plains region, remain highly dependent evident these events reflected much Half the nonmetropolitan popula- on farming. Another 500, concentrated more than a temporary upset in for- tion is located outside effective in southeastern and eastern states, are tunes; economic difficulties started commuting range of a metropolitan closely tied to manufacturing. A well beforee 1980s. Over a period area. Sparse settlement and isolation smaller numberabout 125 in Ap- spanning several economic cycles, Ru- not only drive up the costs of provid- palachia, the southern oil fields, and ral America lagged behind the rest of ing public services, including educa- scattered areas of the Westdepend on the nation in job and income growth mining and energy extraction. (Reid 1990a). While traditional em-

2o well in excess of the comparable met- Figure 2-1.Urban-rural difference in earnings, ropolitan rate of 9.5 percent (Swaim full-time workers aged 25-34: Males 1991). Rising unemployment has meant, in the words of one rural scene Percentage difference 10 observer, that ". . . in many rural areas, each job mustw support more people" (Deavers 1989).

-10 INNImegm, Low skills and low wages.The 01110 .1=1. -20 rural employment situation is com- pounded by a preponderance in the -30 countryside of jobs that require few skills and pay poorly. But such jobs -40 were not only those primarily available

-50 in the traditional, resource-dependent 9 10 11 Htgh School 13 14 16 College 17 18 sectors. Service and manufacturing oc- Years of school completed cupations also showed a clear pattern 1980 1986-87 of locating low-paying production jobs Source: Current Population Survey in rural areas. Managerial and technical positions with better pay and career potential were found more often in cit- ployment sources declined, reflecting gressed. In 1980, the nonmetropolitan ies (McGranahan and Ghelfi 1991). both reduced demand for products and jobless rate was 7 percent higher than improved labor productivity, advanced in metro counties; by 1988, it was 40 Economic vulnerability.Rural ar- services and manufacturing industries percent higher (Deavers 1989). The eas are no longer insulated from current passed by the countryside to settle pre- 1991 unemployment rate in nonmetro- developments in the world economy. dominantly in the nation's cities and politan counties, adjusted to reflect dis- Foreign competition and fluctuations suburbs. couraget: workers who have stopped in demand, exchange rates, Pczulatory job hunting and those who could only practices, or interest rates can have a Urban counties increased their ratio of find part-time work, was 11.5 percent, complex to routine manufacturing industries during the 1980s. Such change did not take place in rural areas. They Figure 2-2.Uiban-rural difference in earnings, lagged as well in the rate of growth in full-time workers aged 25-34: Females the faster growing and better paying producer services (Reid 1990a). The Percentage difference 10 result of this economic restructuring was a growing urban-rural differential 0 in wages for new entrants into the labor force, both male and female, particu- -10 larly for the better educated (figures -20 2-1 and 2-2). -30 Unemployment. The major consequence of this restructuring has been -40 growing unemployment. Before 1980, the jobless rate had been lower for non- -50 9 10 11 High School 13 14 16 metropolitan than for metropolitan Years of school completed counties; since 1980, the reverse has -- 1980 1986-87 been true (Rogers 1991). Moreover, the Source: Current Population Su:vey contrast worsened as the decade pro-

8 21 quick impact. In the 1980s, this effect Rural poverty rates in the 1980s families in which only the mother was was largely negative for Rural Amer- generally equalled or exceeded the present were poor (compared to 5 of 10 ica. Reliance on one industry, more- rate in America's central cities for such metropolitan families) (Ro- over (e.g., timber or a single factory), (O'Hare 1988). And the rate of pov- gers 1991). severely constrained individual flexi- erty has been worsening. bility when changing conditions threat- While rural poverty exists in every re- ened that enterprise. As one analyst Historically, poverty rates in non- gion, it is most severe in the southern observed, "There is no local pool of metropolitan areas have exceeded United States. Two-thirds of the na- employers in a small town" (McGrana- those in more urbanized sections of tion's rural blacks and 95 percent of han 1988). the country. By 1990, the rural rate rural black children, as well as most of increased to 16.3 percent, com- its growing rural Hispanic population, Recent data from the Bureau of Labor pared to 12.7 percent in metropoli- are concentrated there. The prevalence Statistics suggest that because most ru- tan counties (U.S. Department of in rural areas of low incomes and pov- ral jobs are among those most vulner- Commerce, Bureau of the Census. erty, as well as less educational attain- able to outside forces, the rate of rural 1991). ment, is even greater among these employment growth will lag that of population groups (U.S. Department of urban areas at least 15 years into the The percentage of rural residents be- Commerce, Bureau of the Census low the poverty line increased dur- future (Hamrick 1991-92). 1991). ing most of the last decade, rising Consequences of a from 13.5 percent in 1978 to 18.3 Population losses.A second major percent from 1983 to 1985; at the outcome f the economic situation has Distressed Economy same time, rural residents living in been a made exodus from rural The major results of the upheavals in poverty remained there for longer' communities as breadwinners left in the rural economy have been a perva- periods of time than before (O'Hare search of employment (Butler 1991). sive condition of poverty; outmigra- 1988; Reid 1990a). Between 1980 and 1990, one-half of don, particularly of the better educated; Even more telling for the future is the the nonmetropolitan counties to- and changes to the family structure. impact of these problemc on young gether lost 6.3 percent of their popu- Rural poverty.By almost every families and children. As William P. lation, or 1.6 million persons. measure, rural residents are disadvan- O'Hare of the Population Reference Predominately, these were counties taged when compared with urban resi- Bureau observed, ". . . poverty dependent upon small manufactur- dents (Butler 1991). among children has grown dramati- ing, agriculture, and mining and cally in the past decade, but it is not were not adjacent to metropolitan Incomes in nonmetropolitan coun- widely noted that this increase has hit counties. ties were only about three-fourths rural children disproportionately" those in metropolitan counties for (O'Hare 1988). He reported that While nationally the metropolitan most of the decade, a difference far population grew nearly 12 percent in excess of the somewhat lower From 1979 to 1986, poverty in- in the last decade, nonmetropolitan cost of living in rural areas. creased twice as fast in rural areas as population growth was just 4 per- in urban areas, both among young cent.2 In every field, nonmetropolitan adults (aged 18-44) and for children earnings in the 1980s were lower, under 18. Large numbers of the more educated with the gap widening to $6,270 by residents of working age departed 1988, the worst since the 1980-82 In 1986, one of every four children Rural America in search of urban recession. in Rural America was living in pov- jobs to match their skills and train- erty. ing. Nearly 2.5 percent of those aged After narrowing during the late 25-64 who had 4 or more years of A major reason for child poverty in 1960s and early 1970s, the rural-ur- college left annually from 1986 to Rural America has been the dramatic ban gap in per capita income has 1988. Those with some college edu- increase in the incidence of single-par- widened steadily for the last 15 cation departed as well, but at a years. ent families, headed primarily by women. By 1987, 6 out of 10 rural

9 22 In 1988, 15 percent of nonmetro- Figure 2-3.--Net migration of nonmetropolitan population politan births were to teen parent, aged 25-64: 1988-89 average and nearly one in four (23 percent) Percentage were to unmarried mothers. The 1 shortage of accessible pre- and post- natal care makes this circumstance a 0.5 serious threat to the welfare of young children in rural areas (Sher- man 1992).3 -0.5 Such developments not only affected

-1 the individuals involved, but also had repercussions for the larger rural soci- -1.5 ety, as resources, including educational resources, evaporated along with em- -2 ployment opportunities.

2.5 0-11 years High school 1-3 college 4+ college Considering School years completed Education in Rural Source: Current Population Survey America

much lower rate (Reid 1990b) (fig- cent between 1979 and 1990. For During the 1980s, education's importance to improved economic competi- ure 2-3). young children under 6 years of age, the percentage that lived in families tiveness grew. Both nationally and in Changing family patterns.Pro- headed by women rose from 11 to rural areas, job growth has been strong- ceeding from conditions of poverty and 17 percent; for black rural children, est in industries and occupations de- outmigration, other demographic con- the increase during the period was manding high levels of education and sequences have particular relevance for 23 percentage pointsto 58 percent skills (Reid 1990b) (figure 2-4). rural schools. (Swanson and Dacquel 1991). Nonmetropolitan real and projected birth rates no longer exceed those in Figure 2-4.--Production sector job growth, metropolitan counties, a major his- by education level of job: 1980-88 torical shift (Beale and Fuguitt Percentage 1990).

Most people leaving the countryside 40 were younger ac lilts of childbearing age. Consequently, the proportion of 30 nonmetropolitan families with children remained constant at 44 per- 20 cent, while the corresponding

metropolitan rate rose to 48 percent 10 (Swanson and Dacquel 1991). tO, , 0 =P/4 I I 1 I. At the same time, the proportion of I I 1 1 I young rural families consisting of Under 12 years High school 13-15 yearsCollege degree Graduate the traditional married couple with Education level of jobs children dropped from 84 to 78 per- MEI Metro ISM Nonmetro Source: McGranahan and Ghelli

10 23 Education also is important to the de- These features operated to Rural Amer- References velopment of new businesses. Research ica's disadvantage in the economic re- indicates the people who are most s tructuri ng of the last decade. Beale, C., and G. Fuguitt. JuneSeptember 1990. "Decade of Pessimistic Nonmetro likely to start new rural businesses are Unemployment and undeirmployment Population Trends End on Optimistic those who already live in these areas. led to increased poverty, emigration, Note." Rural Development Perspec- That start-up rates are highest in areas and changing family patternsdevel- tives. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- with higher average levels of education opments that adversely affected all so- ment of Agriculture, Economic underscores the importance of skills cial institutions, including the schools. Research Service. and training to locakiy generated devel- Because these conditions may be be- Butler, M. Spring 1991. "Rural Population opment as well. yond the capacity of local communities Growth Slows During 1980-90." Rural to re.. tedy, they pose policy challenges Yet overall, economic restructuring Conditions and Trends. Washington, as well to state and federal govern- DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, meant that demand for workers of any ments and to other organizations con- Economic Research Service. skill level in rural areas was low during cerned about the welfare of the rural the 1980s (Reid 1990b) resulting in the Deavers, ICL. 1989. "Economic and Social student. increased levels of poverty and emigra- Trends in Rural America." Paper pre- tion just discussed. These develop- sented at the American Educational Re- ments prf;sented grave dilemmas to Notes search Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. rural communities in determining local 1. This chapter draws upon a data base that education policies. But considering the equates rural areas with nonmetxopolitan Ghelfi, L.M. Spring 1991. "Slight Decline course of rural education, they warrant counties (i.e., counties without a city of at Continues in Rural Earnings per Job." wider attention beyond the affected least 50,000 or those lacking a commuting Rural Conditions and Trench. Wash- connection with such a county). Nonmetro- community. For instance, ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agri- politan counties include both people living culture, Economic Research Service. Can rural schools serve both the na- on the land and those residing in small towns and trade centers that service them. Hamrick, K.S. Winter 1991-92. "Employ- tional interest and the needs of local Of the 3,097 counties in the United States, ment Mix Will Change by 2005." Rural communities? 2,388, or 77 percent, are nonmetropolitan. Conditions and Trenas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Should state and federal involve- 2. Despite advances in transportation and Economic Research Service. ment in plans for local economic communications technology that make development include a role for the business activity feasible in all locations, McGranahan, D A. 1988. "Rural Workers rural school? recent trends point tc distinct locational ad- in the National Economy." Rural Eco- vantages for certain rural areas. In the nomic Development in the 1980s. Rural What value can be placed on retain- 1980s, the most rapid rates of job and popu- Development Research Report No. 69. ing small schools in rural areas that lation growth occurred in areas within com- Washington, DC: U.S. Department of warrants the infusion of outside muting range of major metropolitan areas Agriculture, Economic Research Serv- funding? and with climatic and scenic amenities at- ice. tractive to retirees and businesses with no McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfi. 1991. Such questions have no easy answers. constraints on location. By contrast, more remote rural areas, suffering continued loss '1'he Education Crisis and Rural Stag- But as long as rui al out-migration re- nation in the 1980s." Education and mains high, the nation's response to the of employment in resource-based industries and unable to capitalize on spillmers from Rural Economic Development: Strate- needs of rural education will have im- gies for the 1990s. Washington, DC: urban growth, experienced the greatest dif- plications not only for the future of the ficulties (Reid 1990a). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco- rural communities that dot the land- nomic Research Service. scape but for the country as a whole 3. In rural areas, births to teens were more O'Hare, W.P. 1988. The Rise of Poverty in (Reid 1990b). common, while births to unmarried mothers were slightly less common than in urban Rural America. Population Trends and areas. Public Policy Report No. 15. Washing- Summary ton, DC: Population Reference Bureau, Inc. Sparse populations and distance from urban centers are the distinguishing Reid, J.N. 1990a. "Economic Change in the characteristics of rural settlements. Rural U.S.: A Search for Explanations."

1124 Paper presented at the Seminar on Europe 1993: Implications for Rural Ar- eas, The Arkleton Trust, Douneside, Tar land, Scotland.

Reid, J.N. 1990b. "Education and Rural De- velopment: A Review of Recent Evi- dence." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Con- ference, Boston, Massachusetts.

Reid, J.N., and M. Frexlerick. August 1990. Rural America: Economic Perform- ance, 1989.AIB-609. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco- nomic Research Service.

Rogers, C.C. 1991.The Economic Wellbe- ing of Nonmetro Children.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, VW- Economic Research Service.

Sherman, A. 1992.Falling by the Wayside: Children in Rural America.Washing- ton, DC: The Children's Defense Fund.

Swaim, P. Fall 1991. "Rural Employment Down." Rural Conditions and Trends. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Serv- ice.

Swanson, L., and L. Dacquel. Spring 1991. "Rural Families Headed by Women are on theRise." Rural Conditions and Trends.Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Economic Re- search Service.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1991.Poverty in the United States: 1990.Current Population Re- ports, Series P-60, No. 175. Washing- ton, DC. Audience at first grade graduation: Tornillo Independent School District, Tomillo, Texas (pop. 600). Photo by Roz Alexander-Kasparik, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Austin, Texas.

25 BEST COPY AVAILABLE12 3. Location an Characteristics of Rural Schools and School Districts

As noted in the Introduction, two sets "rural" school can be precisely located. students during the 1991-92 school of definitions are commonly used to With this degree of accuracy, policy- year. Population density influences both analyze rural situationsone deter- makers can better target allocations and the location and the number of schools. mined by place and one by county. The services for rural students.' As figure 3-1 shows, the number and categories overlap so both urban and concentration of schools differ quite a rural places may be found within both Rural Public Schools bit among regions of the United States. metropolitan and nonmetropolitan For example, there are more than twice According to the National Center for counties. The interrelationship be- as many schools per 100 square miles in Education Statistics (NCES), in the 50 tween rural-urban and metropolitan- the Mid-Atlantic states as in the South states and the District of Columbia, nonmetropolitan is not often explored. there were 79,876 regular public Atlantic states, and eight times as many However, when schools are classified as in the Pacific states.' schools enrolling more than 41 million using both sets of Census definitions, a

Figure 3-1.Regular public schools per 100 square miles, by division and region: 1991-92

UNITED STATES

NORTHEAST New England Mid-Atlantic WAIIMMIIIIMO.M1110

NORTH CENTRAL Amer 0 Midwest West North Central

SOUTH South Atlantic East South Centrgl AMIN. West South Central

WESTarC.0 Mountain Pacific

2 4 6 3 1 0 Schools per 100 square miles, by region and division

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center kr Education Statistics, Common Coro a, Data Pubic School Universe Files, 1991-92

13 26 Figure 3-2.Percentage distribution of schools, by school enrollment size eta locale: 1991-92 Percentage of schools 50

1-99 100-199 200-399 400-799 800-1,199 1200, + Student enrollment SOURCE: U.S. Department ol Education, National Center lor Education Statistkas, Common Core & Data II Rural Cl Urban Public School Universe Files, 1991-92

Table 3-1 summarizes the distribution schools, the latter encompassing the about 14 percent of all urban students. of schools and students according to city, urban fringe, and town locales. And comparing enrollments more than four major localescity, urban fringe, 800, just 4.5 percent of rural schools are town, and rura1.3 Generally, areas with large, densely set- that large and only enroll about 16 per- tled populations have fewer, but larger cent of rural students. In contrast, more About 6.9 million students attend schools; areas with sparser populations than 20 percent of urban schools have some 22,400 rural schools, account- have more, but smaller schools. On av- enrollments more than 800, and they ing for 16.7 percent of regular public erage nationally, city and urban fringe account for 40 percent of urban stu- school students and 28 percent of schools are more than twice the size of dents. regular public schools. rural schools (table 3-1). Types of schools and school Rural schools and the students who at- For example, nearly three-quarters of slze.Whether primary, secondary, or tend them thus constitute a significant all rural public elementary and secon- combined, rural schools are small segment of U.S. public education. dary schools have fewer than 400 stu- (Johnson 1989).4 Table 3-2 shows the dents (almost one out of five has fewer distribution of these three organiza- Enrollment and locale.Figures 3-2 than 100 students). More than 40 per- tional groups by enrollment and locale. and 3-3 show the distribti3n of cent (43.3) of all rural students are in schools and students by enrollment and buildings with enrollments under 400. It has been suggested secondary schools rural vs. urban locale. The remainder of In contrast, schools with fewer than 400 with enrollments of 400 or more are this discussion contrasts rural and urban students comprise just about a third of generally able to offer a reasonably urban schools and account for only comprehensive curriculum (Haller and

14 27 Monk 1988). Those with smaller en- ments exceeding 1,200, and these ac- total. For example, Texas has the larg- rollments may find it necessary to count for just 12 percent of all rural est number of rural students (442,961) adopt innovative curriculum and in- secondary students. attending the largest number (1,376) of structional practices to make up for low Small schools have lower stu- rural schools. But 35 other states have enrollments and serve their students higher proportions of their schools in dent/teacher ratios than larger schools. adequately. The challenge is acute in rural locales, and 40 have higher pro- rural settings where 73 percent of rural This is true in both rural and urban settings, but rural school stu- portions of their students attending ru- secondary schools have fewer than 400 ral schools. And there is a wide range. dent/teacher ratios are lower. Schools students and account for nearly 40 per- For example, the percentage of a state's that have exclusively secondary grades cent of all rural secondary students. schools that are rural ranges from less have lower ratios than schools with ex- Less than 17r.scent of urban secon- than 5 percent in Rhode Island to more clusively primary grades, and small, dary schools ate that small, attended by than 76 percent in South Dakota. less than 5 percent of urban secondary rural secondary schools have the lowest students. Indeed, urban areas organize ratios of all (table 3-3). The different stories told by counts vs. percents may be illustrated by contrast- many very large schools, while rural Geographic diversity of rural areas organize very few large ones. The ing two states, one clearly perceived as school concentrations.The sig- urban and the other as rural: New Jersey 26 percent of urban secondary schools nificance of rural schools and their and Montana. Actually, more students with enrollments more than 1,200 ac- populaf,ions may be determined by attend schools in the rural areas of New count for nearly half of urban secon- sheer numbers or by the proportion of Jersey (68,209) than in the rural areas dary students. By contrast, only 2 rural schools and students to a state's percent of rural schools have enroll- of Montana (54,230). But in New Jer-

Figure 3-3.Percentage distribution of students, by school enrollment sizeand locale: 1991-92 Percentage of students 50

100-199 200-399 400-799 800-1,199 Student enrollment SOURCE: U.S. Deperfffent of Editcation National Confer for Education Statistics, Common Coes &Dab Pubk SchoDI Univers* hies, 1991-92

15 28 sey, rural students constitute just 6 per- schools have enrollments of fewer than cated in both rural and urban places cent of all its public school students, 100 students. Among the states, the per- (table 3-6). To compare rural and urban while in Montana, the rural students cent of rural schools with fewer than school districts, those districts with constitute almost 35 percent. And the 100 students ranges from zero in Con- schocis in both types of settings were conditions for organizing schools in necticut, Georgia, and Delaware, to first redefined as either rural or urban.6 New Jersey with more than 146 stu- nearly 73 percent in Montana. In 9 The resulting profile of rural school dents per square mile would be neces- states, more than 30 percent of the rural districts and comparison to urban dis- sarily quite different from Montana schools have fewer than 100 students tricts follow. with just 1 student per square mile. (table 3-5). Southern, Midwest, and Middle Atlantic states tend not to have Comparing rural and urban This diversity may be illustrated fur- many very small rural schools, but school districts.More than 46 per- ther at the regional level. For example, Plains states, Mountain states, and cent (6,973) of school districts are pre- the number of rural schools ranges some New England and Pacific states dominantly rural, and 53.6 percent from 864 in New England to just over do. As discussed below, these patterns (8,056) are predominantly urban (table 4,500 in the Midwest division. The reflect not only the rurality and isola- 3-7). Rural districts administer a total West North Central division has the tion of various parts of the country, but of 17,413 regular public schools enroll- highest proportion of rural schools (56 also regional traditions in the organiza- ing nearly 4.8 million students; urban percent) and also the highest proportion and supervision of school districts. districts administer 62,463 schools en- tion of students attending rural schools Clearly, with such diversity, school rolling more than 36.5 million students. (35 percent). But because there are policies for bringing education to rural Many rural schools are located in dis- roughly 7.6 million students among students can vary widely across the tricts defined as urban. In fact, 23 per- Midwest states compared to 2.3 million country, among regions, among the cent of rural schools, 31 percent of in West North Central ones, the Mid- statesand even within states. students attending rural schools, and west has nearly twice as many rural nearly 30 percent of the teachers work- students (1.4 million) as does the West Rural School Districts ing at rural schools are part of a pre- North C..ntral regional division dominantly urban district.' (803,000) (table 3-4). Defining rural districts.Different policy interests focus on different or- Reflecting population concentrations, Regions encompassing large areas ganizational features of the educational the number of schools in rural and ur- have many relatively isolated rural enterprise. For many issues, the indi- ban districts presents a considerable schools, but because their populations vidualschoolis the focus of attention contrast. While there is substantial are often concentrated in a few large (Timar and Kirp 1989). For other policy range, on average fewer than three urban centers, the overall percentage of matters, such as governance, theschool schools are in a rural district but almost students in rural schools may be rela- districtis the primary unit of concern eight in an urban one. Reflecting the tively (and surprisingly) low. For ex- (Stephens 1988). Since district policies small size of rural schools, rural dis- ample, in the spacious Mountain states are shaped partly by the presence of tricts also have smaller enrollments where there are fewer than three stu- rural or urban needs, it is important to than urban ones. Districts with fewer dents per square mile and less than one identify the number and proportion of than 300 students account for more than school per hundred square miles, only rural districts and the extent to which 41 percent of rural districts compared about 16 percent of the students attend districts were mixed rural and urban. with nearly 11 percent among urban rural schools. This compares to over 20 ones (table 3-8). percent of students enrolled in rural Most school districts (88.3 percent) schools among the South Atlantic consist of either entirely rural or en- The nearly 3,000 smallest rural districts states where there are more than 24 tirely urban schools.5Specifically, in 45 (fewer than 300 students) together con- students per square mile and nearly percent of the school districts (6,764), tain more than 4,000 schools and enroll four schools per 100 square miles. all students attend only rural schools; in nearly 385,000 students. The more than 43.3 percent of the districts (6,503), all 4,000 mid-size rural districts, those Regional distribution of schools students attend only urban schools; and with between 300 and 2,500 students, by locale and slze.Almost 20 per- only 11.8 percent of the public school include 10,700 schools and nearly 3.1 cent of the nation's 22,370 rural districts (1,762) administer schools lo- million studentsabout 64 percent of

16 29 Figure 3-4.ERS county types Exploring the interrelationships between urban and rural and metropolitan Code Description and nonmet000litan reveals information that could alter popular perceptions Metropolitan: about where rural schools are and could have significant implications for a 0 Central counties of metropolitan areas of 1 million population or more range of policy issues affecting schools, including how to define a school as 1 Fringe counties of metropolitan areas of 1 million populationor more rural. 2 Counties in metropolitan areas of 250,000 to 1,000,000 population 3 Counties in metropolitan areas of less than 250,000 population 1. Metropolitan adjacency.The first typology discussed groups coun- Nonmetropolitan: ties according to metropolitan status, 4 Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metropolitanarea population size, and proximity to a met- 5 Urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metropolitan ropolitan area (figure 3-4). The rurality area types are directly related to both popu- 6 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a men.opolitanarea lation density and per capita income. 7 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metropolitan During the 1980s, population growth area was concentrated in metropolitan 8 Completely rural (no places of 2,500 or more population) adjacent to county types. Apart from central cities a metropolitan area that have high concentrations of young 9 Completely rural, not adjacent to a metropolitan area people, the proportion of the population under 18 years of age varies little among remaining county types (table all students enrolled in rural districts. 3-9). While districts with under 2,500 enroll- Nonmetropolitan Both rural and urban schools may be ment account for 59 percent of all urban Diversity and Rural found in both metropolitan and non- districts, they account for 96 percent of Education all rural districts. metropolitan counties. In nximetro- The Economic Research Service (ERS) politan counties, with 38 percent of all Geographic diversity among dis- of the U.S. Department of Agriculture schools, just over half (more than tricts.While nearly all rural districts (USDA) has sought to quantify the di- 14,000) are actually rural schools; the have fewer than 2,500 students, the pat- versity of rural areas by creating de- remaining 45 percent (13,398) are in tem is diversr geographically. In New scriptive categories or typologies. The urban areas of these counties (table 3- England and the Mountain states, following analysis links rural school 10). nearly 70 percent of the rural districts districts with two different ERS typolo- The ERS county types also show the have fewer than 300 students (table 3- gies to explore more fully the variety of 8). In the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, settings in which rural schools oper- relationships between population den- about 20 percent of the districts are that ate.8 This analysis found rural schools sity, metropolitan adjacency, and small; most have enrollments between to be situated in very diverse circum- school size. The size of rural schools is 300 and 2,500. In the southern regions, stances both in terms of location related directly to rurality (sparse population) and relative geographic isola- where many states organize school dis- from remote villages to the fringes of tricts along county boundaries, districts large citiesand in terms of economic tion. The percent of rural schools with with under 300 students are rare. There, basefrom farms to government- enrollments of less than 100 for the districts with 300 to 2,500 students are owned property. three adjacent nonmetropolitan county most common, and about one of three types is half that of the nonadjacent rural districts have enrollments exceed- nonmetropolitan counties (table 3-11). ing 2,500 students.

30 17 Metropolitan counties (ERS have fewer than 100 students. In the by 6.7 percent during the 1980s while the nonadjacent counties declined by Codes 0, 1, 2, and 3).These coun- nonadjacent counties there are about ties contain 62 percent of all schools 325 students per 100 square miles, and about a percentage point. Together, and 74 percent of all students. But nearly 28 percent of the rural schools these two types of rural counties share nearly 12 percent el the schools (al- have fewer than 100 students (table 3 the lowest per capita incomes in the most 5,800) in metropolitan counties 11). The adjacent counties have grown nation. slightly in population and the nonad- are in rural places. These accnunt for ERS socioeconomic types. jacent group has, overall, remained sta- 2. 26 percent of all rural schools and 38 Another ERS typology characterizes ble. percent of all rural students. The densi- nonmetropolitan counties on the basis ties range from 2,100 students per 100 Nonmetropolitan, completely of their primary economic activity. Ta- square miles to more than 14,000 per rural counties (ERS Codes 8 and ble 3-12 displays pcpulation, income, 100 square miles (table 3-10). They are 9).About 5,300 regular public schools and school data for six of the ERS the wealthiest and fastest growing are located in these counties, repre- types. Figure 3-5 describes them. counties. senting 6.5 percent of all schools (table The differenees in the nature of the 3-10) and enrolling 1.2 million stu- Nonmetropolitan, large urban economic bases among these types of dents (about 3 percent of the total). center counties (ERS Codes 4 counties are also reflected in their These counties account for 22 percent and 5).These countiesintain about population characteristics and organi- of all rural schools and 17.5 percent of 8,000 public schools-10 percent of zation of schools. Population in farm rural students. In counties adjacent to the U.S. total. They enroll 3.4 million and mining-dependent counties de- metropolitan areas (Code 8) there are students-8.6 percent of the total. clined by more than. 4 percent during There are 2,800 rural schools in these about 270 students per 100 square miles, and 17 percent of the rural the 1980s, while the population in gov- counties, enrolling about 850,000 stu- ernment-dependent counties increased schools have fewer than 100 students. dents. This accounts for 13 percent of by nearly 9 percent. Farm-dependent But in counties not adjacent (Code 9), all rural schools and 13 percent of all countias have the largest proportion of the number of students drops to just 133 rural students. In the adjacent counties, rural schools and the largest proportion per 100 square miles, and the percent of there are nearly 1,300 students per 100 of rural schools with fewer than 100 the rural schools with fewer than 100 square miles, and about 10 percent of students. They also have the lowest students doubles to 35 percent. The ad- the rural schools enroll fewer than 100 density of students. While most of students. In the nonadjacent group, jacent counties increased in population there are about 650 students per 100 square miles, and about 19 percent of Figure 3-5. ERS nonmetropolitan socioeconomic the rural schools enroll fewer than 100 county types students (table 3-10). FarmIng-dependent--512counties in which fanning contributed 10 percent Nonmetropolltan, small urban or more to total income. center counties (ERS Codes 6 Manufacturing-dependent-553counties in which manufacturing contrib- and 7).About 16,500 public schools uted 30 percent to total income. are located in counties with a small urban center. They account for 21 per- Mining-dependent-124counties in which mining contributed 20 percent or cent of all public schools and 5.6 mil- more to total income. lion students-14 percent of the U.S. total. There are 8,400 schools in the Government-dependent--347counties in which local, state and federal rural locales of these counties enrolling payrolls contributed 25 percent or more to total income. about 2.1 million students. This repre- Unclassified-712counties in which no single industrial sector predominated. sents 38 percent of all rural schools and 32 percent of all rural public school Persistent poverty counties-239counties ranking in the lowest quintile of students. In the adjacent counties there per capita income for four decades. are 670 students per 1onsquare miles, and 14.5 percent of the rural schools

18 31 these county types have similar per Rural Schools and Districts." Journalof 7. The proportion of rural schools in urban capita income levels, more than Research in Rural Education8:3. districts defined as urban may be slightly 700,000 nonmetropolitan students at- overstated because of the definition of rural 2. See appendix A for state groupings districts adopted for this analysis. tending more than 1,200 schools reside within the four regions and nine divisions in "persistent poverty" counties whose of the United States. 8. At the time ERS and CCD data were per capita income has ranked in the merged, only 1989-90 CCD counts were lowest quintile for four decades. 3. Consolidating the seven NCES locale available. Moreover, Alaska and Hawaii codes (Johnson 1989) to four, the locations were excluded from this county-level Summary are defined as follows: (a) City = central analysis because their counties are so dif- city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area ferent from the other 48 states; conse- Rural schools and rural school districts (MSA); (b) Urban fringe = place within a quently, the number of regular public are smaller than their urban counter- MSA and defmed as urban by the Census schools in this part of the analysis was Bureau; (c) Town = town not within a MSA parts, and their organization reflects reduced to 78,624. and with z population equal to or greater the relative density and geographic iso- than 2,500 people; (d) Rural = a place with lation of the populations they serve. fewer than 2,500 people, or a place having References Diversity exists among them region- a ZIP Code designated rural by the Census E.J., and D.H. Monk. April 1988. ally and by the type of county they are Bureau. "New Reforms, Old Reforms, and the in, whether that county typology is de- Consolidation of Small, Rural Schools." 4. Schools with any enrollment in grades fined by distance from a metropolitan Review of Educational Research17: K-6 and none in grades 7-12 are "pri- 167-177. center or by economic base. This mary"; those with a.-v enrollment in grades analysis quantifies on a national scale 7-12 and none in grades K-6 are "secon- Johnson, F. 1989.Assigning Type of Locale information generally understood from dary"; and all others are "combined." Codes to the 1987-88 CCD Public small or state studies. Noting the limi- School Universe.Technical Report CS 5. By aggregating the NCEs file of regular tations of a single urban-rural or met- 89-194. Washington, DC: U. S. Depart- public schools by local educational agency, ropolitan-nonm etropolitan framework ment of Education, National Center for a file was created of 15,029 school districts Education Statistics. in rural research helps provide the that administer regular public schools, and groundwork for developing a better ap- the percentage of each district's students Stephens, E.R. 1988.The Changing Con- proach to defining rural communities. who attended schools in rural areas was text of Education in a Rural Setting. calculated. Occasional Paper No. 26. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Labora- Notes 6. Among these districts, about 12 percent tory. 1. The information in this chapter was de- (209) have more than three-quarters of their veloped using school and district data from students attending rural schools. About half Timar, T., and D.L. Kirp. March 1989. the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) (913) are predominately urban, with fewer "Education Reform in the 1980s: Les- and county descriptions from the Economic than a quarter of the students attending a sons from the States."Phi Delta Kap- Research Service, U.S. Department of Ag- rural school. More than two-thirds (640) pan:511. riculture. These data sources and methods have between 25 percent and 74 percent of of analysis are reviewed in an ;Wiz B. their students attending a rural school. For U.S. Department of Coinmerc,. Bureau of purposes of this analysis, a mixed district the Census. 1991. Census of Population For further discussion of the data see: was considered rural if 75 percent of stu- and Housing. 1993: Summary Tape File Elder, E.L. Fall 1992. "The Use of Census dents attended a rural school. This conser- 1 Technical Documentation. Washing- Geography and County Typologies in :.he vative dermition resulted in putting most of ton, DC. Construction of Classification Systems for the mixed districts into the L oan category.

19 32 *

, "v411" f _ "b01111001.11.,v

41111.034,* t ir Ade Rae Ellen McKee, National Teacher of the Year, 1991; remedial reading teacher, Slanesville Elementary School (enrollment: 189 students, grades K-6), Slanesville, West Virginia, Says Mrs. McKee, "The school cannot be the only agent responsible for developing the skills and character of young people. The community, too, must seek to educate." Photo from the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.

20 33 4. The Rural School-CommunityConnection

The key role of the school in rural mation of Rural America, these institu- situation. Indeed, circumstances communities, particularly the tradi- dons still provide many rural Ameri- largely shaped by national and international ways in which the school and cans with their roots. tional forces have led to worse-than- community have interacted, is impor- average poverty, unemployment, The local school's influence has been tant to understand. In recent years, underemployment, malnutrition, in- pervasive, often determining the vital- many schools and communities have adequate housing, inferior or nonex- ity and character of a locality. For ex- restructured their relationships both to istent health care facilities, diminished ample, the scht. A's athletic team and improve student learning and to deal social services, and emigration (Pulver cultural activities create a gauge by more effectively with economic and 1988; Hobbs 1990; Sherman 1992). which community comparisons are social change. These had the effect of undermining the made (and often rivalries born). When economic and social stability in much the athletic team wins, the whole com- The School's of Rural America, disrupting not only munity wins. Evolving Relationship cohesiveness in ri any of its communi- With the Community The community-school tie is strong in ties, but rural cub are itself (e.g., Berry other ways. The rural school was never 1977). Another major consequence General statements about rural com- just a place to receive instruction was diminished political influence at munities and their schools must be tem- central though that purpose was and is. the state and local levels (Stephens pered by an awareness that a wide School facilitiesoften the only pub- 1988; Bailey et al. 1992). diversity of rural communities, lic buildings in the areaserve in These conditions affected education as schools, and mutual interactions exist many capacities. Today a school may well. Local communities rely heavily in the countryside. Typologies have provide a polling place; the site for the on the use of property taxes to fund been created to illustrate community annual farmers' organization banquet; education. As property values erode diversity (e.g., Gjelten 1982 and the kitchen where meals-on-wheels for with the declining fortunes of rural Nachdgal 1982) by making distinc- senior citizens are prepared; a meeting communities in many states, there is tions, for example, among isolated set- place for the 4H clubs; classrooms for generally less to spend (Jansen 1991). tl ements, depressed areas losing adult education programs; a stage for The result for much of Rural America population, and communities revital- holiday programs; and a setting for is underfunded schools, declining en- ized by an influx of immigrants from band concerts and community picnics. rollments, limited curricula, aging fa- metropolitan areas. But regardless of Through these and similar activities, cilities, and persistent pockets of setting, the school has served as the hub the rural school and its community are functional illiteracy (Stephens 1988; of the social structure. inextricably bound. So powerful is the Bailey et al. 1992). The historical place of the interaction between community members and the school that rural residents school.The family, the church, and But loss of community cohesiveness often retain the feeling of belonging to the school have been at the heart of may not necessarily be the result of the school, even into adulthood when rural communities since this country anything so dramatic as closinga fac- they begin their own families. was settled. These three institutions tory or mine. The network of state and interstate highways that effectively have provided the standards of behav- Factors weakening community reduced geographic distances, a boon in ior, circles of personal interaction, and cohesion.In recent decades, power- many ways, weakened rural commu- a variety of social activities that collec- ful forces have been undermining this nity ties. For example, thrsense of tively shape community ethos and traditional sense of belonging. Because community can dissipate as a town is identity. Often, rural residents define economic restructuring has led toa overtaken by urban sprawl oras its their place of living by the church to widespread deterioration in most tradi- citizens become employed outside the which they belong or the school district tional rural economies simultaneously, town and spend their earnings for sus- in which they reside. Even with the rural communities throughout the tenance and entertainment elsewhere on-going social and economic transfor- country find themselves in a precarious (Miller 1991). The rapid advancement

21 34 of modern telecornmunicat on tech- if turnover is extensive, also can have In summary, while the school still pro- nologies is another factor. In dramati- a depressing effect by undermining a vides an anchor for most rural commu- cally reducing isolation, community community's sense of its long-term vi- nities and many citizens will resist any values have become influenced by out- ability. move to deprive them of their local side forces as much as by local mores. school, ftaditional assumptions regard- On the other hand, commuters who live The causes are many, but the result is ing the rural school' s role may no in rural areas and work elsewhere may the same. In much of Rural America, longer be fully operational. Dramatic more often use the services and activi- and continuing changes in the world " ...functional rural communities are ties of the city where they work but do an endangered species" (Miller 1991). economy threaten the viability of many not pay taxes. If these commuters have rural communities thsoughout Amer- In this context, the school has become no children, or if their children have ica, undermining their capacity to sup- an important symbol of community it- completed school, they may resist port local services, including schools. self. This symbolism helps to explain higher property taxes to finance local At the same time, the nation's exten- the fierce resistance to school consoli- schools. sive transportation and communica- dation and school district reorganizations networks have dramatically The graying of Rural America is an- tion where these state strategies for lessened community isolation and with other phenomenon affecting rural trying to improve curriculum and save that change, community cohesiveness schools. Indeed, rural communities money are being revived. Factors other has also diminished. As a result, the have a higher concentration of older than community identity enter into the school may be underfunded as much people than do urban communities, a equation as well. Rural schools and through lack of will as through lack of situation often associated with the exo- school districts often play an important resources. How some communities dus of many younger people to urban role in the economic life of their corn- and schools have formed new alliances areas (Hobbs 1990). In some areas, an muni ties and are thus not readily relin- to face this changing world is dis- influx of retirees intensifies this gen- quished. This role can be significant, as cussed in the next section. eral trend. Retirement countiesde- the school is often one of the largest employers in the community. Re- fined as those with at least 15 percent net in-migration of the elderlymade Responding to the sources devoted to education are often up fewer than a fourth of all nonmetro- the largest single expenditure of locally Modern Challenge politan counties, yet they account for generated tax revenues (Mulkey and In the last decade of this century, many more than half of all nonmetropolitan Raftery 1990). Through the employ- rural communities and schools will population growth from 1980 to 1986. ment of administrators, faculty, and struggle for physical survival and psy- staff, the local economy benefits di- Retirees bring employment gro wth, chological health. Many will founder. rectly, with the multiplier effect ex- generate a larger tax base, and have a But some schools and communities are tending far beyond the schoolhouse. moderately successful record for rais- finding new ways to work together to Buildings and equipment also manifest ing income levels in many counties provide mutually rewarding experi- the community's commitment to itself. (Reeder and Glasgow 1990). However, ences. Examples involve updates of like commuters who work outside the traditional community interaction, But not all rural communities benefit community, retired people who own community-based curricula, and stu- economically from having a school. property may have no families in the dent entrepreneurship. Highways may permit staff and faculty area, and seeing no benefit to them- to be part of the larger, commuter cul- The school In the community. selves, are reluctant to support higher ture, and they may choose to live in The modern approach to traditional ru- property taxes. According to a 1985 larger towns, cities, or another rural ral school-community relations is Advisory Commission on Intergovern- settlement and travel daily to work at characterized by more sustained inter- mental Relations study, the elderly are the school. As a consequence, the rural actions and involvement of the com- twice as likely to oppose education community generates the payroll dol- munity in defining its needs. The funding as people under 35; indeed, lars, but the neighboring location or a retirement counties were found to emphasis is on establishing links nearby mall reaps the economic bene- through social services and continuing spend 10 percent less per resident than fit. A commuting faculty, particularly education activities, so standard defini- other nonmetropolitan counties on education. lions of "student" and "client" become continent Regional Educational Labo- School-based businesses. A re- blurred. An example of one small K-12 ratory has launched a related endeavor lated approach encourages high school rural school's service element enabled in six South Dakota schools. There, youths to be principal operators of young students to benefit from an traditional courses are enriched by us- school-based businesses while involv- adopt-a-grandparent program at the lo- ing the community as a resource. In ing them in the kinds of activities cal nursing home, while older students many courses, students' products are of needed in the new economy (REAL could qualify as on-call ambulance direct use to the community (e.g., a 1990). Following a concept Jonathan drivers for the hospital. Lifelong-learn- demographic report to guide long- Sher formulated some 15 years ago and ing strategies include offering cornmu- range planning by community offi- that was developed by Sher and Paul nity colic ze-level evening courses cials). DeLargy at the University of Georgia, open to both adults and teenagers, us- REAL Enterprises (Rural Education Using the community as a focus of ing qualified members of the commu- through Action Learning) now has study is consistent with current think- nity as instructors, and sharing the cost some 36 projects in North Carolina, ing about how learning can be facili- of resources (e.g., computers or physi- South Carolina, and Georgia. The busi- tated. Educational research suggests cal fitness courses) to be used both by nesses have become vehicles for pro- the school and the wider community the potential to learn is enhanced when viding entrepreneurial training, students cooperate on a task, when the (Rural Adult Education FORUM academic development, vocational instructional process meaningfully in- 1990). education, youth employment, and volves decisionmaking and problem community service. The Ford Founda- The rural community as a cur- solving, when it is oriented to an out- tion is helping to expand the approach riculum resource.Over the past come or product, and when activities to other sites and a national federation are interdisciplinary and connected to quarter century, rural schools have of state REAL Enterprises is envi- been confronted with curricula that real-world objects, events, and situ- sioned. have an urban orientation. Some be- ations. Because of their size and believe this situation may work to the cause the communities they serve The Future Farmers of America (FF A), rural communities' disadvantage since provide accessible and safe learning 4H, and Junior Achievement have of- material is often not culturally relevant environments, rural schools are fered entrepreneurial experiences for (Eller 1989). And by directing atten- uniquely positioned to provide such youth in both rural and urban schools tion and values 'away from the local learning opportunities. for many years. But these programs are community, it encourages youths to usually either individual projects, in School-business cooperatives. leave the home community (Miller the case of 4H and FFA, or short-term Another approach involves rural 1991). To counter outside influences business experiences in the case ofJun- schools playing a larger role in local perceived as negative and also provide ior Achievement. By contrast, REAL job development. Examples include students with a full array of skills, some and similar ventures aim to have stu- sc'aool-businessarrangements schools have looked to their own com- dents create permanent local busi- munities for subject content and with whereby vocational courses at the nesses. REAL Enterprises have school are specifically tailored to the it, a restoration of a given community's included a day care center, a feeder hog local business (e.g., a metal building history and collective memory (Hobbs operation, ice cream parlors, a graphic manufacturing company and a meat 1990). A primary example is the sys- arts service, a shoe repair shop, and a packing plant). In a colorful example, tem of nine Foxfire Teacher Networks miniature golf business. And in con- what began as a cooperative arrange- across the country that promote ap- tributing to the community by filling a ment between a high school and the proaching the community as a class- niche, students also consider remaining state game commission has become a room to develop courses covering and helping revitalize it over the long boon to community employment music, literature, folklore, and environ- term. mental studies. The overarching pur- through the development of a trout farming enterprise (Rural Adult Edu- pose is to " ... advocate the need for In Rothsay, a Minnesota town of 500, an understanding of and pride in the cation FORUM 1990). These are only high school students discovered two parent culture and a concomitant re- a few of the innovative ways schools nichesa grocery and a hardware spect for and interest in the cultures of and their communities can adopt strate- storethat had recenly closed. With others" (Wigginton 1985). The Mid- gies that are mutually strengthening. students, fazul`y, sc1ol board mem-

23 bers, and local business leaders work- lations governing school building op- (Mulkey and Raftery 1990). And ing together, both businesses reopened erations may inhibit using schools for poorly educated rural residents are un- as student-led operations. Thus, felt entrepreneurial activities or for social able to compete for knowledge-ori- needs in the community are being met, and recreational functions involving ented jobs (McGranahan a..d Ghelfi students are receiving on-the-job train- the wider community. And in some 1991). As has been observed, "Without ing for the modern business world, and communities, local control translates a quality basic education, students will the town has renewed optimism (North into resistance to change. The con- be hampered in whatever they do and Central Regional Educational Labora- certed efforts of schools and their rural wherever they goincluding remain- tory 1992). communities together with assistance ing in the locality" (Hobbs 1990). from outside agencies, such as the Co- Efforts like Rothsay's and REAL' s operative Extension Service, the re- Because the economy of Rural Amer- dovetail with curr,..nt reform measures gional educational laboratories, and ica in general is no longer dominated around the country. These are the inno- others, are necessary to overcome such by farm employment, rural policy can vations that depart from curriculum barriers and transform these examples no longer be equated with farm policy. uniformity, redefine the learning envi- into the norm. Thus, in fashioning strategies for rural ronment, identify others in the commu- development, many circumstances nity as "teachers," and set new Education and must be considered. Over the last 5 standards for evaluating student learn- years, the following events designed to ing. School-based enterprises also rec- Rural Economic help shape these strategies have oc- ognize most new employment in the Development curred and most highlighted the impor- United States is generated by small tance of education: firms and that entrepreneurial training During the last few years, a strong rural of students can mean opportunities for community development movement Four regional workshops were held economic gains (Hobbs, Heffernan, re-emerged. It is marked, however, by in 1988 (Focus on the Future 1988) and Tweeten 1988). Historically, such intense debates about what to empha- to develop a consensus on priorities skills were taught in the rural high size in this effortbuilding a physical for rural development. Sponsors schools through vocational and agricul- infrastructure and job creation or pro- were the Extension Service of the tural programs like the FFA. While moting a social and cultural infrastruc- U.S. Department of Agriculture; the FFA remains strong in many rural high ture designed to improve the capacity U.S. Department of Labor; the Farm schools today, rural youth have few of people (i.e., education). For exam- Foundation; the Aspen Institute; alternative routes to obtain en- ple, many communities whose youth and the Economic Development trepreneurial training. The vocational left in search of economic opportuni- Administration. Participants in- education programs established 25 ties reduced their investments in edu- cluded rural leaders, local and re- years ago are also being challenged to cation and instead supported gional development organizations, keep pace with emerging demands for something like a local industrial park state officials, staff from several training as work skills needed rapidly (Hobbs, Heffernan, and Tweeten federal agencies, including the U.S. change (Hobbs 1990). 1988). Department of Education, and rural specialists from several of the re- Yet an understanding of the correlation However, school-based enterprise gional educational laboratories. As between education and rural commu- practices are as yet not widespread; a rural development strategy, edu- schools s;111 are rarely collaborative nity development is growing (Reid cation ranked at the top of the list of 1991). The importance of a well-edu- partners with their communities (Miller needs compiled in each region. The cated work force to enhance rural eco- 1991). Indeed, a vision of how schools goals identified were to have rural and communities can respond to the nomic development objectives is schools offer the same level of edu- demands of the emerging information increasingly accepted, though this cation as urban schools so students age is in the very early stages of formu- principle has yet to be widely incorpo- would have equal opportunity in rated into policy. But communities lation everywhere (McCune 1988). competing for jobs and to eliminate with an inadequately trained work And barriers to collaboration exist in rural illiteracy so that the flexibility many rural places. For example, regu- force are unattractive to expanding of the rural labor force could be manufacturing and service industries enhanced. The President's Initiative on Rural both from youth emigration and, in ington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- America, launched in January 1990, some places, from an influx of retirees tion. is a multi-faceted undertaking that from metropolitan areas. Under these Hobbs, D. 1990. "School-based Community promotes economic development. circumstances, maintaining commu- Development: Making Connections for State Rural Development Councils nity cohesion and fashioning a vision Improved Learning."The Role of Rural are key. Their mission is to improve of the future have become particularly Schools in Community Development: rural employment opportunities by challenging. Certainly the school is Proceedings.S. Raftery and D. Mulkay coordinating the delivery of federal now expected to prepare students for a (Eds.). Miriesippi State, MS: Southern Rural Development Center. and state programs that can respond society very different from that known to local rural economic development by previous generations of rural Hobbs, D., W. Hefrernan, and L. Tweeten. needs. As of spring 1993, Councils Americans. Whether innovative com- May 1988. "Education, Retraining, and were fully operational in 8 states and munity arrangements that strengthen Relocation Policy."Focus on the Fu- an additional 28 states were in the the historical tie with the school be- ture: Options in Developing a New Na- process of establishing them. come widespread and in turn contribute tional Rural Policy. Proceedings of to revitalizing communities and Four Regional Rural Development Pol- icy Workshops.May, 1989. S. H. Jones In late 1990, a major national com- whether recent high level policy rec- (Ed.). College Station, TX: Texas Agri- mission called for improved educa- ommendations result in enhanced edu- tion in rural areas. Strategies cultural Extension Service, Texas A&M cational opportunities and in expanded University. proposed included distance learn- rural employment opportunities re- ing, school-based entrepreneurship, mains to be seen. Jansen, A. October 1990January 1991. and job training to ease forced career "Rural Counties Lead Urban in Educa- tion Spending, But Is That Enough?" changes. It also stressed the need to References integrate these programs into a Rural Development Perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of wider rural development effort (Na- Bailey, G., P. Daisey, S. M. Maes, and J. D. Agriculture, Economic Research Serv- tional Commission on Agriculture Spears. 1992.Literacy in Rural Amer- ica: A Study of Current Needs and ice. and Rural Development Policy Nactices.Manhattan, KS: Rural Clear- McCune, S.D. Fall 1988. "Schools and Re- 1990). inghouse on Lifelong Education and structuring."Policy Notes.Aurora, CO: Development. In June, 1992, the General Account- Mid-ermtinent Regional Educational ing Office (GAO) held a symposium Berry, W. 1977.The Unsettling of Amer- Labcy.atory. on rural development to respond to ica: Culture and Agriculture.New McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfl. 1991. a congressional request to "identify York: Avon Books. "The Education Crisis and Rural Stagna- the challenges Rural America faces Eller, R. 1989. "Integrating the Local Com- tion in the 19803."3duc lion and Rural in dealing with current economic re- munity into Rural School Curriculum." Economic Development: Strategies for alities." Its published report identi- The Role of Rural Schools in Commu- the1990s. Washington, DC: U.S. De- fied education as central to rural nity Development: Proceedings.S. Raf- partment of Agriculiure, Economic Re- revitalization (U.S. GAO 1992). tery and D. Mulkey (Eds.). Mississippi search Service. State, MS: Southern Rural Develop- Miller, Bruce. September 1991. "Rural Dis- ment Center. Summary tress and Survival: The School and the Rural areas have always depended Focus on the Future: Options in Develop- Importance of Community."The North- west Regional Educational Laboratory upon their schools to be the focus of ing a New National Rural Policy. Pro- ceedings of Four Regional Rural Program Report.Portland, OR: The community life. Yet that relationship Development Policy Workshops.May Northwest Regional Educational Labo- has undergone significant change in re- 1988. S.H. Jones (Ed.). College Station, ratory. cent decades. To the perennial prob- TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Serv- Mulkey, D., and S. Raftery. 1990.School- lems of isolation, low population ice, Texas A&M University. density, and limited fiscal resources Community Relationships Within a Community Development Framework. have been added economic dislocation, Gjelten, T. May 3-5, 1982. "A Typology of Rural School Settings." Paper presented Occasional paper. Research Triangle easier access to the wider world, and the at the Rural Education Seminar, Wash- Park, NC: Southeastern Educational Im- graying of the populationresulting provement Laboratory.

25 3S Nachtigal, P.M. 1982. Rural Education: In REAL Enterprises, Inc. Spring/Summer Stephens, E.R. 1988. The Changing Con- Search of a Better Way. Boulder Co: 1990. Vol. 1. The REAL Soo,. Chapel text of Education in a Rural Setting. Westview Press, Inc. Hill, NC. OccasionalPaper26.Char- leston,WV:Appaiachia Educational National Commission Agriculture and Reeder, R.J., and N. Glasgow. February Laboratory. Rural Development Policy. 1990. Fu- 1990. "Nonmetro Retirement Counties' ture Directions in Rural Development Strengths and Weaknesses." Rural De- U.S. General Accounting Office. Novem- Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- velopment Perspectives. Washington, ber 1992. Rural Development: Rural ment of Agriculture. DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, America Faces Many Challenges. Economic Research Service. North Central Regional Educational Labo- GAO/RCED-93-35. Washington, DC. ratory. 1992. "School-Based Enterprise: Rural Adult Education FORUM. January Wiggenton, E. 1985. Sometimes a Shining Expanding the Walls of the School to 1990. G. Bailey (Ed.). Manhattan, KS: Moment: The Foxfire Experience. Gar- Prepare Students for Real Life." Rural Rural Clearinghouse for Lifelong Edu- den City, NY: Anchor Press/Dou- Audio Journal 1:1. cation and Development. bleday.

Pulver, G.C. 1988. "The Changing Eco- Sherman, A. 1992. Falling by the Wayside: nomic Scene in Rural America." The Children in Rural America. Washing- Journal of State Government 61:1. ton, DC: The Children's Defense Fund.

wit

Language arts class, Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia. In the Pacific region, schoolmay rnean a modern, well-equipped building or it may mean a wooden platform with a thatched roof and no electricity. Photo from the Pacific RegionEducational Laboratory (PREL), Honolulu, Hawaii.

26 39 5. Policies and Programs Benefiting Rural Education

Until fairly recently, the circumstances to create a committee chaired by the Consequently, the Office of Educa- surrounding rural education have Assistant Secretary, OVAE, with rep- tional Research and Improvement largely been ignored in most policy resentatives from all the major ED of- (OERI) widely disseminated a bro- circles, Rather, throughout most of this fices. Of the many goals it articulated, chure containing the agenda. The need century, the trend has been to have tural the committee over time focused on for research in this area is great. One schools become more like urban achieving two: articulating a Depart- study (Barker and Beckner 1987) re- schools in size and curriculum. In re- mental policy on rural education and ported that few established scholars cent years, however, the special needs developing a rural education research just 2 percent of 14,000 higher of the nation's rural, small schools agenda. education faculty members sur- have gained the attention of Congress, veyedconcentrate on rural issues. a number of federal departments and Policy: In 1983, then Secretary T.H. independent agencies, some state gov- Bell responded to the congressional di- The rural education committee (and a ernments, the courts, and several post- rective by issuing the "Rural Education FICE subcommittee on rural educa- secondary institutions, professional and Rural Family Education Policy for tion) were deactivated in 1990. Atten- associations, and foundations. Some the 1980s," which was specific in its tion to rural education concerns, programs that promote equity and intent: "Rural education shall receive meanwhile, advanced in other Depart- quality in rural schools predate this cur- an equitable share of the information, mental units. services, assistance, and funds avail- rent interest; many others have been The Notional Center for Education established recently. In the absence of able from and through the U.S. Depart- ment of Education and its programs." Statistics collects data by community a special survey on the topic, the fol- type in its longitudinal survey instru- lowing information resulted from ex- The statement was accompanied by an ments (e.g., NELS:88), teacher and ad- amining existing sources. array of activities ED would undertake ministrator samples (Schools and to fulfill this policy, subject to the Staffing Survey), and the National As- Federal Government availability of resources (table 5-1). sessment of Educational Progress While there is no overarching federal OVAE monitored compliance with this (NAEP). Its periodic reports increas- policy on rural education, programs ex- policy for some years and produced ingly include distinctions by setting, ist that either directly or indirectly annual status reports to the Secretary. though definitions of "rural" currently benefit rural schools and their students. differ among these surveys. Of signifi- Research: In 1989, the Federal In- cance is that NCES has constructed a U.S. Department of Education. teragency Committee on Education new typology assigning all schools to Some of the U.S. Department of Edu- (FICE) endorsed a research agenda de- mutually exclusive locales, including a cation's (ED) administrative strategies veloped by the rural education commit- rural category (Johnson 1989). This ty- and authorized programs focus atten- tee with advice from specialists from pology is now used in the Common tion on rural education and have as- other federal agencies and from other Core of Data, which is the NCES an- sisted rural students either directly or researchers and practitioners.1 The pri- nual universe survey of public schools, incidentally. orities covered overall rural s tool ef- and is influencing other data gathering fectiveness; curricular provisions; in the Center as well. As a result of a Administrative action.The U.S. school and community partnerships; joint project with the Census Bureau on Department of Education Authoriza- human resources; use of technology; the 1990 Census, rural schools will be tion Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-88, and financial support and governance. defined with even greater precision, al- Section 214) directed ED to establish a FICE formally expressed its desire to lowing more sophisticated analyses. new organizational commitment to the have the agenda made "broadly avail- The development of software and tar- nation's rural schools and placed re- . . able . so that educators in Rural geted training programs for rural responsibility for carrying this out in the America can be given greater help in searchers will make the data widely Office of Vocational and Adult Educa- their efforts to improve educational accessible, permitting direct analysis tion (OVAE). The initial response was outcomes for rural learners of all ages." by state and local officials.

27 40 Another example of ED's administra- search on rural schools has been sig- of Rural Librarianship was funded to tive targeting is OERI' s Blue Ribbon nificantly expanded through the sup- conduct a national survey to determine Schools Program that recognizes export and concentration at the adult use of rural public libraries. emplary schools annually. Because in- laboratories of a cadre of researchers itial rural school representation was and development experts in niral edu- The remaining ED discretionary pro- low, program staff actively encouraged cation issues grams that include a rural specification rural participation, but it has still fluc- include: early childhood experimental, tuated. For example, 33 of the 226 ele- ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Edu- demonstration, and outreach projects mentary schools recognized in 1991 cationandSmall Schools (Education of the Handicapped Act were located in small, mostly rural (ERIC/CRESS). The Educational Re- (EHA), sec. 623 9 (a)); projects for the communities. sources Information Center (ERIC) severely handicapped (EHA, sec. 624 system is comprised of 16 centers on (c)); Even Start (Elementary and Sec- Discretionary and targeted different topics. Rural education has ondary Education Act (ESEA)); drop- programs.Of ED's approximately been an ERIC component since the in- out prevention demonstrations; basic 140 elementary and secondary assis- ception of this major education infor- skills demonstration projects (ESEA); tance programs, 12 specifically target mation network in the late 1960s. and rehabilitation research and infor- or include rural schools, either by stat- Presently housed in Charleston, West mation dissemination by the National ute or agency regulation. Five selected Virginia, ERIC/CRESS collects and Institute on Disability and Rehabilita- for discussion follow: disseminates educational research in- tion Research (NIDRR). (Note: The formation covering economic, cultural, Office of Special Education Programs Chapter 1 Rural Technical Assis- social, or other factors related to edu- included among its grant priorities be- tance Centers. Authorized in 1988 to cation programs and practices for rural tween 1985 and 1990 training rural improve the quality of education pro- residents. special educators. Fifty-three projects vided to educationally disadvantaged were funded and about 600 teachers children who reside in rural areas or The Star Schools Demonstration prepared for rural placement. While attend small schools, these 10 regional Project. Designed to employ telecom- this is no longer a special emphasis, centers have a special mission to help munications to improve the quality of projects to train teachers to work in rural districts that have declining en- school program offerings and over- rural areas continue to be funded.) rollments (Request for Proposals, RFP come the disadvantages of isolation, 89-054, May 1989). this program was authorized in 1988 Formula grant programs.Ru- (Education for Economic Security Act ral schools also share in the several Rural Education Initiative. This ac- of 1988, Title D, Section 905 (c)(1)). multi-million dollar state formula pro- tivity began in fiscal year 1987 with a Instructional programs are delivered grams administered by ED that assist modest congressional set-aside for by satellite to rural communities and special populations, for example, stu- contracts OERI awarded to the regional underserved metropolitan areas with dents who are disadvantaged, handi- educational laboratories. Beginning scarce resources and limited access to capped, or engaged in vocational with the new 5-year contract in fiscal courses in mathematics, ieience, and training. Laws establish requirements year 1991, OERI required each labora- foreign languages. Some 6,000 schools for fund distribution, and these may tory to certify that at least 25 percent of in 49 states, the District of Columbia, include a rural provision. One example its annual award supported activities and Puerto Rico participate. In addition is the Eisenhower Mathematics and serving rural schools (Request for Pro- to high school- and middle school- Science Education Stwe Grant Pro- posals, RFP 91-002, April 1990). An- level courses, some college and gradu- nual Congressional allocations of gram (P.L. 100-297). Designed to im- ate courses are offered for staff prove the quality of elementary and around $10 million have met or ex- development. secondary school mathematics and sci- ceeded that minimum each year since. ence instruction, it requires states to As a result of this program, numerous Library Research, Demonstration take into consideration the needs of intervention strategies uniquely suited and Training Programs. Under Title II students in "sparsely populated areas." to rural schools have been identified or of the Higher Education Act (P.L. 89- Moreover, the provision in most ED developed by the laboratories and 329), these programs have included a formula grant programs for benefiting widely disseminated. Moreover, re- number of grants benefiting rural areas. children in low-income families or liv- For example, the Center for the Study

28 4 1 ing in areas with high concentrations of fit predominately rural districts, in- lished, nor could [that for] several of low-income families, would bring cluding Indian reservations. the smaller scale vocational education funds to the many high poverty rural programs." How much rural students areas. The second is the Migrant Education benefit from the Department's formula Program. Under this portion of the programs, then, remains uncertain. The primary federal program directing Chapter 1, ESEA formula grant pro- funds to disadvantaged children is gram, funding is directed to state edu- Other Major Federal Programs. Chapter I of Title I, Elementary and cation agencies to provide instructional In fiscal year 1991, an estimated 61.4 Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Ta- support for the children of migrant billion federal dollars went toward edu- ble 5-2 shows the percentage of stu- workers. Most projects are in rural ar- cation (Hoffman 1993). Of that total, dents receiving services under this eas. 43.3 percent came from ED (table 5-3). program by school location. Chapter 2 Only two other departmentsAgricul- of Title I, ESEA, allocates funds accord- The third is the Library Services and ture and Interior (with its Bureau of ing to student enrollments. The legisla- Construction Act (P1.101-254). Indian Affairs schools)and the Ap- tion permits states to provide higher Originally established 38 years ago to palachian Regional Commission spe- allocations to districts having the great- help develop rural libraries, all libraries cifically targeted rural education. est number and percentage of children are now eligible to apply for assistance However, as with ED entitlements, living in sparsely populated areas, and under formula grants to states. Also, broad mandates do encompass rural lo- most rural states do include a sparsity eligible Indian aibes, most of which cations. The following are the major factor in their calculations. are located in rural areas, and Hawaiian federal responses affecting rural ele- native organizations can receive grants mentary and secondary level students. Generally, however, the extent to which for public library services. Discretion- rural areas attract ED formula funds is ary grants focus on literacy programs U.S. Department of Agricul- difficult to assess, in part because the and foreign language materials, and ture.A number of programs and units authorizations do not target funds by many rural public libraries have bene- in the U.S. Department of Agriculture location, rural, or otherwise. Nor do the fi' d. (USDA) impact rural education di- operating units of ED employ standard rectly or indirectly. definitions of community types. In ad- Some federal and state programs re- dition, states employ their own formu- quire that for a school to be eligible for The Child Nutrition Program adminis- las for distributing funds. For example, funds, a minimum number of students ters food programs that address the nu- definitions of sparsity used under Chap- must be served. Given their often small tritionalneeds of America's ter 2 vary by state. enrollments, many rural schools view school-age children and youth. It is the this as a discriminatory policy since it single largest federal program for ele- Three other formula progams have po- renders them ineligible despite having mentary and secondary schools. Most tential to help rural areas. One is Im- children in need. The Eisenhower pro- schools, including rural schools, offer pact-Aid (P.L. 81-874) that provides gram addresses this issue by requiring free and reduced-priced lunches entitlements for operating expenses and that any school district whose entitle- through this program. construction directly to school districts. ment is less than $6,000 must enter into Funding is based on need generated by a consortium with other districts so col- The Economic Research Service car- government activities as in the acquisi- lectively they receive at least $6,000. ries out analyses and issues major tion of land for federal purposes such as documents for policymakers on the a military installation, a national park, Few national studies have attempted to economic and social trends in non- or an Indian reservation and which thus ascertain fund distribution by location, metropolitan counties, including dis- diminish the base on which local taxes and because of the circumstances just cussion of rural education's role in for schools would be assessed. The pro- noted above, those that did had diffi- rural economic development. gram does not define districts by rural- culty. For example, a 1989 General The Cooperative Extension System is a ity, but given the remote location of Accounting Office report noted that decentralized educational network that many such federal operations, a large "[t]he rural percent of the relatively functions as a partnership involving proportion of appropriated funds bene- massive vocational education pro- gramBasic Grants to the States USDA, state land-grant universities, (CFDA #84.048) could not be estab- and county governments. It includes

29 4 2 initiatives for youth-at-risk and family palachian area of the country. Involv- operated, single-purnose, or compre- well-being that impact children from ing counties in 13 states, it strongly hensive educational service agencies; the pre-school years to the late teens supports vocational education and con- regional branches of the state education and also sponsors the National 4-H ducts special studies on such topics as agency; multidistrict sharing of whole program of informal education for adult literacy, high school dropouts, gades (usually. the secondary level) youth age 9-19. In 1988, the Extension and the impact of reform on schools in or the joint employment of staff; dis- Service joined the U.S. Department of its region. tance-learning for course delivery and Labor, the Southwest Educational De- staff training; and instructional pro- velopment Laboratory (SEDL), and State Policies and grams operated by the state. many other public and private organi- Programs zations to sponsor four regional work- School lhoice options.Many ad- shops to assess the role of education in Many state governments has e long en- vocacy gioups now support interdis- rural economic development. gaged in special efforts to promote eq- trict schiol choice. But its early uity and quality in rural, small school supporters were rural parents in areas The National Agriculture Library ad- districts. One can classify these efforts of limited possibilities who sought ministers the Rural Information Center, into five broad categories (table 5-4). richer educational experiences for their an information and referral service for children. This practice is now permis- rural local government, and the Youth Structural strategies.The ap- sible in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Development Information Center, a proach most widely implemented in- Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. similar service for professionals who volves mandatin- the reorganization of work with rural youth. neighboring districts with small enroll- Revenue enhancement.Several ments into new, larger administrative mechanisms have been designed to U.S. Department of Health and units, a practice known as consolida- augment support for revenue-poor, pri- Human Services.This Department tion. This practice, used extensively marily rural, schools. The most com- operates Head Start, which provides and wit-. dramatic effects in earlier dec- mon practice is state-aid formulas that comprehensive health, educational, nu- ades, is still actively under considera- include a sparsity factor to account for tritional, social, and other services to tion in many states, (e.g., Oregon, districts with thin populations. preschool children who are economi- North Carolina, Iowa, and Minnesota). cally disadvantaged. The program's A number of states now use fiscal in- Administrative tactics.Rural inter- formula portion is based on poverty centives to promote voluntary consoli- ests are represented through the pres- measures, while the discretionary por- dation. Still other states (e.g., West ence of policy or planning positions at tion is focused on Indian tribes, territo- Virginia) promote merging small en- the state level in a number of cases. ries, migrants, and the handicapped. rollment schools with larger schools in Under both portions, funds would reach the same district. Some states also have Other Initiatives rural children. established special-purpose regional Several public and private agencies, or- schools (e.g., special education or vo- U.S. Department of Labor.This ganizations, and institutions have un- cational-technical) or comprehensive agency administers the Job Training dertaken many voluntary actions to regional secondary schools. Partnership Act and the Job Corps pro- enhance the programs of rural, small grams that provide employment and school districts. They are grouped into Service delivery strategies.A training to economically disadvantaged four categories. wide variety of mechanisms are used in youth. While there are no rural set- virtually all states primarily to assist University-based programs.Pro- asides, allocation formulas targeting ar- rural districts. They make available eas of unemployment enable rural gams to train new rural teachers and specialized programs and services usu- administrators exist in some dozen col- youth to benefit as well. ally beyond the means of systems hav- leges and universities. Examples in- Appalachian Regional Com- i ngsmallenrollments(e.g., clude Western Montana College's mission.This independent agencycooperative purchasing, staff develop- policy of a half-year student teaching follows a relatively ambitious agenda ment, curriculum development or man- assignment in a rural district, and an to address equity and quality issues in agement support, and special education interdisciplinary graduate seminar at rural, small school districts in the Ap- services). Common structures are state- the University of Vermont for aspiring

30 43 and experienced school administrators Other examples of rurai education or- ment, Inc., among others, support a and other human service professionals ganizations are the American Council wide range of activities to assist rural who work in rural areas. Also, many on Rural Special Education, the South- schools and communities. Examples postsecondary institutions located in ern Rural Education Association, and include support for research analysis, nonmetropolitan areas have for many the Future Farmers of America. Tne grants to targeted schools, and funds years provided in-service training for latter is a school-based, federally char- for expanding school-business enter- school teachers and administrators. In temnational organization of students prises. addition, the state of Washington pro- preparing for a range of careers in ag- vides incentives for teacher candidates riculture. Summary to do student teaching in rural districts. In addition, rural interest units have Institutional activities on behalf of ru- Some postsecondary institutions have been established within associations ral education present a mixed picture. established rural school research and that have a wider focus, for example, On the one hand, a number of initia- technical assistance centers, while a the National School Boards Associa- tives have been designed to address the limited number offer high school and tion. (NSBA) and the American Asso- needs of rural schools and their stu- advanced placement courses via tele- ciation of School Administrators dents. On the other hand, these needs, communications. Kansas State Univer- (AASA). In 1989, an umbrella goup, especially in circumstances of poverty, sity, Manhattan, is home to the Rural Organizations Concerned About Rural can be extreme. Lack of adequate re- Clew inghouse for Lifelong Education Education (OCRE), was formed in search and impact evaluations, to- and Development, which recently de- Washington, D.C. to bring together gether with definitional inconsis- veloped a telecourse on change in rural those interested in rural education is- tencies severely limit policymakers' communities available through the sues. OCKE membership includes ability to know either the effect of fed- PBS Adult Training Service. In still a NREA, NSBA, AASA, the National eral, state, and local programs on rural different example of postsecondary in- Education Association (NEA), the schools or whether rural interests are volvement in rural education, the Uni- American Federation of Teachers being equitably addressed. Until this versity of Maine, Orono, for the last (AFT), the National Grange, the Trian- deficiency is corrected, policymaking decade has published a journal dedi- gle Coalition, U.S. West, and the Coun- on behalf of rural students will be im- cated to research on rural education. cil for Education Development and peded. Research (CEDaR). Professional associations and Notes organizations.Several entities exist A major compilation of state and na- 1. Operated by Executive Order in the to promote rural education concerns. tional organizations having a rural interest may be found in the Rural 1960s, but established by statute in 1979, The oldest continuing organization FICE provides the Secretary of Education Education Directory: Organizations dedicated to this purpose is the Na- with a mechanism to coordinate the Depart- tional Rural Education Association and Resources, a joint publication of ment's education activities with those of (NREA) fonnded in 1907. Among its the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Edu- other federal units. publications is a quarterly journal, The cation and Small Schools and the Country Teacher. NREA recently en- NREA. Ref ernces dorsed three postsecondary institution- State-level rural education inter- Barker, B.O., and W.E. Beckner. 1987. based research centers, attesting to est groups.Voluntary state organi- "Preservice Training for Rural Teach- their quality and investment in rural zations have sprung up in more than a e, A Survey." Rural Educator 8:3. studies. They are the Center for the dozen states, including Missouri, Ne- Study of Small/Rural Schools at the General Accounting Office. 1989. Rural braska, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Many University of Oklahoma, Norman; the Development: Federal Programs That have been instrumental in challenging Focus on Rural America and its Eco- Rural Education ResfArch and Service existing school finance formulas in nomic Development. Washington, DC. Consortium, Tennessee Tech Univer- their respective states. sity, Cookeville; and the Center for Ru- Hoffman, C.M. 1993. Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992. ral Education and Small Schools, Foundations.'The Annenberg, Ford, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Kansas State University, Manhattan. Kellogg, and Charlzs Stewart Mott Education, National Center for Educa- Foundations, and the Lilly Endow- tion Statistics.

31 4 4 Johnson, F. 1989. Assigning Type of Lo- U.S. Department of Education. 1983. Rural U.S. Department of Education, Office of cale Codes to the 1987-88 CCD Public Education and Rural Family Education Educational Research and Improve- School Universe. Technical Report CS Policy for the '80s. Administrative ment. May 1989. Request for Propos- 89-194. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Document. Washington, DC. als. RFP 89-054, Appendix A. ment of Education, National Center for Washington, DC. Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improve- U.S. Department of Education, Office of Rural Education Directory: Organizations ment. 1990. An Agenda for Research Educational Research and Improve- and Resources. 1993. Charleston, WV: and Development on Rural Education. ment. April 1990. Request for Propos- ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa- Washington, DC. als. RFP 91-002, Attachment A. tion and Small Schools and the National Washington, DC. Rural Education Association.

vreesivil

sit

goer 40,4k

FAA local chapter officers, Turner Ashby High School (enrollment 869, grades 9-12), Bridgewater, Virginia. Photo by Andrew Markwart, for the National FFA Center, Alexandria, Virginia.

32 45 6. Educators in Rural Schools

For the past decade, the role of Amer- about 7 to 1. At the secondary level, vs. 12 percent) and with considerably ica's educators in achieving school im- there was greater sex parity. Only 6 fewer over the age of 40 (44 vs. 53 provement has received considerable percent of rural school teachers were percent). Reflecting these age differ- attention. Yet little notice has been members of minority groups compared ences, proportionately more rural taken of those in rural schools, partly to 12 percent in nonrural schools. This teachers had less than 10 years of expe- because of inadequate statistical infor- partly reflects the lower proportion of rience, while fewer (17 vs. 23 percent) mation. Recently analyzed data from minority groups in Rural America had more than 20 years experience (ta- the Schools and Staffing Survey where 87 percent of the student popula- ble 6-1b). (SASS) conducted by the National Cen- tion is white. However, there are large ter for Education Statistics (NCES) concentrations of rural black, Hispanic, Training.In the context of education help remedy this situation. Basic demo- Pacific Islander, and Indian students in reform, many have expressed concern graphic characteristics (including edu- certain regions of the country. about the quality of teachers in rural cation and work experiences), schools. One index of quality is amount compensation, recruitment, and work- Age and experience.As sus- of preparation. As widely believed, the ing conditions of rural public school pected from previous research, rural survey confirmed rural teachers gener- teachers and principals are now avail- teachers were found to be younger than ally have less professional preparation able. Except where noted otherwise, all nonrural teachers (table 6-1a), with (figure 6-1 and table 6-2). The differ- information reported comes from origi- somewhat more under the age of 30 (16 ence was most dramatic at the secon- nal analyses of these new data. In mak- i ng comparisons with nonrural educators, some conceptions about edu- Figure 6-1.Degree attainment of teachers, by setting cation in Rural America have been con- and school level taught: 1987-88 firmed, while others have not.' 64.1% 60.5% Rural Teachers It has been observed that, "Attracting and keeping competent individuals to teach the 'three R's' in rural schools is 4.4% 5.2% largely a function of the 'three C's,' characteristics, conditions, and compensation" (Sher 1983). These aspects 31.5% 34.3% are presented in the following para- Elementary rural Secondary rural graphs: 54.4% 44.5% Demographic characteristics. Some 560,000 elementary and secondary teachers, or about 24 percent of America's more than two million pub- 6.5% lic school teachers, were employed in a "41Ni 9.1% rural setting in say year 1987-8'3.2 39.1% 46.4% Sex and race-ethnicity.The pro- Elementary nonrural Secondary nonrural portion of male and female teachers in rural and nonrural elementary schools El B.A. or less1111 M.A. III Pt-7."Teq had virtually no differences of conse- SOURCE: U.S. Department ol Education, National Center 101 Education Statistics, quencefemales outnumbered males Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88. dary school level where 34 percent of science teachers compared to 65 per- In addition to lower salaries, rural rural teachers had at least a master's cent nonrural science teachers had ad- school districts tended to offer fewer degree compared to 46 percent for non- vanced degrees. benefits to their teachers than did nonrural teachers. Part of the difference rural districts. They paid less frequently Compensation. may be attributable to the rural teach- The common per- for teachers' general medical, dental, ception that teachers' salaries are less ers' relative youth. Another contribut- and life insurance, and proportionately ing factor may be the limited access in rural schools than in nonrural fewer of them contributed to a pension rural teachers in more isolated settings schools was borne out by the SASS fund for teachers (table 6-3). have to continuing education and pro- survey. Rural teachers' base salary, de- fessional development opportunities. fined as the average of all teacher sala- Possibly as a result of these discrepan- ries exclusive of any contracted cies in compensation, rural teachers en- Moreover, many teachers had not ma- supplements, was $22,600 in 1988, ap- gaged in supplemental school jored in the subject they were teaching. proximately $4,800 less than that employment somewhat more than did About one out of five teachers in both earned by nonrural teachers.' nonrural teachers (38 vs. 33 percent). rural and nonrural settings was respon- But they did not moonlight more, that Another comparison is that of offi- sible for subjects for which they were is, hold jobs outside school. However, cially scheduled salaries. Figure 6-2 not academically prepared or certified. nearly one-quarter of all teachers, re- In rural areas, the mismatch was great- compares the average scheduled salary gardless of setting, took such jobs at of rural and nonrural districts by teach- est for two subjects at the secondary some time during the calendar year (ta- level: 27 percent of special education ers' academic preparation and experi: ble 6-4), suggesting possible general ence. Rural school districts offered teachers and 24 percent of science teacher dissatisfaction with income lev- teachers with a bachelor's degree and teachers lacked academic majors or els, though the desire to fill time use- no experience approximately $1,600 certification compared to 18 percent of fully during the long summer vacation less on the average than did nonrural the teachers for these two subjects in may be a factor as well. nonrural settings. districts, a 10 percent differential. More noteworthy, however, is thatru- Recruitment and retention of This information on experience and ral teachers with a master's degree and qualified teachers.The supply of training is underscored by recent find- 20 years on the job earned an average qualified teachers for rural schools has ings from a sample survey carried out of $5,000 less, widening the disparity been a concern for some time. Upon for the National Science Foundation to more than three times that experi- examination, many factors are found to (Carisen and Monk 1992). Rural sci- enced by beginning teachers. Such an affect the issues of teacher selection, ence teachers in middle and secondary income shortfall could be a factor caus- supply, demand, and shortage in rural schools net only averaged 3.1 years ing many rural teachers to leave for schools. less experience teaching science, but jobs outside rural areas, and for those they reported taking significantly fewer who remain, could serve as a disincen- Teacher selection criteria.Poli- undergraduate science courses or even tive for obtaining an advanced degree. cymakers debate considerably what science methods courses. Moreover, qualifications should govern teacher fewer than half (48 percent) of rural hiring. While most schools employed traditional criteria, somewhat more ru- Figure 6-2. Average scheduled salary for rural and ral than nonrural schools reported them nonrural teachers being used in their districts (table 6-5). Examples are: a major or minor in the Setting No No 20 years field for which a teacher was being con- experience experience experience sidered (68 vs. 61 percent), completion IMMOINO. of an approved teacher education pro- B.A. M.A. M.A. gram (72 vs. 65 percent), and state certification (81 vs. 77 percent). Rural $16,973 $18,519 $27,245 However, despite the widely publicized Nonrural $18,610 $20,303 $32,194 national move during the early 1980s to promote using standardized tests for

34 4 7 teacher candidates before they could as high as 13 percent, a relevant finding Workload.While rural teachers enter the classroom, only a minority of for many rural communities where were found to have smaller classes, the rural districts used each type (table 6-- small schools predominate. average class size difference of two 5). A little more than one out of four fewer students at both the elementary Moreover, the proportion of teachers rural districts employed the National and secondary levels was not as great leaving a school for a given reason Teachers Examination and just over as would have been expected from the varied by setting. For those leaving the one-third used a state test (37 percent), research literature. However, the data profession, retirement was the primary proportions that were slightly less than confirmed findings from earlier studies that of nonrural districts. Only a few reason, although consistent with data that secondary-level subject area used a district examination (3 vs. 11 on age and work experience, propor- teachers in rural schools teach more tionately fewer rural teachers reported percent). (Note: These data should not subjects, requiring more preparations. be added; a district may employ more this choice (27 vs. 36 percent). Signifi- They were nearly twice as likely as cantly, former rural teachers were more than one test in its process.) nonrural teachers to be responsible for likely to have taken a job outside of three or more subjects daily-31 per- education than were those who left Recruitment.In school year cent as opposed to 17 percent. Looked 1987-88, about 12 percent of princi- nonrural schools (21 vs. 15 percent). at from another way, just over a third That one out of five rural teachers left pals in rural schools reported having of the rural secondary school teachers the profession for reasons other than difficulty recruiting teachers, while taught just one subject daily compared retirement is consistent with wide- one out of four said recruitment was to half of the nonrural teachers. hard only for selected subjects. How- spread reports of teacher turnover in ever, contrary to expectations based on rural areas. Spheres of Influencethe limited research (Harris 1989; Hatton classroom.The data also bore out But not all departing teachers are lost et al. 1991), it did nor appear to be more the common belief that rural teachers to the profession (Rollefson 1990). In difficult, on average, to recruit teachers exercised considerable control over tile fact, over 50 percent of the attrition is for rural schools than for nonrural instructional process in their class- accounted for by those who transfer to schools. rooms. Larger proportions of rural other schools. The scant research that teachers reported they had a high level exists indicates rural teachers move to When rural principals were unable to of control over five classroom proc- obtain better salaries and benefits find qualified teachers, they acted esses: determining the amount of somewhat differently than nonrural (Matthes and Carlson 1986) or to teach homework to be assigned (90 percent); principals. While use of substitutes was in a larger community (Harris 1989; selecting teaching techniques (88 per- the dominant solution, rural school and Hatton et al. 1991). cent); disciplining students (74 per- principals employed them less often cent); selecting content, topics, and (26 vs. 40 percent)possibly because Working conditions.Recent stud- skills to be taught (67 percent); and substitutes were unavailable in rela- ies (Chubb and Moe 1990; Corcoran et selecting textbooks and other instruc- tively sparsely settled areas. As a real. 1988; Rosenholtz 1989) have raised tional materials (65 percent). The rural sult, they tended somewhat more to the issue of the school as work place, advantage was particularly marked in cancel a course or to reassign teachers, though none addressed rural settings. the last two categories (table 6-7). with nearly one out of five using the This perspective reflects an assertion latter solution (table 6-6). made at the beginning of the current Spheres of influencethe school reform era that the most impor- school.By contrast, smaller propor- Retention.Attrition is a major is- tant public policy for effecting reform tions of rural teachers indicated having sue in all education settings because should be to transform "schools into "a great deal of influence" over various stability of personnel is necessary for 'good work' places .. . " (Sykes 1983). aspects of school policy (range=20 to schools to be effective (Purkey and NCES data revealed rural teachers ex- 46 percent) that included discipline, Smith 1983). Between the 1986-87 perienced both advantages and disad- inservice training, ability grouping, and 1987-88 academic years, the attri- vantages relative to their nonrural peers and curriculum (table 6-8). The domi- tion rate in rural and nonrural schools in conditions they face daily. nant distinction was level, rather than was 9 percent. Schools with enrollment setting: for three of the four areas, more under 150, however, had attrition rates

35 elementary than secondary school since other administrators were not principals at rural schools may be part teachers reported influence. And only surveyed.) of the explanation for both phenomena. for discipline at the secondary level (28 vs. 23.5 percent) and in curriculum at Demographic characteristics. Stark differences in educational attain- both levels (40 percent) did a signifi- About one-third of America' s 78,000 ment emerged when rural principals cantly larger percentage of rural teach- public school principals said they were compared by sex and when ers than nonrural teachers report a great worked in rural communities (table 6- women principals in the two settings deal of influence. 10). were contrasted. Rural female principals were three times as likely not to Satisfaction.Of special concern, Sex and race-ethnicity.0 f have advanced beyond the B.A. (12 vs. however, is the low level of satisfaction these rural principals, about 83 percent 4 percent). Moreover, rural female teachers had with their working condi- were male (21,000 compared to 4,300 principals were considerably outpaced tionsregardless of setting. A minor- females); in nonrural areas, 72 percent by women in nonrural settings. They ity of teachers were "highly satisfied" of the principals were male (table 6- were six times as likely to hold just a with the key areas of "support and ad- 11). As with teachtIrs, just 6 percent of B.A. (12 vs. 2 percent) while the rate at ministrative leadership" (22 percent) rural school principals are Native which they nad advanced beyond the and "buffering and rule enforcement" American, Asian, black, or Hispanic, master's degree was half that of non- (33 percent), and an even smaller pro- compared to 13 percent in nonrural rural females (6 vs. 13 percent). Similar portion had that view regarding "coop- schools (table 6-12). discrepancies characterized males in eration among staff' (9 percent) and both settings, but they were not as ex- Age and experience.It has been "adequacy of resources" (2 percent) treme. (table 6-9). Reflecting these expres- suggested (Jacobson 1988) that school sions of dissatisfaction, 24 percent of administrators often begin their careers Contrasts also appeared when compar- in rural areas, only to move on to non- the rural teachers indicated they would ing the work histories of principals (ta- not choose to teach again. Two out of rural areas or out of the profession. The ble 6-14). The most striking difference survey attests to the rural school prin- three, however, said they would remain vas by sex, with rural male principals in the profession as long as possible. cipals' comparative youth. One quarter having been in the profession consider- Significantly, there were no apprecia- of rural principals are under age 40, ably longer than their female counter- compared to 15 percent of nonrural ble differences between rural and non- parts (10.4 vs. 5.7 years). A similar rural teachers on any of these measures. principals. Moreover, only 3 out of 10 contrast existed in nom-ural settings. In rural principals are 50 years of age and addition, rural male principals had Rural School older, compared to 4 of 10 for nonrural worked in that role for 10.4 years com- principals (table 6-11). pared to 11.8 years for nonrural males. Principals The difference between female princi- Training.As for education levels That the principal is central to a pals in the two settings was smaller (5.7 (figure 6-3 and table 6-13), just as school's effectiveness has been docu- vs. 6.3 years). In a lition, women in many rural principals had master's de- mented in numerous studies over the both settings had entered the profes- grees as did nonrural principals (over last two decades. Indeed, much of the sion later, averaging 3 years more half); the same is true for those holding hoped-for success of the latest reform working outside the principalship, pri- education specialist degrees (over one- strategies hinges on the school building marily as a result of spending more third). But there were significant dif- administrator' s skill. Yet little has been time as teachers than men didabout ferences at either end of the education written about the rural school principal. 12 vs. 9 years. spectrum. Less than half as many rural Fortunately, the Schools and Staffing principals held a Ph.D. or similar ad- Survey makes it possible to gain infor- Compensation.As shown in figure vanced degree (5 percent vs. 11 per- mation about those who bear so much 6-4, rural principals received substan- responsibility for educating the next cent), Correspondingly, about 5 tially less pay than nonrural principals percent had just a B.A. or less, while generation under what may often be (table 6-15). The average salary for a this was true of only 1 percent of non- trying circumstances. (Note: These principal of a rural school was about rural principals. The relative youth of data are only on building principals and $36,000 compared to nearly $45,400 not on othn types of administrators, for a nonrural school :)rincipal. In addition to the basic economic difficulties

36 4 9 that restrain rural salaries, some part of contributing factor may be that a large tredve areas (table 6-17). Both rural this difference may be due to the rela- proportion of rural female principals and nonrural principals reported hav- tively small size of rural schools. had not attained the academic creden- ing considerable influence over Larger, usually urban, schools have the tials of their nonrural counterparts. teacher hiring and school discipline capacity to attract personnel with more policy, with slightly more rural princi- Compensation disadvantages for rural credentials and experience and to pay pals saying this was the case. But rural principals extended to the benefits them accordingly. principals were far more likely to say available in their pay packages (table they also had a great deal of influence Male rural principals earned more than 6-16). As shown in figure 6-5, signifi- in curriculum development (64 percent candy fewer rural principals received female rural principals by about rural vs. 49.5 percent nonrural). The benefits such as medical insurance, life $4,600. The male pay advantage in ru- complement to more local control is ral areas was nearly three times the insurance, and pensions. Moreover, ni- less outside control. Thus proporlion- ml principals were twice as likely to advantage of male principals in non- ately fewer rural principals reported receive no benefits at all (7.7 vs. 3.3 rural areas (an 11 vs. 4 percent differ- their district offices had "a great deal percent). ential compared to female principals). of influence" on curriculum (43 per- Even greater was the pay disparity be- cent vs. 60 percent). tween women in the two settings Working conditions.Large propor- $11,000, or 25 percent. A major tions of rural school principals exercise considerable control over key adminis-

Figure6-3.Degree attainment of public school prirlipals, by setting and sex: 1987-88

Percentage 60

45 -; 40

. 25

15 _ .

,.: 0 B.A.orless M.A. Education Specialist PH.D., M.D., or J.D. Degrees = Rural male `\ Rural female Nonrural male1" Nonruralfemale

SOURCE:U.S. Department of Education, National Center kr Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

37 59 Figure 6-4.-Average annual salaries of rural and nonrural publicschuol principals, by sex: 1987-88

Average salary $50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Rural male Rural female Nonrural male Nonrural female

SOURCE: U.S. Department al Education, National Center for Educ Won Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

Figure 6-5.- Percentage of rural and non,rural school Yet while many rural principals aspire principals receiving various benefits: to be instructional leaders, many wear 1987-88 several hats. They may be principals whose contracts require them to teach, Benefits Total Rural Nonrural coach, or perform the duties of business manager, personnel director, and Housing 1.0 2.7 0.2 transportation coordinator, or princi- Meals 1.8 3.5 0.9 pals who also serve as superintendents Tuition 9.4 9.8 9.2 (Tift 1990). And of course, because of the lack of support staff, considerable General medical insurance 85.3 80.5 88.0 time is spent on day-to-day manage- Dental insurance 60.4 47.5 67.1 ment, student discipline, and interactions with parents (Chance and Lingren Group life insurance 66.6 54.3 73.1 1989). Transportation 35.0 35.9 35.1 Rural areas are not immune to societal Pension contributions 58.5 51.7 61.5 ills that affect schools in more densely Receiving none of these 4.9 7.7 3.3 settled areas. When asked to identify serious problems in their schools, both

38 51 rural and nonrural secondary level ers were as low as elsewhere in the complete set may be obtained by writing the principals responded similarly (table country, and their attrition rates were editor. 6-18). But while the problem named just as high. 3. There is no way to determine how much by the largest proportion of nonrural of this contrast is attributable to cost of Rural principals were found to be principals was absenteeism (18 per- living. Findings from a study in one state younger than nonrural principals. But cent), the most frequently identified suggest that location accounts for less than in terms of credentials, they differed problem in rural schools was alcohol half the differences in income (Ghelfi from nonrural principals only at the use, cited by 15 percent of secondary 1988). If this were true elsewhere, then extremes of the spectrum, with more salary differences discussed here and else- school principals. having only a B.A. or less and fewer where in this chapter would be substantial Despite difficulties that equal or ex- having attained a degree above the even after adjusting for cost differences due ceed those of nonrural principals, job M.A. They received considerably less to location. satisfaction on most indices (e.g. pro- pay and fewer benefits than nonrural fessional life, working conditions) re- principals. Rural female principals, un- References mained as high or higher than that of like nonrural female principals, had Carlsen, W.S., and D.H. Monk 1992. "Ru- nonrural principals (Feistritzer 1988). less education and received consider- ral/Nonrural Differences Among Sec- The major exception concerned in- ably las pay than males. Larger pro- ondary Science Teachers:Evidence come. Only 64 percent of rural princi- portions of rural principals indicated from the Longitudinal Study of Ameri- pals expressed satisfaction with their having considerable control over key can Youth." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Asso- present salaries. Except for principals administrative areas. But high percent- ciation Conference, San Francisco, CA. in very large cities where 60 percent ages of secondary level principals also expressed satisfaction, 72 percent or reported significant problems like Chance, E., and C. Lingren. 1989. 'The more of principals in other community those that plague schools elsewhere. Great Plains Rural Secondary Principal: types said they were satisfied with their Yet, except for pay, overall satisfaction Aspirations and Reality." Research in salaries. levels were high. Possibly, the qualities Rural Education 6:1. of many rural schools, such as small Chubb, J.E., and T.M. Moe. 1990. Politics, Summary size, homogeneity, and links to the Markets, and America's Schools. community serve to satisfy a large pro- Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- Teachers in rural schools were found to portion of the principals. And yet their tion. be younger, less experienced, and less relative youth suggests many move on, Corcoran, T.B., L.J. Walker, and J.L. likely to have completed advanced de- possibly attracted by the higher salaries grees than those in nonrural schools. White. 1988. Working in Urban in larger communities and a perception Schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Their salaries and benefits were less, of greater professional visibility and Educational Leadership. with the salary differential worsening opportunity. over time. They reported somewhat Feistritzer, C.E. 1988. Profile of Sclzool Administrators in the U.S. Washington, smaller classes and significantly more Notes control over the classroom than non- DC: National Center for Education In- rural teachers. A minority of teachers 1. "Rural" was self-determined by respon- formation. indicated a great deal of influence over dents who selected from among 10 C-0111111111- nity types. Choices of rural or farming Ghelfi, L.M. October 1988. "About That school policies, and there were unly a Lower Cost of Living in Non-Metro- community and Indian reservation repre- few areas in which a proportionately sent "rural" in this chapter. The remaining politan Areas." Rural Development larger group of rural than nonrural options constitute "nonrural." Appendix B Perspectives 5:1. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmem of Agriculture, Eco- teachers made this claim. In addition, lists all 10 community types. rural teachers were far more likely to nomic Research Service. 2. Unless otherwise stated, data cited are be confronted with multiple subject Harris, M. October 1989. "First Year preparations. Moreover, the rate of from tabulations of the SASS base-year survey that were specially commissioned Teachers in North Dakota." Paper pre- teaching some subjects for which one for this report. However, because of space sented at the National Rural Education Association Research Forum, Reno, was not trained or certified exceeded limitations, only a few of the more than 65 NV. the national average of 20 percent. Sat- tabulations are produced in this volume. A isfaction levels reported by rural teach- Hatton, NB., et al. 1991. "School Staffing Purkey, S.C., and M.S. Smith. 1983. "Ef- Sher, J. 1983. "Education's Ugly Duckling: and the Quality of Education, Teacher fective Schools: A Review."Elemen- Rural Schools in Urban Nations."Phi Stability, and Mobility."Teaching and tary SchoolJournal 83:4, Delta Kappan65:4. Teacher Education7:3. Rollefson, M. April 1990. "Patterns of En- Sykes, G. 1983. "Teacher Preparation and Jnobson, S.L. 1988. "The Rural Superin- try to and Exit from Teaching." Paper Teacher Workforce: Problems and tendency: Reconsidering the Adminis- presented at the American Educational Prospects for the 80s."American Edu- trative Farm System."Research in Research Association Conference, Bos- cation19:2. Rural Education5:2. ton, MA. Tift, C. 1990.Rural Administrative Lead- Matthes, W.A., and R.V. Carlson. 1986. Rosenholtz, S.J. :989.Teachers' Work- ership Handbook.Portland OR: North- "Conditions for Practice: the Reasons place.New York: Longman. west Regional Educational Laboratory. Teachers Selected Rural Schools." Journal of Rural and Small Schools 1:1.

gab,

ss-

Q-4

,,t7l0Pe 44,`VA4,044,47,40"''err':

Students at the Dubois, Wyoming Middle School (enrollment: 85) plant trees in preparing an outdoor classroom for Fremont County School District #2. Photo by Larry Lewis.

53 40 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 7. Effects of Education Reform in Rural Schools

The education reforms that swept the learning opportunities, close relation- But districts with fewer resources were country in the 1980s redefined the bal- ships and ties to the community, and forced to combine basic and advanced ance of authority between state govern- strong staff commitment (De Young classes or move teachers from one cur- ments and local school districts, 1987; Stephens 1988; Hobbs 1990; riculum area to another to comply with although considerable room for flexi- McREL 1990). At the same time, the state mandates. The new requirements bility and local activism remained scarcity of human and fiscal resources also aggravated a shortage of science (Fuhnnan and Elmore 1990). In the and the accelerated pace of change laboratory facilities, a problem not absence of national data on the impact have further strained the capacities of readily amenable to personnel adjust- of reform in rural areas, this chapter many rural school districts, especially ments or telecommunications (State reports several rural responses to spe- those already impoverished. This is Research Associates 1988). Further- cific reform initiatives, identifies alter- particularly the case with more com- more, increased academic require- natives to school consolidation, and plex and comprehensive reforms that ments have led to a decrease in the describes implications of school fi- require significant time and resources number of vocational courses and elec- nance litigation. to be incorporated fully into district tives offered by rural schools, matched procedures (State Research Associates by a decline in vocational education Reform Mandates and 1988). enrollment in many rural areas (Fire- Rural Schools stone, Fuhrman, and Kirst 1989; Gen- Key Areas of Reform eral Accounting Office 1989). Probably at no time since successive Concerns have been expressed that Following the publication of A Nation state drives to consolidate schools and constraining options for the rural non- at Risk in 1983, governors and state school districts in earlier decades has college bound will leave them unpre- legislatures targeted several key areas so much been demanded of rural pared for a productive future (William for reform: high school course require- schools. Fl9rs such as size, geo- T. Grant Foundation 1988; State Re- ments, staff training, special needs stu- graphic la . A,isolation, culture anu search Associates 1988). Such issues dents, and school organization. Rural language, economic status, and legisla- present serious challenges to education areas have responded in a variety of tive contexts have all influenced the policymakers. ways. ways educational reform has been im- Improving teachers and school plemented in rural settings (Forbes Expanding academic course re- leadership.As noted in chapter 6, 1989). The issue today, as it has been quirements.State reform measures recruitment and retention of qualified throughout this century, is how to redefined more rigorous academic stand- spond to state-mandated initiatives teachers, especially teachers certified ards for secondary students, increased in mathematics and science, are among while at the same time retaining local the number of courses required for high the most pressing problems facing ru- control and creating an education sys- school gaduation (Center for Policy tem that serves community needs ral administrators (General Account- Research in Education 1990), and insti- ing Office 1989). A number of states (De Young 1990). tuted state assessment programs (Na- such as New Jersey and Texas re- tional Governors' Association 1989). The ongoing reform movement has sponded by enacting alternative Faced with perennial budgetary diffi- presented unique opportunities for ru- teacher education programs to provide culties, rural districts used numerous ral schoolsand great difficulties. For enough teachers for rural (and urban) strategies to expand the number of aca- example, many observers have noted areas and for critical-shortage subjects demic courses offered to high school that the structure and characteristics of at both the elementary and secondary students. They shared teachers and fa- many rural schools create an atmos- levels. Just as with student courses, cilities, employed a variety of modern phere conducive to school improve- some rural areas used nontraditional technologies, and added extra class pe- ment. These include low delivery systems to provide course riods when they could afford to (State student-teacher ratios, individualized work and other staff-development ac- instruction and attention, cooperative Research Associates 1988),

5 4 41 tivities. Some examples follow (Office ally disadvantaged students are experi- State Department of Education of Technology Assessment 1989): encing achievement gains because re- 1988). forms have allowed access to remedial The Bureau of Indian Affairs and Colleges in such diverse locations instruction and special programs (Gen- the State of Alaska, through partici- as Maine (Community College of eral Accounting Office 1989). Maine) and Mississippi (Missis- pation in the federal Star Schools sippi State University) used tele- However, reports by the National Rural program, used distance learning to communications technology to Development institute (Helge 1990) reach underserved populations on provide inservice or graduate and the Charles Stewart Mott Founda- Native American reservations and courses to teachers in their rural ar- tion (MDC, Inc. 1988) indicate that remote Native Alaskan villages eas. programs and services for rural chil- (Offii:e of Technology Assessment dren considered at-riskincluding mi- 1989). North Carolina inaugurated a state- nority, teenage parent, poor, and wide telecommunications system to handicapped studentsare often not The Texas Education Agency funded dropout prevention pro- deliver teacher training, including available or may not offer a full array grams for migrant secondary stu- short and full courses, to all sections of education and health services when dents to enable them to take and of the state. they are available. The plight of some- pass exit-level graduation examina- Western Montana College created a one in need may be aggravated by distance to services, barriers of tions and testr for admission to col- computer network linking teachers lege (Texas Education Agency topography found in certain locations, in one-room schools, librarians, and Dropout Information Clearing- turnover of trained staff, or even im- others throughout the state to enable house 1990). them to share ideas, request soft- pediments of language or local atti- ware and books, and take classes. tudes (Helge 1991). At the same time, School organization and ac- many rural schools successfully inte- countability.In recent years, school An additional example is provided by grate handicapped students into main- reformers have promoted the idea of the North Central Regional Educa- stream classes even when faced with "restructuring," a term for redesigning tional Laboratory, which helped to de- lack of specialty personnel or profes- the entire public school system, pro- velop and widely disseminate a reading sional services. posed as the only realistic way to im- curriculum training program specifi- prove student learning outcomes cally designed for rural schools (Lewis Little is known on a national level of the extent to which rural students are significantly while holding educators 1992). Key to the success of the Wis- accountable. A key goal is to decentral- consin Rural Reading Improvement heing reached by state initiatives for special student populations. But illus- ize authority and decisionmaking Project has been a range of technolo- through site-based management and gies for teacher training, including trations of efforts being made on their behalf do exist. participatory leadership. The purpose videotapes, audiotapes, teleconferenc- is to achieve dramatic changes in cur- ing, and an on-line and audio-video Indiana, Iowa, Vermont, and Vir- riculum and instruction to promote stu- system. These technologies enable par- ginia are among the states with large dent acquisition of higher order ticipating schools to communicate with rural populations that have devel- thinking skills and create new staff each other, the laboratory, and other oped or expanded their programs to roles, different outcomes measures, experts in the field. target preschools serving at-risk and eventually a comprehensive serv- Programs for special popula- students (National Governors' As- ice system based at school sites (Na- sociation 1989). tional Governors' Association 1991a.) tions.New and expanded initiatives in the late 1980s focused on at-risk youth, The Bloomfield School District in A majority of states have adopted or early childhood and preschool readi- rural New Mexico served grades K- are adopting state-level initiatives to ness programs, homeless children, and 2 in an early-prevention-of-school- promote school or district restructuring special education students. Large pro- failure program, provided an (Council of Chief State School Offi- portions of children with special needs alternative secondary program, and cers 1989). These include deregulation are found in rural areas. Some school offered a program for teen parents and course requirement waivers for officials report that many education- and their offspring (New Mexico

42 5 5 schools (National Governors' Associa- The Issue of School ministrative unit continues to exist and tion 1991b). Many rural districts have retain autonomy. Communities thus an uncomplicated bureaucratic struc- Consolidation can be strengthened through coopera- ture that makes it easier to institute No discussion of reforms impacting ru- tion. Banding together in rural areas is change. Where there is the capacity to ral schools, and school organization in not new and has been compared to the do so, therefore, a number of rural particular, would be complete without tradition of barn-raising and harvesting schools and districts are attempting mentioning consolidation. This has crews (Nachtigal 1984). Partial reor- flexibility in school design and deci- been the single policy option used ganization strategies are varied, but sionmaking. For example, throughout the 20th century to try and they generally involve either two or achieve cost savings and improve edu- more districts or local distficts and Course requirement waivers per- cation in rural districts (Stephens other institutions. mitted a school-within-a-school 1988). Opponents of consolidation ar- program at the Central High School Local district cooperation can simply gue that it is difficult to place a simple in Springdale, Arkansas, funded serve to reduce per unit cost purchasing monetary value on such strengths of with assistance from the Winthrop or to obtain the services of specialists rural schools as the involvement and Rockefeller Foundation. Students too costly for any one district to em- support of parents and the community, take four interdisciplinary classes ploy. Some districts even share super- individualized instruction, and wide- that promote skills in critical think- intendents (Sederberg 1985). More spread student participation in school ing, problem solving, and commu- complex program objectives usually activities made possible by small nication (Pau lu 1988). yield formal cooperatives. Purposes school and class size. These benefits have ranged from enhancing secondary are often lost when schools are elimi- The Southwest Educational Devel- school offerings to expanding extra- nated and districts enlarged. A growing opment Laboratory identified ex- curricular activities (Ditzler 1984). body of research is challenging the as- emplary rural school programs that One example is the South Dakota sumptions of consolidation, and many featured key elements of the restruc- Small School Cluster, operational turing process. For example, the Lit- observers recommend that each case be since 1981 (Jensen and Widvey 1986). tle Axe Public School District, a judged on its individual merits (Fox It involves seven small school districts, small, rural district outside of Nor- 1981; Butler and Monk 1985: Sher the South Dakota State University, and 1986; Stephens 1991). man, Oklahoma, employed district- the Mid-continent Regional Educa- wide goal setting, school-based tional Laboratory. Begun when a joint management, and participatory de- Alternatives to inservice day was organized, partici- cisionmaking to design and imple- Consolidation pants now share teachers and special- ment its school improvement ists and have expanded into adult and programs (Vaughan 1990). Although full consolidation is seen as community education programming. a viable option for many rural districts, Research for Better Schools, the re- some local planners have adopted other The long-established practice of hav- gional educational laboratory for innovative strategies to cope with ir -ntral high school districts and the Mid-Atlantic, is developkg an sparse settlement and limited budgets. regional vocational-technical schools extensive school redesign strategy They include what has variably been is a more elaborate form of interdistrict involving several rural schools in termed "partial reorganization" (Monk sharing. Central high schools make that region. Restructuring guide- 1991) or "clusters" (Nachtigal and possible comprehensive secondary lines, frameworks, and models are Parker 1990), and telecommunica- programs while allowing elementary being developed for rural educators tions. schools to remain under individual to facilitate planning and implement community control. This approach also reform on a continuing basis (Grove Partial reorganization.Like con- avoids long bus rides for young chil- 1992). solidation, clustering increases the size dren (Sher 1988). Regional vocational- of the population served, but each ad- technical schools, many of which are

43 5 state established, allow small districts tional technology. Indeed, the last half totally interactive communication. to share vocational education expenses of the 1980s saw a tremendous surge of Such communication has the advan- while maintaining their own academic distance-learning activity whereby ru- tage of visually linking teacher and stu- programs. ral schools provided a wide variety of dents. Such linkage can be particularly course work and enrichment materials effective with younger and less moti- Districts may seek assistance from re- for students and administrators (Office vated students. gional education service agencies in 35 of Technology Assessment 1989). Dis- states that serve schools in the majority tance-learning projects, including Some observers believe telecommuni- of school districts (Sederberg 1985; those supported by the federal Star cation course delivery has the potential Hillman 1991; Stephens and Turner Schools program, made available hun- to neutralize arguments for consolida- 1991). Examples of the largest are the dreds of courses to remote sites or lo- tion. There are two basic reasons for Boards of Cooperative Education in cations that could not otherwise afford this view. Courses a given school could New York State and the Education the necessary specialists. Included was not offer can be accessed, and coopera- Service Centers of Texas. Some pro- instruction in business and economics, tive ventures that share costs and teach- vide regional vocational programs; foreign languages, mathematics, sci- ing expertise among school districts others offer library resources, business ence, and vocational education. can be fostered. The state may also play administration assistance, or inservice a role. For example, Oklahoma has of- teacher education. The three most popular delivery sys- fered grants to small school coopera- tems are satellite, audiographics, and tives to encourage innovation and Cooperatives also exist between local two-way TV. Each has advantages and broaden the application of distance- rural districts and institutions of higher disadvantages that help determine learning technologies (Office of Tech- education, community and health serv- which one a district should choose nology Assessment 1989). ices, and the business community (Barker 1992). In satellite systems, the (Dale 1986; De Young 1987; Stephens teacher is seen by students in multiple School Reform and 1988; State Research Associates 1988; receiving site classrooms, but two-way Phelps and Prock 1991). Such coopera- communication, when available, is by Litigation tive efforts are still relatively new. telephone hook-up. Satellite dishes Reforms usually in., lye additional ex- Some colleges and universities assist were rarely seen on school campuses penditures, and many rural school dis- rural schools with teacher training and just 10 years ago. But today, 21 percent tricts confronting fiscal difficulties are school management, or conduct educa- of districts having fewer than 1,000 hard pressed to fund new initiatives. tional research in rural sites. The poten- students use them (Kober 1990). The Objections to the disparities in school tial remains for colleges to offer largest provider of interactive broad- district wealth preceded the reform era. vocational-technical programs and ad- casts, the TIIN Telecommunications Since the 1960s, challenges to state-ap- vanced placement courses to rural high Network, based in San Antonio, alone proved methods of school financing, school students (Stephens 1991). serves 6,000 students in 30 states. often initiated by rural school districts, The ease or difficulty of sharing serv- forced many states to re-examine the But more modest approaches are avail- issue of resourc,necessary to operate ices depends upon the following key able too. Audiographic teleteaching re- conditions: stability among teaching schools in an effective manner. The quires just a small network of matter goes well beyond an ability to and administrative staff; consensus compatible personal computers and among those involved about the pur- implement state-mandated reforms to can be quickly created and disbanded the broader issue of constitutional as- pose of sharing services; benefits to all as need dictates. Unlike satellite trans- collaborating districts; agreement on surances of education equity. mission purchased from a provider fre- governance of the shared operation; quently many states away, this Nowhere is this seen more clearly and and recognition that sharing services approach allows considerable control dramatically than in Kentucky. Educa- requires operating costs (Berliner over course content and may be pre- tional leaders in 66 poor, rural districts 1990). ferred by some districts. Students can- united to challenge the state's funding Telecommunications.Rural, small not, however, see the teacher. The most formula in 1989 (Rose v. Council for schools have been in the forefront of costly, for equipment and .nainte- L'etter Education). The unexpected and developing innovative uses of instruc- nance, is two-way TV that allows for unprecedented result was that dr; Ken-

44 57 tucky supreme court declared the entire ied capacities of rural schools to cope Movement on American Rural Schools. state system of education unconstitu- with reform demands and the extent to Greensboro, NC: Southeastern Educa- tional (Coe and Kannapel 1991). The which the proposed or mandated re- tional Improvement Laboratory. 1990 measure constituting the gover- forms actually reach rural students. Ditzler, L. June. 1984. "These Small nor's and legislature's response to that Schools Pooled Resources to Beef Up landmark decision addressed not only References Bare-bones Curriculums." American finance, but also curriculum, profes- School Boards Journal 171:6. Barker, B.O. 1992. The Distance Educa- sional development, at-risk students, tion Handbook: An Administrator's Firestone, W.A., S.H. Fuhrman, and M.W. and governance as well. Guide for Rural and Remote Schools. Kirst. 1989. The Progress of Reform: Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse An Appraisal of State Education Initia- Nothing less than a complete overhaul on Rural Education and Small Schools. tives. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for of the state's approach to education is Policy Research in Education, The State underway. Rural communities stand to Berliner, B. 1990. "Alternatives to School University of New Jersey at Rutgers. gain substantially as new systems of District Consolidation." Knowledge family service centers, early childhood Brief San Francisco, CA: Far West Forbes, Roy H. 1989. "Rural Education and education, and school-based manage- Laboratory. the Reform Movement." Rural Educa- tion: A Changing Landscape. Washing- ment are implemented over the next Butler, R.J., and D.H. Monk. "The Cost of ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, several years (Coe and Kannapel Public Schooling in New York State: Office of Educational Research and Im- 1991). Undoubtedly education reform The Role of Scale and Efficiency in provement. in Kentucky will have significance for 1978-79." Journal of Human Re- rural communities ever!where and for sources 20:3. Fox, W.F. 1981. "Reviewing Economies of education throughout the country. But Size in Education." Journal of Educa- Center for Policy Research in Education. tion Finance 6:3. their reorganization will not be a sim- May 1990. "Decentralization and Pol- ple formula that can be adopted else- icy Design." CPRE Policy Briefs RB- Fuhrman, S.H., and R.F. Elmore. 1990. where. Wherever change occurs, 05-590. New Brunswick, NJ: State "Understanding Local Control in the "Rural school improvement initiatives University of New Jersey at Rutgers. Wake of Education Reform." Educa- must be diverse and reflect the different tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis Coe, P., and P. Kannapel. June 1991. Sys- 12:1. values and socioeconomic charac- temic Reform in Six Rural Districts: A teristics of the rural communities they Case Study of First Reactions to the General Accounting Office. 1989. Educa- serve" (Stephens 1988). Kentucky Education Reform Act of .tion Reform: Initial Effects in Four 1990. Charleston, WV:Appalachia School Districts. GAO/PEMD-89-28. SurnmarY Educational Laboratory, State Policy Washington, DC. Program, and ERIC Clearinghouse on Little is known on any scale about the Rural Education and Small Schools. Grove, R. December 1992. "A Conceptual effects of education reform in rural ar- Framework for Redesigning Rural Council of Chief State School Officers. eas. In the absence of summative evalu- Schools." RBS Report. Philadelphia, 1989. Success for All in a New Century. PA: Research for Better Schools. ation data, this chapter addressed key Washington, DC. issues of interest to policymakers and Helge, D. 1990. A National Study Regard- practitioners by using illustrations. Ex- Dale, D., and K.H. McKinley. 1986. Alter- ing At-risk Students. Bellingham, WA: amples of successful approaches to re- native Instructional Delivery Systems Nafional Rural Development Institute, form in rural areas were provided, but for Rural and Small Schools. (ERIC Western Washington University. (ERIC it is not known how widespread they Document Reproduction Service No. Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 315 260). ED 324 178). are. Effective alternatives to school consolidation reflect a keen interest in DeYoung, A.J. 1987. "The Status of Helge, D. 1991. "At-risk Students: A Na- retaining local autonomy at the district American Education Research: An Inte- tional View of Problems and Service level, while school finance litigation, gated Review and Commentary." Re- Delivery Strategies." Rural Special often brought by rural districts, has view of Educational Research 57:2. Education Quarterly 10:4. broad implications for education re- DeYoung, A.J. 1990. Community Schools Hillman, A. 1991. There are No Subways form generally. Clearly, considerably in the National Context: The Social and in Lickingville. Shippenville, PA: more needs to be known about the var- Cultural Impact of Educational Reform Riverview Intermediate Unit.

45 58 Hobbs, D. 1990. "An Overview of Rural National Governors' Association. 1991b. Stephens, E.R. 1991. A Framework for America."Rural Revitalization State Actions to Restructure Schools: Evaluating State Policy Options for the Through Education 1:1. First Steps. Washington, DC. Reorganization of Rural, Small School Districts. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Jensen, D., and L. Widvey. 1986. "The New Mexico State Department of Educa- Educational Laboratory and ERIC South Dakota Small School Cluster." tion. 1988. At-risk Youth: A Call for Clearinghouse on Rural Education and The Rural Educator 8:1. Action. Santa Fe, NM. Small Schools.

Kober, N. 1990. 'Think Rural Means Iso- Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Stephens, E.R., and W.G. -ner. 1991. Ap- lated? Not When Distance Learning Linking for Learning: A New Course for proaching the Next Millennium: Educa- Reaches Into Schools." The School Ad- Education. (OTA-SET--430). Washing- tion Service Agencies in the 1990s. ministrator 47:10. ton, DC: Government Printing Office. Arlington, VA: American Association of Educational Service Agencies, Lewis, A.C. 1992. Rural Schools on the Paulu, N. 1988. Experiences in School Im- American Association of School Ad- Road to Reform. Washington, DC: provement: The Story of 16 American ministrators. Council for Educational Develc7faent Districts. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- and Research znd the Regional Educa- ment of Education, Office of Educa- Texas Education Agency Dropout Informa- tional Laboratories. tional Research and Improvement. tion Cleaiinghouse. 1990. Status Report on Dropouts and At-risk Students. MDC, Inc. 1988. America's Shame, Amer- Phelps, M.S., and G.A. Prock. 1991. Austin, TX. ica's Hope: Twelve Million Youth at "Equality of Educational Opportunity in Risk (Prepared for the Charles Stewart Rural America." Rural Education:ls- Vaughan, M. October 1990. 'The Effects of Mott Foundation). Chapel Hill, NC. sues and Practice. Alan J. DeYoung Reform in Rural Schools." Paper pre- (Ed.). New York: Garland Publishing, sented at the NREA Rural Research Fo- Mid-continent Regional Educational Labo- Inc. rum, Colorado Springs, CO. ratory, Rural Institute. 1990. "Rural Schools and Education Reform: They Sederberg, C.H. 1985. "Multiple District William T. Grant Foundation Commission May be Closer than You Think." The Administration in Small Rural Schools." on Work, Family, and Citizenship. 1988. Rural Report. Aurora, CO. The Rural Educator 7:1. The Forgotten Half Non-College Youth in America. Washington, DC. Monk, D.H. 1991. 'The Organization and Sher, J.P. 1986. Heavy Meddle: A Critique Reorganization of Small Rural of the North Carolina Depanment of Schools." Rural Education: Issues and Public Instruction's Plan to Mandate Practice. Alan J. De Young (Ed.). New School District Mergers Throughout the York: Garland Publishing, Inc. State. North Carolina's School Boards Association. Nachtilial, P. 1984. Clustering for Rural School Improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid- Sher, J.P. 1988. Class Dismissed: Examin- continent Regional Educational Labora- ing Nebraska's Rural Education De- tory. bate. Chapel Hill, NC: Rural Education and Development, Inc. (ERIC Docu- Nachtigal, P., and S.D. Parker. 1990. Clus- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 305 tering: Working Together for Better 194). Schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Re- gional Educational Laboratory. State Research Associates. 1988. Education Reform in Rural Appalachia. 1982-87. National Commission on Excellence in Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk. Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Stephens, E.R. December 1988. "Implica- tions of Economic, Social, and Educa- National Governors' Association. 1989. Re- tional Developments in Rural America sults in Education: 1988. Washington, for Rural School Systems." Paper pre- DC. sented at the Appalachia Educational Laboratory's Third Annual State Educa- National Governors' Association. 1991a. tional Policy Symposium, Lexington, From Rhetoric to Action: State Progress KY. in Restructuring the Education System. Washington, DC.

46 59 8. Public School Finance Policies and Practices Affecting Rural Schools

"The problems of rural living.. .are graphically displays the relative pro- ent school districts would receive nowhere more obvious than in the un- portion each major grant type contrib- smaller amounts of state aid than they deifinanced local school systems that utes, depending on whether the district would through fiscal equalization are found in every state in the nation. has high or low fiscal capacity (i.e., is grants. Eight states provide foundation Rural schools in all states have less rich or poor). grants based on instructional units money and poorer educational pro- (Verstegen 1990) that are more likely grams than their more wealthy neigh- Due to characteristics most rural school to help the low enrollment and poor districts possess (figure 8-2), it is pos- bors in urban areas. schools and districts that exist through- Kern Alexander, sible to determine which structural fea- out Rur . America. Somefiscal University Distinguished Professor tures of state school finance systems Virginia Polytechnic lauitute, 1990 equalimion grant types (e.g., guaran- would benefit them more. teed tax yield programs) place the re- This chapter describes the major state Since rural districts are generally sponsibility upon local citizens to school finance practices and their po- poorer than ones located in nonrural establish funding levels toward which tential for benefiting pupils who attend areas, either the fiscal equalization or both would contribute. Given the cur- rural schools. It also discusses litigation full state funding alternatives would rent economic duress in many districts, challenging the equity of school fi- bring them greater amounts of state aid taxpayers in some areas are unable or nance systems in several stateslitiga- from a given appropriated amount. Flat unwilling to generate sufficient funds tion that has been spearheaded or grants, by definition, do not take into to qualify for the state portion, leaving endorsed by many rural groups. consideration fiscal wealth and thus education needs unmet. compensate local school districts only Locally generated funds.To aug- partially for their incurred costs; given State Aid Strategies ment the state contribution, most states General state ald.U.S. public a certain total appropriation, less afflu- schools are primarily supported by state and local funds.' States provide their basic aid fundsthose allocated Figure 8-1.A state system of public school finance: without specific expenditure restric- A common example tionsthrough one of just a few mechanisms. Flat Grants (five states) Revenues per unit are fixed amounts that do not take need into account and thus compensate local High Local State State Local fiscal required equalizationflat and/or leeway school districts only partially for their capacity fiscal aid matching funds incurred costs. States with full-funded districts effort grants programs (four states) provide more to those in greater need. Between the two are several strategies that offer some degree of fiscal equalization to offset local limitations in generating funds Low fiscal capacity (41 states).2 Table 8-1 displays these district mechanisms along a fiscal equity con- tinuum and identifies the states that use them as their primary form of revenue Foundation or guaranteed level transfer to their school districts. NOTE: The example I. not intended to be representative of any specific state.

Figure 8-1 depicts a typical state sys- Reprinted with permission from Public School Finance Programs of the United tem of public school finance and States and Canada, 1986417.

47 60 Figure 8-2.Characteristics of rural schools and rural instead, small schools, including most school districts rural schools, stand a better chance of getting sufficient funds for the purpose. Rural schools and rural school districts usually enroll small numbers of pupils (i.e., fewer than 1,000 pupils per school district). Small schools and districts are also pe- nalized fiscally if the state uses a per Rural school districts commonly are experiencing significant enrollment de- pupil allocation system in a given cate- cline. gorical program (e.g., $1,000 per stu- Rural residents report incomes significantly less than their urban and suburban dent). As in the example just given, peers. there may not be enough pupils to draw enough money for the needed person- Rural school distacts usually employ school buildings that house smaller nel. If a range (called brackets) of eli- numbers of pupils. gible pupils is instead used to calculate Rural school districts typically are sparsely populated. the allocation, say $10,000 for between 1 and 10 students, a school's ability to Due primarily to small numbers of pupils generally located in large geographic support the needed salary is enhanced. areas, per-pupil transportation costs for rural schools are inordinately high.

Due to the absence of significant trading centers, rural school districts often State Aid Finance are nearly exclusively dependent on real property taxation for their local Structures and Their revenue. Impact Upon Rural permit school districts to raise their And averages mask the considerable Schools own revenues, which are called local range that exists, particularly in the In addition to the basic approaches leeway funds. Traditionally, these have more rural states, and that PTe a func- governing the distribution of general been drawn from local property taxes. tion of wide differences in wealth. In- and categorical aid, other state funding This practice lu..; led to marked dispari- deed, the range among rural counties is mechanisms exist that have a differen- ties in education funding levels across greater than that among metropolitan tial effect upon rural schools. These the country and even within states be- counties (Jansen 1991) (table 8-2). The include: measures of fiscal wealth; cause tax yields are so uneven. variability within states as the driving transportation allocations; adjustments issue for legal cases is discussed later for enrollment changes; economies of It is surprising thengiven what is in this chapter. scale provisions; sparsity and density known about their low fiscal capac- provisions; consolidation and reor- ityto find that on average, rural (non- Categorical ald.States also provide ganization grants; and capital outlay metropolitan) counties spend more per some portion of their assistance to and debt service assistance. Whether r.1 in public elementary and secon- schools in the form of categorical aid and how these are computed signifi- chools than do nonrural counties, (i.e., funds for certain clients like the cantly affect the fiscal health of pnblic $1,973 vs. $2,137 (Jansen 1991) (fig- handicapped, or programs like voca- schools in those states where they are ure 8-3). This partly reflects the greater tional education). Because they are employed. fixed costs for providing the basic ele- usually small and less affluent, rural ments of an education in smaller (often school districts often are inadequately Measures of fiscal wealth.Con- rural) districts (Walberg and Fowler compensated under these programs. tained within the structure of all fiscal 1987). To provide even a basic educa- This would be especially true if a flat equalization grants is a method for de- tion, rural school district revenues grant allocation system were used. termining school district capacity to often are obtained by imposing steeper Here, a fixed amount of revenue multi- raise funds. The traditional and near- tax rates than in nonrural areas where plied by the number of identified cli- universal source of local revenue, as high property values yield more reve- ents may not yield enough to pay staff noted above, is local property taxes, nue at lower tax rates. for the small numbers needing service. though a few states have allowed dis- If either full-state assumption of costs tricts to use other measures (e.g., sales or fiscal equalization grants are used taxes and income measures).

61 48 Rural school districts receive more fis- were transported on 391,000 buses, Less than one-third of the states (16) cal equalization aid to the extent they covering 3.7 billion miles at a cost of provide additional allotments for trans- are unable to generat., rficient reve- $8.7 billion in public funds (School portation where settlement is sparse nue. If a state allocates aif.: based upon Bus Fleet December/January 1993). (Bass 1988). As with general and cate- assessed property values, rural school While some places requite student fees gorical aid, state transportation assis- districts usually can demonstrate a to partially cover transportation costs, tance can take the form of flat, need for more assistance. But there are most provide systems of free pupil foundation, or equalization support, circumstances when rural property val- transportation through a combination and so outcomes in terms of equity can ues may be high relative to actual of state and local resources (Alexander, be quite varied. Formulas can even wealth. For this reason, some argue that M.D. 1990). In urban communities, al- vary within states. Reflecting this, aid income measures be used because ternatives exist for transporting pupils, formulas have long been the subject of these more accurately reflect the lower including private vehicles and public considerable debate and continually capacity of rural residents to fund edu- transit. But in most rural areas of the undergo reevaluation and redesign. cation. Likewise, reliance on sales country, vehicles that are owned and Still, the transportation of pupils to and taxes will also necessitate greater state maintained by the school district, are a from public schools, an expensive equalization aid because of the limited virtual necessity. Consequently, pupil component for funding public schools buying power of rural residents (Jansen transportation costs, as a percentage of in the rural communities of the nation, 1990). total current expenditures, are signifi- are often overlooked in larger policy cantly higher for rural school districts discussions. Pupil transportation.In 1991-92, (Alexander, M.D. 1990). 22.9 million public school students

Figure 8-A.Current education expenditure, elementary andsecondary education Type of county

All counties

Metro counties Large core

Large fringe

Medium metro

Small metro

Nonmetro counties

Semi-urban/adjacent

Semi-ruban/nonadj.

Semi-rural/adjacent

Semi-rural/nonadj. RuraVadjacentimmullmorimmumws. Rural/nonadjacent

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Expenditure per pupil (1982 Dollars) SOURCE: A. Janson. Rural Economic Perspectives, 1991.

49 62 Enrollment adjustments.Emigra- Contolidation and reorganiza- often lack sufficient property valuation tion of pupils from rural schools places tion grants.Several states have es- to issue general obligation bonds or an additional fiscal burden upon the tablished state aid provisions designed have low bond ratings and other related affected communities since the school to encourage school districts to reor- problems. The result for many rural district can experience corresponding ganize and consolidate with neighbor- school districts is the continued use of losses in state aid based on per unit ing schools and school districts. run-down, dilapidated, and outdated allocations. Nearly half the states (24) Generally, such grants often provide buildings. transitional resources to the combining take this into account by delaying cuts Some states, to further encourage con- in aid for a period of time through schools for a specified number of years solidation, have established capital various formula adjustments (Sa)mon after which they are obligated to func- outlay programs for those school dis- et al. 1988), thus reflectiq a policy tion through the common funding sys- tricts that merge their schools or com- decision to educate the remaining chil- tem. Another approach is to discourage bine with other districts (e.g., the school districts from continuing to op- dren where they are (Bass 1988), at current West Virginia Public School least for a time. Examples include lim- erate small schools by making unavail- Building Authority). And while most iting percentage aid reductions (Ari- able certain state resources (e.g., of the recent school finance fiscal zona, Delaware, and Idaho) and using capital outlays). equalization lawsuits focused primar- the prior year count (Alabama, Califor- Capital outlay and debt service ily upon current operating costs, sev- nia, and Colorado) in calculating fund eral courts also ordered their state assistance.A major contributing allocations. legislatures to address capital facilities factor to the poor fiscal health of rural as well, seeing this issue as significant Economies of scale provisions. schools is the absence of sufficient reas current revenue in determining pub- According to factory model production sources either to erect or to maintain lic education equity. analysis, "diseconomies" occur when school buildings. One study renorted fewer units are produced or serviced .that the need for capital facilities by the (Swanson and King 1991). Some state nation's public schools is nearing crisis State and Federal formulas recognize that larger per pu- proportions (Education Writers Asso- Policies That Affect pil costs occur when small numbers of ciation 1989). This includes rural Rural Education students are served, as in rural and school facilities, many erected some small school districts. Ten states (table decades ago and in dire need of replace- During the past decade, state legisla- 8-3) provide extra funding based on ment or renovation. A recent survey of tures have issued numerous mandates small sizesome at the district level capital needs for rural schools esti- directed toward improving the quality and some at the school level (Ver- mated that deferred maintenance costs of public education. Particularly hard- stegen 1990). now approach $2.6 billion, while costs pressed to acquire the necessary addi- required to replace existing rural tional resources have been the nation's Sparsity weights.A similar ap- school facilities were projected at $18 small, rural school districts with low proach is adding weights in state aid billion (Honeyman 1990). fiscal capacity. In some cases, through formulas to benefit geographically iso- extraordinary local effort, full compli- lated schools, a practice in six states Historically, many state legislatures ance with the state mandates has been (table 8-3). It reflects an awareness of have been reluctant to provide fiscal met. In other cases, reform legislation necessarily high per unit costs for in- assistance to their local school districts has forced consolidation and reorgani- structional services and pupil transpor- for capital outlay and debt service.3 zation of rural schools and school dis- tation where the service area is sparsely Some state constitutions and statutes tricts. populated. Note: Another 11 states (ta- even prohibit small rural school dis- ble 8-3) have provisions in the state tricts from incurring debt sufficient to The federal government, through ex-. funding formulas to add funds based replace existing facilities. (Debt limita- ecutive order, congressional action, or on a combination of factors, including tions prohibit a school district from judicial intervention also has expanded size and geographical isolation, while incurring long-term debt in excess of a requirements for public schools, thus three other states use different factors specified percentage of its assessed increasing their operating costs. Occu- (Verstegen 1990). valuation of real property.) In addition, pational Safety and Health Admini- rural school districts in many states stration rules governing safety standards for school buildings and em- Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey Using instructional expenditures as the ployees; the Education for All Handi- (for the second time), Tennessee, measure, recent research suggests a ma- c app ed Children Act of 1975 Texas, and West Virginia have wit- jority of states saw a lessening of fund- mandating service; and the Vocational nessed their highest courts rule their ing disparities between 1980 and 1987. Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) re- state school finance systems unconsti- Exceptions included Montana, Ken- quiring access by all students, have tutional in just the last 5 years. tucky, and New Jersey, whose systems placed considerable demands upon lo- were overturned, as well as several oth- cal school systems. Most states xquire Almost without exception, state-guar- ers where cases are pending. Signifi- anteed programs need to be substan- that the burden for compliance at least cantly, those that had raised their school tially augmented by local funds. Rural be shared, if not assumed, by their local expenditures the most tended to be the school districts. school districts, with their modest fiscal ones that made the greatest progress bases, usually cannot generate suffi- toward equality, suggesting that at- Again, rural and small school districts cient local resources to supplement ade- tempts to improve quality were struc- have found these requirements difficult quately the state programs the way tured to address equity as well to meet. Indeed, an array of legal issues more affluent localities can. Reflecting (Wyckoff 1992). continues to confront local school dis- this situation, most lawsuits that chal- tricts concerning such matters as spe- lenged state school finance programs How much this lessening of disparities cial education services, liability and were filed by persons who resided in may have affected rural schools is not negligence, service for certain specified rural communities, for example, the known, however. And progress toward clients, and asbestos abatement pro- pending 1991 Ohio suit by theCoali- funding equity may have been impeded grams. But the most far- reaching legal tion of Rural and Appalachian School as a result of the most recent recession. cases concern fiscal equity, an issue on Districts v. Walter.In Kentucky, the Revenue shortfalls at both state and lo- which rural schools have been proac- successfulRoselawsuit was brought cal levels have been widely docu- tive. primarily by rural school districts and mented, with resulting cuts in education resulted in the largest state funding in- expenditures, including state compen- School Finance crease for putiic education in the state's sati on to property-poor districts Litigation history, with the poorer districts receiv- (Fowler 1992). ing increases of 25 percent. The complex system of school financ- Summary ing summarized in this chapter has Most of the litigation demonstrated the largely failed to equalize funding of uneven results obtained by property Almost every state demonstrates re- elementary and secondary education in pocr and property wealthy districts on source disparities among local school this country. Since school finance liti- various fiscal input measures. Among districts, reflecting the relative wealth gation began in the late 1960s and early them were average annual salaries paid of the communities that support the dis- 1970s, over a quarter of the states have classroom teachers, per pupil revenues tricts. In most states, disparities primar- seen a challenge to the status quo or expenditures, breadth of the curricu- ily affect two classes of districts: those whereby the extent of education sup- lum, quality of school facilities, number at the urban core and those in rural port is largely determined by a stu- of library books per pupil, and funding areas. For a variety of reasons, educa- dent's residency (Franklin and Hickrod for instructional supplies and equip- tion in both settings is expensive as 1990). ment. The lawsuits were based primar- measured in per unit costs. The chal- ily upon education clauses and articles lenge of adequately funding rural The supreme courts in 12 states4 now of the states' respective constitutions. schools has become more dramatic dur- have ruled their state systems of school Phrases such as "thorough and effi- ing recent years and is symptomatic of finance unconstitutional and have or- cient," "efficient system of common the generally unhealthy financial situ- dered the state legislatures to design schools," and "uniform system of com- ation that currently confronts much of and implement school finance systems mon schools," typify the constitutional rural society throughout the United that will withstand constitutional scru- foundations upon which the decisions States. tiny. The impetus for judicial interven- were made. tion and activism apparently has begun While greater funding equity can be to accelerate; seven statesKentucky, brought to rural schools through modi- fying various funding mechanisms de-

51 64 scribed in this chapter, such as fiscal School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d Education, National Center for Educa- equalization formulas, capital outlay 139 (1993); Texas, Edgewood Independent tion Statistics. and debt service programs, or methods School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391 (1989); Washington, Seattle School Dis- Honeyman, D.S. Fall 1990. "School Facili- of assessing fiscal capacity and fiscal trict No. 1 of King County v. State, 585 P.2d es and State Mechanisms That Support S,hool Construction: A Report From effort, change does not come easily. 71 (1978); West Virginia, State Ex Rel. The present economic climate already Board of Education for Grant County v. the Fifty States." journal of Education seems to have slowed progress on these Manchin, 366 S.E.2d 743 (1988); Wyo- Finance 16:2. matters. Fiscal equity, even with the ming, Washakie County School District Jansen, A.C. 1990. "Can Sales Tax Reve- courts' intervention, may remain an No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (1980). nue Equitably Finance Education?" Pa- elusive goal for many rural schools for At the same time, supreme courts in ap- per presented at the Association of some time to come. proximately the same number of states have Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual upheld existing school finance systems. In Conference, Austin TX. other states, most recently Alabama and Notes Missouri, challenges were successful in Jansen, A .C. October-January 1991. "Ru- 1. The federal share has never exceeded 10 lower courts (Fulton and Long 1993). ral Counties Lead Urban in Education percent of the total; in 1992 the amount Spending, But is That Enough?" Rural contributed to elementary and secondary References Economic Perspectives. Washington, education was estimated at 8.3 percent DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, (Hoffman 1993). Alexander, K. Fa111990. "Rural Education: Economic Research Service. Institutionalization of Disadvantage." 2. Absolute fiscal equalization does not as- Journal of Education Finance 16:2. Salmon, R.G., et al. 1988. Public School sure an efficient or adequately funded sys- Finance Programs of the United States tem of public elementary and secondary Alexander, M.D. Fa111990. "Public School and Canada, 1986-87. Blacksburg, education. It suggests only that little, if any, Pupil Transportation: Rural Schools." VA: Virginia Polytechnic and State fiscal disparity exists among a state's local Journal of Education Finance 16:2. University. school districts. Bass, G. 1988. "Financing for Small School Bus Fleet Fact Book 1993. Decem- 3. Capital outlay is defined as costs incurred Schools." The Rural Educator 9:2. ber/January 1993. Redondo Beach, CA: Bobit Publishing Company 37:1. for land or buildings, improvements of Education Writers Association. 1989. grounds, construction of buildings, addi- Wolves at the Schoolhouse Door. Swanson, A.D., and R.A. King. 1991. tions to buildings, remodeling of buildings, Washington, DC. School Finance: Its Economics and or purchase and replacement of equipment. Politics. New YorY.: Longman. Debt service is defmed as costs incurred for Fowler, W.1. 1992. What Should We Know the repayment of loan or bond principal, about Schocl Finance? Paper presented Verstegan, D. Fall 1990. "Efficiency and interest, and service charges. at the American Education Fmance As- Economies-of-Scale Revisited: Impli- sociation Annual Meeting, New Or- cations fcr Financing Rural School Dis- 4. Arkansas, Dupree v. Alma School Dis- leans, LA. tricts." Journal of Education Finance trict No.30, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983); Cali- 16:2. fornia, Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 Franklin, D.L., and G.A. Hickrod. 1990. (1971); Connecticut, Horton v. Meskill, "School Finance Equity: the Courts In- Walberg, H. J., and W.J. Fowler. 1987. 376 A.2d 359 (1977); Kentucky, Rose v. tervene." Policy Briefs. Elmhurst, rL: "Expenditure and Size Efficiencies of The Council for Better Education, 790 North Central Regional Educational Public School Districts." Educational S.W.2d 186 (1989); Massachusetts, Laboratory. Researcher 16:7. Mc Duffy v. Robertson, 615 N.E.2d 516 (1993); Montana, Helena Elementary Fulton, M., and D. Long. 1993. School Fi- Wyckoff, J.H. 1992. 'The Intrastate Equal- School District No. 1 v. State, 769 P.2d 684 nam. Litigation: A Historical Sum- ity of Public Primary and Secondary (1989); New Jersey, Robinson v. Cahill, mary.Denver, CO: Education Education Resources in the U.S., 1980- 303 A.2d 273 (1973) and Abbott v. Burke, Commission of the States. 1987." Economics of Education Review 11:1. 575 A.2d 359 (1990); Tennessee, Small Hoffman, C.M. 1993. Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

65 52 9. Assessment of StudentPerformance in Rural Schools

With rural communities facing many proficiency level of 250 in mathemat- in 1978). But by 1986 and again in challenges today, gauging their ics skills indicates students can use 1990, rural mean scores essentially schools' education& quality is more multiplication and solve simple prob- matched the national average (table 9 important than ever. It is a time of lems. 3). The story is similar for science. In increased expectations, rising account- the 1970 and 1973 assessments, rural Comparing rural performance ability demands, and growing compe- students were below national means on to the national average. tition for scarce budget dollars. NAEP the proficiency scale, but in 1977 uses a definition of rural, called Ex- National data reported below compare (Welch and Wagner 1989) and thereaf- treme Rural, that encompasses stu- the academic performance of rural stu- ter, rural students were at the mean dents in nonmetropolitan areas with a dents with that of nonrural students. In proficiency level at each age tested: 9, this context, emerging research infor- population below 10,000 and where 13, and 17 (table 9-4). mation on the relative merits of small- many parents are farmers or farm scale schooling, including the workers. In the earliest NAEP assess- The academic standing of rural stu- availability of high school courses, is ments, these students consistently dents may be illustrated further by ex- also presented. scored below the national average on amining their scores on recent nearly every subject (Martin 1983). assessments for history and civics Academic However, by the 1980s, at the same (NCFS 1990a and NCES 1990b). Ru- time state education reforms got under- ral scores were equivalent to the na- Performance by way; the scores of rural students were tional mean in every instance and in Rural Students equivalent to the national average in eighth-grade civics were significantly Rural education often has been dis- virtually all subjects tested (NCES above the national mean (table 9-5). 1991a). cussed as a deficit model of instruction Note should be taken of the general from which relatively low outcomes For example, rural reading scores were disappointment with the overall quality can be expected (Edington and Koehler below the national mean in 1971 for all of student performance as revealed by 1987). While this perspective was rein- three ages groups (9, 13, and 17) and in NAEP. Although students are able to forced by some local studies, most 1975 for 9- and 13-year-olds. How- perform basic skills, they have demon- data, as presented below, do not sup- ever, from 1980 to 1990, of the 12 total strated limited success on measures of port this view. scores (4 assessments times 3 ages), higher order thinking skills. While ru- National Assessment of Educa- rural students were below the national ral NAEP mean scores now approxi- mean proficiency level only once (age tional Progress.The most compre- mate national averages, much remains 9 in 1984) (table 9-1). Nor were rural hensive data on student achievement in to be done to enhance rural student writing scores significantly below the this country is gathered by the National achievement as well as that of all stu- national mean at any time during the Assessment of Educational Progress dents in this country. However, focus- decade: 1984, 1988, and 1990 (table (NAEP), administered by the National ing on the issue of rural student Center for Education Statistics 9-2). In this subject, scores of rural 8th performance, the fundamental finding and ilth graders did not change signifi- is that (NCES). Established in 1969, NAEP cantly over time, but those of rural 4th periodically reports information on the graders improved dramatically in 1988 NAEP assessment levels of students educational progress of American stu- and that gain was essentially sustained living in Extreme Rural areas are dents in reading, writing, mathematics, in 1990. now consistently comparable to the science, and social studies, as wellas national mean proficiency levels other subjects. Performance is meas- On the NAEP mathematicsassess- and have been for a decade. ured along a proficiency scale that ments in 1978 and 1982, the mean pro- ranges from 100 to 500, allowing com- ficiency scores for rural students were Comparing rural and nonrural parisons across groups, age levels, and below the national average for all three students. Itis also possible to com- years of assessment. For example, a age groups tested except for one (age 9 pare rural student performance with

53 that of students attending schools in from the most rural counties as defined These score differences suggest the other types of communities. As defined by low population density and distance need to examine the situation of rural by NAEP, the Advantaged Urban set- from metropolitan centers (Greenberg, students more closely. Research has ting covers schools in or around large et al. 1992), a finding that suggests an associated weak scores and other poor cities where a high proportion of the important area for further research.) educational outcomes with students residents are in professional or mala- having to cope with multiple risk fac- gerial positions, while the Disadvan- National Education Longitudinal tors. Several ( f thes0 factors were iden- taged Urban setting encompasses Study of 1988.Rural student per- tified in the NELS report (NCES schools in or around large cities with a formance has been documented as well 1991b)single-parent family; parents high proportion of residents on welfare on the National Education Longitudi- have no high school diploma; limited or not regularly employed. The rank of nal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), also ad- English speaking proficiency; family rural students relative to these two met- niinistered by NCES. The survey of income less than $15,000; having a ropolitan groups has been fairly consis- nearly 25,000 randomly selected sibling who dropped out; and student tent across subjects. eighth graders covered three commu- home alone more than 3 hours per day. nity types: urban, meaning central city; NAEP scores of Extreme Rural stu- suburban, the area surrounding a cen- Essentially one of four eighth graders dents were generally higher than tral city within counties constituting had one risk factor regardless of setting those of the Disadvantaged Urban the Metropolitan Statistical Area (table 9-9). The percentage of rural group and lower than those of the (MSA); and rural (i.e., outside an eighth graders that had each risk ap- Advantaged Urban group. MSA). This definition of rural is thus pears in figure 9-1. far broader than that used by NAEP; However, rural contrasts with these Compared to suburban students, the essentially, rural means nonmetropoli- two groups were not uniform. For ex- rural rate was significantly greater in tan in NELS. In this study, ample, on the six subjects noted above three factors: low-parental education, across the three grade (or age) levels, Rural eighth graders scored at or low-family income, and a sibling who Extreme Rural students scored an av- about the national average on meas- dropped out. Rural students appeared erage of 21 points higher than Disad- ures of science, mathematics, readin each risk category at rates compara- vantaged Urban students. The range of ing , and history-government. ble to urban students, except for the differences on the 18 comparisons was However, they scored significantly single-parent family category where +10 to +40, most of which were statis- lower than their suburban counter- the urban rate was considerably higher tically significant (table 9-6). But rural parts on all four achievement tests, (tAle 9-10). Somewhat more than half students*averaged only 13 points lower but significantly higher than urban (52 percent) of rural eighth-grade stu- than Advantaged Urban students. And students (table 9-8) (NCES 1991b). dents were estimated to have no listed the range of differences was - 1 to -19, risk factors (table 9-9). This was true with two out of three score differences In summary, the results from two high for 47 percent of urban students but 60 statistically significant (table 9-7). quality national surveys are consistent. percent of suburban students. This means the performance edge Ex- Whether rural students are defined nar- In the NELS survey, lower test scores, treme Rural students had compared to rowly as with NAEP or broadly as with lower grades, more school absences, Disadvantaged Urban students was NELS, their scores approximated the and lowered expectations for gradu- more marked and consistent than their national average. Marked contrasts ap- ation were documented for students as shortfall relative to Advantaged Urban pear, however, when comparing their the number of risk factors increased students. scores to students in other locations. Rural students scored significantly (NCES 1991b). Using two or more fac- (Note: When the 1988 12th-grade data higher than urban students and lower tors as the threshold, were examined by county type, metro- than their suburban counterparts on all About one out of five rural eighth politan and nonmetropolitan score dif- four NELS:88 tests and placed between graders were at risk of having seri- ferences were found to be negligible. Advantaged and Disadvantaged Ur- ous educational problems. At the same time, an in-depth analysis ban students on most NAEP assess- pinpointed the source of any lower ments. As with performance scores, the rate nonmetropolitan scores as coming for rural students (22 percent) on this

54 67 indicator fell between that of urban stu- tion policy in the 20th century, has been personal satisfaction (Fowler 1992). dents (26 percent) and that of suburban revived in a number of states faced with The 1964 study received little attention students (15 percent) (table 9-9). dwindling populations and budgetary at the time; rather, the country soon pressures (e.g., Georgia, Iowa, Massa- after experienced widespread efforts to Research on chusetts, New York, North Carolina, enlarge schools and districts (Fowler Small-Scale Schooling Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, and 1992). These state policies stemmed Vermont). from recommendations made by James Whether rural and urban differences Conant, president of Harvard Univer- exist in student outcomes has drawn Conselidation.Nearly 30 years ago, sity, who argued in 1967 that high little research attention until very re- a study was released that compared school classes of at least 100 were cently. Somewhat more focus has been certain non-academic outcomes in needed for curriculum comprehensive- given to contrasting small and large small and large high schools in Kansas ness, particularly in foreign languages schools. This research relates to the (Barker and Gump 1964). The re- and advanced subjects. condition of rural schools for two rea- searchers found clear evidence of af- sons. First, the preponderance of rural fective advantages for students in School and district consolidation was schools remains small. Second, the smaller schools, for example, greater hardly an innovative strategy by the movement to consolidate or reorganize participation in sports and extracur- 1960s. On the contrary, since the turn small schools and districts into larger ricular activities (e.g., chorus, band, of the century, states have consistently units, a strategy that dominated educa- plays, student newspaper) and greater viewed the merger of small, usually rural, entities into larger units as a major solution to the twin challenges of Figure 9-1.Percentage of rural eighth graders with achieving quality and reducing the cost various risk factors of education in sparsely settled areas (Monk 1988). Successive waves of Risk factor consolidation, including that following the Conant recommendations, reduced Single parent the number of districts from a high of 128,000 in 1932 to 22,000 by the end of the 1960s. There are currently about 15,000 school districts (NCES 1992). Low income (<15K) Earlier consolidations succeeded in broadening the tax base and increasing enrollment size, likely bringing cur- Home alone 3 Hrs+ ricular and school finance advantages to many rural areas. But with district reorganizations encompassing larger Low parent education geographic areas and with associated problems emerging, consolidation is not proceeding without challenge to its Sibling dropout underlying assumptions. Research Findings on

LEP status School Size No comprehensive analysis has been 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 undertaken yet to determine the extent to which consolidation has addressed SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nation/1i Center for Education Statistics, NELS:88, special tabulations. the problems for which it has been ad- vocatedschool quality and cost-say-

55 66 ings (Rincones 1988).In fact, the large schools regardless of measure. increases in the size of larger strong push to create large schools and Among the results documented were schools. districts frequently has been based on that students from smaller schools had School size is related to the types of anecdotal evidence of the advantages. greater volmtary participation in extra- courses added within subject areas. The limited research carried out in re- curricular activities; a greater sense of In particular, school size is posi- cent years has revealed larger size does obligation; more feelings of satisfac- tively related to the share of the not necessarily yield the anticipated tion and sense of belonging; less loneli- academic curriculum devoted to ad- benefits. ness; and less use of drugs and alcohol (Fowler 1992). vanced and remedial courses. In Costs. One key analysis determined most subjects, though, advanced that costs in very small and very large Course availability.The longstand- courses grow more rapidly with schools were higher than for mid-size ing presumption has been that school school size than do remedial schools, suggesting an upper limit to size is strongly and uniformly related courses. (See tables 9-11a through optimal school size (Fox 1981). Trans- positively to the breadth and depth of 9-11d with national data supporting portation costs in rural areas have be- curricular offerings, meaning larger these conclusions.) schools unambiguously are able to of- come significant, substantially cutting A recent analysis of NAEP data refer superior educational opportunities into cost savings expected from con- vealed extremely low rates in the solidation. Moreover, student time on to their students. For example, one national sample survey of public high availability of advanced courses for buses can be co asiderable (Carlsen and 12th graders in schools located in school principals in school year 1983 Dunne 1981) and has been shown to nonmetropolitan counties com- undermine student performance (Lu 84 documented that the variety of courses offered in small schools was pared to metropolitan counties and Tweeten 1973). (Greenberg, et al. 1992). Neverthe- less than in large schools, with differ- less, the impact of a rural location Attitudes and behavior.Many feel ences particularly sharp in the areas of per se on curricular offerings is gen- the material limitations rural schools foreign languages and advanced place- erally considered smaller than the often experience are somehow com- ment courses (Barkei 1985). pensated for by the supportive ethos impact of school size. Research conducted since the late found in smaller communities and their Substantial variation in curricular 1980s has prompted a refinement of generally smaller schools. There is a offerings among high schools re- the prevailing view (Monk and Haller basis in research for this view. A recent mains after the effects of school size 1986; Monk 1987; Monk 1988; Haller examination of school size studies and rural location are removed. et al. 1990; Monk 1991; Monk and found small size had "an independent, There are small schools with rich Haller 1993). The cumulative findings positive effect on student achievement, curricular offerings just as there are follow: extracurricular participation, student large schools with modest offer- satisfaction, and attendance" (Fowler The effects of school size on high ings. School size alone explains and Walberg 1991). For example, ma- school curricular offerings vary de- roughly half of the variation in jor studies found a correlation between pending on the subject area. For ex- course offerings among high low dropout rates and small school ample, school size is much less schools. size; increasing size negatively influ- likely to impact course offerings in enced school climate that in turn con- social studies and science than in The mere presence of a course in a tributed to the dropout rate (Pittman curriculum is no guarantee of wide- foreign languages and the perform- and Haughwort 1987; Bryck and Thum spread student participation. Re- ing and visual arts. 1989). markably small percentages of The strength of the relationship be- students within a school take advan- Moreover, studies replicating elements tween school size and curricular of- tage of those courses found only of the 1964 size-effects research at the ferings diminishes as schools within large school curricula. state and national levels were consis- become larger. Increases in the size tent in finding that students in small of very small schools are associated Academic performance.With a schools fared better than their peers in with greater curricular gains than better understanding of the relationship between school size and both stu-

56 69 dent behaviors and course availability, Walberg and Fowler 1987). Indeed, re- (Barker 1985; Swanson 1988). Any one may now examine available find- cent studies demonstrated small-scale agenda for improving the outcomes of ings on academic outcomes. In most schooling has a positive effect on stu- rural education could consider how to studies, some dating back to the 1920s, dent achievement, while large-scale capitalize on the advantages of small little if any difference has been found schooling has a decidedly negative ef- scale while at the same time finding in student achievement in small vs. fect, particularly where low SES stu- ways to improve or expand opportuni- large schools (Howley 1989). The re- dents were concerned (Friedkin and ties to learn in smaller schools, particu- cent summary of school size effects Necochea 1988, per Howley 1989). 1 arly for those students seeking noted above (Fowler 1992) also identi- advanced courses. fied studies (e.g., Marion et al. 1991) If poverty retards student performance, that revealed a positive relationship be- what then accounts for overall rural And given that many rural students are tween small size and achievement. improvement? And why do students poor and live in communities whose from small schools, with relatively lim- fiscal resources are limited, the level of Data from NELS analyzed for this re- ited curricula, match or sometimes their performance is encouraging. In- port are consistent with such findings even surpass students from larger deed, it suggests that rather than a defi- about the advantages of small-scale schools? And similarly, how can non- cit model, rural schools, having schooling. Student scores from smaller metropolitan students with fewer ad- achieved so much with so little, can schools (less than 500 enrollment) vanced courses to take perform nearly provide instead a model of strength were higher than those from medium as well as metropolitan students? Gen- (Edington and Koehler 1987) worth (500 to 999 enrollment) or larger erally, researchers have expected in- studying and emulating. schools (greater than 1,000) (table 9 equities in what is called "opportunity 12).1 In fact, to learn"(NCES 1988) to hold back Summary rural and small school students on Students in the smallest schools achievement measures (Barker 1985). NAEP assessment scores for rural stu- scored higher than the national av- dents in Extreme Rural settings have erage, and students in the larger An illustration of this issue may be risen in the last 10 years and now ap- schools scored significantly lower found in students' exposure to science. proximate the mean, a iimling that was on all four NELS:88 tests. While significantly less involvement in maintained when "rural" was defined science learning activities and science to include a much wider population in Discussion of student perform- course taking among rural 13- and 17- the NELS:88 survey. At the same time, ance.As noted above, while rural year-old students was documented in research on small schools, which in- school outcomes have improved in re- 1983, their NAEP scores even at that cludes the large majority of rural cent years, there are deficiencies rela- time were comparable to the national schools, revealed definitive advantages tive to suburban settings as well as averages. Perhaps intervening to offset as measured by student attitudes and advantages over urban settings. At is- input limitations was the supportive behavior. But other research docu- sue is the cause of both the improve- ethos of small schcols. That rural stu- mented inequities in the availability of ments and the differences. Regarding dents are outdistanced by more advan- courses at the secondary level, though the latter, what may be the stronger taged students suggests that with most small schools offered a basic cur- influence depressing rural perform- greater curricular opportunities, rural riculum and not all large schools of- ance is the poverty of many students performance could improve still more fered an enriched one. Nevertheless, rather than any limitations imposed by (Welch and Wagner 1989). student achievement in small schools type of location (Edington and Koehler equaled or exceeded that of students in 1987). The perennial challenge faced by rural large schools, suggesting that the cli- schools to provide cost-effective, qual- mate in small schools may propel stu- The validity of this hypothesis has been ity schooling persists and will surely largely borne out in studies that control dents to excel in spite of certain increase as standards and expectations material disadvantages. These findings for socioeconomic status (SES). Re- are raised for all students. These results are consistent whether the studies have policy implications not only for search findings suggest there is value have been of students in rural vs. urban rural schools, but for schools in any in small size just as proponents of rural setting. settings (e.g., Edington and Martel laro schools have traditionally claimed 1984) or in small vs. large schools (e.g.,

57 70 Notes America Educational Research Asso- Monk, D.H., and E.J. Haller. 1986. Organ- ciation Conference, San Francisco, CA. izational Alternatives for Small, Rural 1. Given that rural schools are generally Schools. Ithaca, NY: Department of small, it is unclear why eighth-grade stu- Fowler, W.J., and H.J. Walberg. 1991. Education, Cornell University. dents in smaller schools exceed the mean "School Size, Characteristics, and Out- while those in rural schools approximate the comes." Educational Evaluation and Monk, D.H. 1987. "Seconda, School Size mean.What may be occurring is the less- Policy Analysis 13:2. and Curriculum Comprehensiveness." than-500 category draws in some higher Economics of Education Review 6:2. Fox, W.F. 1981. "Reviewing Economies of scoring small nonrural schools thus raising Size in Education." Journal of Educa- Monk, D.H. 1988. "Disparities in Curricu- the group mean. However, little is known tion Finance 6:3. lar Offerings: Issues and Policy Alter- about the mix and variety of schools that natives for Small, Rural Schools. Policy comprise the "small" category in the NELS Friedkin, N., and J. Necochea. 1988. Issues. Policy and Planning Center, Ap- sample, and results are not reported for rural "School System Size and Performance: palachia Educational Laboratory, Char- schools by enrollment size. (NAEP does not A Contingency Perspective." Educa- leston, WV. report results by school enrollment so con- tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis firmation checks are not possible in that data 10:3. Monk, D.H. 1991. 'The Organization and set regarding .chool size effects.) Reorganization of Small, Rural Greenberg, E.J., P.L. Swaim, and R.A. Schools." Rural Education: Issues and Teixiera. December, 1992. "Can Rural References Practice. AI De Young (Ed.). New Workers Compete for the Jobs of the York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Barker, B. 1985. "Curricular Offerings in Future?" Paper prepared for the Agri- Small and Large High Schools: How cultural Outlook Conference, Washing- Monk, D. H., and EJ. Haller. Spring 1993. Broad is the Disparity?" Research in ton, DC. "Predictors of High School Academic Rural Education 3:1. Course Offerings: The Role of School E.J., D.H. Monk, A. Spotted Bear, Size." American Educational Research Barker, R.G., and P.V. Gump. 1964. Big J. Griffith, and P. Moss. 1990. "School Journal 30:1. School, Small School: High School Size Size and Program Comprehensiveness: and Student Behavior. Stanford, CA: Evidence From High School and Be- National Center for Education Statistics. Stanford University Press. yond." Educational Evaluation and 1988. 1988 Education Indicators. J. Policy Analysis 12:2. Stern (Ed.).Washington, DC: U.S. De- Bryck, A.S., and Y.M. Thum. 1989. 'The partment of Education. Effects of High School Organization on Howley, C. 1989. "Synthesis of the Effects Dropping Out: An Exploratory Investi- of School and District Size: What Re- National Center for Education Statistics. gation" (Report No. RR-012). Center search Says about Achievement in 1990a. The U.S. History Report Card. for Policy Research in Education. Small Schools and School Districts." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Journal of Rural and Small Schools 4:1. Education. Carlsen, W.S., and F. Dunn. 1981. "Small Rural Schools: A Portrait." High School Lu, Y., and L. Tweeten. 1973. 'The Impact National Center for Education Statistics. Journal 64:7. of Busing on Student Achievement." 1990b. The Civics Report Card. Wash- Growth and Change. ington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- Edington, E.D., and H.C. Martellaro. tion. 1984." Variables Affecting Academic Marion, S.F., W.G. McIntire, and H.G. Achievement in New Mexico Schools." Walberg. April 1991. Mie Effects of National Center for Education Statistics. Paper presented at the American Educa- Per-pupil Expenditures, School Size, 1991a. Trends in Academic Progress. tional Research Association Confer- and Student Characteristics on Student Washington, DC: U.S. Department of ence, New Orleans, LA. Achievement and Educational Attain- Education. ment in Rural Schools." Paper presented Edington, ED., and L. Koehler. 1987. "Ru- at the American Educational Research National Center for Education Statistics. ral Student Achievement: Elements for Association Conference, Chicago, IL. 1991b. The Tested Achievement of the Consideration." ERIC Digest. Las Cru- National Education Longitudinal Study ces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Marfin, W.H. 1983. "Student Achievement of 1988 Eighth Grade Class. Washing- Education and Small Schools. in Rural Schools: A View from the Na- ton, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- tional Assessment Data." In J. Fletcher tion. Fowler, W.J. April 1992. "What Do We (Ed.). Rural Education: A National Per- Know About School Size? What Should spective. International Dialogue Press. National Center for Education Statistics. We Know?" Paper presented at the 1992. Digest of Education Statistics. NCES 92-097. Washington, DC. 71 58 Pittman, R.B., and P. Haughwort. 1987. Swanson, A.D. 1988, "The Matter of Size: Welch, W.W., and T.G. Wagner. 1989. Sci- "Influence of High School Size on A Review of the Research on Relation- ence Education in Rural America. Elm- Dropout Rate." Educational Evaluation ships Between School and District Size, hurst, IL: North Central Regional and Policy Analysis 9:4. Pupil Achievement, and Cost." Re- Educational Laboratory. search in Rural Education 5:2. Rincones, R. 1988. "Rural Education: Ex- ploring Alternatives to Consolidation." Walberg, H.J., and WI Fowler. 1987. "Ex- ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa- penditure and Size Efficiencies of Pub- tion and Small Schools. (ERIC Docu- lic School Districts." Educational ment Reproduction Service No. ED 296 Researcher 16:7. 817/EDORC-88-05). Las Cruces, NM.

Computer training at the Miami Valley Career Technology Center (enrollment: 1,772 students, grades 11-12), Clayton, Ohio (pop. 600). In a pattern typical of many rural areas, Miami Valley draws studzill. t om high schools in several neighboring counties for its programs in vocational and technological education. Photo from the National FFA Center, Alexandria, Virginia.

59 72 lEST 2

- '

mwer A

I ,

, _

a a - 7,^

Biology class, Anderson Valley Junior-Senior High School (enrollment: 217 students), Anderson Valley, California. Photo from the Natianal FFA Center, Alexandria, Virginia. 10. Education and Work Experiences of Rural Youth

To understand the potential for Amer- ica's ni..11 youth to participate in to- Figure 10-1.Postsecondary educational plans of day's competitive global economy, this 1960 seniors, by location chapter examines rural students' aspirations, preparation, academic achievements and vocational careers. 111 Urban Suburb [1: Contrasts are made not only with their nonrural counterparts, but between rural youth who remained in their home 30 communities and those who left. Some regional differences are also touched upon. 25 Rural Youth in the 20 Percentage 1980s of 1980 Employment opportunities in agricul- seniors ture, mining, construction, and manu- 15 facturing industriesprincipal sources of rural jobsare projected to continue declining, while information-based in- 10 dustries are predicted to grow (Ham- rick 1991-92). An estimated six million jobs will open up nationally in highly skilled occupations during the decade of the 1990s (World Future So- ciety 1988). Vocational <4 Yr. BA/BS Advanced tech. degree degree degree To gauge the readiness of rural youth for the rapidly changing economy, this SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, chapter examines the Class of 1980 High School and Beyond, 1980-1986. and, to some extent, the Class of 1982, from the longitudinal survey, High example, compared to nonrural stu- education at lower levels of attainment School and Beyc.id, administered by dents, seniors in rural high schools in than did either urban or suburban the National Center for Education Sta- 1980 said they valued their jobs more students (tables 10-2 and 10-3). These tistics (NCES). Youth were considered and academics less (Cobb, McIntire, aspirations translated into clear differ- rural if they went to high schools in and Pratt 1989). This perception con- ences in postsecondary education plans nonmetropolitan counties as defined tributed to differences between the am- as presented in figure 10-1 (table 10- by the Census Bureau. Nonrural stu- bitions of rural youth and their nonrural 4). dents were those who went to a high counterparts. school within a metropolitan areaur- Proportionately fewer rural than non- ban or suburban. (Appendix B provides For example, rural students envisioned rural seniors intended to pursue college more information on the survey.) themselves more often in lower level, and advanced degrees. And more rural less skilled positions than did nonrural seniors than nonrural seniors had no Aspirations.Rural students share youth (table 10-1). Thus rural youth plans at all (table10-4). certain attitudes and values that are less expected to complete their full-time common among nonrural students. For

74 61 Preparation.Reflecting these long- Postsecondary education.Lower Given that educational attainment is a range perceptions about the future, academic aspirations and less prepara- strong predictor of future incoine, seniors -;.n rural high schools were less tion translated into lower college-go- The lower college-going and com- likely to have enrolled in academic ing rates for rural youth. During the 4 pletion rates among rural students programs that would prepare them for years following high school graduation are important indicators that rural further academic study and more likely (1980-1984), significantly fewer rural youth will have comparatively to be enrolled in general studies pro- (62 percent) than urban (70 percent) or lower future earnings and job status. grams (figure 10-2) (table 10-5). suburban (73.5 percent) youth attended at least one term of college, either part- As a result, rural seniors in the high time or full-time (Marion, McIntire, Reasons for school Class of 1980 completed some- and Walberg 1991). Rural-Nonrural what less course work in the subjects students need for college (Algebra I At the end of 6 years, 18 percent of Differences in and II, Trigonometry, Calculus, Chem- rural members of the Class of 1980 had Educational istry, and Physics). Rather, they took earned at least a bachelor's degree more vocational and business courses compared to 21 percent for nonrural Attainment (Pollard and O'Hare 1990). youth (Pollard and O'Hare 1990)2 An important issue in examining the educational orientation of rural and nonrural youth is how much the distinctions between them may somehow Flgure 10-2.HIgh school program enrollment, be a function of setting. A smail but by type and location growing body of literature argues for considering factors other than place of II Urban IP"Suburb Rural residence to account for rural-nonrural differences. 50 For example, one factor depressing the education ambitions of rural youth may be the lower prevaler. in their communities of professional and tech- 40 nical jobs that could serve as vocational goals (Haller and Virkler 1992). In fact, a smaller proportion (-9.2 percent) of rural youth from the Class of Percentage 30 1980 (Haller and Virkler 1992) aspired of 1980 seniors to those categories of employment requiring college degrees and for which few rural opportunities exist. 20 Another major factor is socioeconomic status (SES). The relationship between SES and educational outcomes has 10 been documented in the educational and psychological literature (e.g., Anderson et al. 1992; White 192,. As a group, rural students ranked lower on 0 the High School ald Beyond socioeco- General Academic Vocational nomic scale compared with suburban students, though they had about the SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond, 1980-1986. same ranking as urban students Nevertheless, one must keep the loca- prospects elsewhere. By 1984, ap- (Marion, McIntire, and Walberg 1991). tional differences in perspective. proximately one-third of rural students Thus the generally lower aspirations of Though below nonrural rates, a large of the Class of 1980 had left for non- 1980 rural seniors reflected that a large proportion of rural students had profes- rural areas, with males and females proportion came from families ranking sional ambitions. For example, nearly equally represented among them lower in socioeconomic status (Co- one-fourth of 1980 rural seniors (vs. 29 (Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt 1989). Con- ladarci and McIntire' 1988; McIntire percent nonrural) said they expected to trasting "leavers" (rural youth who left) and Marion 1989). have low-level professional jobs by the with "stayers" (those who stayed in age of 30, and about 9 percent (vs. 15 Rural America) provides yet another One element of this status is parental percent nonrural) saw themselves as perspective on rural diversity. education levels. For half of the rural high-level professionalsthe same students, parents had at most a high proportion as expected to become Those who left scored significantly school education, whereas this circum- craftsmen. These aspirations translated higher on the survey's aptitude tests stance applied to just one-third of the into significant levels of educational and came from higher socioeconomic nonrural students; at the same time, 12 attainment for many rural students, status families than did those who percent of rural seniors had parents many of whom migrated out of rural stayed. In fact, "leavers" most resem- with at least a bachelor's degree, com- areas to realize them. Specifically, for bled suburban youth in their postsecon- pared to 19 percent of nonrural seniors those rural youth from the Class of daryaspirations,educational (Pollard and O'Hare 1990). To the ex- 1980 who did go to college, well over attainment, and quality of life aspira- tent well-educated parents encourage one-third (36 percent) remained for 4 tions. For example, of the rural "stay- their children to pursue more school- years of education (table 10-7). ers," less than half (46 percent) aspired ing, nonrural seniors had an advantage to a college degree while 61 percent of many rural seniors did not (Pollard and This rate of persistence in college, rural "leavers" didnearly the same as O'Hare 1990), and this background while below that of suburban college- graduates from cities and suburbs (ta- may help to account for the differences going youth (40 percent), was about the ble 10-8). Rural "leavers" actually at- in their ambitions and choice of course same as urban students (37 percent). tained some college or a college degree study. Moreover, when groups of rural and more often than all other groups (Cobb, nonrural students from the high school McIntire, and Pratt 1989).3 For example, compared to their coun- Class of 1980 were matched by SES, terparts elsewhere, proportionately there was little difference between High School Dropout more rural than nonrural seniors re- them in terms of higher educational ported their fathers were inclined to outcomes. In the top half of the SES Rates encourage them to obtain full-time jobs distribution, in fact, proportionately Comparing dropout rates.Look- (14 vs. 9 percent) or to attend trade more rural than nonrural students coming at the Class of 1982 permits an school (10 vs. 6 percent) (table 10-6). pleted a 4year degree or advanced de- examination of dropping out between Proportionately fewer rural students gree (Marion, McIntire, and Walberg the sophomore and senior years of high reported they thought their mothers 1991). Together these data suggest school. Between 1980 and 1982, rural were supportive of full-time college sophomores had a dropout rate of 16 attendance (60 vs. 72 percent) (table Rural students who enter college percent, which was below the national 10-6). In addition, while half of the have the capacity to succeed; com- average and comparable to the subur- rural seniors said their guidance coun- ing from a rural area need not be an ban rate. The urban rate was consider- selors and teachers thought they should impediment to completing college.2 ably higher at 24.5 percent (Alsalam et go to college, the proportion was less al. 1992). What is not known is the Leavers and stayers.Rural com- than for nonrural seniors (56 percent) degree to which rural students for this munities have a long history of losing (Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt 1989). In cohort had dropped out before the large proportions of their academically sum, sophomore year. accomplished youth to urban and sub- Youth in Rural America ofti n per- urban communities, a phenomenon Light is shed on this question by recent ceive themselves as lacking guid- caused by limited educational opportu- data on younger students showing 7 ance and support for pursuing nities locally and better employment percent of rural students dropped out advanced educational studies.

63 between the 8th and 10th grades (1988- differences lessened (Alsalam et al. useful to explore further some of those 90) compared to 5 percent of suburban 1992). other influences. For example, in local students and 9 percent of urban students communities where obtaining a high (Kaufman and McMillan 1991). This Minority dropout rates.Black and school degree offers no apparent ad- two percentage points disadvantage Hispanic students in rural areas were vantage because of limited economic relative to suburban rates suggests the far more likely to drop out than were opportunities, students may tend to 1980 to 1982 rural dropout rate may metropolitan members of these minori- drop out more (Bickel and Papagiannis understate the longer term rate. ties. In comparing groups 25 years of 1988). Additional light has been shed age and older, for example, rural black by recent studies using the High School As with plans for college attendance, and Hispanic residents in 1991 were far and Beyond data set to track 10th grad- however, an analysis of the High less likely to have had schooling com- ers in the South between 1980 and 1982 School and Beyond data set revealed parable to 4 years of high school or (Smith et al. 1992; Beaulieu et al. that dropping out could not be attrib- more than their nonrural counterparts 1990). These studies highlighted two uted primarily to urban, suburban, or (table 10-9). Rural rates for both influences on high school dropout be- rural location but to differences in the groups were low, but the contrast was havior: family and society! demographics and social charac- particularly great between blacks in the teristics of students who lived in those two sectors: 49 vs. 70 percent for Taken separately, family and commu- places (Barro and Kolstad 1987). Drop- blacks and 47 percent vs. 52 percent for nity elements showed varying but sig- outs gave the same primary reasons for Hispanics. (School completion rates n ifi cant influences on dropout leaving school regardless of high for whites in rural areas were also far behaviors. In combination, however, school location, namely low grades and lower than for their metropolitan coun- they exerted a powerful force. When "school wasn't for me" though rural terparts-74 vs. 82 percent.) family and community influences were dropouts had the lowest educational as- weak, the dropout rate exceeded 50 pirations and lowest self esteem of any Minority groups in rural areas also had percent; when both were strong, stu- group (McCaul 1989). higher rates of functional illiteracy (de- dents were virtually assured of com- fined as having completed less than 5 pleting their high school studies Late completion.An understanding years of elementary school)com- (Beaulieu et al. 1990). The rise in sin- of the phenomenon of dropping out pared to rural whites and to minority gle parent households in Rural Amer- must include an awareness that a sig- groups in nonrural areas (table 10-10). ica, as elsewhere, and the extensive nificant proportion of students who do Rural blacks 25 years of age and older population migration in the last decade not graduate with their class either take were twice as likely as metropolitan reflect unsettled economic and social longer to complete high school or pass blacks to be illiterate (8 vs. 4 percent). conditions that could negatively affect a high school equivalency examination. Rates for Hispanic residents were high- not only persistence in school, but also Of the Class of 1982, 84 percent of rural est, though the rural-nonrural distinc- a host of other behaviors associated students completed high school on tion was less extreme (15 vs. 12 with preparation for independent adult- time, a rate comparable to that of sub- percent). (Two percent of whites hood and responsible citizenship. urban students (85 percent). (Of the matched the criterion, and there was no urban students, 76 percent completed difference by place of residence). But Educational on time, i.e., by June 1982.) But these though illiteracy rates remain high, it is completion rates changed significantly important to note the progress made in Attainment of the over the next 6 years. In urban and the last two decades. The illiteracy Rural Workforce suburban areas, completion rates rose rates of black and white Americans 11 and 8 percentage points respec- have been cut by more than half, and In examining the personal and employ- tively.. They rose least in rural areas-6 Hispanic adults have seen dramatic im- ment potential of rural students, it is pointsreflecting the lower availabil- provements in this measure as well. useful to consider levels of schooling ity of programs to prepare youth for from a broader group of working-age equivalency tests (Sherman 1992). As Factors influencing dropping rural residents. But first, it is important a result, the rural high school comple- out.Given that educational differ- to note the tremendous strides Rural tion rate fell behind the suburban rate- ences are not purely a function of loca- America has made in better educating 90 vs. 93 percent, and urban-rural tion but of other circumstances, it is

64 77 its students in the last several decades. while only 15 percent of the rural coun- 1988). Rarely noted, but relevant to the Just 30 years ago the average rural resi- ties did.4 issues of jobs and pay, is that at the dent had a ninth-grade education, same time, those with the lowest levels whereas today the norm is to have a The third factor was that in the 1980s, of skills and education increasingly high school diploma (McGranahan et the more educated rural residents left tended to leave metropolitan areas to al. 1986). And in spite of the employ- for nonrural areas, constituting a return settle in rural counties (Lichter et al. ment problems of the last decade, a to the historical pattern. (The influx of 1991). smaller proportion of rural youth age metropolitan residents to the country- 16-24 had dropped out of high school side during the 1970s turned out to As for the members of the Class of in 1990 (12 percent) than did in 1975 have been a temporary phenomenon.) 1980, these economic circumstances (16.8 percent), reducing the gap be- In these data, such workers, though naturally impacted them, as it did oth- tween rural and rational totals during born in rural areas, are now nonrural ers. Six years after high school, not that period (Kau fman and McMillan residents and are counted among them. only were rural members of the class 1991) (table 10".1). generally less likely to be in white col- lar jobs (50 vs. 61 percent), but this was Those of working age (25-44) also nar- Employment true even for college graduates (77 vs. rowed the rural-nonrural gap in high 84 percent) (Pollard and O'Hare 1990). According to the U.S. Department of school graduation rates (Swaim and Factors included differences in aspira- Agriculture's Economic Research Teixeira 1991) (table 10-12). Examin- tions, preparation, and educational at- Service (ERS), the source of the rural ing this age group's further educational tainment. The outcome also reflects the employment crisis is that the new econ- attainment tells a more complex story, limited availability of such jobs in the omy is an urban economy (McGrana- however. Not only were rural residents countryside, as mentioned above. han and Ghelfi 1991). This means jobs far less likely to have attained 4 or more that support this economy, which de- years of college (16 vs. 27 percent), but Members of the Class of 1980 who did mands a highly educated workforce, after 1979, the difference in rural-non- not obtain a college degree (i.e., those became concentrated in metropolitan rural rates for college attendance and with a high school diploma or less, a areas. The result has been an increase for college completion widened con- license or certificate, or a 2-3year vo- in the rural-urban division of labor siderably (Swaim and Teixeira 1991). cational degree) also had difficulties (McGranahan and Ghelfi 1991) The proportion of rural people com- that reflected the broader analysis. Per- whereby low-education, low-skill jobs pleting 1 to 4 years of college did not sons from rural schools were earning stay in the countryside, while high- decline; in fact, it increased, at least less and had significantly more unem- education, high-s jobs are in the cit- through 1983. The primary cause of the ployment than did those from urban ies and suburbs. disparity is the even greater increase in and suburban schools (Pollard and O'Hare 1990). the proportion of nonrural workers As these work distinctions sharpened who obtained higher education. Sev- in the last decade, earnings disparities eral factors contributed to this phe- widened correspondingly. In 1979, the Regional Differences nomenon. difference between the two sectors was All the findings regarding the Class of probably close to the difference in cost 1980 were not uniform among the nine First, as noted, rural students had lower of living; but by 1987, tho pay differ- regional divisions. One of the most aspirations for higher education. In ad- ence for rural and nonrural high school striking differences concerned SES. dition, rural residents have limited ac- graduates had grown to 15 percent and Rural students from New England had cess to institutions of higher education for college graduates to twice that per- the highest average SES, while rural (Swaim and Teixeira 1991), an element centage (McGranahan and Ghelfi students from the East-South Central that could also have helped restrain 1991). and West-South Central divisions had their aspirations. For example, non- the lowest. Consistent with the national rural counties were three times more These economic facts of lifejobs and correlations of SES and outcomes dis- likely than rural counties to have some paygoverned migration patterns in kind of public college (table 10-13). cussed above, New England stood out the last decade. As one analyst summa- as the only census division with a ma- Even in the case of 2-year colleges, half rized it, "Rural areas were net exporters the metropolitan counties had one, jority of its rural students in academic of educated workers" (McGranahan programs. This region had the highest

65 78 proportion of its students entering col- dent's Rural Development Initiative dents prior to that year. According to the lege and the highest proportion with at has recognized this two-way relation- Census Bureau, in the late 1970s, when least a bachelor's degree (30 percent) ship, and has made rural community 1980 seniors would have been in their sophomore and junior years, 9.7 percent of by 1986 (table 10-14). In the Mountain and economic development a primary rural youth age 16-17 had dropped out, that states, only 7 percent of the rural stu- focus. It is important that schools and is were neither in school nor had a high dents had attained a college degree. students not be left out of the process school diploma, compared to 8.3 percent but participate fully in rural developfor nonrural youth (Reid and Frederick Regional differences also occurred for ment efforts. 'The application of school 1990). dropout rates according to the Current resources, such as faculty release time, 2. One of the most dramatic illustrations of Population Survey. Most regions saw adult education, and class projects that the potential of rural schooling comes from a decline in dropout rates for 16- to directly involve students in community a recent study that examined the high 24-year-olds, but again, variations by projects have the potential to region were considerable (table 10- school Class of 1983 in 11 school districts strengthen the educational institutions in Iowa. A striking 75 percent of those 11). For example, rates in the South, and the communities. students who entered either 2- or 4-year though declining, remained high dur- colleges received their degrees within 5 ing the 15-year period, while rates in Summary years of high school graduation. Almost all the West actually rose. Clearly, poli- of these students grew up in families that cies designed to aid rural schools must Proportionately more rural than non- valued perseverance and education. These take into account circumstances pecu- rural students have been shown to students, in contrast to the general HSB liar to the region. come from families with lower SES, a finding, credited their parents with encour- factor that contributes significantly to aging their post-high school plans. Also In the South and the Pacific regions, their somewhat lower career aspira- credited was the "ethos" in their rural the persistence of low average in- tions and lower tendency to prepare for schools that fostered a positive school climate and sense of belonging that influ- comes, high rates of poverty, and low and enroll in postsecondary education educational achievement point to the enced college performance (Schonert et programs. Other factors include the al.). need for a regional emphasis on creat- presence in rural areas of fewer jobs ing higher value economic activity and requiring a college education and the 3. Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt contrasted ru- a workforce qualified for better jobs dearth of institutions of higher educa- ral students who had attended a rural high and improved incomes. In the rural tion in rural counties. Yet diminished school in 1980 and who, 4 years later, were living in a rural area or small town of less Midwest, where education and in- aspirations and lack of continuing edu- comes are high relative to other re- than 50,000 ("stayers") with those now re- cation opportunities come at a time siding in more urbanized areas ("leavers") gions, creating jobs in new industries when every indication is that more Other researchers use different reference that can stem population losses is more knowledge and skills are necessary for points to determine migration, including of a concern. The greatest challenges well-paying jobs, typically located in simply leaving the hometown (Pollard and for amenity-rich areas on both coasts nonrural areas. Many of those who do O'Hare 1990) or migrating 50 miles from are to manage the impacts of growth prepare, therefore, leave for jobs in home (Pollard et al. 1990). However de- and assure the benefits are shared with metropolitan locations. The new econ- fined, rural "leavers" ("migrants" in Pol- all their residents (Reid and Frederick omy has thus contributed to the emi- lard's work) have more advantaged 1990). gration of Rural America's better backgrounds and progress further academically than "stayers" ("nonmigrants"). educated workers, a phenomenon that In light of the education and job dis- Ed. will continue to challenge educators parities in Rural America, increasing and communities in the years ahead. 4. Family variables included socioeco- attention is being paid to finding ways nomic status and family configuration to conserve human resources. To raise Notes (e.g., number of siblings, whether the the standard of living in rural commu- mother worked) while "community social nities, rural youth clearly must qualify 1. This actually understates the rural short- capital" included positive action on school for better jobs through education and fall because it compares those who had bond issues and how well the student was training. But this strategy depends on reached their senior year and does not re- integrated into the community as measured the availability of such jobs. The Presi- flect the higher dropout rates for rural stu- by long-term residence and church participation.

66 7S 5. Interestingly, the difference in the avail- Research Forum of the National Rural McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfi. 1991. ability of colleges and universities located Education Association meeting in Trav- 'The Education Crisis and Rural Stag- in rural counties adjacent and nonadjacent erse City, MI. nation in the 1980s." Education and to metropolitan counties was not particu- Rural Economic Development: Strate- larly great. Hamrick, K.S. Winter 1991-1992. Rural gies for the 1990s, Washington, DC: Conditions and Trcnds. U.S. Depart- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco- ment of Agriculture, Economic Re- nomic Research Service. References search Service. Alsalam, N., L.T. Ogle, G.T. Rogers, and McIntire, W.G., and S.. Marion. March Kaufman, P., and M.M. McMillan. 1991. T.M. Smith. 1992. The Condition of 1989. "Academic Achievement in Dropout Rates in the United States: Education 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. America's Small Schools: Data from 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Department of Education, National Cen- High School and ik.yond." Paper pre- ment of Education, National Center for ter for Education Statistics. sented at the Natioal Rural and Small Education Statistics. School Consortiuo Conference, Fort Anderson, J., D. Hollinger, and J. Conaty. Lichter, D.T., D.K. McLaughlin, and G.T. Lauderdale, FL. 1992. Poverty and Achievement: Re-ex- Cornwell. 1991. "Migration and the amining the Relationship Between Pollard, K. M., and W.P. O'Hare. March Loss of Human Resources in Rural School Poverty and Student Achieve- 1990. "Beyond High School: The Expe- America." Paper prepared for the Popu- ment. Washington, DC: U. S. Depart- rience of Rural and Urban Youth in the lation Issues Research Center, Institute ment of Education, Office of Research. 1980s." Staff Working Paper prepared for Policy Research and Evaluation. for the Population Reference Bureau, Barro. S.M., and A. Kolstad. 1987. Who Pennsylvania State University. Washington, DC. Drops Out of School? Findings from Marion, S.F., W.G. McIntire, and H.G. High School and Beyond. Washington, Pollard, K. M., W.P. O'Haxe, and R. Berg. Walberg. April 1991. 'The Effects of DC: U.S. Department of Education, Na- "Selective Migration of Rural High Per-pupil Expenditures, School Size, tional Center for Education Statistics. School Seniors in the 1980s." Staff and Student Characteristics on Student Working Paper prepared for the Popu- Beaulieu, L.J., G.D. Israel, M.H. Smith. Achievement and Educational Attain- lation Reference Bureau, Washington, 1990. "Community as Social Capital: ment in Rural Schools." Paper presented DC. The Case of Public High School Drop- at the American Educational Research nuts." Paper presented at tilt.: Annual Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Reid, J.N., and M. Frederick. August 1990. Meeting of the Rural Sociological Soci- Rural America: Economic Petform- McCaul, E.J. 1989. "Rural Public School ety. Norfolk, VA. ance, 1989. AIB-609. Washington, Dropouts: Findings from High School DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bickel, R., and G. Papagiannis. 1988. "Post- and Beyond." Research in Rural Edu- Economic Research Service. high School Prospects and District-level cation 6:1. Dropout Rates." Youth and Society 20:2. Schonert, K.A., J.P. Elliott, and D. Bills. McGranahan, D.A. 1988. "Rural Workers 1991. "Rural Iowa Youth: A Descrip- Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt. in the National Economy." Rural Eco- tive Summary of Postsecondary Persist- 1989. "Vocational and Educational As- nomic Development in the 1980s. Rural ence Five Years After High School." pirations of High School Students: A Development Research Report No. 69. Research in Higher Education 32. Problem for Rural America." Research Washington, DC: U.S. Department of in Rural Education 6:2. Agriculture, Economic Research Serv- Sherman, Arloc. 1992. Falling by the Way- ice. side: Children in Rural America. Coladarci, T., and W.G. McIntire, 1988. Washington, DC: The Children's De- "Gender, Urbanicity, and Ability." Re- McGranahan, D.A., J.C. Hession, F.K. fense Fund. search in Rural Education 5:1. Hines, and M.F. Jordan. 1986. Social and Economic Characteristics of the Smith, M. H., L.J. Beaulieu, and G.D. Is- Haller, E.J., and S.J. Virkler. October 1992. Population in Metro and Nonmetro rael. Winter, 1992. "Effects of Human "Another Look at Rural-Urban Differ- Counties, 1970-1980. Washington, Capital and Social Capital on Dropping ences in Students' Educational Aspira- DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Out of High School in the South" Jour- tions." Paper presented at the Rural Economic Research Service. nal of Research in Rural Education 8:1.

67 Es Swaim, P., and R. Teixeira. 1991. "Educa- White, KR. 1982. "The Relation Between World Future Society. 1988. /nto the2Ist tion and Training Policy: Skill Upgrad- Socioeconomic Status and Academic Century: Long Term Trends Affecting ing Options for the Rural Workforce." Achievement."PsychologiialBulletin the United States.Bethesda, MD. Education and Rural Economic Devel- 91:3. opment: Strategies for the 1990s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Serv- ice.

'_t ,0J- -.40 ^ . First grade graduates: Tornillo Independent School District, Tornillo, Texas (pop. 600). Photo by Roz Mexander-Kasparik, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Austin, Texas.

81 68 11.Looking Ahead

Reporting the Many rural schools are ill-equipped to better than urban students on certain meet these challenges. measures of achievement, they do Condition of less well than suburban students. Education in Yet the system of school finance in Aspirations are lower, and they do the states leaves property-poor not continue in higher education at Rural Schools school districts at a disadvantage in the same rate as their nonrural coun- providing adequate support for By the most conservative definition of terparts. schools. High per pupil expendi- rural, some 6.6 million students are Perhaps most alarming for the fu- enrolled in some 22,000 public ele- tures are a consequence of sparse population concentrations and the ture of Rural America is the extent mentary and secondary schools located to which its more educated resi- in rural communities. Size alone high cost of transporting pupils. dents continue to leave their com- nearly 17 percent of America's stu- State measures to achieve fiscal eq- munities. dents attending 28 percent of its uity have, by and large, not been successful. One result is many rural schoolswarrants considerable atten- Rural com- districts have initiated or joined le- Identified successes. don by policymakers to rural issues. munities over the years have shown a gal challenges to state systems of Summarized below are the problems remarkable resilience in the face of education financing. and the achievements of rural schools, difficulties. Now is no exception. as well as samples of missing inforrna- Teachers in rural schools have more The link between the community don, implications for resolving the per- preparations, and rural principals and the school is a defining feature ennial problem of defining rural, and a often have multiple responsibilities. of most rural settlements and can be vision for the future. Yet both receive considerably Less a major source of strength to its compensation by way of salaries Identified problems.Along with citizens and to the quality of educa- and benefits. This is due in part to traditional challenges to education im- tion offered there. Many communi- their relative youth, their somewhat posed by location and demography, ties are exploring new avenues for lower frequency of advanced de- Rural America faced additional this relationship to the mutual bene- grees, and the small size of their stresses during the last decade, diffi- fit of the school and the community. schools. Turnover in small schools culties that have continued into the is particularly high, and it is espe- 1990s. Rural America has made consider- cially difficult to recruit science and able progress in the last several dec- The stability of rural conununities special education teachers to rural ades in increasing the education was severely undermined because areas. levels of its people and improving economic problems in all tradi- the test scores of the students. Rural Facilities are in great need of repair tional sources of rural employment students who do go on to college or replacement, but many districts occurred simultaneously. The re- stay the course as often as nonrural are hampered in their ability to raise sulting unemployment and under- students. employment led to increased the necessary funds. poverty, emigration, and a dramatic The depth and breadth of curricula In the face of the misconception by some that rural education is some- surge in single-parent families. in small secondary schools are generally less than in larger schools, how inferior, learning outcomes This decline in resource capacity have been shown to be related to that is, there are relatively limited and increase in service need oc- economic and social circumstances opportunities for alternative and ad- curred at a time of greater educa- (e.g., parents' education rather than vanced courses. tional demands imposed not only by to community type. Moreover, re- state reforms but also by the emer- While rural students in general do search has documented certain gence of a new economy that called as well as the national average and strengths of small-scale schooling. for different employment skills.

69 82 The existence of a basic curriculum Given this diversity, one must ap- sionals devoting time and energy to it. is not necessarily constrained by proach national data on rural education These omissions reflect the relatively size or location, and many small realistically. Conditions in a given ru- low priority given to rural education schools have curricula as diverse as ral area may be better or worse than information at top policy levels. To those of larger schools. Many national averages suggestwhether spur more interest, the U. S. Depart- schools address the needs of stu- the measure is dropout rates, school ment of Education's Office of Educa- dents desiring advanced courses in building quality, or test scores. For op- tional Research and Improvement innovative ways, including coop- timum practical utility, data need to be (GERI) published a research agenda in eration with other districts, the state, clisaggregated to reflic each rural real- 1990 and has conducted seminars for or regional service centers. Tele- itya task beyond the scope of this rural researchers in 1993 to acquaint communications technology appli- report. them with new NCES data bases. But cations have mushroomed this last more needs to be done at all levels to Gaps In information. decade to provide courses to both The breadth expand an understanding of the com- of this report was possible because of students and teachers in rural areas. plexities of rural education that will in the timing of a number of surveys by turn yield suitable policies. Interest in the needs of rural stu- the National Center for Education Sta- dents and in the problems faced by tistics (NCES) that tapped information rural communities has grown in re- on rural schools, educators, and stu- Next Steps cent years. At the federal and state dent performance. Yet there remains These issuesresolution of the defini- levels and in the private sector, a much undocumented for lack of data. tional problem and research-based variety of programs were estab- Examples follow. school improvement strategiesde- lished, organizations formed, and mand a variety of responses from poli- policies fashioned to address their The impact of programs that assist cymakers and decisionmakers. Some unique needs. rural studentseither by design or activities are underway; for others, op- because they are included among tions still need to be formulated. The definitional Issue.At one eligible recipientsis largely un- time, when the United States was available. Need for this information Toward a typology of rural com- largely an agrarian society, "rural" on the large entitlement programs is munities and schools.A neces- simply meant a farming community, especially great. sary next step in better understanding and those who had attended rural the condition of the nation's rural schools were the vast majority of the What limited material is available schools is to move ahead in the creation population. Indeed, not until 1918 did suggests the ongoing reform move- of a typology of rural comniunities. the urban populatioa exceed that of ment has had a strong effect on rural This does not have to start from scratch rural communities. But with the ur- schools. But no national data exists because important progress has al- banization that took place in this cen- on how states have targeted rural ready been made. tury, a variety of rural communities has areas or designed strategies to ad- emerged. That is the crux of the prob- dress particular circumstances. Nor In 1985, to portray better the new real- lem: there is no longer a single way to has there been adequate research on ity of a diverse Rural America, the U.S. describe "rural." Though definitions how different rural districts have Department of Agriculture (USDA) abound, an adequate definition does responded or lacked the capacity to began developing county classification not exist. What is known with certainty respond to reform mandates. systems. One grouped the 2,443 rural is that Rural America is diverse. What counties according to their principal There is a paucity of information on constitutes rural in terms of geography, sources of income, employment, or how rural youth who do not go to economy, and culture in a Maine both (Bender et al. 1985) (e.g., farm- college cope with the ongoing coastal island has little in common ing, retirement, manufacturing, min- change to the rural economy. with the Mississippi Delta, the high ing, and federal lands) while another plains of Kansas, or the mountains of Research on rural education has not (Butler 1990) documented ranges of Montana. And as the communities dif- attracted a great deal of interest in most population density. Chapter 3 of this fer, so do the schools. academic circles. The research base is report includes the first attempt by a small, with comparatively few profes- researcher to combine those typologies with data on schools. The approach

70 83 needed as a precursor to educational holds considerable potential for further CD-ROM and will be accessible improvements in important parts of the refinement and application for policy through software that will guide the rural population (Reid and Frederick purposes. user; one need not be a statistician to locate and analyze the data. Tnus, at the 1990). Communities thus often have Concurrently, NCES has linked its ba- local, state, regional, or national level, painful choices about where to invest sic school district data file to 1990 Cen- those who need information on rural resourcesdevelopment or education. sus data. This will allow access to a vast school districts will be able to obtain And there remains a fundamental issue resource of demographicinformation and vdth more of it than ever before, about the fairness of an educational that can be analyzed by school district. unprecedented ease. finance system that puts so much bur- In 1992, NCES invited suggestions den on those citizens who can afford it from rural education experts in the 10 Redesigning Rural the least and whose share in the bene- regional educational laboratories for fits is so low. It is, after all, urban and identifying benchmarks to better re- Education suburban areas that are the recipients flect rural districts in this system. In Rural America is being challenged to of Rural America's more educated addition to gradations of low popula- devise new approaches to educating youth, and thus the net beneficiaries tion density, dimensions built into this and preparing its youth for the future. from rural school spending. new rural school districttypology in- A number of elements need to be con- clude adjacency to metropolitan areas sidered. Creating opportunities. Many and isolation of settlement. Signifi- analysts argue rural communities have Dilemmas. Rural communities must cantly, the resulting classification sys- not been well served by the mass-pro- decide whether, and to what extent, tem encompasses rural districtsin duction model of schooling that has for they should expand their educational metropolitan counties as well as in non- so long characterized publiceducation. programs. Without bettereducation, metropolitan ones. Just as education everywhere must their children's economic futures may change in the information age, schools Rather than compa:ing broad commu- be limited; education makes an ac- in modern rural societies must become nity types, a typologywhether at the knowledged critical contribution to in- quite different from those that cur- county level (USDA) or the district di vi dual economic and social rently exist. Pilot programs that have level (NCES)is important for differ- advancement. But from a rural devel- used the community as the focus of entiating among the multiple rural opment perspective, rural schools have study and involved schools in commu- realities, For example, with a classifi- been one of the largest economic drains nity development suggest that as stu- cation system, high school dropout locally as communities tend to tax dents are integrated in a significant rates, college-going rates, or test scores themselves more heavily to support community, could be compared within or across a way in the life of their their schools. their attitudes change. They begin to range of rural community types.By possible place more precisely identifying the loca- For Rural America to be revitalized, see the community as a tions of specified problems, more fo- attracting and keeping enough of the to stay in or return to, rather than as a cused public policy can be crafted at more educated and talented individuals place to depart from as soon as possi- national, state, and local levels. The who have high aspirations for them- ble. This report notes examples of cur- in most isolated schools might well be selves and their communities is essen- ricula that offertraining entrepreneurial skills in a context that targeted for special electronic distance- tial. In the present structure, realizing allows students to create their own em- learning initiatives. Rural communities high personal aspirations usually can experiencing declining populations only be achieved by moving to larger ployment rather than depend on find- could be helped with programs that urban areas. At the same time, although ing an existing joboften somewhere better involve schools in economic de- skilled workers are needed for the jobs else. being created in new industries, some velopment efforts to retard emigration. Certain charges promoted for rural rural workers may have little incentive school redesign are the same suggested Moreover, the technology for such to learn those skills before the jobs in the research literature "3r education analyses will be user friendly under the actually exist. In that important sense, generally. They arc embedded in the NCES system. Information will be on economic development is actually

71 8 4 recommendations of national curricu- communities will take some rethinking over, in an information society, what lum studies such as those of theAmeri- and certain changes in public policy. one does for a living and whereone can Association for the Advancement For instance, the policy concerning of Science's "Project 2061," lives are no longer as tightly connected. Becoming school district organization, whichis a Nation of Readers published by the With access to the information infra- based on the industrial notion thateffi- U.S. Department of Education, structure, there is potential foran array and the ciency and effectivenessare directly national standards proposed in 1992 of job opportunities to developfor by tied to school size and thereforethe the National Council those wishing to live in ruralcommu- on Education solution to the rural school problemis Standards and Testing. But because nities. Finally, some observershold of school consolidation, should berecon- the small scale of rural schools and that concerns for the environment,ac- the sidered. Because it is thecornerstone of attendant lack of bureaucracy, because companied by the search formore sus- the rural community anda critical com- tainable apiculture, could increase members of rural communitiesare the ponent of rural development, many be- opportunities to live and work in the more likely to share common values, lieve the rural school needsto be and because rural schools have nation's countryside. ready nurtured as long as there iqa rural com- access to the surrounding environment munity to serve. The rural school once producedmost for learning, education in a rural setting of America' s workforce. Today,a holds the potential to be at the forefront smaller but a still significant portion of of the drive to redesign Concluding America's the school-age population is enrolledin schools. Observations rural schools. Though the data demon- This report documents how ruralcon- strate overall strength by rural schools But barriers exist. For example,in ditions are sufficiently different in terms of academic terms of programmatic policy, rural from outcomes, many urban ones to warrant being examined of these schools are suffering the schools have been disadvantagedon at ef- independently. It endorses the hy- fects of major economic upheavals and least two major counts. First,few pothetiis that a single set of public poli- social dislocation. In the face of these funded programs in either the publicor cies may not be the bestway to address larger forces, the challenge becomes private sector have specificallytar- geted small, rural schools. Second, adequately the various issues involving how best to safeguard the humanre- education in rural vs. urban settings. sources in rural communities. Strate- even where resources have been avail- g i es are needed to improve the able, access has been limitedbecause While many might be discouraged by potential of local schools to better edu- the expertise and the luxury oftime to some data reported here and by projec- cate their students for the future. Poten- pursue development funds do not exist tions for future change that donot bode tially productive avenues discussedin within the small staffs of ruralschools. well for Rural America,some see hope this report involve strengtheningdie Decisionmakers could helpremove for the future in the characteristics of school's connection with thecomrnu- these barriers with legislationor ad- rural society itself. As the industrial nity, using advanced technologies,and ministrative adjustments. Involvingru- society gives way to an information collaborating among a host of service ral schools in opportunities forschool society, the norms and practicesthat agencies. redesign and in the estzblishmentof are valued are changing. For instance, partnerships with neighboring institu- centralization is giving way to decen- In sum, despite thesevere problems tions of higher education and technical tralization; the integration of service this report has documented, thepoten- assistance providers represents yet an- delivery is being seen asmore effective tial for rural schools to thrive doesex- other way rurai schools could build on than disconnected, specializedservice i s t. With an improvedresearch their strengths to help transform delivery; and uniformityas a value is capacity to better target ruralneeds, American education. Such cooperation being replaced by an increasedrecog- and with the lead of modelrural and pooling of resources could help nition of the strengths inherent indiver- schools that are successfully serving those affected respond better to chang- sity. their students, strategiescan be de- ing educational and social conditions signed to extend educationalopportu- in the countryside. These emergingnorms and practices nities to students everywhere.This are reflective of rural reality and as they report has not offered a blueprint for Reversing the decline of much ofRural increase, could enhance the chances for success. Given the diversity of Rural America and building sustainablerural many communities to survive, More- America and the primacy of localcon-

72 85 Butler, M.A. 1990. Rural-urban Contin- trol, that wluld not be appropriate. But References in presenting a current profile of rum: uwn Codes for Metro and Nonmetro Bender, L.D. (Ed.), B.L Green, T.F. Hady, Counties. Washington DC: U.S. De- education, highlighting successes, and .1.A. Kuehn, M.K. Nelson, LB. Perkin- partment of Agriculture, Economic Re- suggesting directions for improve- son, and P.J. Ross. 1985. The Diverse search Service. rnent, this volume may spark greater Social and Economic Structure of Non- interest in Rural America and serve as metropolitan America. Rural Develop- Reid, J.N., and M. Frederick. August 1990. a resource to those who would design m en t Research Report No. 49. Rural America: Economic Petform- programs and strategies to help rural Washington DC: U.S. Department of ance, 1989. AIB-609. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, students successfully enter the 21st Agriculture, Economic Research Serv- Economic Research Service. century. ice.

=7.

Two-room school house built in 1813 and in continuous operation through 1993; Washington Center School (enrollment: 37 students, grades 1-5), Washington, New Hampshire. Photo by Joyce Stern, Washington, D.C.

8 6 73 Elementary grade class at the Hanna School (enrollment: 91 students, grades PK-12), Hanna, Oklahoma Photo by Edward W. (lance, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

87 Appendices

,istiftIllefEiffAitb -"Amis.-AL

Ali

11, MIL Pirst-aid instruction at Seeley Lake Elementary School (enrollment: 186 students, grades K-6), Seeley Lake, Montana. Photo by Tony Kneidek, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL), Portland, Oregon. ' 7

4 ; ,

d 7. fi

Dot Lake School (enrollment: 16 r-tudents, [codes 1-10), Dot Lake, Alaska Gateway School DisLict,Alaska. Photo by Tony Kneidek, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, (NWREL), Portland, Oregon.

8 9 A. Supporting Tables

Table 3-1.Number and percentage of regular public schools, students, and average school enrollment, by NCES locale code: 1991-92 Locale code

Selected indicators Total City Urban Town Rural fringe

Regular public schools Number 79,876 18,420 19,073 20,013 22,370 Percentage 100 23.1 23.9 25.1 28.0

Students (in millions) Number 41.3 12.5 12.0 9.9 6.9 Percentage 100 30.3 29.1 23.9 16.7

Average school 521 683 637 498 310 enrollment SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1991-92.

90 77 Table 3-2.-Percentage distribution of regular public schools and students by school enrollment size and type of school, by rural and urban locale: 1991-92 Type of school

School size Primary Secondary Combined Locale

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Percentage of schools Under 100 1.9 14.6 1.9 21.1 3.6 20.3 100 to 199 5.7 23.5 2.7 24.7 4.2 20.2 200 to 399 30.4 34.1 12.0 27.5 17.6 30.3 400 to 799 53.2 24.9 34.0 19.9 49.3 24.4 800 to 1,199 7.9 2.7 23.4 4.5 20.2 4.2 1,200 or more 0.9 0.1 26.0 2.4 5.0 0.7 Percentage of students Under 100 0.2 2.6 0.1 4.0 0.3 3.0 100 to 199 1.9 11.5 0.5 11.3 1.1 9.7 200 to 399 19.6 32.8 4.0 24.6 8.7 28.5 400 to 799 60.7 44.2 21.9 34.6 4.6.9 42.9 800 to 1,199 14.9 8.2 24.8 13.4 31.1 12.7 1,200 or more 2.7 0.6 48.8 12.1 11.9 3.2 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1991-92.

Table 3-3.-Student teacher ratios by school, type, size, and locale: 1991-92 School type

Locale Primary Secondary

Fewer than More than Fewer than More than 400 students 400 students 400 students 400 students

Rural 17.0 19.2 13.4 17.3 Urban 18.7 19.9 14.4 18.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1991-92.

91 78 Table 3-4.-Number and percentage distribution of rural schools and students, by division and state: 1991-92

Number Number Number Percent Number Percent Schools Students Census of of of nuil rural of rural rural per 100 per division State schools students schools schools students students sq. miles sq. mile

United States 79,876 41,282,415 22,370 28.01 6,890,334 16.69 2.26 11.67 New England 4,435 1,904,516 864 19.48 232,143 12.19 7.06 30.32 Connecticut 933 464,319 48 5.14 16,061 3.46 19.26 95.83 Maine 712 211,479 299 41.99 60,135 28.44 2.31 6.85 Massachusetts 1,701 815,119 176 10.35 845,2.55 10.58 21.70 104.00 New Hampshire 449 177,138 158 35.19 33,538 18.93 5.01 19.75 Rhode Island 306 140,592 14 4.58 6,919 4.92 29.28 134.54 Vermont 334 95,869 169 50.60 29,235 30.49 3.61 10.37

Middle Atlantic 10,617 6,226,393 1,518 14.30 699,509 11.23 9.54 55.97 Delaware 146 95,534 49 33.56 30,548 31.98 7.47 48.87 District of Columbia 162 77,640 0 0.00 0 0.00 265.57 1,272.79 Maryland 1,149 719,976 193 16.80 101,736 14.13 11.75 73.65 New Jersey 2,160 1,086,792 150 6.94 68,209 6.28 29.11 146.49 New York 3,898 2,588,911 524 13.44 244,079 9.43 8.25 54.82 Pennsylvania 3,102 1,657,540 602 19.41 254,937 15.38 6.92 36.98

Midwest 16,196 7,582,309 4,508 27.83 1.418,129 18.70 5.01 23.46 Illinois 3,929 1,814,760 962 24.48 209,203 11.53 7.07 32.64 Indiana 1,815 950,485 461 25.40 187,864 19.77 5.06 26.50 Michigan 3,257 1,576,495 651 19.99 236,212 14.98 5.73 27.75 Minnesota 1,516 670,773 698 46.04 205,657 30.66 1.90 8.42 Ohio 3,684 1.761,353 982 26.66 379,764 21.56 9.00 43.01 Wisconsin 1,995 808,443 754 37.79 199,429 24.67 3.67 14.88

West North Central 7,784 2,278,149 4,369 56.13 802,703 35.23 1.82 5.32 Iowa 1,550 486,752 758 48.90 152,101 31.25 2.77 8.71 Kansas 1.466 441,435 964 65.76 228,254 51.71 1.79 5.39 Missouri 2,067 821,807 836 40.45 215,743 26.25 3.00 11.93 Nebraska 1,432 278,339 861 60.13 93,579 33.62 1.86 3.62 North Dakota 613 120,098 447 72.92 51,932 43.24 0.89 1.74 South Dakota 656 129,718 503 76.68 61,094 47.10 0.86 1.71

South Atlantic 9,407 6.114.218 2,631 27.97 1.248,126 20.41 3.70 24.03 Florida 2,179 1,893,803 312 14.32 217,269 11.47 4.04 35.07 Georgia 1,709 1,170,703 348 20.36 201,628 17.22 2.95 20.21 North Carolina 1,887 1,091,182 647 34.29 310,428 28.45 3.87 22.40 South Carolina 1,022 624,986 295 28.86 131,831 21.09 3.39 20.76 Virginia 1,683 1,014,143 561 33.33 251,660 24.82 4.25 25.61 West Virginia 927 319,401 468 50.49 135,310 42.36 3.85 13.26

East South Cent ad 4,946 2,697,691 1,649 33.34 728,121 26.99 2.77 15.10 Alabama 1,285 723,356 374 29.11 181,170 25.05 2.53 14.25 Kentucky 1.330 644,009 527 39.62 194,318 30.17 3.35 16.21 Misaissippi 865 501,029 370 42.77 192,882 38.50 1.84 10.68 Tennessee 1,466 829,297 378 25.78 159.751 19.26 3.56 20.12

West South Central 10,054 5,225,598 2,986 29.70 854,590 16.35 2.36 12.26 Arkansas 1,096 437,815 481 43.89 128,455 29.34 2.10 8.41 Louisiana 1,357 768,917 329 24.24 139.951 18.20 3.11 17.65 Oklahoma 1.799 584,496 800 44.47 143,223 24.50 2.62 8.51 Texas 5,802 3,434,370 1,376 23.72 442,961 12.90 2.22 13.11

Mountain 5.859 2,675,224 2,147 36.64 420,982 15.74 0.68 3.12 Arizona 1.026 647.629 157 15.30 41,211 6.36 0.90 5.70 Colorado 1,331 587.308 390 29.30 82,687 14.08 1.28 5.66 Idaho 547 222,688 246 44.97 57,662 25.89 0.66 2.69 Montana 897 155,315 645 71.91 54,230 34.92 0.62 1.07 Nevada 349 207,687 128 36.68 46,365 22.32 0.32 1.89 New Mexico 652 306,880 223 34.20 46,628 15.19 0.54 2.53 Utah 651 448,473 173 26.57 72,911 16.26 0.79 5.46 Wyoming 406 99,244 185 45.57 19,288 19.43 0.42 1.02

Pacific 10,578 6.578,317 1,698 16.05 486.031 7.39 1.18 7.35 Alaska 453 113,432 294 64.90 30,294 26.71 0.08 0.20 California 7,077 4,947.223 715 10.10 249,267 5.04 4.54 31.72 Hawaii 233 174,581 43 18.45 27,752 15.90 3.63 27.18 Oregon 1,157 493,764 200 17.29 38,589 7.82 1.21 5.14 Washington 1,658 849,317 446 26.90 140,129 16.50 2.49 12.76

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Edt.;ation, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Daut Public School Universe, 1991-92. 79 92 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Table 3-5.--Number of rural schools and percentage, by enrollment size, by division and state: 1991-92

Number of Enrollment size Census sural I- 100- 200- 400- 800- division State schools 99 199 399 799 1,199 1,200+

United States 22,370 17.94 23.00 31.18 23.33 3.60 0.94 New England 864 22.22 25.81 32.87 15.51 2.66 0.93 Connecticut 48 0.00 25.00 41.67 31.25 2.08 0.00 Maine 299 28.09 31.77 31.10 8.03 0.67 0.33 Masaachusem 176 3.98 6.25 39.20 36.93 9.66 3.98 New Hampshire 158 29.75 24.05 35.44 10.76 0.00 0.00 Rhode Island 14 7.14 7.14 28.57 35.71 21.43 0.00 Vermont 169 31.36 39.05 24.85 4.73 0.00 0.00

Middle At/antic 1,518 2.83 13.18 31.03 42.82 8.04 2.11 Delaware 49 0.00 6.12 18.37 44.90 26.53 4.08 District of Columbia 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maryland 193 2.59 8.29 22.80 51.30 11.92 3.11 New Jersey 150 5.33 19.33 30.67 29.33 13.33 2.00 New York 524 3.05 5.92 35.69 48.28 4.96 2.10 Pennsylvania 602 2.33 20.10 30.73 38.54 6.64 1.66

Midwest 4,508 8.14 24.41 39.22 25.65 2.19 0.41 Illinoia 962 15.45 39.87 35.28 9.08 0.31 0.00 Indiana 461 0.65 15.40 37.96 42.52 3.04 0.43 Michigan 651 8.00 12.31 40.15 36.92 1.85 0.77 Minnesota 698 7.33 29.64 37.60 21.53 2.96 0.94 Ohio 982 2.16 12.85 44.50 35.97 4.01 0.51 Wisconsin 754 11.94 31.17 38.73 16.84 1.33 0.00

West North Central 4,369 34.04 31.44 26.08 7.64 0.53 0.28 Iowa 758 11.21 45.38 39.71 3.56 0.13 0.00 Kansas 964 25.21 28.53 31.02 13.38 1.24 0.62 Missouri 836 15.94 30.92 35.14 16.43 1.09 0.41 Nebraska 861 57.13 26.27 14.13 2.36 0.00 0.12 North Dakota 447 54.81 29.53 14.54 1.12 0.00 0.00 South Dakota 503 57.77 27.29 11.55 2.99 0.20 0.20

South Atlantic 2,631 3.35 11.37 31.63 42.09 9.28 2.28 Florida 312 0.32 3.22 14.15 51.45 24.04 6.43 Georgia 348 0.00 6.03 25.00 47.13 lb.95 4.89 North Carolina 647 1.08 7.88 32.15 49.92 7.73 1.24 South Carolina 295 1.02 11.53 35.93 45.76 4.07 1.69 Virginia 561 4.99 10.34 35.83 39.75 7.49 1.60 West Virginia 468 10.47 26.71 39.74 21.79 1.07 0.21

East South Centn1 1,649 2.73 13.41 33.37 41.44 7.77 1.27 Alabama 374 2.14 9.09 33.69 42.51 11.23 1.34 Kentucky 527 3.61 19.20 38.21 34.60 4.13 0.19 Mississippi 370 0.54 7.03 29.19 48.92 12.16 2.16 Tennessee 378 4.23 15.87 30.42 42.59 5.03 1.85

West South Central 2,986 13.57 30.36 35.25 17.43 2.65 0.74 Arkansas 481 7.69 30.77 45.53 14.76 1.25 0.00 Louisiana 329 0.30 11.89 39.33 43.90 3.66 0.91 Oklahoma 800 29.79 37.92 25.78 6.26 0.25 0.00 TeXAll 1,376 9.38 30.23 36.19 18.53 4.29 1.38

Mountain 2,147 42.49 23.82 20.12 11.61 1.36 0 61 Arizona 157 23.38 22.73 28.57 24.03 1.30 0.00 Colorado 390 29.43 29.69 27.60 12.50 0.52 0.26 Idaho 246 18.37 31.43 33.88 16.33 0.00 0.00 Montana 645 72.87 17.67 7.75 1.55 0.16 0.00 Nevada 128 25.78 17.19 20.31 28.91 3.91 3.91 New Mexico 223 30.49 34.98 18.83 14.35 1.35 0.00 Utah 173 18.50 13.29 30.64 24.28 9.25 4.05 Wyoming 185 60.00 24.86 14.05 1.08 0.00 0.00

Pacific 1,698 28.06 18.36 26.31 22.52 3.37 1.38 Alaska 294 64.97 21.43 9.86 3.40 0.34 0.00 California 715 21.96 14.93 25.62 29.28 6.00 2.20 Hawaii 43 4.65 2.33 25.58 41.86 9.30 16.28 Oregon 200 30.50 28.00 32.50 9.00 0.00 0.00 Washington 446 14.06 18.82 35.60 29.02 2.27 0.23

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data PublicSchool Universe, 1991-92. 80 (13 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Table 3-6.Number and percentage distribution of school districts, by percentage of students attending rural schools: 1991-92 Percentage of students Number of Percentage of attending a districts districts rural school

None 6,503 43.3 1-24 913 6.1 25-49 391 2.6 50-74 249 1.6 75-99 209 1.4

100 6,764 45.0 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Merged file of Common Core of Data Public School Universe and Public Agency Universe, 1991-92.

Table 3-7.Number and percentage distribution of districts, schools, students, and teachers, by rural or urban type of district: 1991-92 Indicator Total Percent Percent number rural urban Districts 15,029 46.4 53.6 Schools 79,876 21.8 78.2 Students 41.3 million 11.6 88.4 Teachers 2.2 million 13.1 86.9 Rural schools 22,370 76.6 23.4 Students attending rural schools 6.9 million 68.5 31.5 Teachers at rural schools 401,972 70.3 29.7 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Merged file of Common Core of Data Public School Universe and Public Agency Universe, 1991-92. Table 3-8.-Number of rural and urban school districts and percentage by enrollment size, by division and state: 1991-92 Rural Urban divisionCensus State districtsofnumberTotal distric:sruralPercent districtsurbanPercent districtsofNumber rural 300underPercent 2,500300Percent to 2,500overPercent districtsofNumber urban 300underPercent 2,500300Percent to 2,500overPercent New England United States 15,029 1,173 35.0446.40 1 64.9653.60 6,973 411 68.3741.37 54.2429.93 4.391.70 8,056 762 10.94 8.92 62.4748.26 28.6140.80 NewMassachusettsMaineConnecticut Hampshire 163326229169 44.7954.591. 8.59 J 55.2191.4145.4186.39 125 732328 61.6428.5761.6056.52 ' 38.3643.4857.1437.60 14.29 0.000.80 298104146 90 12.2213.46 8.722.74 70.0057.7268.2755.48 33.5641.7817.7818.27 VermontRhode Island 1,837 249 37 63.86 8.11 79.7036.1491.89 373159 3 33.3316.6286.16 13.84 0.00 66.6712.33 0.00 9034 14.44 0.00 38.2484.44 61.76 1.11 Middle Atlantic DistrictDelaware of Columbia 16 1 37.5020.30 0.00 100.0062.50 06 0.00 71.0516.67 0.00 83.33 0.00 1,464 10 1 0.005.87 20.0056.83 0.00 100.0080.0037.30 ts.)oo PennsylvaniaNewMaryland JerseyYork 500741555 24 27.1319.2011.8916.67 80.8072.8788.1183.33 201 9666 4 15.4245.45 0.001.04 78.1376.6253.03 0.00 100.0020.83 7.961.52 404540489 20 12.07 0.254.810.00 49.7558.8963.600.00 100.0050.0036.3024.34 Midwest IndianaIllinois 3,334 295942 35.5938.2242.59 64.4161.7857.41 1,420 360105 31.9419.15 2.86 93.3367.7877.39 3.810.283.45 1,914 582190 0.009.977.84 47.3766.4956.01 52.6323.5436.15 WisconsinOhioMinnesotaMichigan 428614440615 54.4436.4865.2334.31 45.5663.5234.7765.69 233224287211 30.3120.38 8.581.79 88.8488.3968.6473.46 6.162.589.821.05 390404195153 19.6111.88 6.670.26 60.0054.8745.1048.27 33.3344.8735.2939.85 West North Central KansasIowa 2,483 304425 69.4174.0281.25 30.5925.9818.75 1,838 247295 25.1025.0853.65 68.8374.9245.05 0.006.071.31 645130 57 32.400.003.51 70.1876.1545.43 23.8522.1726.32 SouthNorthNebraskaMissouri Dakota 272770539173 66.4283.2490.8171.04 28.9333.5816.76 9.19 247547144 58 52.0877.7381.9037.71 47.9222.2760.3417.73 0.000.371.96 223181 2925 24.0077.5813.8110.34 51.7240.0051.3816.14 34.8137.9336.00 6.28 c. ) South Atlantic GeorgiaFlorida 666183 71 29.7329.5114.08 85.9270.2770.49 198 5410 3.700.001.01 70.0066.6770.37 25.9330.0032.32 468129 61 0.000.210.78 24.0313.1114.96 C 0 75.1986.8984.83 Table 3-8.-Number of rural and urban school districts and percentage by enrollment size, by division and state: 1991-92-Continued Rural Urban divisionCensus State districtsofnumberTotal districtsruralPercent districtsurbanPercent districtsofNumber rural 300underPercent 2,500300Percent to 2,500overPercent of urbandistrictsNumber 300underPercent 2,500300Percent to 2,500overPercent WestVirginiaSouthNorth Virginia Carolina 133 5591 40.0039.1028.5725.56 60.0060.9071.4374.44 34225226 0.00 72.7363.4680.7750.00 50.0027.2136.5419.23 33816599 0.00 18.5215.38 3.035.05 96.9794.9581.4884.62 East South Central KentuckyAlabama 598176129 35.2330.2717.05 64.7782.9569.73 181 6222 4.551.611.66 66.1331.8264.09 32.2663.6434.25 417114107 0.880.000.48 42.9828.9735.41 56.1471.0364.03 West South Central TennesseeMississippi 2,018 138155 21.0143.8756.99 43.0178.9956.13 1,150 2968 38.52 0.001.47 59.2279.3166.18 20.6932.35 2.26 868109 87 12.33 0.920.00 47.2431.1939.08 40.4467.8960.92 coi....) TexasOklahomaLouisianaArkansas 1,049 578324 67 54.1564.0162.6513.43 45.8535.9986.5737.35 568370203 9 35.5651.6224.63 0.00 61.0947.8466.6774.38 33.33 3.350.540.99 481208121 58 27.88 8.525.791.72 45.1155.7762.81 1.72 46.3696.5531.4016.35 Mountain ArizonaIdahoColorado 1,241 217113186 63.7260.2240.0965.35 36.2839.7859.9134.65 811112 7287 34.7243.7559.7768.56 65.2853.5739.0830.21 0.002.681.231.15 430130 4174 17.6913.7217.57 0.00 43.9033.7843.8543.26 56.1048.6538.4643.02 UtahNewNevadaMontana Mexico 529 408917 35.0052.8141.1884.88 65.0047.1958.8215.12 449 4714 7 40.4389.9814.29 71.4357.4557.1410.02 28.5714.29 2.130.00 26428010 25.0C 0.000.00 35.7130.0063.7511.54 64.2970.0088.4611.25 Pacific Wyoming 1,679 5550 35.2046.00 54.0064.80 591 23 47.3817.39 49.5878.26 3.054.35 1,088 2713 18.2911.11 36.8651.85 44.8537.04 HawaiiCaliforniaAlaska 1,036 1 26.4576.36 0.00 100.0073.5523.64 274 42 0 46.3538.10 0.00 49.2761.90 0.00 0.004.380.00 762 1 17.45 0.00 36.0946.15 0.00 100.00 46.4653.85 SOURCE:NrYTE: Rural Merged districts file areof Common those where Core 75 of percent Data Public of the Schoolstudents Universe attend a regularand Public public Agency school Universe, in a rural 1991-92. locale. WashingtonOregon 97 296291 57.4336.08 42.5763.92 170105 38.2468.57 58.8230.48 2.940.95 126186 98 27.9611.11 26.9846.24 61.9025.81 Table 3-9.Selected population indicators, by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county type

Percent Percent of Population population Per capita 1990 1990 per square under 18 income Code and characteristics population population mile years old 1988

ibtals 247,051,601 100.00 83 30.42 $16,290

0 Metro central counties, 1 million plus 69,662,368 28.20 981 40.60 $18,245 1 Metro, fringe counties, 1 million plus 43,714,038 17.69 469 27.40 $19,804 2 Metro, 250,000 to 1 million 54,994,615 22.26 248 25.64 $15,983 3 Metro, less than 250,000 22,589,641 9.14 127 25.91 $13,961 4 Nonmetro, 20,000 + urban, and adjacent 10,846,569 4.39 76 25.57 $13,727 5 Nonmetro, 20,000 + urban, and nonadjacent 8,807,724 3.57 36 26.81 $12,575 6 Nonmetro, 2,500 to 20K urban, and adjacent 15,098,923 6.11 36 26.85 $12,216 7 Nomnerro, 2,500 to 20K urban, and nonadjacent 14,962,484 6.06 17 27.09 $12,077 8 Nonmetro, completely rural, and adjacent 2,567,924 1.04 14 26.72 $11,990 9 Nomnetro, completely rural, and nonadjacent 3,807,315 1.54 7 26.60 $11,665

NOTE: Code designation determined by population size, urban concentrations, and adjacency to metropolitan county. Excludes Hawaii, and outlying areas. SOURCE: 1990 Census of Population and Housing. BEA Personal Income, and Economic Research Service county types.

84 Table 3-10.-Number and percentage of schools, rural schools, students, rural students, and density, by metropolitan and nonmeiropoittan county type: 1989-90 number Total Percent of Number of Percent of number Total Percent of Number of Percent of Students per Schools per Code and characteristicsTotals schools 78,624 of schools100.00 total schools22,054rural 100.00schools rural 39,648,981students of 100.00students total 6,565,936students rural 100.00students rural 100 sq.miles 1,339 100 sq.miles 2.66 20 Metro,Metro1 Metro, central250,000 fringe counties, to counties, 1 million 1 million1 million plus plus 15,63514,30311,501 19.8914.6318.19 2,3711,339 410 10.75 6.071.86 10,031,5188,887,4576,657,515 25.3122.4216.79 1,031,540609,890252,617 15.719.293.85 14,131 4,0017,145 12.3420.14 7.04 c.noo 43 Metro,Nonmetro,5 Nonmetro, less than20,000 20,000 250,000 + urban,+ urban, and and adjacent nonadjacent 3,8507,5204,193 4.905.339.5t. 1,6671,3601,471 6.677.566.17 3,805,2021,846,0381,593,265 4.669.604.02 438,361582,114416,105 6.688.876.34 2,1371,292 648 4.222.941.56 6 Nonmetro,87 Nonmetro, 2,500 completely2,500 to 20Kto 20K urban,rural, urban, and and and adjacent adjacent nonadjacent 7.5208,9911,622 11.449.562.06 4,6543,8281,556 17.3621.107.06 2,836,6142,797,178 481,108 7.057.151.21 1,078,3401,010,354459,985 15.3916.42 7.01 269324671 0.911.801.03 SOURCE:NOFE:9 Nonmetro, Code Merged completelydesignation file of rural, determinedCommon and nonadjacentCore by populationof Data Public size, School urban Universe,concentrations, 1989-90 and and adjacency Economic to metropolitanResearch Service county. county Excludes types. Hawaii, Alaska, and outlying areas. 3,489 4.44 3,398 15.41 711,086 1.79 686,630 10.46 133 0.65 1 0 0 101 Table 3-11.-Number and percentage of schools, by selected enrollment sizes, by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county type: 1989-90

Number Percentage

Under 100 Under 200Under 400Under 100Under 200Under 400 Code and characteristics students students students students students students

Totals 4,135 9,400 16,329 18.7507o 42.62% 74.04%

0 Metro, central counties, 1 million plus 28 57 145 6.83 13.90 35.37 1 Metro, fringe counties, 1 million plus 56 231 659 4.18 17.25 49.22 2 Metro, 250,000 to 1 million 142 499 1,287 5.99 21.05 54.28 3 Metro, less than 250,000 172 506 1,109 10.32 30.35 66.53 4 Nonmetro, 20,000 + uiban, and adjacfmt 141 441 957 10.37 32.43 70.37 5 Nonmetro, 20,000 + urban, and nonadjacent 282 643 1,135 19.17 43.71 77.16 6 Nonmetro, 2,500 to 20K urban, ami adjacent 555 1,609 2,955 14.50 42.03 77.19 7 Nonmetro, 2,500 to 20K urban, and nonadjacent 1,289 2,673 3,998 27.70 57.43 85.90 8 Nonmetro, completely rural, and adjacent 268 639 1,145 17.22 41.07 73.59 9 Nonmetro, completely rural, and nonadjacent 1,202 2,102 2,939 35.37 61.86 86.49

NOTE: Code designation determined by population size, urban concentrations, and adjacency to metropolitan county. Excludes Hawaii, Alaska, and outlying areas. SOURCE: Merged file of Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1989-90 and Economic Research Service county types.

fl2 86 Table 3-12.-Selected population and educationstatistics, by nonmetropolitan county policy impact type

Farm Manufacturing Mining Government Persistent Indicators dependent dependent dependent dependent Unclassified poverty

Number of counties 511 54 124 347 519 240 1990 population 4,217,799 18,384,573 2,364,063 9,318,434 13,638,821 3;608,881 Percent of U.S. Population 1.71 7.44 0.96 3.77 5.52 1.46 Percentage change 1980-90 -4.01 2.46 -4.86 8.72 -0.10 0.45 Per capita!come, 1988 $12,817 $12,343 $11,127 $11,838 $12,718 $9,442 Population per square mile 8.3 52.8 12.2 18.3 31.5 25.6

Number of public schools 4,252 7,889 1,448 4,532 7,823 1,739 Percent of U.S. public schools 5.41 10.03 1.84 5.76 9.95 2.21 Number of public schools students 826,792 3,352,250 494,265 1,673,540 2,495,521 706,411 Percent of U.S. students 2.09 8.45 1.25 4.22 6.29 1.78

Number of rural schools 3,334 3,542 809 2,307 4,157 1,213 Percent of rural schools 78.41 44.90 55.87 50.90 53.14 69.75 Number of rural students 508,004 1,206,672 218,824 604,042 945,896 425,546 Percent of rural students 61.44 36.00 44.27 36.09 37.90 60.25

Number of schools Under 100 students 1,400 282 122 544 1,011 133 Under 200 students 2,431 990 353 1,130 2,308 356 Under 400 students 3,157 2,363 649 1,790 3,570 771

Percent of schools , Under 100 students 41.99 7.96 15.08 23.58 24.32 10.96 Under 200 students 72.92 27.9f 43.63 48.98 55.52 29.35 Under 400 students 94.69 66.71 80.22 77.59 85.88 63.56

Total schools per 100 square miles 0.83 2.27 0.75 0.89 1.81 1.23 ibtal studants per 100 square miles 162 963 256 329 576 502

Total student/teacher ratio 14.7 16.9 16.4 16.8 16.3 17.0 Rural student/teacher ratio 13.6 16.7 15.8 15.7 15.2 16.6

NOTE: Excludes Alaska, Hawaii and, outlying areas. SOURCES: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, BEA Personal Income, Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1989-90, and Economic Research Service Social-Economic county types.

87 Table 5-1.Tactical objectives of the 1983 US. Dcmrtment of Education'srural education and rural family education policy for the 1980s

The Departmentwillassisteducatorsand The Department will assist in identifying and administratorsonalllevelsinterestedin developingspecialprogramsavailablefor developing outreach and volunteer programs with handicapped individuals located in rural areas. the active support and interaction of parents, teachers,civicgroups,andthebusiness The Department willprovide personnelto community to improve the delivery of educational coccdinate the consolidation of available research services to rural communities. on shortages and additional needs for analysis by the Secretary's Rural Education Committee. The Department will work to expand the data Research will focus on effective practices and base on the condition of education on rural areas, characteristics of effective rural programs and and will provide the necessary technologies to projects. disseminate information relevant to curriculum, organization, personnel, and support services The Department will include rural institutions in needed for educational institutions serving rural demonstration and pilot projects and will involve communities.Data collection will focus on cross sections of rural communities in educational information relating to regional designations; technology planning. goals of rural education and rural family education; surveys of rural curricula; test score The Department will provide consultative and comparisons;taxbaselstudentratios; technical assistance to rural educational entities as characteristics of effective rural programs and a means to improve the quality of education in institutions; and descriptions of intermediate rural areas.To facilitate conununications, the service agency delivery systems. To disseminate Department will support initiatives such as an informationtoeducationalinstitutionsand annual national forum; a monthly newsletter; and programs serving rural communities, including utilization of extension services and existing rural school districts, the Department will utilize organizations for dissemination of information. State Departments of Education; ERICICRESS; the National Rural Education Association; other The Department will assist rural education in professional and service organizations; national improving the achievement of black students, advisorycouncils;youthorganizations; American Ludian students, children of migrant intermediate units;American Education workers, and other minorities. To this end, the Magazine; and county and local agencies. Department will focus on data concerning graduation from highschool andcollege, The Department, with appropriate control staff, including secondary and postsecondary vocational willcloselymonitorEducationprogram institutions and programs; gains in functional regulations, eligibility and evaluation criteria, literacy, changes in college enrollment, and subregulatorydirectives,andadministrative achievement in adult education. policies to insure equity for all LEAs regardless of size, location, or condition. Monitoring will The Department willassistindividuals and focus on reducing complexity of criteria for familieslivinginruralareaswithfamily funding; reducing complexity of application and educationprogramsandservicesthrough reporting procedures and forms; and reducing vocationalhomeeconomicseducation,an unrealistic requirements in general while insuring established delivery system, as a means of competent and enlightened staff monitoring. improving the quality of rural family education.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Rural Education andRural Family Education Policy for the 00s. Washington, DC: August 1983.

88 Table 5-2.-Percentage of public and private school students receiving puNlicly funded ECIA Chapter 1 services, by selected school characteristics School characteristics: School year 1987-88 schools All Total Elementary Public Secondary Combined Total Elementary Private Secondary Combined Community type Rural/farming Total 10.212.1 11.112.4 16.814.8 4.94.6 11.712.1 5.13.3 4.03.7 (1) 4.3(1) OtherUrbanSuburbanSmall (2)city/town 20.912.4 9.35.9 22.114.1 6.69.9 21.218.513.2 8.9 6.73.34.2(1) 13.712.2 (1) 3.13.91.6(1) 432.73.4(1) (1) 5.6(1) 00 School size Less150-299 thar 150 10.710.2 13.217.7 15.017.5 13.2 5.9 24.513.6 5.43.8 5.71.9 (1) 7.6(1) cs) Minority students 300-499750500-749 or more 11.611.2 8.2 12.412.3 8.7 16.414.413.9 4.04.65.7 11.311.9 9.1 2.5(1) 3.0(1) (1)(1) (1) 50205Less percent percent than -5 or- 19percent 49 more percent percent 20.4 9.06.36.4 21.2 9.47.07.3 26.712.5 9.49.9 10.8 3.93.22.6 18.114.210.2 9.0 9.65.01.8 2.5159.03.1 (1) (1) NOTE: (1) Too few sample cases (fewer than 30) for a relable estimate. (2) Includes military bases and Indian reservations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Centet for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88. 1 0 5 1 0 6 Table 5-3.---Ten largest providers of federal education funding for all levels of education: Fiscal year 1992

FY 92 estimates Special programs Dollars Percent targeted on Agency (in billions) of rural, small total school districts

Total 61.4 100.0

Department of Education 26.6 43.3 yes

Department of Health and Human Services 10.1 16.5 no

Department of Agriculture 7.5 12.3 yes

Departmem of Defense 4.0 6.4 no

Department of Energy 3.3 4.3 no

Department of Labor 2.8 4.5 no

National Science Foundation 2.1 3.4 no

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1.5 2.4 no

Department of Veterans Affairs 1.0 1.7 no

Department of the Interior .7 1.2 yes

All other federal agencies* 1.8 3,0 ,/ves

* Includes Department of Commerce and the Appalachian Regional Commission

NOTE: Percentages based on unrounded numbers.

SOURCE: Hoffman, C. M. 1993. Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and improvement. National Center for Education Statistics, 9.

90 1 0 7 Table 5-4.Sununary of basic strategies and tactics used by the states to enhance rural education: 1990

State strategy/tactics Estimated extent of current state use

Promotion or structural change strategies Mandated reorganization limited Multi-district regional single-purpose schools limited Multi-district comprehensive secondary schools limited

Promotion of service delivery strategies Single-purpose service centers extensive Comprehensive service centers moderate State-operated service centers limited Multi-district sharing whole grades/staff limited Distant learning technologies moderate School-business partnerships extensive State-operated instructional programs moderate

Promotion of revenue enhancement strategies Use of weighted student enrollment factor in state aid extensive State aid based on program unit limited State aid for capital outlay/debt service extensive Regional general tax authority limited Regional categorical tax authority limited

Promotion of public choice theory strategies Interdistrict parental choice lim ited Privatization of public schools limited Privatization of selected functions moderate

Promotion of administrative tactics Rural school coordinating unit in SEA limited SEA task force on rural education limited Education represented on state rural d, velopment group moderate

NOTE: Extent of state use: limited = less than ten of the states moderate = less than one-half the states majority = more than one-half the states extensive = more than three-quarters of the states

SOURCE: Stephens, Robert E., University of Maryland, College Park.

108 91 Table 6-1a.-Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by sex and age: 1987-88

School Sex Age Age range setting

Under 30-39 40-49 50 years Under 40 years Male Female30 years years years or more40 yearsor more

Total 29.5 70.5 13.6 35.5 32.8 18.2 49.0 51.0 (0.22) (0.22) (0.19) (0.30) (0.26) (0.22) (0.28) (0.28)

R ural 30.3 69.7 16.2 39.8 29.3 14.7 56.0 44.0 (0.51) (0.51) (0.42) (0.63) (0.60) (0.38) (0.58) (0.58) Nonrural 29.0 71.0 12.5 34.1 34.1 19.3 46.6 53.4 (0.36) (0.36) (0.22) (0.41) (0.31) (0.28) (0.39) (0.39)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

Table 6-lb.-Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, k years of full- time teaching experience: 1987-88

School More setting None 1-2 3-9 10-20 than 20

Total 0.7 7.3 26.1 44.5 21.4 (0.04) (0.14) (0.20) (0.25) (0.22)

Rural 0.9 8.8 29.5 43.4 17.4 (0.10) (0.36) (0.45) (0.59) (0.41) Nonrural 0.6 6.8 24.9 45.1 22.7 (0.05) (0.16) (0.27) (0.27) (0.28)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

92 I S Table 6-2.-Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by highest earned degree, sex, and level: 198748

Setting, level, No J.D./M.D./ and sex degree A.A. B.A. M.A. Ed. spec. Ph.D

Total 0.2 0.4 52.1 40.1 6.3 0.9 (0.02) (0.03) (0.29) (0.30) (0.14) (0.05) Setting Rural 0.2 0.4 61.7 32.9 4.4 0.4 (0.05) (0.06) (0.64) (0.57) (0.24) (0.07) Nonrural 0.2 0.5 48.9 42.6 6.7 1.0 (0.02) (0.04) (0.35) (0.37) (0.15) (0.07) Level Rural Elementary 0.1 0.0 64.0 31.5 4.2 0.2 (0.03) (0.02) (0.88) (0.86) (0.34) (0.06) Secondary 0.4 0.7 59.4 34.3 4.5 0.7 (0.09) (0.12) (0.76) (0.58) (0.31) (0.12) Nonrura.1 Elementary 0.0 0.0 54.4 39.1 5.9 0.6 (0.01) (0.01) (0.55) (0.56) (0.24) (0.08) Secondary 0.4 0.9 43.2 46.4 7.6 1.5 (0.05) (0.09) (0.53) (0.51) (0.20) (0.11) Sex Rural Male 0.5 1.0 56.6 36.3 4.9 0.7 (0.12) (0.17) (1.02) (0.83) (0.42) (0.15) Female 0.1 0.1 63.9 31.4 4.1 0.3 (0.04) (0.04) (0.74) (0.70) (0.27) (0.08) Nonrural Male 0.6 1.3 39.7 48.3 8.2 1.9 (0.06) (0.13) (0.63) (0.59) (0.30) (0.16) Female 0.1 0.1 52.8 40.2 6.1 0.7 (0.02) (0.02) (0.46) (0.46) (0.19) (0.07)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

1 1 0 93 Table 6-3.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public schools whose districts offered certain benefits in teacher pay packages, by type of benefit: 1987-88

School Medical Dental Life Trans- Other setting insuranceinsurance insurancePension portation Tuition benefits

Total 94.5 65.1 72.0 67.5 9.2 35.7 21.6 (0.28) (0.48) (0.52) (0.51) (0.31) (0.55) (0.43)

Rural 90.6 51.9 62.3 62.7 10.4 37.6 17.3 (0.65) (1.08) (1.11) (0.09) (0.64) (0.87) (0.86) Nonrural 96.6 72.2 77.3 70.1 8.5 34.7 24.0 (0.22) (0.46) (0.62) (0.61) (0.41) (0.64) (0.62)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

Table 6-4.-Percentage of rural and nonrural puulic school teachers who had nonschool employment, by time of year employed outside school: 198748

Time of year employed outside school

School Any School Both school setting nonschool year Summer year and employment only only summer

Total 24.0 5.9 7.6 10.5 (025) (0.15) (0.16) (0.18)

Rural 24.9 5.6 8.8 10.5 (0.46) (0.25) (0.29) (0.33) Nonrural 23.5 6.1 7.1 10.4 (0.33) (0.18) (0.22) (0.24)

NOTE: Standard errors in parenthens.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88. Table 6-5.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public schools whose districts used various criteria for teacher employment, by type of criteria: 1987-88

Graduation Major Pass Pass Pass National State from teacher or minor district state Teachers' School certifi- education in assign- examin- examin- Examin- setting cation program ment field ation ation ation

Total 78.3 67.6 63.7 7.9 40.3 28.2 (0.47) (0.46) (0.60) (0.30) (0.42) (0.37)

Rural 81.1 71.9 68.3 3.0 37.0 26.5 (0.81) (0.85) (1.38) (0.39) (1.08) (0.99) Nonrural 76.8 65.3 61.2 10.6 42.1 29.1 (0.65) (0.61) (0.69) (0.40) (0.45) (0.52)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nationg Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

Table 6-6.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who used various strategies to compensate for unfilled vacancies: 198748

Increased teachers' Reassigned Sc hool CancelledExpanded course other Hired Hired setting courses class size loads teacherssubstitutesitinerants Other

Total 5.0 8.8 6.2 16.1 36. 2 8.5 15.9 (0.21) (0.30) (0.37) (0.46) (0.60) (0.34) (0.51)

Rural 7.0 8.9 7.4 19.0 26.1 8.6 16.9 (0.48) (0.63) (0.65) (0.90) (1.07) (0.63) (1.00 Nonrural 4.2 8.6 5.4 14.8 40.4 8.3 15.4 (0.27) (0.35) (0.40) (0.59) (0.78) (0.47) (0.60)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

95 ! Table 6-7.Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who reported a high level of control over selected areas in their classrooms: 1987-88*

Content, Textbooks, School Teaching topics, skills instructional setting Homework techniques Discipline to be taughtmaterials

Total 86.8 85.3 69.5 58.8 54.1 (0.21) (0.17) (0.26) (0.31) (0.33)

Rural 90.1 88.1 74.1 67.0 64.7 (0.36) (0.43) (0.47) (0.65) (0.57) Nonrural 85.9 84.6 68.3 56.0 50.6 (0.27) (0.28) (0.35) (0.39) (0.43)

*Includes teachers who responded with a 5 or 6 on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 represented "no control" and 6 represented "complete control."

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

96 1 1 3 Table 6-8.Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who reported having a great deal of influence over school policy in various areas, by level: 198748*

Grouping Content students Level of inservice in classes Discipline programs by ability Curriculum

Total 34.8 31.1 28.1 35.0 (0.39) (0.33) (0.35) (0.35)

Rural Elementary 45.7 34.1 36.3 40.6 (1.07) (0.82) (1.01) (0.88) Secondary 28.0 30.6 20.1 40.7 (0.84) (0.88) (0.72) (0.79) Nonrural Elementary 44.9 33.7 35.7 30.5 (0.78) (0.71) (0.62) (0.50) Secondary 23.5 27.7 20.4 35.7 (0.55) (0.59) (0.53) (0.58)

*Includes teachers who responded with a 5 or 6 on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 represented "no influence" and 6 represented "a great deal of influence."

NOTE: Standard etrors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffmg Survey, 1987-88.

97 tl4 Table 6-9.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public school teachers who were highly satisfied* with various aspects of their working conditions, by level: 1987-88

Overall Administrative Collaborative Setting view of support/ Buffering/ norms/teacher and level of working establish enforcementparticipation in Adequacy of conditions common goals of rules decision making resources

Total 30.1 20.5 31.8 7.4 2.1 (0.31) (0.28) (0.30) (0.18) (0.00) School setting Rural 29.0 21.8 33.1 8.8 2.1 (0.62) (0.52) (0.60) (0.34) (0.01) Nonrural 30.7 20.3 31.4 6.9 2.1 (0.41) (0.33) (0.41) (0.21) (0.00) Level Rural Elementary 32.7 29.2 44.2 8.8 2.0 (1.08) (0.78) (0.95) (0.47) (0.01) Secondary 25.3 14.5 22.0 8.9 2.2 (0.68) (0.66) (0.58) (0.49) (0.01) Nonrural Elementary 37.2 27.5 42.1 7.2 2.0 (0.62) (0.58) (0.59) (0.31) (0.01) Secondary 23.8 12.7 20.1 6.6 2.2 (0.44) (0.32) (0.49) (0.29) (0.01)

*Teachers responded to 23 questions concerning satisfaction with aspects of the working conditions in their schools. Through factor analysis these questions were reduced to four factors. A summary index of teachers' overall satisfaction was also computed. Teachers were defined as being "highly satisfied" if their scoreson a factor ranged between 1.0 and 1.5 on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the most satisfaction and 4 the least.

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88. Table 6-10.-Number of rural and nonrural public school principals, bysex and age: 1987-88

School Sex A e setting Under 40-44 45-49 50-54 55 years Total Male Female 40 years years years years or over

Total 77,890 58,585 19,118 14,430 17,755 16,408 14,936 13,891 (295.1) t61.5) (411.5) (364.4) (362.4) (381.2) (329.9) (335.8)

Rural 25,382 21,033 4,286 6,297 6,245 4,959 4,322 3 454 (416.0) (356.3) (256.1) (280.1) (256.2) (260.2) (196.7) (218.1) Nonrural 49,205 35,233 13,868 7,417 10,750 10,771 10,115 9,832 (354.0) (414.6) (322.0) (265.2) (290.9) (306.7) (226.3) (295.0)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses. Details may not addto totals because of rounding or missing values in cells with too few cases.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88

Table 6-11.-Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public schoolprincipals, by sex and age: 1987-88

School Sex Age setting Under 40-44 45-49 50-54 55 years Male Female 40 years years years years or over

Total 75.4 /4.6 18.6 22.9 21.2 19.3 17.9 (0.52) (0.52) (0.46) (0.45) (0.41,.) (0.43) (0.44)

Rural 83.1 16.9 24.9 24.7 19.6 17.1 13.7 (0.89) (0.89) (1.00) (0.96) (0.92) (0.79) (0.83) Nonrural 71.8 28.2 15.2 22.0 22.0 20.7 20.1 (0.64) (0.64) (0.52) (0.60) (0.59) (0.47) (0.57)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics, Schools and Staccing Survey, 1987-88.

tic 99 Table 6-12.Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principas, by race and ethnic origin: 1987-88

Race Ethnic origin School Native Asian/Pacific setting American Islander Black White Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Total 1.1 0.6 8.7 89.7 3.3 96.7 (0.16) (0.08) (0.31) (0.32) (0.19) (0.19)

Rural 1.6 0.3 3.6 94.5 1.7 98.3 (0.37) (0,07) (0.33) (0.41) (0.31) (0.31) Nonrural 0.8 0.7 11.1 87.4 4.0 96.0 (0.10) (0.12) (0.50) (0.50) (0.25) (0.25)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Departaient of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

17 100 Table 6-13.--Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principals, by highest degree earned, level, and sex: 1987-88

Setting, level, Education La/MD./ and sex B.A. or less M.A. specialist Ph.D.

Total 2.5 53.4 35.1 8.9 (0.26) (0.51) (0.49) (0.35) Setting Rural 5.4 53.5 36.1 5.0 (0.62) (1.N) (0.89) (0.52) Nonrural 1.1 53.2 34.9 10.8 (0.20) (0.75) (0.70) (0.44) Level Rural Elementary 6.2 54.1 34.7 5.0 (0.91) (1.37) (1.29) (0.80) Secondary 2.5 52.3 40.3 4.9 (0.44) (1.74) (1.70) (0.78) Combined 7.3 52.4 34.7 5.7 (0.89) (2.42) (2.05) (1.08) Nonrural Elementary 1.1 54.4 34.3 10.2 (0.24) (1.04) (0.97) (0.58) Secondary 0.8 50.3 36.4 12.6 (0.24) (1.02) (0.94) (0.66) Combined 2.3 50.3 35.8 11.6 (1.34) (4.34) \-1.07) (2.18) Sex Rural Male 3.9 55.0 36.2 4.9 (0.41) (1.11) (0.98) (0.54) Female 12.2 46.1 35.9 5.8 (2.57) (2.70) (2.41) (1.57) Nonrural Male 0.8 55.8 33.5 9.9 (0.19) (0.79) (C.82) (0.46) Female 1.8 46.7 38.3 13.3 (0.39) (1.35) (1.31) (0.94)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

101 118 Table 6-14.-Average years of experience of rural and nonrural public school principals,by type of experience and sex: 1987-88

Other Outside Setting and Other elementary/ elemer.tary/ sex Principal administrator Teacner secondary secondary

Total 10.0 2.6 9.8 1.2 1.0 (0.09) (0.04) (0.06) (0.04) (0.03) School setting Rural 9.6 2.1 9.5 0.9 1.1 (0.19) (0.10) (0.14) (0.08) (0.06) Nonrural 10.3 2.9 10.0 1.2 1.0 (0.11) (0.05) (0.07) (0.04) (0.04) Sex Rural Male 10.4 2.2 8.9 0.9 1.1 (0.19) (0.11) (0.12) (0.07) (0.08) Female 5.7 1.5 12.3 1.2 1.1 (0.32) (0.20) (0.45) (0.22) (0.14) Nonrural Male 11.8 2.8 9.1 1.1 1.0 (0.12) (0.06) (0.08) (0.05) (0.04) Female 6.3 2.9 12.4 1.6 0.9 (0.19) (0.09) (0.17) (0.10) (0.06)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

119 102 Table 6-1S.--Average annual salary of rural and uonrural public school principals, by length of work year and sex: 1987-88

Setting and sex All 10-month tl-month 12-month

Total $41,963 $38,726 $41,563 $44,326 (103.0) (235.4) (216.9) (139.5) School setting Rural 36,208 32,978 36,258 38,692 (215.1) (468.8) (259.7) (253.6) Nonrural 44,884 42,250 44,082 46,995 (112.5) (249.6) (282.5) (173.7) Sex Rural Male 36,952 34,032 36,643 39,205 (195.1) (402.3) (284.0) (277.9) Female 32,342 28,772 34,246 35,176 (666.2) (1244.3) (819.6) (868.4) Nonrural Male 45,309 42,808 44,120 47,425 (144.2) 906.4) (301.5) (182.3) Female 43,682 41,140 43,714 45,622 (244.5) (470.9) (520.0) (413.5)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

Table 6-16.-Percentage of rural and noarural public school principals receiving various benefits: 1987-88

School Tuition Medical Dental Life Trans- setting for insur- insur- insur-porta- Housing Meals self ance ance ance tion PensionNone

Total 1.0 1.8 9.4 85.3 60.6 66.6 35.0 58.5 4.9 (0.10)(0.15) (0.33)(0.45)(0.44)(0.54)(0.57) (0.67)(0.29)

Rural 2.7 3.5 9.8 80.5 47.5 54.3 35.9 51.7 7.7 (0.32)(0.39) (0.51)(0.82) (1.21)(1.04) (1.08) (1.39)(0.65) Nonrural 0.2 0.9 9.2 88.0 67.1 73.1 35.1 61.5 3.3 (0.07)(0.12) (0.44)(0.53) (0.46)(0.72) (0.59) (0.74)(0.32)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

103 120 Table 6-17.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who reported that various groups had a great deal of influence on different activities, by level: 1987-88

Setting Curriculum develo ment Teacher hiring Discipline policy and level DistrictPrin-Teach-District Prin-Teach- DistrictPrin-Teach- cipal ers cipal ers eipal ers

Total 54.0 54.5 51.5 52.1 75.1 8.5 62.3 80.6 51.6 (0.47)(0.47)(0.61) (0.65)(0.56) (0.34) (0.61) (0.44)(0.53)

School setting Rural 43.1 63.8 57.6 50.4 78.2 13.2 59.2 84.1 51.9 (1.06)(1.04) (1.19)(1.07) (1.21)(0.42) (0.94) (0.86)(0.98) Nonrural 59.6 49.5 48.7 52.9 73.5 8.9 63.4 78.8 51,9 (0.60)(0.66)(0.73)(0.89) (0.74) (0.44)(0.79) (0.53)(0.61) Level Rural Elementary 45.8 60.2 58.6 52.0 77.5 8.3 59.2 83.7 55.4 (1.27) (1.61)(1.62) (1.50)(1.61) (0.54) (1.21) (1.17) (1.49) Secondary 39.1 70.9 56.8 45.1 81.1 58.5 86.1 45.6 (2.15)(1.81) (1.82)(1.76)(1.60) (0.79) (2.30) (1.36) (1.72) Combined 36.7 67.4 53.2 53.7 75.8 7.6 60.5 81.2 45.8 (2.50)(2.39)(2.33)(1.97)(2.04) (1.44) (2.22) (1.99)(2.12) Nonrural Elementary 61.5 46.7 47.7 55.3 71.7 8.4 63.9 77.5 54.5 (0.74)(0.87) (0.90)(1.13) (0.94) (0.56)(0.94) (0.70)(0.81) Secondary 54.8 56.2 51.7 45.5 79.1 10.0 62.0 82.5 44.4 (1.19)(1.14) (1.13)(0.98) (0.78) (0.73)(1.33) (0.82) (1.07) Combined 51.6 61.9 50.4 54.6 73.7 10.6 64.5 79.7 47.6 (4 .30) (3.19) (3.34) (3.05)(3.72) (2.46) (2.90)(2.54)(3.91)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

104 1 ° 1 Table 6-18.-Percentage of rural and nonrural public school principals who rated selected problems in their schools as "seri as," by level: 1987-88

Level Student Teacher Tardi-Absen-Cut-PhysicalVandal- Preg- AlcoholDrug absen- ness teeism ting conflict ism nancy use use teeism

Total 4.7 7.0 1.3 2.4 0.9 2.0 3.6 1.8 0.8 (0.22)(0,27) (0.10)(0.21)(0.11)(0.15)(0.90) (0.14)(0.11) Rural Elementary 1.3 3.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 (0.46)(0.76) (0.30)(0.24) (0.20)(0.10)(0.18) Secondary 5.9 10.6 2.5 0.6 0.4 6.5 14.9 4.8 0.8 (1.10) (1.21)(0.48) (0.29)(0.23) (1.00) (1.41) (0.76) (0.33) Combined 3.3 7.6 1.0 0.7 3.0 8.8 3.0 0,S (0.62)(1.36) (052) (0.37) (0.91) (1.48)(0.89)(0.46) Nonrural Elementary 3.3 3.6 0.2 3.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 (0.32) (0.36) (0.10)(0.37) (0.16) (0.09)(0.10) (0.09)(0.15) Secondary 12.9 17.9 5.4 1.9 1.1 6.2 10.0 6.1 1.0 (0.60)(0.97)(0.56)(0.35)(0.24) (0.54) (0.87) (0.68) (0.29) Combined 5.5 15.2 3.3 5.9 2.4 6.6 4.4 4.8 6.5 (1.49)(2.79) (1.17)(1.82) (1.16) (1.63)(1.46)(1.04)(1.57)

-Too few cases for a reliable estimate. NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

105 1 22 TablefundedFull 8-1.Classificationstate of major state basic education aid programs, by state: 1986-87 Requires Foundation programs Effort not Requires Percentage equalization Effort not yieldGuaranteed programs tax base/ programsFlat grant HawaiiCalifornia local effortFloridaArkansas IllinoisArizonarequired RhodeNewlocal Yorkeffort Island requiredKansasAlaska ConnecticutColorado DelawareAlabama WashingtonNew Mexico MarylandLouisianaIowaIdahoGeorgia OregonNewMassachusettsMaineIndiana Hampshire Pennsylvania WisconsinSouthNewMichigan Jersey Dakota NorthNebraskaKentucky Carolina NevadaMontanaMissouriMississippiMinnesota Texas NorthTennesseeSouthOklahomaOhio Dakota Carolina WyomingWestVirginiaVermontUtah Virginia Total:Subtotal: 4 22 Foundation 8 2 Percentage 3 6 Guaranteed tax 5 Flat grant SOURCE:Full state funded: Salmon, 4 Richard G., Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1991. programs: 30 equalization: 5 base/yieldprograms: 6 programs: 5 Table 8-2.-Mean and percent variation in per pupil expenditure by county type in order of decreasing variation, by state: 1982

State State Total Nonmetro Nonmetro Metro Metro mean percent mean percent mean percent variation variation variation

Texas 2167.37 22.7 2253.76 24.7 1807.73 14.1 Nebraska 2816.17 21.0 2865.16 21.8 1953.90 8.2 New Mexico 2604.62 19.8 2626.62 20.9 2274.59 2.6 Kansas 2715.53 18.4 2768.73 19.4 2070.42 6.7 Utah 2397.20 18.4 2473.13 20.7 1972.62 3.8 Nevada 2723.46 17.8 2805.41 19.3 2108.80 6.2 Oklahoma 2063.42 16.7 2130.64 17.4 1760.90 13.9 Idaho 1922.15 16.0 1928.07 16.3 1667.73 0 South Dakota 2124.81 15.9 2130.41 16.2 1766.39 0 Colorado 2700.93 15.7 2788.72 17.1 2235.68 8.6 Montana 298128 15.6 3004.91 16.1 2371.10 2.1 Nonh Dakota 2559.92 14.3 2590.29 14.9 2187.99 7.2 Oregon 3156.68 13.9 329129 15.1 2685.54 9.7 Minnesota 2341.95 13.7 260129 14.3 2278.61 11.0 Michigan 2076.03 13.7 2028.96 13.9 2206.53 13.0 Missouri 174534 13.6 1746.06 14.0 1742.55 11.5 Maine 188143 12.8 1936.57 13.4 1674.49 10.5 Wisconsin 2,75.98 12.4 2212.76 13.0 2077.22 10.8 Vi rginia 1926.11 12.3 1885.05 11.0 2000.19 13.7 Wyoming 3558.80 11.8 3579.48 12.4 3103.91 0 Tennessee 1334.73 11.5 1316.86 11.0 1382.17 12.9 Vermont 1987.23 11.4 2021.63 9.8 1780.83 21.2 Cal ifornia 2691.64 11.1 3022.30 17.2 2403.65 5.8 Illinois 204034 10.8 2074.88 10.7 1939.36 11.0 Iowa 2321.46 10.8 233231 10.9 2233.02 9.5 Louisiana 2067.22 10.8 2126.65 10.7 1926.47 11.0 Washington 2428.85 10.7 2473.93 12.9 2314.09 5.0 Pennsylvania 198834 10.7 1949.22 12.6 2029.04 8.8 Georgia 1531.18 10.5 1547.37 10.0 1479.63 12.1 Ohio 1975.72 10.2 1966.33 11.4 1989.28 8.5 Ind iana 1780.63 10.2 1792.89 11.6 1755.30 7.1 New Hampshire 1900.02 10.1 2000.70 11.3 1665.09 7.2 Mississippi 1448.18 9.5 1467.45 93 1244.41 9.7 New York 2806.43 9.5 2749.76 9.0 2855.80 9.9 Massachusetts 2436.91 9.4 3025.28 17.4 2201.56 6.2 Kentucky 1454.22 8.8 1463.37 9.1 1405.56 7.1 South Carolina 1732.42 8.8 1753.25 8.7 1673.39 9.1 Delaware 2075.51 8.1 2149.91 12.2 1926.70 0 Alabama 1479.09 8.1 1513.70 8.3 1391.63 7.5 Ma ryland 2173.33 7.9 2245.86 8.3 2129.81 7.6 Arkansas 1644.04 7.8 1665.38 7.5 1505.38 9.8 West Virginia 2157.69 7.4 2165.74 7.7 2121.46 6.2 Arizona 2047.71 7.3 2085.21 8.4 1822.71 1.0 Florida 1996.92 72 2101.04 8.1 1876.00 6.3 North Carolina 1869.41 7.0 1909.64 7.0 1748.71 6.8 Connecticut 2198.79 6.9 2008.10 7.2 2262.35 6.8 New Jersey 2498.80 6.6 * * 2498.80 6.6 Rhode Island 2270.85 4.8 2435.60 0 2229.67 6.0

* Not applicable NOTE: Percent variation is measured wing coefficient of dispersion from respective (State, Statenonmetro, or State metro) mean expenditure per pupil.The presence of only one county of type metro or konmetro results in 0 variation. Estimates of school enrollment by countywere derived by multiplying the proporjon of the population aged 7-18 years in 1980 in each county by county poptilation in 1982. Estimatesare biased to the extent that there are private school students and that there has been a change in the composition of the population ofto 18 years since 1980. Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the rankings because county boundaries and funding practices distort results. SOURCE: Jansen, Anicca. "Rural Counties Lead Urban in Spending but is that Enough?" Rural Development Perspectives7 (1) October 1990-January 1991. 107 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 125 Table 8-3.Provisions in state funding formulas for additional revenue for rural school districts: 1989-90

No Sparsity/ Small & State factor Small isolated isolated Combination Other

Total 19 10 6 9 2 3

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California

Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia

Hawaii N/A Idaho Illinois X Indiana X Iowa

Kansas Kentucky X Louisiana Maine Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey

New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio

Oklahcana Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisccesin X Wyoming X

SOURCE Vanier" D.A,, Scheel Fkawat et a Glows, Doom co: &Manioc Commission of tbs States: 1990. 108 126 Table 9-1.NAEP reading assessmer t: national andextreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age and year of assessment

Year Age and group 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 9 Nation 208 210 216 211 212 209 Rural 200 204 212 201 214 209 Delta -8 -6 -4 -10 2 0 13 Nation 255 256 259 257 257 257 Rural 247 249 255 255 262 251 Delta -8 -7 -4 -2 5 -6 17 Nation 285 286 286 289 290 290 Rural 277 282 279 283 287 290 Delta -8 4 -7 -6 -3 0 * Negative rural differencet the p < .05 level. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the nationalmean and the rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trendsin Academic Progress, 1991; and special tabulations.

Table 9-2.---NAEP writing assessment:national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by grade year of assessment and

Year Grade and group 1984 1988 1990 4 Nation 179 185 183 Rural 154 185 186 Delta -25 0 3 8 Nation 207 203 197 Rural 203 205 200 Delta -4 2 3 11 Nation 212 214 211 Rural 206 215 211 Delta -6 1 0 NOTE: Delta is the difference between the nationalmean and the rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trendsin Academic Progress, 1991; and special tabulations.

109 127 Table 9-3.---NAEP mathematics assessment; national andextreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age and year of assessment

Year Age andoui 1978 1982 1986 1990 9 Nation 218 219 221 230 Rural 212 211 219 231 Delta -6 *-8 -2 1 270 13 Nation 264 268 269 265 Rural 255 258 270 Delta -9 -10 1 -5 305 17 Nation 301 299 302 Rural 295 293 305 304 Delta -6 -6 3 1 * Negative rural difference at the p < .05 level. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean andthe rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in ',cadmicProgress, 1991; and special tabulations.

Table 9-4.--NAEP science assessment: national and extreme rural meanproficiency levels, by age and year of assessment

Year A e and group 1977 1982 1986 1990 9 Nation 220 221 225 229 Rural 225 212 224 233 Delta 5 -9 -1 4 13 Nation 247 250 252 255 Rural 245 245 258 249 _, Delta -2 6 -6 17 Nation 290 283 289 291 Rural 289 283 296 294 Delta -1 0 7 3 NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean and the rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Academic Progress,1991; and special tabulations.

110 128 Table 9-5.Recent NAEP assessments: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment

Subject History Writing Civics Reading Math Science Grade and group 1988 1990 1988 1990 1990 1990 4 Nation 221 183 214 209 230 229 Rural 220 186 215 209 231 233

Delta -1 3 1 o 1 4 8 Nation 264 197 260 257 270 255 Rural 267 200 269 251 265 249 Delta 3 3 .9 -6 -5 -6 12 Nation 295 211 296 290 305 291 Rural 296 211 299 290 304 294

Delta 1 o 3 0 -1 3 * Positive rural difference at the pc .05 level. The oldest students receiving the writing assessment were in the 11th grade.Students taking the reading, math, and scienee assessments were identified by age rather than grade. Flowever, their ages, 9, 13, and 17, were those usually associated with the sequence of grades noted on this table. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean and the rural mean.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Academic Progress, 1991; The Civics Report Card, 1990; The U.S. History Report Card, 1990; and special tabulations.

Table 9-6.Recent NAEP assessments: disadvantaged urban and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment

Subject Histo Writin Civics Readin Math Science Grade and group 1988 1990 1988 1990 1990 1990 4 Urban disadvantaged 198 159 193 186 214 209 Rural 220 186 215 209 231 233 Delta score 22 27 22 23 17 24 8 Urban disadvantaged 246 189 241 241 253 227 Rural 267 200 269 251 265 249 Delta score 21 11 29 10 12 22 12 Urban disadvantaged 274 196 274 273 285 254 Rural 296 211 299 290 304 294 Delta score 22 15 25 17 19 40 * Positive rural difference at the p< .05 level. The oldest students receiving the writing assessment were in the 1 1 th grade.Students taking the reading, math, and science assessments were identified by age rather than grade. However, their ages, 9, 13, and 17, were those usually associated with the sequence of grades noted on this table. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean and Lie rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Academic Progrev, 1991; The Civics Report Card, 1990; The U.S. History Report Card, 1990; and special tabulations. Table 9-7.Recent NAEP assessments: advantaged urban and extreme rural mean proficiency levels for six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment

Subject History Writing Civics Reading Math Science Grade and group 1988 1990 1988 1990 1990 1990 4 Urban advantaged 236 195 226 227 244 241 Rural 220 186 215 209 231 233 Delta score -16 -9 -11 -18 -13 -8 8 Urban advantaged 276 217 270 270 283 268 Rural 267 200 269 251 265 249 Delta score -9 -17 -1 -19 -18 -19 12 Urban advantaged 308 221 310 300 317 305 Rural 296 211 299 290 304 294 Delta score -12 -10 -11 -10 -13 -11 * Negative rural difference at the p< .05 level. The oldest students receiving the writing assessment were in the llth grade.Students taking the readilig, math and science assessments were identified by age rather than grade. Flowever, their ages, 9, 13, and 17, were those usually associated with the sequence of grades noted on this table. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean and the rural mean. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Academic Progress, 1991; The Civics Report Card, 1990; The U.S. History Report Card, 1990; and special tabulations.

Table 9-8.NELS: 88 eighth-grade test scores in four subject areas, by urbanicity

Subject Group History/ Science Mathematics Readin Government National mean 9.87 15.95 10.31 15.11 Delta Rural +.14 -.43 -.23 -.28 Urban -1.05 -1.73 -.72 -1.02 Suburban +.49 +129 +.58 +.77 * Significant at the p< 0.5 level. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the national mean and the community type. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Tested Achievement of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Eighth Grade Class.

112 I 3 0 Table 9-9.Percentage of 1938 eighth graders with one or more risk factors, by urbanicity

Risk factors Community type None One Two or more Total 54.40 25.67 19.92 Standard Error 0.648 0.366 0.514 Unweighted N 22,651 22,651 22,651 Weighted (1,000s) 2,816 2,816 2,816

Rural 52.13 26.07 21.79 Standard Error 1.078 0.610 0.899 Unweighted N 6,423 6,423 6,423 Weighted (1,000s) 902 902 902

Urban 47.20 26.74 26.06 Standard Error 1.352 0.717 1.084 Unweighted N 6,859 6,859 6,859 Weighted (1,000s) 689 689 689

Suburban 60.13 24.78 15.09 Standard Error 0.953 0.585 0.716 Unweighted N 9,369 9,369 9,369 Wei hted 1,000s 1,224 1,224 1,224 NOTE: Risk factors include single-parent family, low parent education, limited English, low family income, sibling dropout, and more than 3 hours home alone. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Base Year Student Survey.

1 31 113 Table 9-10.---Percentage of 1988 eighth graders with various risk factors, Parent Parents by urbanicity Limited Risk factors Income Has a Home alone Urbanicity Yes single is no Yes h.s. diploma have no no Yes proficiency English no yes less than$15,000 no Yes droppedsibling out who no yes threemore hours than no Tbtal UnweightedStandard error 22,433 0.44121.66 22,433 0.44178.34 22,626 0.42210.23 22,626 0.42289.77 22,409 0.281 2.07 22,409 97.930.281 21,594 0.57421.13 21,5940.57478.87 21,967 0.208 6.39 21,9670.20893.61 22,2190.26913.49 22,219 0.26986.51 Urban Standard error Weighted (1,000s) 28.732,7901.048 2,7901.04871.27 0.83312.082,813 0.83387.922,813 0.4652,785 2.83 0.4652,78597.17 26.862,6891.215 2,68973.141.215 0.4132,735 6.90 0.41393.102,735 0.53914.802,761 2,2761 0.53985.20 a:.1.- Suburban WeightedUnweighted (1,000s) 6,77418.82 681 6,77481.18 681 6,844 8.10688 6,84491.90 688 6,772 1.65679 98.356,772 679 6,50914.47 655 85.536,509 655 6,623 5.61665 94.396,623 665 6,69712.62 671 87.386,697 671 - WeightedUnweightedStandard (1,000s)error 9,2840.5771,213 9,2840.577 1,213 0.6309,3631,224 9,3630.6301,224 9,2710.2621,211 0.2629,2711,211 8,9250.7881,168 8,9250.7881,168 9,0940.3151,191 9,0940.3151,191 9,2060.4291,203 0.4299,2061,2113 Rural UnweightedStandard error 6,3750.66920.16 0.66979.84 0.774 11.72 0.77488.28 0.720 2.06 0.72097.94 0.96625.79 0.96674.71 0.374 7.06 0.37492.94 0.44213.69 0.44286.31 132 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NationalWeighted Center (1,000s) for Education Statistics, National Education 8% 6,375 896 6,419 902 6,419 902 6,366 894 6,366 894 Longitudinal Study6,160 of 1988: Base865 Year Student Survey. 6,160 865 6,250 879 6,250 879 6,316 887 133 6,316 887 Table 9-11a.-Percentage of schools offering levels of mathematics courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Course Graduating class size

(<25) (25-49) (50-99) (100-199) (200-299) (300-399) (>400)

Base: 80.7 100.0 87.8 87.7 90.8 85.8 80.8 Advanced: Atleast 1 +base 72.3 100.0 85.4 87.8 90.8 85.8 80.8 At least 2 + base 59.9 94.0 83.4 87.0 89.3 85.5 80.8 At least 3 + base 34.8 61.0 64.1 80.7 81.5 76.7 76.5

Alternative: At least 1 74.4 95.9 90.8 94.9 96.6 93.4 96.8 At least 2 29.9 47.4 59.5 80.8 93.3 88.9 83.6 At least 3 19.5 2.4 38.3 50.9 78.3 76.7 73.0 At least 4 - - 22.1 28.7 51.2 49.7 43.5

Weighted N 1,541 1,844 2,650 2,611 1,435 821 674 Unweighted N 14 18 52 103 106 84 104

SOURCE: Haller, Emil J. et al. "School Size and Program Comprehensiveness."Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(2), 109-116.

Table 9-11b.-Percentage of schools offering levels of science courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Course Graduating class size

(<25) (25-49) (50-99) (100-199) (200-299) (1/0-399) ( >400)

Base: 56.4 67.2 57.4 69.1 82.4 71.5 77.!' Advanced: At least 1 + base 45.4 67.2 55.6 68.9 80.8 70.6 75.9 At least 2 + base 26.5 38.2 49.8 66.9 76.5 70.6 74.3 At least 3 + base 10.9 34.1 45.3 51.0 68.1 67.0 71.7

Alternative: At least 1 52.4 33.1 61.7 64.7 71.8 71.2 76.4 At least 2 11.0 4.7 26.4 21.9 26.9 39.6 45.0 At least 3 11.0 - 3.7 7.3 6.0 20.9 17.4 At least 4 - - - 2,0 - 2.9 2.8 Weighted N 1,541 1,844 2,650 2,611 1,435 821 674 Unweighted N 14 18 52 103 106 84 104

SOURCE: Haller, Emil J. et al. "School Size and Program Comprehensiveness."Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis12(2), 109-116.

134 115 Table 9-11c.-Percentage of schools offeringlevels of foreign language courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Course Graduating class size (<25) (25-49) (50-99) (100-199) (200-299) (300-399) (>40G;

Base: 36.8 54.0 77.9 93.5 97.0 90.5 96.8 Advanced: At least 1+base 25.9 41.4 71.4 92.3 94.7 90.5 96.0 At least 2+base 9.1 17.7 39.8 79.4 93.2 89.6 96.0 At least 3+base 9.1 - 23.7 59.7 82.0 88.3 94.3 Alternative: At least 1 - - f..0 2.6 11.7 16.4 19.0 At least 2 - - - 0.9 3.4 4.6 5.2 At least 3 - - - - 1.5 2.7 - At least 4 ------

Weighted N 1,541 1,844 2,650 2,611 1,435 821 674 Unweighted N 14 18 52 103 106 84 104

SOURCE: Haller, Emil J. et al. "School Size and Program Comprehensiveness." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(2), 109-116.

Table 9-11d.-Percentage of schools offering different foreign language courses, by graduating class size: 1980

Number of languages Graduating class size offered (<25) (25-49) (50-99) (100-199) (200-299) (300-399) (>400)

0 63.2 46.0 22.1 6.5 3.0 9.5 3.2

1 29.7 48.1 54.8 26.9 2.2 1.6 1.1 2 7.1 5.9 20.2 48.2 31.5 11.1 7.1 3 - - 2.9 12.8 39.4 40.0 35.6 4 - - - 4.8 14.8 36.0 40.1 5 - - - 0.8 4.6 1.0 9.8 6 - - - - 3.0 - 3.1 7 - - - - 1.5 0.2 -

Weighted N 1,541 1,844 2,650 2,611 1,435 821 674 Unweighted N 14 18 52 103 106 84 104

SOURCE: Haller, Emil J. et al. "School Size and Program Comprehensiveness." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(2), 109-116.

116 135 Table 9-12.-NELS:88 eighth-grade test scores in four subject areas, by school size

Subject Group History/ Science Mathematics Reading Government National Mean 9.87 15.95 10.31 15.11 Delta Size < 500 +.39 +.75 +.53 +.71 500 - 999 -.11 -.26 -.21 - .31 . > 1000 -.85 -.48 -.63 * Significant at the p< .05 level. NOTE: Delta is the difference between the mean for a group and the nation. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Tested Achievement of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Eighth Grade Class, 1991.

Table 10-1.--Jobs 1980 nonrural and rural high school seniors reported they expected to have by age 30

Percentage Job Nonrural Rural

Clerical 11.3 11.6 Craftsman 5.9 9.3 Fanner 0.5 3.5 Housewife 1.2 3.4 Laborer 0.7 2.7 Manager/administrator 7.6 5.3 Military 2.5 2.6 Operative 1.9 3.9 Professional (lower) 29.1 24.2 Professional (higher) 15.2 9.0 Proprietor/owner 2.9 3.3 Protective services 1.7 1.7 Sales 1.8 1.8 School teacher 3.5 4.2 Service 3.3 4.1 Technical 9.7 8.1 Not working 1.3 1.5

SOURCE: Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt. 1989. Vocational and Educational Aspirations of High School Students: A Problem for Rural America. Research in Rural Education 6 (2): 11-16.

1171 Table 10-2.Educational expectations of the high school class of 1980, by location

Location

Expectation Urban Suburban Rural

Percent

Less than high school 0.7 0.3 0.8

High school graduate only 14.1 13.7 22.8

Less than 2 years at business 5.8 6.4 10.2 or vocational school

Two years or more at business 11.9 10.3 12.8 or vocational school

Less than 2 years college 3.2 2.8 2.8

Two or more years of college 12.3 12.6 12.6 with associate's degree

Finish college with bachelor's 26.1 27.8 22.6

Master's or equivalent 13.1 14.2 9.0

Ph.D., M.D. or equivalent 12.9 11.8 6.3

SOURCE: Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt 1989. Vocational and Educational Aspirations of High School Students: A Problem fnr Rural America. Research in Rural Education 6 (2): 11-16. Table 10-3.--Lowest acceptable level of education expressed by the high school class of 1980,by location

Location Level Urban Suburban Rural

Percent

Less than high school 1.8 1.1 1.9

High school graduate only 24.1 25.5 37.3

Less than 2 years at business 5.5 5.7 8.8 or vocational school

Two years or more at business 10.0 9.0 10.7 or vocational school

Less than 2 years college 6.4 5.7 5.2

Two or more years of college 18.4 18.3 14.6 with associate's degree

B.S./B.A. degree 22.6 24.9 18.1

Master's degree 7.2 6.1 3.2

Ph.D. degree 4.2 3.7 2.1

SOURCE: Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt. 1989. Vocational and Educational Aspirations of High School Students: A Problem for Rural America. Research in Rural Education 6 (2): 11-16.

1 38 119 Table 10-4.-Postsecondary educational plans of 1980 high school seniors, by SES quartile and location Plans Urban Total* Suburb Rural Urban Suburb Lowest quartile Rural Urban Suburb Second quartile Rural Urban Suburb Third quartile Rural Urban Suburb Highest quartile Rural Total N 1,792 4,470 2846 549 792 863 414 Percentage 1,032 812 423 1,186 634 352 1,397 509 Vocational-tech.No plans 18.116.9 18.115.7 22.123.8 24.624.7 23.433.6 26.938.9 20.518.9 25.221.7 27.725.1 16.113.9 20.711.0 19.913.4 8.03.5 7.74.1 7.78.1 (:)ts.)i-+ Less than 4-year degree 13.8 15.9 15.4 13.6 17.4 14.1 13.9 17.3 18.2 16.0 16.6 17.5 11.0 13.0 11.4 AdvancedBA/BS degree degree 23.527.7 23.826.5 23.515.1 20.316.8 15.1) 9.6 13.7 6.5 29.517.3 21.714.0 11.717.2 22.631.4 21.430.3 33.715.5 42.734.8 41.633.6 34.838.0 SOURCE:'The total sample U.S. Department is slightly largerof Education, than the National sum of the Center quartile for Educationsamples because Statistics, of missingHigh School values and Beyond, 1980-1986. on the SES quartile variable. 1 3 1 4 Table 10-5.-1980 high school program type, by SES quartile and location Type Urban Suburb Total* Rural Urban Suburb Lowest quartile Rural Urban Suburb Second quartile Rural Urban Suburb Third quartile Rutal Urban Suburb Highest quartile Rural Total N 1,804 4,532 2,889 537 792 868 419 1,032 821 426 1,211 642 355 1,428 511 General 33.1 33.5 42.5 34.4 43.2 46.3 Percentage 34.1 37.2 44.7 34.4 33.0 44.8 28.3 25.8 29.5 AcademicVocational 27.839.1 43.523.1 25.032.5 28.037.6 34.022.8 36.117.7 28.337.6 33.929.0 26.828.5 26.938.7 22.744.3 17.437.8 62.4 9.4 61.912.3 61.9 8.6 I-. SOURCE:'The total sample U.S. Department is slightly oflarger Education, than the National sum of theCenter quartile for Education samples because Statistics, of Highmissing School values on the and Beyond, 1980-1986. SES quartile variable. Table 10-6.-Parental expectations of children's post-high school experience as reported by nonrural and rural students

Father Mother

Expectation Nonrural Rural Nonmral Rural

Percent

College 57.9 49.2 72.3 60.0

Full-time job 83 14.1 9.2 14.1

Trade school 6.0 9.5 7.7 11.5

Military 3.1 4.1 2.9 32

They don't care 2.5 3.9 1.6 3.1

I don't know 8.8 9.9 3.8 5.7

Does not apply 13.2 9.3 2.4 2.3

SOURCE: Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt. 1989. Vocational and Educational Aspirations of High School Students: A Problem for Rural America. Research in Rural Educaiion 6 (2): 11-16.

Table 10-7.-Persistence in postsecondary education by members of the high school class of 1980 who had entered college between 1980 and 1984, by location

Rural Suburban Urban

Years in college NumberPercent NumberPercent NumberPercent

1 year or less 511 28.3 778 23.0 323 25.0

2 years 315 17.5 668 19.8 271 20.9

3 years 320 17.8 594 17.6 220 17.0

4 years 656 36.4 1,337 39.6 479 37.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond, 1980-1986.

122 143 Table 10-8.Education aspirations and attainment of rural, suburban, and urban youth: 198046

Aspiration and Rural Rural attainment stayers. leavers' Suburban Urban

Percentage

Total N 966 1,961 4,597 1,848

Aspirations Post-secondary (1980) No college 28 16 16 17 Some college 26 24 21 21 College degree 46 61 63 62

Post-secondary (1986)

No college 2 1 1 1 Some college 28 17 19 20 College degree 7C 82 81 79

Months Attainment Mean months of college (1980-84) All subjects 12.8 18.4 18.6 17 1

Mean months of college (1980-84) Subjects with college 21.6 25.1 24.2 23.5

Percentage Attainment (1986) No college 64 56 59 64 Some college 20 20 19 19 College degree 16 24 23 18

Post-secondary attainment as a function of educational aspirations (1980) More college 5 3 3 2 Less college 49 54 56 60

"Stayers'. were 1980 raral seniors who were still living in rural areas in 1986, whereas "leavers"were those 1980 rural seniors who were not living in rural communities in 1986.

SOURCE: McIntire, W.G., D.A. Mirochnik, P.A. Pratt, and R.A. Cobb. 1992. Choosing to Stayor Leave: A Continuing Dilemma for Rural Youth. Presented at the Creating the Quality School Conference, Norman, OK.

144 123 Table 10-9.-Percentage of adults' who have completed race,4 or more and community years of high type school, by year, Table 10-10.-Percentage of adults' who have completed fewerby year, than race,5 years and of community elementary typeschool, Y.:ar Race Nonmetro Community type Metro Year Race Nonmetro Community type Metro 1970 WhiteHispanicBlack 48.718.426.5 34.557.933.2 1970 WhiteBlackHispanic 26.726.2 5.2 18.211.0 3.9 1977 WhiteHispanic'Black 60.731.136.0 45.570.343.1 1977 WhiteHispanic'Black 26.118.7 3.7 16.2 2.77.1 1987 WhiteHispanicBlack 48.670.742.9 66.578.951.5 1987 WhiteHispanicBlack 15.010.3 2.2 2.08.53.9 1991 HispanicBlack 49.346.5 70.251.7 1991 HispanicBlack 14.8 8.2 12.3 4.0 DataPersons are 25 for years 1979. and older. White 73.9 81.7 DataPersons are 25for years 1979. and older. White 1.9 2.0 1 4 r SeriesSOURCE: P-20, U.S. No. Bureau 356; Series of the P-23, Census. No. Current 75; Series Population P-20, No. 428. Reports. SeriesSOURCE: P-20, U.S. No. Bureau 356; Series of the P-23, Census. No. Current 75; Series Population P-20, No. Reports. 428. 1 4 f; Te..) le 10-11.-Status dropout rate ages 16-24, by region and metropolitan status: selected years, October 1975-October 1990

Region and status October

1975 1980 1985 1989 1990

Percentage

Total 13.9 14.1 12.6 12.6 12.1 (0.26) (0.26) (0.27) (0.31) (0.30) Region Northeast 11.3 10.4 9.9 9.3 8.7 (0.51) (0.49) (0.53) (0.60) (0.59) Midwest 10.9 11.5 9.8 9.0 9.1 (0.45) (0.45) (0.48) (0.53) (0.54) South 18.9 18.2 15.2 15.1 14.5 (0.53) (0.50) (0.51) (0.57) (0.56) West 13.0 14.9 14.6 16.2 14.7 (0.61) (0.61) (0.66) (0.76) (0.72) Metropolitan status Central city 15.7 16.9 15.3 15.4 15.5 (0.50) (0.52) (0.56) (0.59) (0.59) Suburban 10.2 11.1 10.0 10.7 9.9 (0.37) (0.37) (0.38) (0.42) (0.41) Nonmetropolitan 16.8 15.3 13.6 12.6 11.7 (0.51) (0.48) (0.51) (0.67) (0.65)

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "School Enrollment-Social and Economic Characteristics of Students," October (various years), Current Population Reports, Series P-20, and unpublished tabulations.

I 4 125 Table 10-12.-Educational attainment of 25-44-year-olds, by county type: selected years

Item 1971 1975 1979 1983 19R7

Completed high school Percentage

Metro 73.7 79.6 83.2 85.7 87.1 Nonmetro 65.6 70.7 77.8 80.8 82.7

Percentage points

Nonmetro gap 8.1 8.9 5.4 4.9 4.4

Completed 1 or more years of college Percentage

Metro 31.9 38.9 44.2 47.9 49.1 Nonmetro 21.2 25.9 34.3 35.3 34.2

Percentage points

Nonmetro gap 10.7 110 9.9 12.6 14.9

Completed 4 or more years of college

Percentage

Metro 17.0 21.4 24.0 26.8 27.5 Nonmetro 10.8 13.8 17.5 18.0 16.2

Percentage points

Nonmetro gap 6.2 6.6 6.5 8.8 11.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, various issues.

126 1 4 s Table 10-13.-Share of counties with one or more colleges and universities:1986

Type of school Total Metro Nonmetro

Total Adjacent Non-adjace..

Percentage Public University 2.2 7.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 4-year college 13.1 33.7 6.9 6.6 7.1 Any 4-year college or university 15.0 40.0 7.5 7.1 7.7 2-year college 23.5 50.7 15.3 17.2 14.2 Any public college or university 31.4 64.5 21.5 22.3 20.9

Private University 1.0 4.1 0 .1 0 4-year college 17.8 47.2 9.0 13.0 6.4 Any 4-year college or university 17.9 47.5 9.0 13.0 6.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of HealthProfessionals, Area Resources File: 1988. Table 10-14.Educational attainment by rural youth inthe high school class of 1980, by census division: 1986

License or BS/BA or Census High school 2-3 year advanced division diploma' vocational degree "

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

New England 119 48.1 55 22.0 74 29.9

Mid-Atlantic 189 63.3 60 20.2 49 16.5

East North Central 271 60.3 85 18.9 94 20.8

West North Central 249 52.6 117 24.8 107 22.6

South Atlantic 324 63.4 91 17.9 96 18.7

East South Central 176 72.6 33 13.5 34 13.9

West South Central 222 67.5 65 19.9 42 12.7

Mountain 151 74.5 37 18.1 15 7.4 Pacific 105 60.6 43 24.9 25 14.5

Includes th,e students who did not complete high school(approximately 0.2%). This category includes those students withan advanced degree (approximately 0.5%).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond, 1980-1986.

28 150 B. Statistical Data Sources and Methodology

Nonmetro areas.These are counties Sources and Chapter 2 outside metro area boundaries. Comparability of Data Throughout this chapter, "rural" and Employment and "nonmetro" are used interchangeably The information presented in this report earnings data to refer to people and places outside of was obtained mainly from federal Data on nonmetro employment, unem- MSAs. sources. The data were collected using ployment and earnings come from the many research methods, including sur- monthly Current Population Survey Chapter 3 veys of a universe (such as school dis- (CPS), conducted by the Bureau of the tricts) or of a sr.mple, compilations of Census for the U.S. Department of La- Common Core of Data administrative records, and statistical bor. It provides detailed information on projections. Users of this report should The National Center for Education Sta- the labor force, employment, unem- tistics (NCES) uses the Common Core take particular care when comparing ployment, and demographic charac- data from different sources. Differ- of Data (CCD) survey to acquire and teristics of the metro and nonmetro maintain statistical data on the 50 ences in procedures, timing, phrasing population. CPS derives estimates of questions, interviewer training, and states, the District of Columbia, and the based on a national sample of about outlying areas from the universe of so forth mean that the results from the 58,000 households that are repre- different sources may not be strictly state-level education agencies. Infor- sentative of the U.S. civilian noninsti- mation about staff and students is col- comparable. Following are general de- tutional population 16 years of age and scriptions of the information sources lected annually at the school, local over. Labor force information is based education agency (LEA) or school dis- and data collection methods, grouped on respondents' activity during 1 week by sponsoring organization. trict), and state levels. Information each month. The labor force participa- about revenues and expenditures is tion rate describes civilian labor as a also collected at the state level. Accuracy of Data percentage of the civilian noninstitu- The accuracy of any statistic is deter- tional population age 16 and older. Data are collected for a particular mined by the joint effects of sampling school year (July 1June 30) via survey Metro areas.Metropolitan Statistical and nonsampling errors. Esdmates instruments sent to the states by Octo- Areas (MSAs), as defined by the Office based on a sample will differ somewhat ber 15 of the subsequent school year. of Management and Budget, include from the figures that would have been States have 2 years to modify the data core counties containing a city of obtained if a complete census had been originally submitted. 50.000 or more people and a total area taken using the same survey instru- population of at least 100,000. Addi- Since the CCD is a universe survey, ments, instructions, and procedures. In tional contiguous counties are included CCD information presented in this re- addition to such sampling errors, all in the MSA if they are economically port is not subject to sampling errors. surveys, universe and sample, are sub- and socially integrated with the core However, nonsampling errors could ject to design, reporting, and processing county. Metro areas are divided into come from two sourcesnonreturn errors and errors due to nonresponse. central cities and areas outside central and inaccurate reporting. Almost all of To the extent possible, these nonsam- cities (suburbs). the states return the CCD survey instru- piing errors are kept to a minimum by ments each year, but submissions are methods built into the survey proce- Throughout this chapter "urban" and dures. "metro" have been used interchangeably to refer to people and places within MS As.

129 151 sometimes incomplete or too late for Methodology:The discussion about defined as urban by the Bureau of the publication. rural schools and districts, however, Census. and the types of counties within which Understandably, when 57 education they are situated is dependent upon the Large Town: Town not within an MSA agencies compile and submit data for linldng and analysis of several differ- with a population greater than or equal more than 85,000 public schools and ent data files, no one of which contains to 25,000. about 15,000 local school districts, all the basic descriptors needed. Be- misreporting can occur. Typically, this Small Town: Town not within an MSA cause the analysis is data driven, and results from varying interpretations of with a population less than 25,000 and because locale codes are relatively NCES definitions and differing record- greater than or equal to 2,500 people. new, a review of the data files and how keeping systems. NCES attempts to they were used is provided below. Rural: A place with less than 2,500 minimize these errors by working people or a place having a DP code closely with the Council of Chief State Schools Me.The CCD schools designated rural by the Bureau of the School Officers and its Committee on file contains a record of information for Census. Evaluation and Information Systems. each public elementary and secondary school in the country as reported to Johnson's locale codes use the Bureau The state education agencies report NCES by state education agencies. of the Census definitions of metropoli- data to NCES from data collected and tan-nonmetropolitan counties and ur- edited in their regular reporting cycles. Locale codes.Beginning in ban-rural places. The Johnson codes NCES encourages the agencies to in- 1987-88, one of seven codes was as- can be summarized into four classes: corporate into their own survey sys- signed to each school in the CCD file tems the NCES items they do not Central Cities, Urban Fringes, Towns, based on geographic information from and Rural. The first three are urban already collect so that those items will a set of Bureau of the Census files also be available for the subsequent locales. In terms of metropolitan status, (Frank Johnson. Assigning Type of Lo- Central Cities and Urban Fringes are CCD survey. Over time, this has meant cale Codes to the 1987-88 CCD Pub- conceptually entirely metropolitan, fewer missing data cells in each state's lic School Universe. Technical Report Towns is conceptually entirely nonresponse, reducing the need to impute CS 89-194. Washington, DC: U.S. De- metropolitan, and Rural can be located data. partment of Education, National Cen- within both metropolitan and non- ter for Education Statistics, 1989). The NCES subjects data from the education metropolitan counties. agencies to a comprehensive edit. codes used are as follows: An advantage of the use of the Census Where data are determined to be incon- Large City: Central city of a Metro- definition of rural in the locale codes is sistent, missing, or out of range, NCES politan Statistical Area (MSA) with the contacts the education agencies for that because schools are linked to city having a population greater than or places rather than only counties, it is verification. NCES-prepared state equal to 400,000 or a population den- summary forms are returned to the possible to examine the distribution of sity greater than or equal to 6,000 peo- rural schools across the different types state education agencies for verifica- ple per square mile. of counties tion. States are also given an opportu- which they are situ- ni ty to revise their state-level Mid-Size City: Central city of an MSA, atedincludhig metropolitan areas. aggregates from the previous survey with the city having a population less Another advantage is locale codes are cycle. Questions concerning the CCD than 400,000 and a population density part of a data file that includes basic can be directed to: less than 6,000 people per square mile. information about most U.S. public John Sietsema Urban Fringe of Large City: Place schools. The 1989-90 CCD schools Elementary and Secondary within an MSA of a large city and file included records for 85,029 public schools in the 50 states, District of Co- Education Statistics Division defined as urban by the Bureau of the National Center for Education Census. lumbia, and five outlying areas. To Statistics simplify comparisons, only regular 555 New Jersey Avenue NW Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City: Place public schools (81,029) were included Washington, DC 20208-5651 within an MSA of mid-size city and for this analysis. Also, because locale codes were not calculated for the out-

130 152 codes were not calcolated for the out- Counties file.A file of selected In addition, counts of the number of lying areas, only 3chools from the 50 U.S. county statistics was created for rural schools by enrollment size were states and District of Columbia were this study by merging data elements accumulated and the percentage of the included, resulting in a file of 79,307 from the 1c90 Census of Population district's total enrollment at rural regular public schools. Data elements Public Law 94-171 file (the only na- schools calculated. included identification codes, total tional 1990 Census file available at the number of students, total classroom time), the 1988 Bureau of Economic The resulting file included a record for teacher FTE (full-time equivalent), Analysis personal income series, the each school district that administered school size class based on student en- 1980 Census of Population and Hous- at least one regular public school in rollment, and school grade type (pri- ing, and a file of county types from the 1989-90. If rural school enrollment mary, secondary or other) based on the Economic Research Service, U.S. De- was 75 percent or more of total enroll- enrollment by grade. partment of Agriculture. From the ment, then the district was designated CCD files, selected characteristics of a rural distict in this analysis. This is Local education agency file. regular public schools were summa- a conservative estimate of the number In addition to the schools file, the U.S. rized by county and merged to the of rural districts. Consequently, the Department of Education maintains a counties file. Thus, the distribution of proportion of rural schools, rural stu- CCD public education agency file. The rural schools and rural districts can be dents, and rural teachers in urban dis- 1989-90 agency file includes records summarized by type of U.S. counties tricts may be slightly overstated in the for 16,967 public school districts in the with associated population and income analysis. In any case, the difference is United States. Among the variables in- characteristics. Because, as mentioned relatively slight because most districts cluded on the district file, but not in- above, some schools are not actually are entirely rural or urban, and a cluded on the schools file, is the county located in the same county as their broader breakpoint (say, 50 percent) in which the district is located. For this district office, the county link is not an would affect only 246 (1.6 percent) out analysis, records from the CCD district exact match for all 79,307 schools. of 15,133 districts. file, including county codes and a few Consequently, a number of schools other select variables, were merged to Emerging typologies and ex- with urban locale codes appear in panding rurai datc sources. the schools file. The district identifica- counties that are classified as entirely Stephens provides a useful summary of tion codes on the school file and the rural. However, the magnitude of this efforts to develop more educationally codes on the district file matched ex- problem appears to be only about 4 or actly. This linkage between school and meaningful typologies of rural school 5 percent and is not a serious limitation districts (ER. Stephens. The Changing district files was done to assign each for the purposes of this analysis. regular public school to a U.S. county, Context of Education in a Rural Set- based on the county in which its district Districts file.The schools file de- ting. Occasional Paper No. 26. Char- office is located. scribed above contains one record for leston, WV: Appalachia Educational each regular public school in the 1989 Laboratory). Work to further refine In some instances, schools are not lo- 90 universe, including a locale code such typologies is continuing. This cated in the same county as their dis- that indicates if the school is in a rural work is bound to be si mulated by the trict offices. To assess the extent of area. Unlike the schools file, the CCD greatly expanded levet of detail about possible incorrect assignments, agency file does not include locale in- rural areas that is part of the 1990 Cen- schools were also matched to U.S. formation. Therefore, for this study the sus of Population and Housing. The countis based upon the ZIP code of schools file was summarized by dis- 1990 Census will be available for very the school's mailing address using a trict identifier carrying forward counts small levels on geography (blocks) U.S. Postal Service file. A comparison of the total number of schools, the total even in rural areas. In addition, 1990 of the county assigned to a school re- number of students enrolled, the total Census products include files that will cord based on ZIP code and the county number of classroom teacher FIE, the make computerized mapping and spa- assigned based on the school's district number of rural schools, the number of tial analysis of small areas such as showed less than a 4 percent difference students attending rural schools, and school districts commonplace. Indeed, nationally. the number of classroom teacher FTE. a cooperative federal and state project

131 153 to digitally map the boundaries of all bined) and 13 affiliation groups. tional estimate for public school prin- U.S. school districts will be accessible Within each stratum, the schools were cipals is underestimated because of on CD-ROM shortly. Thus the next sorted by urbanicity, ZIP code, highest missing schools. few years should yield a much clearer grade in the school, and the enrollment. picture of the conditions of schooling For each stratum within each state, For more information about this sur- in Rural America. sample schools were selected by sys- vey, contact: (Prepared by William L. Elder, tematic sampling with probability pro- University of Missouri) Dan Kasprzyk portional to the square root of the Elementary and Secondary number of teachers within a school. Chapter 6 Education Statistics Division The second step was to include an area- National Center for Education frame sample, contained in 75 Primary Statistics Schools and Staffing Sampling Units (PSU), each PSU con- Survey 555 New Jersey Avenue NW sisting of a county or group of counties. Washington, DC 20208-5651 The Schools and Staffing Survey Within each PSU, an attempt was made (SASS) data were collected through a to find all eligible private schools. A Methodology:For this chapter, the 5ample survey of school districts, telephone search was made, using such base year SASS (1987-88 academic schools, school administrators, and sources as yellow pages, religious in- year) was used. The data from the fol- teachers. 'The surveys of schools and stitutions, local education agencies, lowing four SASS surveys were em- school principals were based on the chambers of commerce, local govern- pl o ye d: Public School Teachers 9,317 public and 3,513 private schools ment offices, commercial milk compa- Questionnaire; School Administrator in the school samples. In addition, nies, and real estate offices. The PSUs Questionnaire; Public School Ques- 56,242 public school teachers and were stratified by Census geographic tionnaire; and Teacher Demand and 11,529 private schc,o1 teachers partici- region, MSA status, and private school Shortage Questionnaire for Public pated in the teacher survey. enrollment. These PSUs were selected School Districts. from the universe of 2,497 PSUs with The public school sample was selected probability proportional to the square Threspondents were classified for from the Quality Education Data root of the PSU population. All schools purposes of analysis as rural or non- (QED) file of public schools. All pub- not on the QED file or the lists from the rural according to an item on the Public lic schools in the file were stratified by private school associations were eligi- School Questionnaire filled out by the state and by three grade levels (elemen- ble to be selected for the area-frame principal. Respondents could select tary, secondary, and combined). sample. Schools in the area frame that among the following community types Within each stratum, the schools were could be contacted were sampled with to describe where the school was lo- sorted by urbanicity, ZIP code, highest probability proportional to the square cated: (1) rural or farming community; grade in the school, and the enrollment. root of the number of teachers. A sys- (2) small city or town of fewer than For each stratum within each state, tematic equal probability sample was 50,000 people that is not a suburb of a sample schools were selected by sys- then drawn from the schools in the area larger city; (3) medium-sized city tematic sampling with probability pro- frame that could not be contacted. (50,000 to 100,000 people); (4) suburb portional to the square root of the of a medium-sized city; (5) large city number of teachers within a school. The School Administrator Question- (100,000 to 500,000 people); (6) sub- naire was mailed to the administrator urb of a large city; (7) very large city The private school sample was se- of each sampled school in February (more than 500,000 people); (8) suburb lected primarily from the QED file of 1988. Weighted response rates for the of a very large city; (9) military base or private schools. To improve coverage, School Administrator Questionnaire station; or (10) an Indian reservation. two additional steps were taken. The were 94.4 percent for public school first step was to update the QED file administrators and 79.3 percent for pri- In this chapter, if the respondents indi- with current lists of schools from 17 vate school administrators. There was cated the school was located in "a rural private school associations. All private no explicit imputation for item nonre- or farming community" or "an Indian schools in the file were stratified by sponse and for a small number of reservation," it was classified asrural state and then by three grade levels schools found to be missing from the for purposes of analysis and all other (elementary, secondary, and corn- QED lists of public schools. The na- categories were considerednonrural.

132 154 The items contained in the Public sessed tc, measure possible changes in appropriate mathematical formulas, School Teachers Questionnaire focused educational achievement. these variables capture the dominant on the characteristics of the respondents features of the data. and the conditkms in the schools. Of the The assessment data presented in this approximately 65,000 public school publication were derived from tests de- Sample sizes for the reading profi- teachers sampled, 86.4 percent (56,242) signed and conducted by the Education ciency portion of the 1989-90 NAEP returned the questionnaire. Respon- Commission of the States (1969-1983) study were 4,268 for the 9-year-olds, dents were classified for analyses as and by the Educational Testing Service 4,609 for the 13-year-olds, and 2,689 elementary if the lowest grade was six (1983 to present). Tbree-stage prob- for the 17-year-olds. Response rates and the highest grade eight, and as sec- ability samples have been used. The were 93 percent, 90 percent, and 82 ondary if the school included any grade PSUs have been stratified by region percent, respectively. Response rates eight. and, within region, by state, size of for earlier years (1970-71, 1974-75, community, and, for the two smaller and 1979-30) were generally lower. The School Administrator Question- sizes of community strata, by socio- For example, the lowest response rate naire solicited information from school economic level. The first stage of sam- for the 9-year-olds was 88 percent in principals about the conditions in the pling entails defining and selecting 1974-75, and the lowest response rate schools. The questionnaire was distrib- PSUs. For each age/grade level (3, 7, overall was 70 percent for the 17-year- uted to approximately 9,300 public and 11), the second stage entails enu- olds in 1974-75. school principals and was returned by merating, stratifying, and randomly se- 94.4 percent. lecting schools, public and private, The 1987-88 U.S. history assessment within each PSU selected at the first data in this report are based on a nation- For a complete explanation of the pro- stage. The third stage involves ran- ally representative sample of 3,950 4th cedures and design for SASS, the reader domly selecting students within a graders, 6,462 8th graders, and 5,507 is referred to S. Kaufman, 1991, Tech- school for participation in NAEP. As- 12th graders. The response rates were: nical Report: 1988 Schools and Staff- 93 percent for 4th graders, 88 percent ing Survey Sample Design and sessraent exercises have been administered either to individuals or to small for 8th graders, and 78 percent for 12th Estimation (NCES 91-127). Washing- groups of students by specially trained graders. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- personnel. tion, National Center for Education The 1987-88 U.S. civics assessment Statistics. After NAEP data are scored, they are trend data in this report are base,: on a weighted in accordance with the popu- nationally representatilm sample of Chapter 9 lation structure and adjusted for nonre- 1,938 13-year-olds and 1,786 17-ye.tr- sponse. Analyses include computing olds. The response rates were 90 per- National Assessment of the percentage of students giving vari- cent for the 8th graders and 79 percent Educational ous responses and using Item Re- for the 17-year-olds in 1987-88. Sam- ple sizes for the earlier years were Progress sponse Theory (IRT) technology to estimate levels of achievement for the much larger with 19,952 13year-olds The Nttional Assessment of Educa- nation and various subpopulations. and 17,866 17-year-olds in 1976 and tional Piogress (NAEP) is a cross-sec- IRT technology enables the assess- 7,268 13-year-olds and 6,751 17-year- tional study designed and initially ment of a sample of students in a learn- olds in 1982. The 1987-88 analyses for implemented in 1969. NAEP has gath- ing area or subarea on a single scale 4th, 8th, and 12th graders were based ered information about selected levels even if different students have been on a somewhat different 1987-88 sam- of educational whievement across the administered different exercises. The ple. The sample sizes were 1,974 4th country. NAEP has surveyed the educa- underlying principle is that when a graders, 4,487 8th graders, and 4,275 tional attainments of 9-, 13-, and 17- number of items require similar skills, 12th graders. The response rates were: year-olds and young adults (ages the regularities observed across pat- 93 percent for 4th graders, 88 percent 25-35) 10 learning areas. Different terns of response can often be used to for 8th graders, and 78 percent for 12th learning areas have been assessed peri- characterize respondents and tasks in graders. o&cally, and all areas have been reas- terms of a relatively small number of The 1983-84 NAEP writing assess- variables. When aggregated through ment used a stratified, three-stage sam-

133 1 55 piing design. The first stage was coun- probability sample of more than through high school, postsecondary ties (or aggregates of counties). The 45,000 students per age/grade or a total education, and work and family forma- second stage was schools, and the third of about 146,000 students in nearly tion experiences. Unlike its predeces- stage involved selecting students 2,100 schools. Data were also collected sors, NELS:88 begins with a cohort of within the schools at random. The for the assessed students' principals eighth-grade students. In 1988, some 1983-84 assessment included 24,437 and a sample of their teachers. Repre- 25,000 eigth graders, their parents, students at age 9; 26,228 students at sentative state-level data were pro- their teachers, and their school princi- age 13; and 28,992 students at age 17. duced for mathematics at the pals were surveyed. Student response rates for the 1989-90 eighth-grade level. This was the first NELS:88 is designed to provide trend writing assessment were 93 percent for time NAEP had produced data on a data about critical transitions experi- the 9-year-olds, 90 percent for the 13- state-by-state level. enced by young people as they de- year-olds, and 82 percent for the 17- velop, attend school, and embark on y ear-olds . Sample sizes varied Information from NAEP is subject to their careers. I . will complement and depending on the test items and the nonsampling and sampling error. Two possible sources of nonsampling error strengthen state and local efforts by scoring method used. are nonparticipation and instrumenta- furnishing new information on how The 1989-90 NAEP mathematics and tion. Certain populations have been school policies, teacher practices, and science assessments were adminis- oversampled to assure samples of suf- family involvement affect student edu- tered to 6,235 students age 9; 6,649 ficient size for analysis. Instrumenta- cational outcomes (i.e., academic students age 13; and 4,411 students tion nonsampling error could result achievement, persistence in school, still in school at age 17. The response from failure of the test instruments to and participation in postsecondary rates were 93 percent for the 9-year- measure what is being taught and, in education). For the base year, NELS:88 olds, 90 percent for the 13-year-olds, turn, what is being learned by the stu- consists of a multifaceted study ques- and 82 percent for the 17-year-olds. dents. tionnaire and four cognitive tests, a parent questionnaire, a teacher ques- The 1987-88 geography assessment For further information on NAEP, con- tionnaire, and a school questionnaire. was administered to 3,030 high school tact: students. The response rate for the as- Designed to ensure that private Gary W. Phillips sessment was 77 percent. The National schools, rural schools, and schools Geographic Society provided support Education Assessment Division with high minority membership were National Center for Education for conducting the assessment. adequately represented, sampling was Statistics first conducted at the school level and The literacy assessment data used in 555 New Jersey Avenue NW then at the student level within schools. this report are based on a nationally Washington, DC 20208-5653 Additionally, oversamples of students representative household sample of with Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Is- 21- to 25-year-olds. Blacks and His- National Education land heritage were drawn. The data rep- panics were oversampled to allow Longitudinal Study resented in this report are drawn from samples of sufficient size for reliable of 1988 a nationally representative sample of results. A total of 38,400 households 1,000 schools (800 public schools; and were screened to locate 4,494 potential The National Education Longitudinal 200 private schools, including paro- respondents. (No more than one person Study of 1988 (NELS:88) is the third chial institutions). Within this school was surveyed from any one house- major longitudinal study sponsored by sample, 26,000 eighth-grade students hold.) Of the potential respondents, the National Center for Education Sta- were selected at random. } oilowups to 3,618 young adults participated, result- tistics. The two btudies that preceded this survey are to be conducted every 2 ing in a response rate of 80 percent. NELS:88, the National Longitudinal years. Study of the High School Class of 1972 The 1989-90 NAEP assessed reading, (NLS-72) and High School and Be- Further information about the survey writing, science, and mathematics. yond (HS&B), surveyed high school can be obtained from: Data were collected from a national seniors (and sophomores in HS&B)

134 156 Jeffrey A. Owings percent of the students who left school dents' school and employment expeli- Elementary and Secondary between the base year and first fol- ences, family status, attitudes, and Education Division lowup surveys (dropouts, transfer stu- plans. National Center for Education dents, and early graduates) completed Statistics the fffst followup sophomore question- The sample for the second followup, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW naire. which took place in spring 1984, con- Washington, DC 20208-5651 sisted of about 12,000 members of the As part of the first followup survey, senior cohort and about 15,000 mem- Chapter 10 transcripts were requested in fall 1982 bers of the sophomore cohort. The for an 18,152-member subsample of completion rate for the senior cohort High School and the sophomore cohort. Of the 15,941 was 91 percent, and the completion rate Beyond transcripts actually obtained, 1,969 for the sophomore cohort was 92 per- were excluded because the students cent. High School and Beyond (HS&B) is a had dropped out of school before national longitudinal survey of 1980 graduation, 799 were excluded be- HS&B third followup data collection high school sophomores and seniors. cause they were incomplete, and 1,057 activities were performed in spring of The base-year survey was a probability were excluded because the student 1986. The sophomore and senior co- sample of 1,015 high schools with a graduated before 1982 or the transcript hort samples for this round of data col- target number of 36 sophomores and 36 indicated neither a dropout status nor lection were the same as those used for seniors in each of the schools. A total of graduation. Thus 12,116 transcripts the second followup survey. The com- 58,270 students participated in the were used for the overall curriculum pletion rates for the sophomore and base-year survey. Substitutions were analysis presented in this publication. senior cohort samples were 91 percent made for noncooperating schoolsbut All courses in each transcript were as- and 88 percent, respectively. signed a six-digit code based on A not for students--in those strata where Further information on the HS&B sur- it was possible. Overall, 1,122 schools Classification of Secondary School vey may be obtained from: were selected in the original sample and Courses (developed by Evaluation 811 of these schools participated in the Technologies, Inc. under contract with Aurora D' Amico survey. An additional 204 schools were NCES). Credits earned in each course Postsecondary Education Statistics Di- drawn in a replacement sample. Student were expressed in Carnegie units. (The vision refusals and student absences resulted Carnegie unit is a standard of measure- National Center for Education Statis- in an 82 percent completion rate for the ment that represents one credit for the tics survey. completion of a 1-year course. To re- 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW ceive credit for a course, the student Washington, DC 20208-5652 Several small groups in the population must have received a passing grade were oversampled to allow for special "pass," "D," or higher.) Students who Methodology:As reported in this study of tAin types of schools and transferred from public to private chapter, the variables were either students , nts completed question- schools or from private to public drawn direct'y from the HS&B data set naires and took a battery of cognitive schools between their sophomore and or were composites formed by combin- tests. In addition, a sample of parents of senior years were eliminated from pub- ing multiple HS&B variables. sophomores and seniors (about 3,600 lic/private analyses. for each cohort) was surveyed. Demographic variables. In designing the senior cohort first fol- HS&B used the U.S. Census classifica- HS&B first followup activities took lowup survey, one goal was to reduce tion for Context to determine if stu- place in the spring of 1982. The sample the size of the retained sample, while dents and schools were in rural design of the first followup survey still keeping sufficient numbers of mi- (N=1,849), suburban (N=4,597), or ur- called for the selection of about 30,000 norities to allow important policy ban (N=2,927) environments. Division persons who were sophomores in 1980. analyses. A total of 11,227 (94 percent) was another HS&B demographic vari- The completion rate for sophomores of the 11,995 persons subsampled able derived directly from the U.S. eligible for on-campus survey admini- completed the questionnaire. Informa- Census Bureau's classification of the stration was about 96 percent. About 89 tion was obtained about the respon- nine census divisions in the United

135 157 States as follows: (1) New England if he or she did not graduate from col- (1984) and third (1986) followup sur- (N=575), (2) Mid-Atlantic (N=1,335), lege, and expected educational plans, veys are described below: (3) East-North Central (N=1,75', 4) similar to PSEPLANS above. The West-North Central (N=746)5) standardized score was then trans- Salary.Dropouts and graduates South Atlantic (N=1,301), (6) Fast- formed into a T-score, with a mean of were asked to report their current sala- South Central (N=481), (7) West- 50 and a standard deviation of 10 ries at the time of the third followup South Central (N=772), (8) Mountain (Cronbach's alpha = .88). survey in 1986. All reported wages (N=380), and (9) Pacific (958). were converted to an hourly scale. To The education attainment variable was eliminate obvious misreports and er- Socioeconomic status is an HS&B-cre- drawn from the 1986 survey and re- rors, these hourly wages were com- ated composite based on five compo- flects the highest level of education pared with individual's occupations, nents: (1) father's occupation, (2) achieved by the respondent. Choices and implausible salaries were elimi- father' s education, (3) mother's educa- are similar to those for the PSEPLANS nated. tion (4) family income, and (5) material variable described above. Academic possessions in the household (i.e., per- orientation was a composite computed Periods of unemployment.Re- sonal calculator, 50 or more books, from standardized scores of variables spondents to the second and third fol- place to study, etc.). The socioeco- such as Clme spent on homework, lowup surveys were asked to report nomic composite is the simple average school work habits, satisfaction with their employment status for each of the non-missing components from education, interest in school, and aca- month from June 1982 to July 1986. A the 1980 survey, after each of the five demic habits of peers (Cronbach's al- composite variable was constructed scores has been standardized. pha = .66). that reflects the total number of months unemployment was reported. A high Academic Variables.Stanri- Persistence in postsecondary educa- score on the measure (scale of 0 to 43) ardized achievement is a HSt B-cre- tion was a computed variable based on reflects more periods of unemploy- ated composite that includes a 21-item college attendance patterns assessed on ment. vocabulary test, a 19-item reading test, the 1986 HS&B third followup survey. and a 28-item math test. High school Respondents were asked whether they Number of jobs.Respondents to grades were students' self-reports of Neexe: in a public or private institution, the second and third followup surveys their average grades in high school. enrolled in 2- or 4-year college, attend- also were asked to indicate the number Values ranged from a score of 1 ing postsecondary school as a part-time of jobs they held between June 1982 (mostly D's or less than 60 percent) to or full-time student, or if they were not and March 1986 (up to eight jobs). A 8 (mostly A's or 90-100 percent). currently in school. They were asked to high value on this variable reflects a respond .to this item for eight different greater number c . jobs during this pe- Two variables were used to assess edu- timesfrom October 1980 through riod. cational aspirations. The first was post- February 1984. The composite vari- secondaryeducationalplans able was created by giving 2 points for Work satisfaction.Participants (PSEPLANS)taken from a shrgle full-time attendance, 1 point for part- were asked in the third followup survey 1980 item "As things stand now, how time attendance, and 0 points for not (1986) to rate their satisfaction with 12 far in school do you think you will being enrolled in school. Therefore, a aspects of the most recent joU. These get?" Choices ranged from "less than maximum value of 16 points would be items pertained to the pay and fringe high school graduation" to "Ph.D, computed for a student who had been benefits, importance and challenge, M.D., or other advanced professional enrolled full-time during all eight se- working conditions, opportunity for degree." The second educational aspi- mesters. advancement with the employer, op- rations variable was a composite portunity for advancement with the formed combining the standardized Vocational and Career Vari- job, opportunity to use past training, scores of the following items: whether ables.HS&B data base contains a security and permanence, satisfaction or not the respondent's closest friend substantial amounts of information on with supervisor, opportunity to de- was planning to attend college, the labor market experiences of the velop new skills, job-related respect whether or not the student was plan- 1980 Sophomore cohort. Composite from family and friends, relationship ning to attend college, whether or not measures derived from the second with co-workers, and the job as a the respondent would be disappointed whole. Respondents rated these items

136 158 on a Likert scale of satisfaction (1-4) dance status, number and type of 1946. They are the October Current and the standard scores of these items courses, degree or certificate objective, Population Reports, School Enroll- were summed to form the composite and type of organization offering in- mentSocial and Economic Charac- measure (Cronbach's alpha.89). struction for each member of the teristics of Students. (Prepared by Scott Marion, household. In March of each year, sup- University of Maine, Orono) plemental questions on income are Educational attainment.Data on years of school completed are derived Bureau of the asked. The responses to these questions are combined with answers to from two questions on the CPS instru- Census: Current two questions on educational attainment. Formal reports documenting Population Survey ment: highest grade of school ever at- educational attainment are produced by tended, and whether that grade was the Bureau of the Census using March Current estimates of school enroll- completed. CPS results. The reports are entitled ment, as well as social and economic Educational Attainment in the United characteristics of students, are based The estimation procedure employed States and are available from the Gov- on data collected in the Census Bu- for the monthly CPS data involves in- ernment Printing Office. reau's monthly household survey of flating weighted sample results to in- about 60,000 households. The dependent estimates of characteristics Beginning with the data for March monthly Current Population Survey of the civilian noninstitutional popula- 1980, tabulations have been controlled (CPS) sample consists of 729 areas tion in the United states by age, sex, to the 1980 census. The figures shown comprising 1,973 counties, inde- and race. These independent estimates in the table hold for total or white popu- pendent cities, and minor civil divi- are based on statistics from decennial lation estimates only. The variability in sions throughout the 50 states and the censuses; statistics on births, deaths, estimates for subgroups (region, house- District of Columbia. The sample was immigration, and emigiation; and sta- hold relationships, etc.) can be esti- initially selected from the 1980 census tistics on the population in the armed mated using the tables presented in files and is periodically updated to re- services. Generalized standard error ta- Current Population Reports. flect new housing construction. bles are provided in the Current Popu- Further information is available in the lation Reports. The data are subject to The monthly CPS deals primarily with Current Population Reports, Senes P- nonsampling and sampling errors. labor force data for the civilian nonin- 20, or by contacting: stitutional population (i.e., excluding School enrollment.Each October, Education and Social Stratification military personnel and their families CPS includes supplemental questions Branch living on post and inmates of institu- on the enrollment status of the popula- Population Division tions). In addition, in October of each tion 3 years old and over. Annual re- Bureau of the Census year, supplemental questions are asked ports documenting school ensollment U.S. Department of Commerce about highest grade completed, level of the population have been produced WashinIton, DC 20233 and grade of current enrollment, atten- by the Bureau of the Census since

159

137 Acknowledgments

This document was prepared in the Of- Norman Reid, chapter 2; William L. English and journalism, Weott, Cali- fice of Educational Research and Im- Elder (University of Missouri), chapter for ni a, and editor, The Country provement (OERI) by Joyce D. Stern, 3; Susan R. Raftery (Southeastern Edu- Teacher; David H. Monk, professor of OERI rural education coordinator, in cational Improvement Laboratory, educational administration, College of her capacity as project director and edi- now with Auburn University, Auburn, Agriculture and Life Scjences, Cornell tor. Overall direction was provided by Alabama), chapter 4;Robert University, Ithaca, New York; and David P. Mack, director of the Educa- Stephens, chapter 5; Joyce Stern and Paul G. Theobald, rural historian and tional Networks Division, Programs William A. Matthes (University of assistant professor of education, South for the Improvement of Practice, Iowa), chapter 6; one paper by Mari- Dakota State University, Brookings, within OEM. anne Vaughan and another one by De- South Dakota. borah Jolly and Patricia Deloney, An Editorial Advisory Board com- Southwest Educational Development Many others deserve recognition for posed of rural researchers and others Laboratory (SEDL), chapter 7; Rich- their contributions. Ullik Rouk of the intimately acquainted with rural educa- ard G. Salmon (Virginia Polytechnic Council for Educational Development tion issues guided the project from its and State University, Blacksburg) and and Research (CEDaR), Washington, inception. Members were Toni Haas, Joyce Stern, chapter 8; Wayne Welch DC, helped guide the development of consultant, and former deputy director, (University of Minnesota), chapter 9; background papers funded by CEDaR Mid-continent Regional Educational Scott F. Marion, Denise A. Mirochnik, (those by William Elder, Robert Laboratory (McREL); Michael Mayo, Edward J. Mc Caul, and Walter Mc In- Stephens, Wayne Welch, and Jerry associate director, Regional Labora- tin!. (University of Maine, Orono), Horn). Sharon A. Bobbitt of the Na- tory for Educational Improvement of tional Center for Education Statistics the Northeast and Islands (NE-I); chapter 10; and Paul Nachtigal, chapter 11. A paper on rural school operations (NCES) arranged for the special tabu- Steven Nelson, director, Rural Educa- by Jerry G. Horn ',East Texas State lations from the Schools and Staffing tion Program, Northwest Regional Survey for chapter 6 and Susan P. Choy Education Laboratory (NWREL); University) informed several portions of this report. Material from these pa- of MPR Associates produced them. Charlene Popham Rudolf, past presi- pers was updated as necessary and aug- For chapter 9, analyses of National As- dent, National Rural Education Asso- sessment of Educational Progress data, ciation; J. Norman Reid, director, mented by the editor in the process of final manuscript preparation. The edi- originally designed by Wayne Welch, Strategy Development Staff, Rural De- tor takes full responsibility for any er- were updated by the editor with guid- velopment Administration, U.S. De- rors of fact or interpretation in the final ance by Doug Wright of NCES and partment of Agriculture (USDA); E. report. with statistical functions carried out by Robert Stephens, professor, Depart- Brian Taylor of Pinkerton Associates. ment of Education Policy, Planning, Several individuals with broad knowl- Statistical analyses of the NELS:88 ;And Administration, College of Educa- edge in rural education issues provided data set were conducted by Bruce tion, University of Maryland, College valuable advice as invited external peer Daniels of Pinkerton. Special thanks Park; and Todd Strohmenger, consult- reviewers of the final draft manuscript. go to other NCES stiff for their help at ant and former co-director, ERIC They were Thomas W. Bonnett, senior critical junctures of data preparation, Clearinghouse on Rural Education and staff associate, Council of Governors analysis, or review: Nabeel Alsalam, Small Schools and director, Rural, Policy Advisors, Washington, DC, and Robert Burton, William Fowler, Char- Small Schools Program, Appalachia former member, Vermont House of lene Hoffman, Frank Johnson, Laura Educational Laboratory, Inc.(AEL). Representatives; Edward W. Chance, Lippman, Celeste Loar, Brenda Wade, Commissioned background papers director, Center for the Study of and Jerry West. Small/Rural Schools, University of provided the foundation for specific Oklahoma, Norman; David Dodson, The rural education coordinators at the chapters, The authors and where their executive vice president, MDC, Inc., regional educational laboratories made material was primarily used in whole Chapel Hill, North Carolina; David important content and editing sugges- or in part are: Toni Haas, chapter 1; Leo-Nyquist, school teacher (rural) of tions. They are Jack Sanders, deputy

139 1 60 executive director, AEL, Charleston, and Gary Huang, assistant director, guages Affairs; Walter Steidle, Office West Virginia; Stanley Chow, director, ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa- of Elementary and Secondary Educa- Center for School Improvement and tion and Small Schools. Donna Bron- tion; Thaine McCormick and Larry Policy Support, Far West Laboratory son of NCREL helped type supporting Case, Office of Vocational and Adult for Educational Research and Devel- tables. Education; Kathleen G. Johnson, Of- opment (FWL), San Francisco, Cali- fice of Private Education; William Several individuals were invited to cri- fornia; Paul Nachtigal, director, Rural Wolf, Office of Special Education and tique early drafts of certain chapters Initiative, McREL, Aurora, Colorado; ,Rehabilitative Services; and Maris Vi- and provided valuable counsel. They Joseph D'Arnico, rural program direc- novskis, Office of the Assistant Secre- tor, North Central Regional Educa- were Bruce Miller, rural education spe- tary for Educational Research and tional Laboratory (NCREL), Oak cialist, NWREL; Richard Reeder, sen- Improvement. From the Education Net- Brook, Illinois; Steve Nelson, director, ior economist, Economic Research works Division, OERI, in-depth manu- Rural Education Program, NWREL, Service (ERS), USDA; Anicca Jansen, script reviews were provided by Portland, Oregon; Jim Brough, resi- economist, ERS, USDA; Jacqueline Charles Stalford, as laboratory team Spears, co-director of the Rural Clear- dent scholar, Pacific Regional Educa- leader, and Hunter Moorman, as net- inghouse for Lifelong Education and tional Laboratory (PREL), Honolulu, works development team leader. Typ- Development, Kansas State Univer- Hawaii; Wyllys Teny, rural program ing assistance on tables was provided coordinator, NE-I, Andover, Massa- sity, Manhattan; Janet Poley, director, by Betty Welch, Annie Thompson, and Communication, Information, and chusetts; John Connolly, deputy direc- Melvin Rogers. Paige Johnson format- tor, Research for Better Schools Technology, Extension Service, ted all tables consistently across chap- USDA; and Theodore Coladarci, edi- (RBS), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and ters. Adria White provided critical tor, The Journal of Research in Rural co-director, Rural Education Project, copyediting review. From the OBRI and Robert Bhaerman, co-director, Ru- Education, University of Maine, Publications Unit, Nancy Floyd served ral Education Project; Elliott Wolf, di- Orono. as copyeditor, while Phil Carr designed the publication's format and presenta- rector, Special Programs and Within the U.S. Department of Educa- tion. Donna DiToto typeset the text. Operations, Southeastern Regional Vi- tion, reviews were conducted by Tom sion for Education (SERVE), Greens- Landess, Office of the Secretary; Alan Finally, a special debt of gratitude is boro, North Carolina; and Deborah Ginsburg, Robert Barnes, and Daphne owed Craig Howley, director of the Jolly, vice-president, Services for Hardcastle, Office of Policy and Plan- ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa- School Improvement, SEDL, Austin, ning; Doreen Torgerson and Ronn tion and Small Schools, for the depth of Texas. Other laboratory reviewers Hunt, Office of Intergovernmental and knowledge and the editing skills he were Wendy McCloskey, research Interagency Affairs; Nguyen Ngoc generously and skillfully applied to program manager, SERVE; Michael Bich and Terry Sullivan, Office of Bi- several chapters of this report. Sullivan, research associate, SEDL, lingual Education and Minority Lan-

ED/OERI 92-16

140 161 1,11111-

41114.11ftglal01.44:00'11.:AL

tti

.10011-01E010.11110. _ C*-13 ;"

-L111.'14 '

410°

a...12,v . "WPC

ICrti

BEST COPY AVAILABLE United States Postage and Fees Paid Department of Education U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC 20208-5644 Permit No. G-17

Official Business Fourth Class Special Penalty for Private Use, $300 Special Handling

U.S. Department of Education Programs for the improvement of Practice Office of Educational Research and improvement PIP 94-1108 EEET CPY "VAILLTRE 16,3