ED 371 935

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

RC 019 692

Stern, Joyce D., Ed.The Condition of Education in Rurvl Schools.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC. Programs for the Improvement ofPractice.ISBN-0-16-045034-9; PIP-94-1106Jun 94163p.; Photographs may not reproduce clearly.U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent ofDocuments, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC20402-9328.Information Analyses (070) Statistical Data (110)

Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; Demography; EconomicallyDisadvantaged; Educational Change; *EducationalFinance; *Educational Improvement; *EducationalPolicy; Educational Research; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Public Schools; *Research Needs; *RuralEducation; Rural Schools; *Rural Urban Differences;School Commur / Relationship; School Districts;School Size; School Statistics

IDENTIFIERS National Center for Education Statistics

ABSTRACTThis 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 othersconcerned about issues in rural education. Specifically, the goal isto increase federal policymakers' attention to rural educationproblems, promote improvements in rural schools, and stimulatefurther research on rural education. This report documents how ruralconditions are sufficiently different from urban ones to warrantbeing examined independently, and it endorses the hypothesis that asingle set of public policies may not adequately address educationalissues in rural versus urban settings. National data, mainly fromsurveys by the National Center for Education Statistics, aresynthesized covering the following topics: (1) economic anddemographic context of rural education; (2) location andcharacteristics of rural schools and school d;stricts; (3)

relationship between the rural school and its community; (4) policiesand programs benefiting rural education; (5) profiles of educators inrural 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) educationand work experiences of rural youth; and (10) the future of ruraleducation. The report contains numerous data tables and a sectiondescribing statistical data sources and methodology. (LP)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

:''"*e» lor tor_

TheCondition ofEducation

RSchools

gm'

UJ OVPARTININT Of SINICAllONCAN ol Educed/NO Remerce Weleemerdwd

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ENO

Pmrue document Ms been reproduced esewed from dte puma or erlferemerreOrK

CI MHO( ~OH Nu. Men reeds Kt ~eftteproducem emery

RPM Of ore or opinune reeled la due (1--ipmom do rug remmenly reereseel ed

OEI$IotlsI MOW

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

-**.Z.;.*.e.,-

^A.r

007,,*7 -

r15.4,"=.

S1'

4,e,t

4

",!PYINENN.

,

*AA,A ^it

4.4 .;

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

01.

' -'0"

tl e ,

14CIelWr- -.71rd"kr

4

vrf,

,,

411110,"17-7'..

- ;

.,A, 'If.

av-

3

1;101010;aSella

C.NA`j.-

4411..

BEST COPY AV E

1

The Condition of Educationin Rural Schools

AkOrt-w-c-ra

Joyce D. SternEditor and Project Director

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

Programs for the Improvement of Practice

4

U.S. Department of EducationRichard W. RileySecretary

Office of Educational Research and ImprovementSharon P. Rob:nsonAssistant Secretary

Programs for the Improvement of PracticeEve M. BitherDirector

June 1994

Cover photoEnd of the day at Solon Elementary School (enrollment:145 students, grades K-8), Solon, Maine. Photo byJulie Searis.

Inside front cover photoMorning rush h Jur, country road, Cockeysville,Maryland. Photo by J. Norman Reid, Falls Church,Virginia.

5

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents. Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington. DC 20402-9328

ISBN 0-16-045034-9

Foreword

Publication of The Condition of Education in Rural Schools represents 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 fill that 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 ofeducation 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 for rewarding 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 useful foreducation researchers, policymakers at the federal and state levels, as well as others concerned about issues in ruraleducation. Specifically, we hope this report wiil increase federal policymakers' attention to rural education problems,promote improvements in rural schools, and stimulate further research on rural education.

The report offers significant amounts of information as well as a structure for considering the issues. It does not, however,prescribe how these issues should be addressed. Problems confronting rural education are many and complex, and ruralsettings are too diverse for simple or universal remedies. But this report should help insure that the rural perspective isnot 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

iv7

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 types17

3-5.ERS nonmetropolitan socioeconomic county types 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8-3.Current education expenditure, elementary and secondary education 49

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

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

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

Appendices75

A. Supporting Tables77

Table 3-1. Number and percentage of regular public schools, students, and average schoolenrollment, by NCES locale code: 1991-92 77

Table 3-2. Percentage distribution of regular public schools and students by school enrollmentsize and type of school, by rural and urban locale: 1991-92 78

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

Table 3-4. Number and percentage distribution of rural schools and students, bydivision and state: 1991-92 79

Table 3-5. Number of rural schools and percentage, by enrollment size, by divisionand 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 forteacher 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 reported a highlevel of control over selected areas in their classrooms: 1987-88 96

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: 1987-88 97

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

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

Table 6-.11. Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school principals, bysex 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 reported that variousgroups 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 rated selectedproblems in their rchools as "serious," by level: 1987-88 105

Table 8-1. Classification of major state basic education aid programs, 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

Table 9-1. NAEP reading assessment: national and extreme rueal mean proficiency levels,

by age and year of assessment

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

by grade and year of assessment

Table 9-3. NAEP mathematics assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels,

by age and year of assessment

Table 0-4. NAEP science assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels,

by age and year of assessment

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

108

109

109

110

110

111

Table 9-6. Recent NAEP assessments: disadvantaged urban and extreme rural meanproficiency 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

113

114

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

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

Table 9-11a. Percentage of schools offering levels of mathematics courses, by graduating115class size: 1980

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

ix1 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 tohave 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 of1980, by location 119

Table 10-4. Postsecondary educational plans of 1980 high school seniors, by SES quartileand 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 bynonrural and rural students 122

Table 10-7. Persistence in postsecondary education by members of the high school class of1980 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 by year,race, and community type 124

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

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

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

This comprehensive overview of thecondition of education in Rural Amer-ica today has been prepared to assistpolicymkers and practitioners by pro-viding concise and current informationon education for a major segment ofAmerica's population. That the nation,indeed, the world, has become an in -creasingly urban domain is beyond dis-pute. What, then, should prompt aninterest in rural areas and in rural edu-cation in particular?

Importance of RuralAmericaAll Americans have a stake in the healthand well-being of Rural America. Tak-ing first a completely utilitarian view ofcurrent circumstances, the importanceof the countryside is evident. It is thesource of the goodsfood, fiber, min-erals, timber, and their productsfromwhich Lie United States has built itsmaterial wealth. Resources from ruralareas not only provision the nation, butthey also help provision the worldthrough extensive trading networks.

But goods and materials are not the only

products of Rural America, nor neces-sarily its most significant export. Sincethe 1920s, and especially after WorldWar II, millions of Americans born inrural areas have migrated to urban cen-ters, directing their intelligence and en-ergy to build the nation's cities,factories, and offices and to constructcommunication and transportation ar-teries. Their investment in the nation'sstrength and fortune is incalculable.Those who stayed in the countrysidealso contributed to America's well-be-ing, creating stable families and settle-ments, establishing small businesses,

1. Introductionstaffing manufacturing plants, and la-boring in fields, farms, mines, and for-ests. But the surge in emigration fromthe countryside in the last decade is acurrent and urgent reminder of the needto invest in Rural America, including itshuman resources, for the betterment ofthe country as a whole.

Less considered today, but of equal im-portance, is that Rural America hascontributed ideas to the intellectualtreasure of American thought. ThomasJefferson, the agrarian philosopher andstatesman, became the major architectof American democracy. And ruralAmericans like Henry David Thoreau,John Muir, and, in the 20th century,Wendell Berry, offer the vision of apositive connection between econom-ics and nature. The American agrariantradition articulated by these thinkersemphasizzs diversification rather thanspecialization, cooperation rather thancompetition, conservation rather thanblind efficiency, and reinvestmentrather than sheer profit. These ideasprovide a crucial link to a sustainablefuture. Indeed, the agrarian uadition inAmerica suggests that " . . . care, com-mitment, stewardship, and husbandryare essential elements of the human ex-perience[J" (Theobald 1992). Thus,Rural America may be seen as offeringone of the important spiritual and ethi-cal anchors for the nation.

This legacy holds true as well in thefield of education. Many so-called "in-novations" being championed todaywere born of necessity long ago in therural schoolhouse. Cooperative learn-ing, multi-grade classrooms, intimatelinks between school and community,interdisciplinary studies, peer tutoring,

1 1 4

block scheduling, the community as thefocus of study, older students teachingyounger ones, site-based management,and close relationships between teach-ers and students all characterize ruraland small school practices. As the na-tion experiences its second decade ofeducation reform, many feel the ruralschool still "has the potential to be awonderful laboratory for educationalinnovation and improvement" (Sher1991).

Focus of This ReportThe health and prospects for the coun-trY's more isolated settlements andcommunities have been the subject ofperiodic study throughout this century,leading to major changes in state andnational policy, including educationpolicy. Today, concerns about the vital-ity of postmodern rural life are beingvoiced once again. One outcome of re-cent attention at the federal level hasbeen a growing awareness of the needto better inform education policymak-ing through expanded research and im-proved data gathering. This report is acontribution to that end.'

The following are some of the ques-tions posed as this project was under-taken:

Context

From what range of employment ac-tivities do rural residents gain theirlivelihoods?

What do economic and social indi-cators reveal about the health of Ru-ral America today? What do theyimply about educating rural resi-dents for the future?

Rural Students, Schools, andDistricts

What are the numbers of rural stu-dents and schools, and where arethey located geographically?

Are rural schools and districtssmaller than nonrural ones as hasbeen claimed? What is the mix ofrural and nonrural districts? To whatextent are rural schools located inmetropolitan counties?

How is the concentration of ruralschools and students distributed incounties defined by proximity tometropolitan centers or by primaryeconomic activity?

Rural Communities and Schools

Is there a unique interdependencebetween the school and the commu-nity in rural settings? How has therelationship evolved in recent years?

Rural Education Programs

What programs and policies at thefederal and state levels are designedto assist students who attend ruralschools?

Teachers and Principals In RuralSchools

How do school personnel in ruralareas compare to those in nonruralareas in terms of education and ex-perience?

Are there significant differences inthe pay and benefit packages for ru-ral and nonrural school staff?

Are there significant differences inthe conditions of work in rural andnonrural schools?

Education Reform and RuralSchools

Has reform impacted differentiallyon rural and nonrural schools?

What innovations have been devel-oped in rural settings?

Public Financing of RuralSchools

What state financing policies existthat assist rural schools?

What financing issues particularlyconfront rural schools?

Outcomes of Rural Schooling

Are rural students receiving educa-tional opportunities comprable tothose of nonrural students?

Are students in rural settings per-forming at levels comparable to theirnonrural peers?

How do the post-high school expe-riences of those educated in ruralsettings ;ompare to those educatedin nonrural settings?

SourcesLack of adequate statistics has longhampered research in rural education.Yet this report is largely grounded innational data. Opportune timing madethis possible. Results of an expandedset of surveys by the National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES) werebecoming available and were tapped totell the rural educatien story with muchgreater precision than was possible be-fore. Special analyses of other data setswere arranged and current research lit-erature included. Appendix B identifiesthe major surveys cited. The acknow-ledgments section lists the authors ofbackground essays used as primary re-

2

sources for the structure of and infor-mation in this document.

Absent a single large-scale study witha unitary definition of "rural," this re-port drew on many sources with differ-ent definitions, presenting obviousanalytical challenges. For example,sometimes "rural" is conservatively de-fined as having no settlement with apopulation larger than 2,500. But whenusing sources grounded in metropolitanand nomnetropolitan contrasts, whichare county-based terms, "rural" can ex-pand to include small towns of consid-erable size. In other surveys,respondents were free to select a loca-tion category themselves, including"rural." The only practicable way todeal with this diversity of definitionswas to be specific about the one(s) usedin each chapter. Readers should beaware of these distinctions as they in-terpret discussions in this report.

Selected FindingsIn addressing the goals set for this pro-ject, there have been several distinctachievements. Documented for the firsttime are the number of rural schools anddistricts teachers and students, andwhere they are locatedinformationcritical for policy development. Like-wise for the first time, this report com-pares rural and nonrural teachers andprincipals nationally for income, expe-rience, training, and opinions.

The sensitive issue of rural schoolfinance and previously unpublished in-formation about the outcomes of ruralschooling have also been brought to-gether for the first time. This reportpresents such essential information inthe context of the tension betweenfunding constraints and the evolvingagenda for education reform. It identi-fies how certain educational weak-

nesses (e.g., isolation, limited re-sources) may impede student progess,but how strengths of rural schools (e.g.,small classes, community involve-ment) may serve to instruct the nationin ways to meet its goals for education.It considers the potential rural schoolshave for improving the economic andsocial conditions in their communities.Finally, it discloses gaps in what isknown with confidence about the con-dition of education in rural settings.

This document presents the followinginformation that is central to a basicunderstanding of rural education:

Rural students are found in all partsof the country and in every stateoften in large numbers. But the num-bers and proportion that ruralstudents are of a state's studentpopulation are independent of thestate's geographic size. Locating ru-ral students can serve to challengepopular conceptions. For example, astate with a predominately urbansettlement pattern may still have alarge number of rural residents,while a state with much land area, acondition suggestive of a rural set-tlement pattern, actually may havemany or even most of its residentsconcentrated in a few urban centers.

Many schools that meet the CensusBureau definition of "rural" are lo-cated in counties defined as metro-politan. They account for 12 percentof metropolitan county schools anda quarter of all rural schools, andthey enroll nearly two out of fiverural students.

Two major characteristics of ruralschools were quantified as follows:

Most rural schools and rural districtsare small (district enrollments ofless than 2,500), reflecting the low

density of the populations theyserve. The primary exception is inthe Southeast where, depending onthe state, from 25 to 62 percent of thelocal districts have enrollments ex-ceeding 2,500.

The number and proportion of ruralschools and rural school districtsvary widely among the states anddifferent sections of the country.

The following information helps en-large the picture:

Rural America is economically di-verse, but the shifting employmentpicture has caused significant levelsof poverty, with many rural citizensill-prepared to meet the challengesof the modern economy. Large seg-ments of the older population re-m ai n comparatively poorlyeducated, while the departure of theyoung and the well-educated, drawnby higher wages and faster jobgrowth elsewhere, is draining intel-lectual resources from the country-side.

Rural residents contribute a greaterpercentage of their income forschooling, but hampered by the highcost of education in settings withlow population density, they facemajor difficulties in meeting de-mands of the evolving federal andstate reform agendas and in trainingstudents for the challenges of theinformation age. With the departureof their youth, rural communities ad-ditivnally fail to get a return on theireducational investment.

A sizable number of rural programsmay be identified at the state andfederal levels. However, there is nofederal policy on rural education,and state approaches are variedwhere they exist at all.

3 1_6

Likewise, little information existson rural school finance or on howrural schools are responding toreform measures. Analyses, how-ever, suggest rural schools have lim-ited fiscal resources to address therising costs of education in generaland of reform in particular. In spiteof limitations that come with rela-tively sparse settlement, however,many rural schools participatehardily in reform initiatives. For ex-ample, the U.S. Department of Edu-cation reform strategy for achievingthe National Education Goals is be-ing embraced in many rural commu-nities across the country.

Teachers and principals in ruralschools are generally younger, areless well educated, and receivelower pay and benefits than theirnonrural counterparts. Evidencesuggests many leave the countrysidefor better paying jobs elsewhere.

In recent years, rural performancehas risen on selected national assess-ments so it now approximates thenational mean. Performance is be-low that of suburban students, buthigher than that of urban students.

Students in nonmetropolitan coun-ties have less opportunity to con-tinue their education. As a result,fewer dropouts return to completehigh school, and fewer graduates as-pire to and go on to higher educa-tion. Those who do, however, persistand perform as well as nonruralgraduates.

The high incidence of poverty is acontrolling factor in much that isreported about rural education out-comes. When economically similarstudents are compared, there is littledifference in academic perform-ance.

Challenges toUnderstanding RuralEducationRural education research. Im-pediments to a full understanding ofrural education remain. The variablesof small scale, isolation, and sparsity ofpopulation are still not considered im-portant by many researchers, and moststudies ignore them. Rural research,particularly education research, is un-dertaken by comparatively few schol-ars. To help correct this situation, in1991, the U.S. Department of Educa-tion released a brochure entitled AnAgenda for Research and Develop-ment on Rural Education, outlining thetopics that representatives of the mralresearch community, education asso-ciations, and federal agencies deemedmost pressing.

Limited awareness of rural di-versity. Another problem concernsstereotypical images of rural life thatinhibit understanding the wide diver-sity that exists not only across regionsof the country but even within states.For example, the rural South and thePacific region obviously have distinc-tive characteristics and needs, but var-ied terrain and resources may alsodictate differei 'es even within a state,(e.g., eastern and western North Da-kota). In short, statements about thegeneral rural situation may not match aparticular rural circumstance.

Multiple definitions of rural. Fewissues bedevil analysts and plannersconcerned with rural education morethan the question of what actually con-stitutes "rural." This is of more thanacademic interest. Funding eligibilityand policy issues are frequently linkedto a school's or school district's rural-ity, usually measured in terms of sparse

settlement, isolation from a populationcenter, or both.

Rurality as defined in state statutes,moreover, often varies depending onthe program authorized. The defini-tions in federal statutes, regulations,and surveys also lack consistency. Thedifferences between the two most com-mon federal terms used"rural" and"nonmetropolitan"illustrate theproblem:

(a) The Census Bureau in its decen-nial survey defines "rural" as a residualcategory of places "outside urbanizedareas in open country, or in communi-ties with less than 2,500 inhabitants,"or where the population density is "lessthan 1,000 inhabitants per square mile."

(b) In monthly household samplesurveys, the Census Bureau contrastsdata in metropolitan and nonmetropoli-tan counties. It uses the term "non-metropolitan" to describe countiesoutside of, or not integrated with, largepopulation concentrations of 50,000 ormore. "Nonmetropolitan" takes inlarger areas than does the term "rural"and ones that are politically defined(i.e., counties, not just places). In cov-ering large geopolitical units, it thusencompasses larger populations.

Many major surveys and federal or-ganizations follow the Census Bureaulead and contrast metropolitan and non-metropolitan settings. Writers oftenconsider "nonmetropolitan" to beroughly equivalent to and therefore apractical substitute for "rural." But theterms are not synonymous. The distinc-tion between the decennial census andthe monthly surveys may be illustratedby noting that areas meeting the defini-tion of "rural" place may be found inmeuopolitan as well as noninetopoli-tan counties. For example, New Jerseyis the one state without a single non-metropolitan county. Yet rural places

417

do exist in the Garden State where thesize of the rural student population issignificant.

Recent steps by NCES address theseproblems. Its forthcoming School Dis-trict Data Book will offer the richestever set of demographic data on school-age children and their householdslinked with descriptive data on schooldistrict personnel, operations, and fi-nances. The data will be available onCD-ROM, a form that will make analy-sis possible for a greatly expandednumber of potential users. In addition,this new resource will introduce pa-rameters of the term "rural" includingmeasures of population density and iso-lation that are both precise and flexible.This definitional breakthrough was ar-rived at jointly by the Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement(OERI) staff and the rural program di-rectors at the regional educational labo-ratories.

The resulting wealth of data, ease ofaccess, and inclusion of rural variableswill be a boon to rural education re-searchers and policymakers alike. Notonly will more finely tuned research bepossible on the location and charac-teristics of rural districts, personnel,students, and households, but such re-search can be conducted easily and onsite for state and local purposes. Thepotential at every level for improvedanalysis to inform policymaking isenormous. To ensure new data re-sources reach potential users as soon aspossible, a series of training seminarsfor rural education researchers spon-sored by OERI in collaboration with theregional educational laboratories wereconducted in late 1993.

ConclusionThe cultural and social health of Amer-ica's rural sector depends on how itparticipates in the national and global

economy. At present, the terms of thisparticipation are not clear, but educa-tion is key. The nation faces momen-tous choices. Policymakers could, forexample, presume Rural America hasfew unique characteristics or particulardilemmas that distinguish it from thenation as a whole. But that would be amistake. The information and analysespresented in the following pages dem-onstrate the desirability of devising tar-geted policies based on the distinctneeds of rural studentswherever theymay be located.

Offering rural students an equitableeducation can be met by a communityof interests at the local, state, and fed-eral levels. Clearer thinking about ruraleducation, achieved by exploring itsdimensions and establishing a betterdescriptive basis, caa help policymak-

ers devise more meaningful optionsand formulate better decisions.

Given the range of rural diversity andthe scope of different needs, there areno simple solutions, just as there is noone best system of schooling. But bybringing to researchers and policymak-ers new knowledge about the conditionof rural education and by describing anexpanding variety of data bases thatcan be tapped in years to come to up-date this knowledge, this report shouldfacilitate the task of improving the edu-cational experiences of the millions ofchildren who attend school in RuralAmerica.

Notes

1. It should be seen in the wider context ofprevious departmental documents address-ing rural education issues. For example, in1975, the National Institute of Education(NIE) documented the education innova-

58

tion process in 10 rural communities par-ticipating in its Experimental Schools pro-gram. In 1979, NIE co-sponsored a nationalseminar to consider federal policy optionsin rural education. A decade later, the Of-fice of Educational Research and Improve-ment published Rural Education: AChanging Landscape, a collection of sym-posium papers, and in 1991 disseminated arural education research agenda developedin collaboration with other agencies andassociations. That year also, the NationalAdvisory Council on Educational Researchand Improvement drew attention to ruralneeds in its annual report.

ReferencesBerry, W. 1990. What are People For? San

Francisco: North Point Press.

Sher, J. 1991. "Common Problems, Un-cdmmon Solutions." Rural Education2:1.

Theobald, P. 1992. "Agrarian Visions."Country Teacher 15:9.

\he

04,!,

,

"I?

-0

Ticfe

%

f,

req...i

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.

MT MAME 6 19

2. Context of Rural Education: The Economy andPopt.dation of Rural America

"(In the 1980s], many rural Ameri-cans, unable to earn a decent living, left

their communities. Businesses closed,

entire towns died, and a valucil le piece

of American heritage was lost."National Commission on Agricultureand Rural Development Policy, 1990

Rural America' has been buffeted bypowerful economic and social forcesduring much of the last decade. Theseforces have shaped the experience ofthe country's rural population, bringingabout significant demographic change.This change is a story of economic dis-ruption, significant outmigration, andgrowing poverty particularly affect-ing children. The education ramifica-tions for school planners, practitioners,and policymakers are immense.

Location andSettlement PatternsRural America's defining features areits low pop- Ilion density and the greatdistances separating rural communitiesfrom one another and from urban cen-ters of economic activity.

On the whole, Rural America issparsely populated, averaging fewerthan 40 residents per square mile.

Eighty percent of Rur' America'snearly 2,400 counties nave fewerthan 40,000 residents, less than amoderate-sind city; half have popu-lations smaller than 20,000.

Half the nonmetropolitan popula-tion is located outside effectivecommuting range of a metropolitanarea. Sparse settlement and isolationnot only drive up the costs of provid-ing public services, including educa-

tion, but greatly hinder Rural Amer-ica's ability to participate in theemerging national economy as well.

Employment ProfileEconomic diversity. Although thepopular perception equates rural areaswith agriculture, the modern reality isquite different. The mechanization offarming released millions of ruralworkers, many of whom took jobs inmanufacturing plants that had relocatedto rural areas in the 1960s and 1970s.Farming now employs fewer than 1 in10 rural workers. In fact, employmentin all rural industries based on naturalresources (e.g, mining, fishing) standsat less than 12 percent (Reid 1990a).Manufacturing employs one ruralworker in six.

In fact, jobs that undergird the ruraleconomy are surprisingly similar tothose in urban areas. The largest ruralindustries are service producing. Retailand wholesale trade; hotel and touristoperations; and financial, health, legal,and government services together ac-counted for two-thirds of rural jobs bythe end of the last decade (Butler 1991).

Regional variations. While the ru-ral economy is diverse on a nationalscale, individual rural counties oftendepend on a limited range of industries(Reid and Frederick 1990). About 500rural counties, mainly 4.1 the GreatPlains region, remain highly dependenton farming. Another 500, concentratedin southeastern and eastern states, areclosely tied to manufacturing. Asmaller numberabout 125 in Ap-palachia, the southern oil fields, andscattered areas of the Westdepend onmining and energy extraction.

2o

Current EconomicPictureEconomic reversals in the 1980s.From 1979 to 1982, the nation sufferedone of the worst recessionary periods inits history. While strong nationalgrowth followed, a number of circum-stances conspired to keep the boomfrom reaching most nonmennpolitancounties.

Early in the decade, a financial crisisin agriculture cost thousands offarmers their land and also produceda severe business downturn on themain streets of many farming com-munities.

At the same time, rural communitiesthat relied on manufacturing sawtheir employment base erode asmany industriesfaced with stiffforeign competitionsubstitutedmachines for jobs or moved away.

In the aftermath of a sharp drop inenergy prices, unemployment sky-rocketed in areas dependent on oildrilling and mining. Not until thedecade's end did rural job growthbegin to catch up to urban area rates(Reid 1990a). But with the most re-cent recession, the rural economystalled once again (Swahn 1991).

Emerging employment pattern.With the clari..-; if hindsight, it is nowevident these events reflected muchmore than a temporary upset in for-tunes; economic difficulties startedwell before e 1980s. Over a periodspanning several economic cycles, Ru-ral America lagged behind the rest ofthe nation in job and income growth(Reid 1990a). While traditional em-

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

Percentage difference10

-10INNImegm,

01110 .1=1.

-20

-30

-40

-509 10 11 Htgh School 13 14 16

Years of school completed1980 1986-87

Source: Current Population Survey

College 17 18

ployment sources declined, reflectingboth reduced demand for products andimproved labor productivity, advancedservices and manufacturing industriespassed by the countryside to settle pre-dominantly in the nation's cities andsuburbs.

Urban counties increased their ratio ofcomplex to routine manufacturing in-dustries during the 1980s. Such changedid not take place in rural areas. Theylagged as well in the rate of growth inthe faster growing and better payingproducer services (Reid 1990a). Theresult of this economic restructuringwas a growing urban-rural differentialin wages for new entrants into the laborforce, both male and female, particu-larly for the better educated (figures2-1 and 2-2).

Unemployment. The major conse-quence of this restructuring has beengrowing unemployment. Before 1980,the jobless rate had been lower for non-metropolitan than for metropolitancounties; since 1980, the reverse hasbeen true (Rogers 1991). Moreover, thecontrast worsened as the decade pro-

gressed. In 1980, the nonmetropolitanjobless rate was 7 percent higher thanin metro counties; by 1988, it was 40percent higher (Deavers 1989). The1991 unemployment rate in nonmetro-politan counties, adjusted to reflect dis-couraget: workers who have stoppedjob hunting and those who could onlyfind part-time work, was 11.5 percent,

well in excess of the comparable met-ropolitan rate of 9.5 percent (Swaim1991). Rising unemployment hasmeant, in the words of one rural sceneobserver, that ". . . in many ruralareas, each job must w support morepeople" (Deavers 1989).

Low skills and low wages. Therural employment situation is com-pounded by a preponderance in thecountryside of jobs that require fewskills and pay poorly. But such jobswere not only those primarily availablein the traditional, resource-dependentsectors. Service and manufacturing oc-cupations also showed a clear patternof locating low-paying production jobsin rural areas. Managerial and technicalpositions with better pay and careerpotential were found more often in cit-ies (McGranahan and Ghelfi 1991).

Economic vulnerability. Rural ar-eas are no longer insulated from currentdevelopments in the world economy.Foreign competition and fluctuationsin demand, exchange rates, Pczulatorypractices, or interest rates can have a

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

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Percentage difference

9 10 11 High School 13 14 16

Years of school completed-- 1980 1986-87

Source: Current Population Su:vey

8 21

quick impact. In the 1980s, this effectwas largely negative for Rural Amer-ica. Reliance on one industry, more-over (e.g., timber or a single factory),severely constrained individual flexi-bility when changing conditions threat-ened that enterprise. As one analystobserved, "There is no local pool ofemployers in a small town" (McGrana-han 1988).

Recent data from the Bureau of LaborStatistics suggest that because most ru-ral jobs are among those most vulner-able to outside forces, the rate of ruralemployment growth will lag that ofurban areas at least 15 years into thefuture (Hamrick 1991-92).

Consequences of aDistressed EconomyThe major results of the upheavals inthe rural economy have been a perva-sive condition of poverty; outmigra-don, particularly of the better educated;and changes to the family structure.

Rural poverty. By almost everymeasure, rural residents are disadvan-taged when compared with urban resi-dents (Butler 1991).

Incomes in nonmetropolitan coun-ties were only about three-fourthsthose in metropolitan counties formost of the decade, a difference farin excess of the somewhat lowercost of living in rural areas.

In every field, nonmetropolitanearnings in the 1980s were lower,with the gap widening to $6,270 by1988, the worst since the 1980-82recession.

After narrowing during the late1960s and early 1970s, the rural-ur-ban gap in per capita income haswidened steadily for the last 15years.

Rural poverty rates in the 1980sgenerally equalled or exceeded therate in America's central cities(O'Hare 1988). And the rate of pov-erty has been worsening.

Historically, poverty rates in non-metropolitan areas have exceededthose in more urbanized sections ofthe country. By 1990, the rural rate

increased to 16.3 percent, com-pared to 12.7 percent in metropoli-tan counties (U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the Census.1991).

The percentage of rural residents be-low the poverty line increased dur-ing most of the last decade, risingfrom 13.5 percent in 1978 to 18.3percent from 1983 to 1985; at thesame time, rural residents living inpoverty remained there for longer'periods of time than before (O'Hare1988; Reid 1990a).

Even more telling for the future is theimpact of these problemc on youngfamilies and children. As William P.O'Hare of the Population ReferenceBureau observed, " . . . povertyamong children has grown dramati-cally in the past decade, but it is notwidely noted that this increase has hitrural children disproportionately"(O'Hare 1988). He reported that

From 1979 to 1986, poverty in-creased twice as fast in rural areas asin urban areas, both among youngadults (aged 18-44) and for childrenunder 18.

In 1986, one of every four childrenin Rural America was living in pov-erty.

A major reason for child poverty inRural America has been the dramaticincrease in the incidence of single-par-ent families, headed primarily bywomen. By 1987, 6 out of 10 rural

9 22

families in which only the mother waspresent were poor (compared to 5 of 10for such metropolitan families) (Ro-gers 1991).

While rural poverty exists in every re-gion, it is most severe in the southernUnited States. Two-thirds of the na-tion's rural blacks and 95 percent ofrural black children, as well as most ofits growing rural Hispanic population,are concentrated there. The prevalencein rural areas of low incomes and pov-erty, as well as less educational attain-ment, is even greater among thesepopulation groups (U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the Census1991).

Population losses. A second majoroutcome f the economic situation hasbeen a made exodus from ruralcommunities as breadwinners left insearch of employment (Butler 1991).

Between 1980 and 1990, one-half ofthe nonmetropolitan counties to-gether lost 6.3 percent of their popu-lation, or 1.6 million persons.Predominately, these were countiesdependent upon small manufactur-ing, agriculture, and mining andwere not adjacent to metropolitancounties.

While nationally the metropolitanpopulation grew nearly 12 percentin the last decade, nonmetropolitanpopulation growth was just 4 per-cent.2

Large numbers of the more educatedresidents of working age departedRural America in search of urbanjobs to match their skills and train-ing. Nearly 2.5 percent of those aged25-64 who had 4 or more years ofcollege left annually from 1986 to1988. Those with some college edu-cation departed as well, but at a

Figure 2-3.--Net migration of nonmetropolitan populationaged 25-64: 1988-89 average

1

Percentage

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

2.50-11 years High school 1-3 college

School years completedSource: Current Population Survey

4+ college

much lower rate (Reid 1990b) (fig-ure 2-3).

Changing family patterns. Pro-ceeding from conditions of poverty andoutmigration, other demographic con-sequences have particular relevance forrural schools.

Nonmetropolitan real and projectedbirth rates no longer exceed those inmetropolitan counties, a major his-torical shift (Beale and Fuguitt1990).

Most people leaving the countrysidewere younger ac lilts of childbearingage. Consequently, the proportion ofnonmetropolitan families with chil-dren remained constant at 44 per-cent, while the correspondingmetropolitan rate rose to 48 percent(Swanson and Dacquel 1991).

At the same time, the proportion ofyoung rural families consisting ofthe traditional married couple withchildren dropped from 84 to 78 per-

cent between 1979 and 1990. Foryoung children under 6 years of age,the percentage that lived in familiesheaded by women rose from 11 to17 percent; for black rural children,the increase during the period was23 percentage pointsto 58 percent(Swanson and Dacquel 1991).

In 1988, 15 percent of nonmetro-politan births were to teen parent,and nearly one in four (23 percent)were to unmarried mothers. Theshortage of accessible pre- and post-natal care makes this circumstance aserious threat to the welfare ofyoung children in rural areas (Sher-man 1992).3

Such developments not only affectedthe individuals involved, but also hadrepercussions for the larger rural soci-ety, as resources, including educationalresources, evaporated along with em-ployment opportunities.

ConsideringEducation in RuralAmericaDuring the 1980s, education's impor-tance to improved economic competi-tiveness grew. Both nationally and inrural areas, job growth has been strong-est in industries and occupations de-manding high levels of education andskills (Reid 1990b) (figure 2-4).

40

30

20

10

0

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

Percentage

, I. tO,

=P/4I I 1 I I 1 1 I

Under 12 years High school 13-15 years College degree

Education level of jobs

MEI Metro ISM Nonmetro

Source: McGranahan and Ghelli

Graduate

1023

Education also is important to the de-velopment of new businesses. Researchindicates the people who are mostlikely to start new rural businesses arethose who already live in these areas.That start-up rates are highest in areaswith higher average levels of educationunderscores the importance of skillsand training to locakiy generated devel-opment as well.

Yet overall, economic restructuringmeant that demand for workers of anyskill level in rural areas was low duringthe 1980s (Reid 1990b) resulting in theincreased levels of poverty and emigra-tion just discussed. These develop-ments prf;sented grave dilemmas torural communities in determining localeducation policies. But considering thecourse of rural education, they warrantwider attention beyond the affectedcommunity. For instance,

Can rural schools serve both the na-tional interest and the needs of localcommunities?

Should state and federal involve-ment in plans for local economicdevelopment include a role for therural school?

What value can be placed on retain-ing small schools in rural areas thatwarrants the infusion of outsidefunding?

Such questions have no easy answers.But as long as rui al out-migration re-mains high, the nation's response to theneeds of rural education will have im-plications not only for the future of therural communities that dot the land-scape but for the country as a whole(Reid 1990b).

SummarySparse populations and distance fromurban centers are the distinguishingcharacteristics of rural settlements.

These features operated to Rural Amer-ica's disadvantage in the economic re-s tructuri ng of the last decade.Unemployment and undeirmploymentled to increased poverty, emigration,and changing family patternsdevel-opments that adversely affected all so-cial institutions, including the schools.Because these conditions may be be-yond the capacity of local communitiesto re.. tedy, they pose policy challengesas well to state and federal govern-ments and to other organizations con-cerned about the welfare of the ruralstudent.

Notes

1. This chapter draws upon a data base thatequates rural areas with nonmetxopolitancounties (i.e., counties without a city of atleast 50,000 or those lacking a commutingconnection with such a county). Nonmetro-politan counties include both people livingon the land and those residing in smalltowns and trade centers that service them.Of the 3,097 counties in the United States,2,388, or 77 percent, are nonmetropolitan.

2. Despite advances in transportation andcommunications technology that makebusiness activity feasible in all locations,recent trends point tc distinct locational ad-

vantages for certain rural areas. In the1980s, the most rapid rates of job and popu-

lation growth occurred in areas within com-muting range of major metropolitan areasand with climatic and scenic amenities at-tractive to retirees and businesses with noconstraints on location. By contrast, moreremote rural areas, suffering continued lossof employment in resource-based industriesand unable to capitalize on spillmers fromurban growth, experienced the greatest dif-ficulties (Reid 1990a).

3. In rural areas, births to teens were morecommon, while births to unmarried motherswere slightly less common than in urbanareas.

1124

ReferencesBeale, C., and G. Fuguitt. JuneSeptember

1990. "Decade of Pessimistic NonmetroPopulation Trends End on OptimisticNote." Rural Development Perspec-tives. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service.

Butler, M. Spring 1991. "Rural PopulationGrowth Slows During 1980-90." RuralConditions and Trends . Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.

Deavers, ICL. 1989. "Economic and SocialTrends in Rural America." Paper pre-sented at the American Educational Re-search Association Conference, SanFrancisco, CA.

Ghelfi, L.M. Spring 1991. "Slight DeclineContinues in Rural Earnings per Job."Rural Conditions and Trench. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Economic Research Service.

Hamrick, K.S. Winter 1991-92. "Employ-ment Mix Will Change by 2005." RuralConditions and Trenas. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.

McGranahan, D A. 1988. "Rural Workersin the National Economy." Rural Eco-nomic Development in the 1980s. RuralDevelopment Research Report No. 69.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Serv-ice.

McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfi. 1991.'1'he Education Crisis and Rural Stag-nation in the 1980s." Education andRural Economic Development: Strate-gies for the 1990s. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco-nomic Research Service.

O'Hare, W.P. 1988. The Rise of Poverty inRural America. Population Trends andPublic Policy Report No. 15. Washing-ton, DC: Population Reference Bureau,Inc.

Reid, J.N. 1990a. "Economic Change in theRural U.S.: A Search for Explanations."

Paper presented at the Seminar onEurope 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 AmericanEducational 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,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 EmploymentDown." Rural Conditions and Trends.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Serv-ice.

Swanson, L., and L. Dacquel. Spring 1991."Rural Families Headed by Women areon the Rise." Rural Conditions andTrends. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Economic Re-search Service.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau ofthe Census. 1991. Poverty in the UnitedStates: 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 EducationalDevelopment Laboratory (SEDL), Austin, Texas.

VW-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 12 25

3. Location an Characteristics of Rural Schoolsand School Districts

As noted in the Introduction, two setsof definitions are commonly used toanalyze rural situationsone deter-mined by place and one by county. Thecategories overlap so both urban andrural places may be found within bothmetropolitan and nonmetropolitancounties. The interrelationship be-tween rural-urban and metropolitan-nonmetropolitan is not often explored.However, when schools are classifiedusing both sets of Census definitions, a

"rural" school can be precisely located.With this degree of accuracy, policy-makers can better target allocations andservices for rural students.'

Rural Public SchoolsAccording to the National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES), in the 50states and the District of Columbia,there were 79,876 regular publicschools enrolling more than 41 million

students during the 1991-92 schoolyear. Population density influences boththe location and the number of schools.As figure 3-1 shows, the number andconcentration of schools differ quite abit among regions of the United States.For example, there are more than twiceas many schools per 100 square miles inthe Mid-Atlantic states as in the SouthAtlantic states, and eight times as manyas in the Pacific states.'

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

UNITED STATES

NORTHEAST

New England

Mid-Atlantic

NORTH CENTRAL

Midwest

West North Central

SOUTH

South Atlantic

East South Centrgl

West South Central

WEST

Mountain

Pacific

WAIIMMIIIIMO.M1110

Amer 0

AMIN.

arC.0

2 4 6

Schools per 100 square miles, by region and division3 1 0

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 schools50

1-99 100-199 200-399 400-799 800-1,199Student enrollment

SOURCE: U.S. Department ol Education, National Center lor Education Statistkas, Common Core & DataPublic School Universe Files, 1991-92

Table 3-1 summarizes the distributionof schools and students according tofour major localescity, urban fringe,town, and rura1.3

About 6.9 million students attendsome 22,400 rural schools, account-ing for 16.7 percent of regular publicschool students and 28 percent ofregular public schools.

Rural schools and the students who at-tend them thus constitute a significantsegment of U.S. public education.

Enrollment and locale. Figures 3-2and 3-3 show the distribti3n ofschools and students by enrollment andrural vs. urban locale. The remainder ofthis discussion contrasts rural and urban

schools, the latter encompassing thecity, urban fringe, and town locales.

Generally, areas with large, densely set-tled populations have fewer, but largerschools; areas with sparser populationshave more, but smaller schools. On av-erage nationally, city and urban fringeschools are more than twice the size ofrural schools (table 3-1).

For example, nearly three-quarters ofall rural public elementary and secon-dary schools have fewer than 400 stu-dents (almost one out of five has fewerthan 100 students). More than 40 per-cent (43.3) of all rural students are inbuildings with enrollments under 400.In contrast, schools with fewer than 400students comprise just about a third ofurban schools and account for only

14

27

1200, +

II Rural Cl Urban

about 14 percent of all urban students.And comparing enrollments more than800, just 4.5 percent of rural schools arethat large and only enroll about 16 per-cent of rural students. In contrast, morethan 20 percent of urban schools haveenrollments more than 800, and theyaccount for 40 percent of urban stu-dents.

Types of schools and schoolslze. Whether primary, secondary, orcombined, rural schools are small(Johnson 1989).4 Table 3-2 shows thedistribution of these three organiza-tional groups by enrollment and locale.

It has been suggested secondary schoolswith enrollments of 400 or more aregenerally able to offer a reasonablycomprehensive curriculum (Haller and

Monk 1988). Those with smaller en-rollments may find it necessary toadopt innovative curriculum and in-structional practices to make up for lowenrollments and serve their studentsadequately. The challenge is acute inrural settings where 73 percent of ruralsecondary schools have fewer than 400students and account for nearly 40 per-cent of all rural secondary students.Less than 17 r .scent of urban secon-dary schools ate that small, attended byless than 5 percent of urban secondarystudents. Indeed, urban areas organizemany very large schools, while ruralareas organize very few large ones. The26 percent of urban secondary schoolswith enrollments more than 1,200 ac-count for nearly half of urban secon-dary students. By contrast, only 2percent of rural schools have enroll-

ments exceeding 1,200, and these ac-count for just 12 percent of all ruralsecondary students.

Small schools have lower stu-dent/teacher ratios than larger schools.This is true in both rural and urbansettings, but rural school stu-dent/teacher ratios are lower. Schoolsthat have exclusively secondary gradeshave lower ratios than schools with ex-clusively primary grades, and small,rural secondary schools have the lowestratios of all (table 3-3).

Geographic diversity of ruralschool concentrations. The sig-nificance of rural schools and theirpopulaf,ions may be determined bysheer numbers or by the proportion ofrural schools and students to a state's

total. For example, Texas has the larg-est number of rural students (442,961)attending the largest number (1,376) ofrural schools. But 35 other states havehigher proportions of their schools inrural locales, and 40 have higher pro-portions of their students attending ru-ral schools. And there is a wide range.For example, the percentage of a state'sschools that are rural ranges from lessthan 5 percent in Rhode Island to morethan 76 percent in South Dakota.

The different stories told by counts vs.percents may be illustrated by contrast-ing two states, one clearly perceived asurban and the other as rural: New Jerseyand Montana. Actually, more studentsattend schools in the rural areas of NewJersey (68,209) than in the rural areasof Montana (54,230). But in New Jer-

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

Percentage of students50

100-199 200-399 400-799 800-1,199Student enrollment

SOURCE: U.S. Deperfffent of Editcation National Confer for Education Statistics, Common Coes &DabPubk SchoDI Univers* hies, 1991-92

15 28

sey, rural students constitute just 6 per-cent of all its public school students,while in Montana, the rural studentsconstitute almost 35 percent. And theconditions for organizing schools inNew Jersey with more than 146 stu-dents per square mile would be neces-sarily quite different from Montanawith just 1 student per square mile.

This diversity may be illustrated fur-ther at the regional level. For example,the number of rural schools rangesfrom 864 in New England to just over4,500 in the Midwest division. TheWest North Central division has thehighest proportion of rural schools (56percent) and also the highest propor-tion of students attending rural schools(35 percent). But because there areroughly 7.6 million students amongMidwest states compared to 2.3 millionin West North Central ones, the Mid-west has nearly twice as many ruralstudents (1.4 million) as does the WestNorth C..ntral regional division(803,000) (table 3-4).

Regions encompassing large areashave many relatively isolated ruralschools, but because their populationsare often concentrated in a few largeurban centers, the overall percentage ofstudents in rural schools may be rela-tively (and surprisingly) low. For ex-ample, in the spacious Mountain stateswhere there are fewer than three stu-dents per square mile and less than oneschool per hundred square miles, onlyabout 16 percent of the students attendrural schools. This compares to over 20percent of students enrolled in ruralschools among the South Atlanticstates where there are more than 24students per square mile and nearlyfour schools per 100 square miles.

Regional distribution of schoolsby locale and slze. Almost 20 per-cent of the nation's 22,370 rural

schools have enrollments of fewer than100 students. Among the states, the per-cent of rural schools with fewer than100 students ranges from zero in Con-necticut, Georgia, and Delaware, tonearly 73 percent in Montana. In 9states, more than 30 percent of the ruralschools have fewer than 100 students(table 3-5). Southern, Midwest, andMiddle Atlantic states tend not to havemany very small rural schools, butPlains states, Mountain states, andsome New England and Pacific statesdo. As discussed below, these patternsreflect not only the rurality and isola-tion of various parts of the country, butalso regional traditions in the organiza-tion and supervision of school districts.Clearly, with such diversity, schoolpolicies for bringing education to ruralstudents can vary widely across thecountry, among regions, among thestatesand even within states.

Rural School DistrictsDefining rural districts. Differentpolicy interests focus on different or-ganizational features of the educationalenterprise. For many issues, the indi-vidual school is the focus of attention(Timar and Kirp 1989). For other policymatters, such as governance, the school

district is the primary unit of concern(Stephens 1988). Since district policiesare shaped partly by the presence ofrural or urban needs, it is important toidentify the number and proportion ofrural districts and the extent to whichdistricts were mixed rural and urban.

Most school districts (88.3 percent)consist of either entirely rural or en-tirely urban schools.5Specifically, in 45percent of the school districts (6,764),all students attend only rural schools; in43.3 percent of the districts (6,503), allstudents attend only urban schools; andonly 11.8 percent of the public schooldistricts (1,762) administer schools lo-

16 29

cated in both rural and urban places(table 3-6). To compare rural and urbanschool districts, those districts withschocis in both types of settings werefirst redefined as either rural or urban.6The resulting profile of rural schooldistricts and comparison to urban dis-tricts follow.

Comparing rural and urbanschool districts. More than 46 per-cent (6,973) of school districts are pre-dominantly rural, and 53.6 percent(8,056) are predominantly urban (table3-7). Rural districts administer a totalof 17,413 regular public schools enroll-ing nearly 4.8 million students; urbandistricts administer 62,463 schools en-rolling more than 36.5 million students.Many rural schools are located in dis-tricts defined as urban. In fact, 23 per-cent of rural schools, 31 percent ofstudents attending rural schools, andnearly 30 percent of the teachers work-ing at rural schools are part of a pre-dominantly urban district.'

Reflecting population concentrations,the number of schools in rural and ur-ban districts presents a considerablecontrast. While there is substantialrange, on average fewer than threeschools are in a rural district but almosteight in an urban one. Reflecting thesmall size of rural schools, rural dis-tricts also have smaller enrollmentsthan urban ones. Districts with fewerthan 300 students account for more than41 percent of rural districts comparedwith nearly 11 percent among urbanones (table 3-8).

The nearly 3,000 smallest rural districts(fewer than 300 students) together con-tain more than 4,000 schools and enrollnearly 385,000 students. The more than4,000 mid-size rural districts, thosewith between 300 and 2,500 students,include 10,700 schools and nearly 3.1million studentsabout 64 percent of

Figure 3-4.ERS county types

Code Description

Metropolitan:0 Central counties of metropolitan areas of 1 million population

or more

1 Fringe counties of metropolitan areas of 1 million population or more2 Counties in metropolitan areas of 250,000 to 1,000,000 population3 Counties in metropolitan areas of less than 250,000 population

Nonmetropolitan:4 Urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent to a metropolitan area5 Urban population of 20,000 or more, not adjacent to a metropolitan

area

6 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, adjacent to a men.opolitan area7 Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999, not adjacent to a metropolitan

area

8 Completely rural (no places of 2,500 or more population) adjacent toa metropolitan area

9 Completely rural, not adjacent to a metropolitan area

all students enrolled in rural districts.While districts with under 2,500 enroll-ment account for 59 percent of all urbandistricts, they account for 96 percent ofall rural districts.

Geographic diversity among dis-tricts. While nearly all rural districtshave fewer than 2,500 students, the pat-tem is diversr geographically. In NewEngland and the Mountain states,nearly 70 percent of the rural districtshave fewer than 300 students (table 3-8). In the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest,about 20 percent of the districts are thatsmall; most have enrollments between300 and 2,500. In the southern regions,where many states organize school dis-tricts along county boundaries, districtswith under 300 students are rare. There,districts with 300 to 2,500 students aremost common, and about one of threerural districts have enrollments exceed-ing 2,500 students.

NonmetropolitanDiversity and RuralEducationThe Economic Research Service (ERS)of the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) has sought to quantify the di-versity of rural areas by creating de-scriptive categories or typologies. Thefollowing analysis links rural schooldistricts with two different ERS typolo-gies to explore more fully the variety ofsettings in which rural schools oper-ate.8 This analysis found rural schoolsto be situated in very diverse circum-stances both in terms of locationfrom remote villages to the fringes oflarge citiesand in terms of economicbasefrom farms to government-owned property.

3017

Exploring the interrelationships be-tween urban and rural and metropolitanand nonmet000litan reveals informa-tion that could alter popular perceptionsabout where rural schools are and couldhave significant implications for arange of policy issues affecting schools,including how to define a school asrural.

1. Metropolitan adjacency. Thefirst typology discussed groups coun-ties according to metropolitan status,population size, and proximity to a met-ropolitan area (figure 3-4). The ruralitytypes are directly related to both popu-lation density and per capita income.During the 1980s, population growthwas concentrated in metropolitancounty types. Apart from central citiesthat have high concentrations of youngpeople, the proportion of the populationunder 18 years of age varies littleamong remaining county types (table3-9).

Both rural and urban schools may befound in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. In nximetro-politan counties, with 38 percent of allschools, just over half (more than14,000) are actually rural schools; theremaining 45 percent (13,398) are inurban areas of these counties (table 3-10).

The ERS county types also show therelationships between population den-sity, metropolitan adjacency, andschool size. The size of rural schools isrelated directly to rurality (sparse popu-lation) and relative geographic isola-tion. The percent of rural schools withenrollments of less than 100 for thethree adjacent nonmetropolitan countytypes is half that of the nonadjacentnonmetropolitan counties (table 3-11).

Metropolitan counties (ERSCodes 0, 1, 2, and 3). These coun-ties contain 62 percent of all schoolsand 74 percent of all students. Butnearly 12 percent el the schools (al-most 5,800) in metropolitan countiesare in rural places. These accnunt for26 percent of all rural schools and 38percent of all rural students. The densi-ties range from 2,100 students per 100square miles to more than 14,000 per100 square miles (table 3-10). They arethe wealthiest and fastest growingcounties.

Nonmetropolitan, large urbancenter counties (ERS Codes 4and 5). These counties intain about8,000 public schools-10 percent ofthe U.S. total. They enroll 3.4 millionstudents-8.6 percent of the total.There are 2,800 rural schools in thesecounties, enrolling about 850,000 stu-dents. This accounts for 13 percent ofall rural schools and 13 percent of allrural students. In the adjacent counties,there are nearly 1,300 students per 100square miles, and about 10 percent ofthe rural schools enroll fewer than 100students. In the nonadjacent group,there are about 650 students per 100square miles, and about 19 percent ofthe rural schools enroll fewer than 100students (table 3-10).

Nonmetropolltan, small urbancenter counties (ERS Codes 6and 7). About 16,500 public schoolsare located in counties with a smallurban center. They account for 21 per-cent of all public schools and 5.6 mil-lion students-14 percent of the U.S.total. There are 8,400 schools in therural locales of these counties enrollingabout 2.1 million students. This repre-sents 38 percent of all rural schools and32 percent of all rural public schoolstudents. In the adjacent counties thereare 670 students per 1 on square miles,and 14.5 percent of the rural schools

have fewer than 100 students. In thenonadjacent counties there are about325 students per 100 square miles, andnearly 28 percent of the rural schoolshave fewer than 100 students (table 311). The adjacent counties have grownslightly in population and the nonad-jacent group has, overall, remained sta-ble.

Nonmetropolitan, completelyrural counties (ERS Codes 8 and9). About 5,300 regular public schoolsare located in these counties, repre-senting 6.5 percent of all schools (table3-10) and enrolling 1.2 million stu-dents (about 3 percent of the total).These counties account for 22 percentof all rural schools and 17.5 percent ofrural students. In counties adjacent tometropolitan areas (Code 8) there areabout 270 students per 100 squaremiles, and 17 percent of the ruralschools have fewer than 100 students.But in counties not adjacent (Code 9),the number of students drops to just 133per 100 square miles, and the percent ofthe rural schools with fewer than 100students doubles to 35 percent. The ad-jacent counties increased in population

by 6.7 percent during the 1980s whilethe nonadjacent counties declined byabout a percentage point. Together,these two types of rural counties sharethe lowest per capita incomes in thenation.

2. ERS socioeconomic types.Another ERS typology characterizesnonmetropolitan counties on the basisof their primary economic activity. Ta-ble 3-12 displays pcpulation, income,and school data for six of the ERStypes. Figure 3-5 describes them.

The differenees in the nature of theeconomic bases among these types ofcounties are also reflected in theirpopulation characteristics and organi-zation of schools. Population in farmand mining-dependent counties de-clined by more than. 4 percent duringthe 1980s, while the population in gov-ernment-dependent counties increasedby nearly 9 percent. Farm-dependentcountias have the largest proportion ofrural schools and the largest proportionof rural schools with fewer than 100students. They also have the lowestdensity of students. While most of

Figure 3-5. ERS nonmetropolitan socioeconomiccounty types

FarmIng-dependent--512 counties in which fanning contributed 10 percentor more to total income.

Manufacturing-dependent-553 counties in which manufacturing contrib-

uted 30 percent to total income.

Mining-dependent-124 counties in which mining contributed 20 percent ormore to total income.

Government-dependent--347 counties in which local, state and federalpayrolls contributed 25 percent or more to total income.

Unclassified-712 counties in which no single industrial sector predominated.

Persistent poverty counties-239 counties ranking in the lowest quintile ofper capita income for four decades.

18 31

these county types have similar percapita income levels, more than700,000 nonmetropolitan students at-tending more than 1,200 schools residein "persistent poverty" counties whoseper capita income has ranked in thelowest quintile for four decades.

SummaryRural schools and rural school districtsare smaller than their urban counter-parts, and their organization reflectsthe relative density and geographic iso-lation of the populations they serve.Diversity exists among them region-ally and by the type of county they arein, whether that county typology is de-fined by distance from a metropolitancenter or by economic base. Thisanalysis quantifies on a national scaleinformation generally understood fromsmall or state studies. Noting the limi-tations of a single urban-rural or met-ropolitan-nonm etropolitan frameworkin rural research helps provide thegroundwork for developing a better ap-proach to defining rural communities.

Notes

1. The information in this chapter was de-veloped using school and district data fromthe NCES Common Core of Data (CCD)and county descriptions from the EconomicResearch Service, U.S. Department of Ag-riculture. These data sources and methodsof analysis are reviewed in an ;Wiz B.

For further discussion of the data see:Elder, E.L. Fall 1992. "The Use of CensusGeography and County Typologies in :.heConstruction of Classification Systems for

Rural Schools and Districts." Journal ofResearch in Rural Education 8:3.

2. See appendix A for state groupingswithin the four regions and nine divisionsof the United States.

3. Consolidating the seven NCES localecodes (Johnson 1989) to four, the locationsare defined as follows: (a) City = centralcity of a Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA); (b) Urban fringe = place within aMSA and defmed as urban by the CensusBureau; (c) Town = town not within a MSAand with z population equal to or greaterthan 2,500 people; (d) Rural = a place withfewer than 2,500 people, or a place havinga ZIP Code designated rural by the CensusBureau.

4. Schools with any enrollment in gradesK-6 and none in grades 7-12 are "pri-mary"; those with a.-v enrollment in grades7-12 and none in grades K-6 are "secon-dary"; and all others are "combined."

5. By aggregating the NCEs file of regularpublic schools by local educational agency,a file was created of 15,029 school districtsthat administer regular public schools, andthe percentage of each district's studentswho attended schools in rural areas wascalculated.

6. Among these districts, about 12 percent(209) have more than three-quarters of theirstudents attending rural schools. About half(913) are predominately urban, with fewerthan a quarter of the students attending arural school. More than two-thirds (640)have between 25 percent and 74 percent oftheir students attending a rural school. Forpurposes of this analysis, a mixed districtwas considered rural if 75 percent of stu-dents attended a rural school. This conser-vative dermition resulted in putting most ofthe mixed districts into the L oan category.

19 32

7. The proportion of rural schools in urbandistricts defined as urban may be slightlyoverstated because of the definition of ruraldistricts adopted for this analysis.

8. At the time ERS and CCD data weremerged, only 1989-90 CCD counts wereavailable. Moreover, Alaska and Hawaiiwere excluded from this county-levelanalysis because their counties are so dif-ferent from the other 48 states; conse-quently, the number of regular publicschools in this part of the analysis wasreduced to 78,624.

References

E.J., and D.H. Monk. April 1988."New Reforms, Old Reforms, and theConsolidation of Small, Rural Schools."Review of Educational Research 17:

167-177.

Johnson, F. 1989. Assigning Type of Locale

Codes to the 1987-88 CCD PublicSchool Universe. Technical Report CS89-194. Washington, DC: U. S. Depart-ment of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Stephens, E.R. 1988. The Changing Con-

text of Education in a Rural Setting.Occasional Paper No. 26. Charleston,WV: Appalachia Educational Labora-tory.

Timar, T., and D.L. Kirp. March 1989."Education Reform in the 1980s: Les-sons from the States." Phi Delta Kap-pan: 511.

U.S. Department of Coinmerc,. Bureau ofthe Census. 1991. Census of Populationand Housing. 1993: Summary Tape File1 Technical Documentation. Washing-ton, DC.

,

"b01111001.11.,v

"v411"

41111.034,*t ir Ade

_

f _

*

Rae Ellen McKee, National Teacher of the Year, 1991; remedial reading teacher, Slanesville Elementary School (enrollment: 189students, 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-Community ConnectionThe key role of the school in ruralcommunities, particularly the tradi-tional ways in which the school andcommunity have interacted, is impor-tant to understand. In recent years,many schools and communities haverestructured their relationships both toimprove student learning and to dealmore effectively with economic andsocial change.

The School'sEvolving RelationshipWith the CommunityGeneral statements about rural com-munities and their schools must be tem-pered by an awareness that a widediversity of rural communities,schools, and mutual interactions existin the countryside. Typologies havebeen created to illustrate communitydiversity (e.g., Gjelten 1982 andNachdgal 1982) by making distinc-tions, for example, among isolated set-tl ements, depressed areas losingpopulation, and communities revital-ized by an influx of immigrants frommetropolitan areas. But regardless ofsetting, the school has served as the hubof the social structure.

The historical place of theschool. The family, the church, andthe school have been at the heart ofrural communities since this countrywas settled. These three institutionshave provided the standards of behav-ior, circles of personal interaction, anda variety of social activities that collec-

tively shape community ethos andidentity. Often, rural residents definetheir place of living by the church towhich they belong or the school districtin which they reside. Even with theon-going social and economic transfor-

mation of Rural America, these institu-dons still provide many rural Ameri-cans with their roots.

The local school's influence has beenpervasive, often determining the vital-ity and character of a locality. For ex-ample, the scht. A's athletic team andcultural activities create a gauge bywhich community comparisons aremade (and often rivalries born). Whenthe athletic team wins, the whole com-munity wins.

The community-school tie is strong inother ways. The rural school was neverjust a place to receive instructioncentral though that purpose was and is.School facilitiesoften the only pub-lic buildings in the areaserve inmany capacities. Today a school mayprovide a polling place; the site for theannual farmers' organization banquet;the kitchen where meals-on-wheels forsenior citizens are prepared; a meetingplace for the 4H clubs; classrooms foradult education programs; a stage forholiday programs; and a setting forband concerts and community picnics.Through these and similar activities,the rural school and its community areinextricably bound. So powerful is theinteraction between community mem-bers and the school that rural residentsoften retain the feeling of belonging tothe school, even into adulthood whenthey begin their own families.

Factors weakening communitycohesion. In recent decades, power-ful forces have been undermining thistraditional sense of belonging. Because

economic restructuring has led to awidespread deterioration in most tradi-tional rural economies simultaneously,

rural communities throughout thecountry find themselves in a precarious

21

situation. Indeed, circumstanceslargely shaped by national and interna-tional forces have led to worse-than-average poverty, unemployment,underemployment, malnutrition, in-adequate housing, inferior or nonex-istent health care facilities, diminishedsocial services, and emigration (Pulver1988; Hobbs 1990; Sherman 1992).These had the effect of undermining theeconomic and social stability in muchof Rural America, disrupting not onlycohesiveness in ri any of its communi-ties, but rural cub are itself (e.g., Berry1977). Another major consequencewas diminished political influence atthe state and local levels (Stephens1988; Bailey et al. 1992).

These conditions affected education aswell. Local communities rely heavilyon the use of property taxes to fundeducation. As property values erodewith the declining fortunes of ruralcommunities in many states, there isgenerally less to spend (Jansen 1991).The result for much of Rural Americais underfunded schools, declining en-rollments, limited curricula, aging fa-cilities, and persistent pockets offunctional illiteracy (Stephens 1988;Bailey et al. 1992).

But loss of community cohesivenessmay not necessarily be the result ofanything so dramatic as closing a fac-tory or mine. The network of state andinterstate highways that effectively re-duced geographic distances, a boon inmany ways, weakened rural commu-nity ties. For example, thr sense ofcommunity can dissipate as a town isovertaken by urban sprawl or as itscitizens become employed outside thetown and spend their earnings for sus-tenance and entertainment elsewhere(Miller 1991). The rapid advancement

34

of modern telecornmunicat on tech-nologies is another factor. In dramati-cally reducing isolation, communityvalues have become influenced by out-side forces as much as by local mores.The causes are many, but the result isthe same. In much of Rural America," . . . functional rural communities arean endangered species" (Miller 1991).

In this context, the school has becomean important symbol of community it-self. This symbolism helps to explainthe fierce resistance to school consoli-dation and school district reorganiza-tion where these state strategies fortrying to improve curriculum and savemoney are being revived. Factors otherthan community identity enter into theequation as well. Rural schools andschool districts often play an importantrole in the economic life of their corn-muni ties and are thus not readily relin-quished. This role can be significant, asthe school is often one of the largestemployers in the community. Re-sources devoted to education are oftenthe largest single expenditure of locallygenerated tax revenues (Mulkey andRaftery 1990). Through the employ-ment of administrators, faculty, andstaff, the local economy benefits di-rectly, with the multiplier effect ex-tending far beyond the schoolhouse.Buildings and equipment also manifestthe community's commitment to itself.

But not all rural communities benefiteconomically from having a school.Highways may permit staff and facultyto be part of the larger, commuter cul-ture, and they may choose to live inlarger towns, cities, or another ruralsettlement and travel daily to work atthe school. As a consequence, the ruralcommunity generates the payroll dol-lars, but the neighboring location or anearby mall reaps the economic bene-fit. A commuting faculty, particularly

if turnover is extensive, also can havea depressing effect by undermining acommunity's sense of its long-term vi-ability.

On the other hand, commuters who livein rural areas and work elsewhere maymore often use the services and activi-ties of the city where they work but donot pay taxes. If these commuters haveno children, or if their children havecompleted school, they may resisthigher property taxes to finance localschools.

The graying of Rural America is an-other phenomenon affecting ruralschools. Indeed, rural communitieshave a higher concentration of olderpeople than do urban communities, asituation often associated with the exo-dus of many younger people to urbanareas (Hobbs 1990). In some areas, aninflux of retirees intensifies this gen-eral trend. Retirement countiesde-fined as those with at least 15 percentnet in-migration of the elderlymadeup fewer than a fourth of all nonmetro-politan counties, yet they account formore than half of all nonmetropolitanpopulation growth from 1980 to 1986.

Retirees bring employment gro wth,generate a larger tax base, and have amoderately successful record for rais-ing income levels in many counties(Reeder and Glasgow 1990). However,like commuters who work outside thecommunity, retired people who ownproperty may have no families in thearea, and seeing no benefit to them-selves, are reluctant to support higherproperty taxes. According to a 1985Advisory Commission on Intergovern-mental Relations study, the elderly aretwice as likely to oppose educationfunding as people under 35; indeed,retirement counties were found tospend 10 percent less per resident thanother nonmetropolitan counties oneducation.

In summary, while the school still pro-vides an anchor for most rural commu-nities and many citizens will resist anymove to deprive them of their localschool, ftaditional assumptions regard-ing the rural school' s role may nolonger be fully operational. Dramaticand continuing changes in the worldeconomy threaten the viability of manyrural communities thsoughout Amer-ica, undermining their capacity to sup-port local services, including schools.At the same time, the nation's exten-sive transportation and communica-tions networks have dramaticallylessened community isolation and with

that change, community cohesivenesshas also diminished. As a result, theschool may be underfunded as muchthrough lack of will as through lack ofresources. How some communitiesand schools have formed new alliancesto face this changing world is dis-cussed in the next section.

Responding to theModern ChallengeIn the last decade of this century, manyrural communities and schools willstruggle for physical survival and psy-chological health. Many will founder.But some schools and communities arefinding new ways to work together toprovide mutually rewarding experi-ences. Examples involve updates oftraditional community interaction,community-based curricula, and stu-dent entrepreneurship.

The school In the community.The modern approach to traditional ru-ral school-community relations ischaracterized by more sustained inter-actions and involvement of the com-munity in defining its needs. Theemphasis is on establishing linksthrough social services and continuingeducation activities, so standard defini-

lions of "student" and "client" becomeblurred. An example of one small K-12rural school's service element enabledyoung students to benefit from anadopt-a-grandparent program at the lo-cal nursing home, while older studentscould qualify as on-call ambulancedrivers for the hospital. Lifelong-learn-ing strategies include offering cornmu-nity colic ze-level evening coursesopen to both adults and teenagers, us-ing qualified members of the commu-nity as instructors, and sharing the costof resources (e.g., computers or physi-cal fitness courses) to be used both bythe school and the wider community(Rural Adult Education FORUM1990).

The rural community as a cur-riculum resource. Over the pastquarter century, rural schools havebeen confronted with curricula thathave an urban orientation. Some be-lieve this situation may work to therural communities' disadvantage sincematerial is often not culturally relevant(Eller 1989). And by directing atten-tion and values 'away from the localcommunity, it encourages youths toleave the home community (Miller1991). To counter outside influencesperceived as negative and also providestudents with a full array of skills, someschools have looked to their own com-munities for subject content and withit, a restoration of a given community'shistory and collective memory (Hobbs1990). A primary example is the sys-tem of nine Foxfire Teacher Networksacross the country that promote ap-proaching the community as a class-room to develop courses coveringmusic, literature, folklore, and environ-mental studies. The overarching pur-pose is to " . . . advocate the need foran understanding of and pride in theparent culture and a concomitant re-spect for and interest in the cultures ofothers" (Wigginton 1985). The Mid-

continent Regional Educational Labo-ratory has launched a related endeavorin six South Dakota schools. There,traditional courses are enriched by us-ing the community as a resource. Inmany courses, students' products are ofdirect use to the community (e.g., ademographic report to guide long-range planning by community offi-cials).

Using the community as a focus ofstudy is consistent with current think-ing about how learning can be facili-tated. Educational research suggeststhe potential to learn is enhanced whenstudents cooperate on a task, when theinstructional process meaningfully in-volves decisionmaking and problemsolving, when it is oriented to an out-come or product, and when activitiesare interdisciplinary and connected toreal-world objects, events, and situ-ations. Because of their size and be-cause the communities they serveprovide accessible and safe learningenvironments, rural schools areuniquely positioned to provide suchlearning opportunities.

School-business cooperatives.Another approach involves ruralschools playing a larger role in localjob development. Examples includesc'aool-business arrangementswhereby vocational courses at theschool are specifically tailored to thelocal business (e.g., a metal buildingmanufacturing company and a meatpacking plant). In a colorful example,what began as a cooperative arrange-ment between a high school and thestate game commission has become aboon to community employmentthrough the development of a troutfarming enterprise (Rural Adult Edu-cation FORUM 1990). These are onlya few of the innovative ways schoolsand their communities can adopt strate-gies that are mutually strengthening.

23

School-based businesses. A re-lated approach encourages high schoolyouths to be principal operators ofschool-based businesses while involv-ing them in the kinds of activitiesneeded in the new economy (REAL1990). Following a concept JonathanSher formulated some 15 years ago andthat was developed by Sher and PaulDeLargy at the University of Georgia,REAL Enterprises (Rural Educationthrough Action Learning) now hassome 36 projects in North Carolina,South Carolina, and Georgia. The busi-nesses have become vehicles for pro-viding entrepreneurial training,academic development, vocationaleducation, youth employment, andcommunity service. The Ford Founda-tion is helping to expand the approachto other sites and a national federationof state REAL Enterprises is envi-sioned.

The Future Farmers of America (FF A),4H, and Junior Achievement have of-fered entrepreneurial experiences foryouth in both rural and urban schoolsfor many years. But these programs areusually either individual projects, inthe case of 4H and FFA, or short-termbusiness experiences in the case ofJun-ior Achievement. By contrast, REALand similar ventures aim to have stu-dents create permanent local busi-nesses. REAL Enterprises haveincluded a day care center, a feeder hogoperation, ice cream parlors, a graphicarts service, a shoe repair shop, and aminiature golf business. And in con-tributing to the community by filling aniche, students also consider remainingand helping revitalize it over the longterm.

In Rothsay, a Minnesota town of 500,high school students discovered twonichesa grocery and a hardwarestorethat had recenly closed. Withstudents, fazul`y, sc1 ol board mem-

bers, and local business leaders work-ing together, both businesses reopenedas student-led operations. Thus, feltneeds in the community are being met,students are receiving on-the-job train-ing for the modern business world, andthe town has renewed optimism (NorthCentral Regional Educational Labora-tory 1992).

Efforts like Rothsay's and REAL' sdovetail with curr,..nt reform measuresaround the country. These are the inno-vations that depart from curriculumuniformity, redefine the learning envi-ronment, identify others in the commu-nity as "teachers," and set newstandards for evaluating student learn-ing. School-based enterprises also rec-ognize most new employment in theUnited States is generated by smallfirms and that entrepreneurial trainingof students can mean opportunities foreconomic gains (Hobbs, Heffernan,and Tweeten 1988). Historically, suchskills were taught in the rural highschools through vocational and agricul-tural programs like the FFA. WhileFFA remains strong in many rural highschools today, rural youth have fewalternative routes to obtain en-trepreneurial training. The vocationaleducation programs established 25years ago are also being challenged tokeep pace with emerging demands fortraining as work skills needed rapidlychange (Hobbs 1990).

However, school-based enterprisepractices are as yet not widespread;schools s;111 are rarely collaborativepartners with their communities (Miller1991). Indeed, a vision of how schoolsand communities can respond to thedemands of the emerging informationage is in the very early stages of formu-lation everywhere (McCune 1988).And barriers to collaboration exist inmany rural places. For example, regu-

lations governing school building op-erations may inhibit using schools forentrepreneurial activities or for socialand recreational functions involvingthe wider community. And in somecommunities, local control translatesinto resistance to change. The con-certed efforts of schools and their ruralcommunities together with assistancefrom outside agencies, such as the Co-operative Extension Service, the re-gional educational laboratories, andothers, are necessary to overcome suchbarriers and transform these examplesinto the norm.

Education andRural EconomicDevelopmentDuring the last few years, a strong ruralcommunity development movementre-emerged. It is marked, however, byintense debates about what to empha-size in this effortbuilding a physicalinfrastructure and job creation or pro-moting a social and cultural infrastruc-ture designed to improve the capacityof people (i.e., education). For exam-ple, many communities whose youthleft in search of economic opportuni-ties reduced their investments in edu-cation and instead supportedsomething like a local industrial park(Hobbs, Heffernan, and Tweeten1988).

Yet an understanding of the correlationbetween education and rural commu-nity development is growing (Reid1991). The importance of a well-edu-cated work force to enhance rural eco-nomic development objectives isincreasingly accepted, though thisprinciple has yet to be widely incorpo-rated into policy. But communitieswith an inadequately trained workforce are unattractive to expandingmanufacturing and service industries

(Mulkey and Raftery 1990). Andpoorly educated rural residents are un-able to compete for knowledge-ori-ented jobs (McGranahan a..d Ghelfi1991). As has been observed, "Withouta quality basic education, students willbe hampered in whatever they do andwherever they goincluding remain-ing in the locality" (Hobbs 1990).

Because the economy of Rural Amer-ica in general is no longer dominatedby farm employment, rural policy canno longer be equated with farm policy.Thus, in fashioning strategies for ruraldevelopment, many circumstancesmust be considered. Over the last 5years, the following events designed tohelp shape these strategies have oc-curred and most highlighted the impor-tance of education:

Four regional workshops were heldin 1988 (Focus on the Future 1988)to develop a consensus on prioritiesfor rural development. Sponsorswere the Extension Service of theU.S. Department of Agriculture; theU.S. Department of Labor; the FarmFoundation; the Aspen Institute;and the Economic DevelopmentAdministration. Participants in-cluded rural leaders, local and re-gional development organizations,state officials, staff from severalfederal agencies, including the U.S.Department of Education, and ruralspecialists from several of the re-gional educational laboratories. Asa rural development strategy, edu-cation ranked at the top of the list ofneeds compiled in each region. Thegoals identified were to have ruralschools offer the same level of edu-cation as urban schools so studentswould have equal opportunity incompeting for jobs and to eliminaterural illiteracy so that the flexibilityof the rural labor force could beenhanced.

The President's Initiative on RuralAmerica, launched in January 1990,is a multi-faceted undertaking thatpromotes economic development.State Rural Development Councilsare key. Their mission is to improverural employment opportunities bycoordinating the delivery of federaland state programs that can respondto local rural economic developmentneeds. As of spring 1993, Councilswere fully operational in 8 states andan additional 28 states were in theprocess of establishing them.

In late 1990, a major national com-mission called for improved educa-tion in rural areas. Strategiesproposed included distance learn-ing, school-based entrepreneurship,and job training to ease forced careerchanges. It also stressed the need tointegrate these programs into awider rural development effort (Na-tional Commission on Agricultureand Rural Development Policy1990).

In June, 1992, the General Account-ing Office (GAO) held a symposiumon rural development to respond toa congressional request to "identifythe challenges Rural America facesin dealing with current economic re-alities." Its published report identi-fied education as central to ruralrevitalization (U.S. GAO 1992).

SummaryRural areas have always dependedupon their schools to be the focus ofcommunity life. Yet that relationshiphas undergone significant change in re-cent decades. To the perennial prob-lems of isolation, low populationdensity, and limited fiscal resourceshave been added economic dislocation,easier access to the wider world, and thegraying of the populationresulting

both from youth emigration and, insome places, from an influx of retireesfrom metropolitan areas. Under thesecircumstances, maintaining commu-nity cohesion and fashioning a visionof the future have become particularlychallenging. Certainly the school isnow expected to prepare students for asociety very different from that knownby previous generations of ruralAmericans. Whether innovative com-munity arrangements that strengthenthe historical tie with the school be-come widespread and in turn contributeto revitalizing communities andwhether recent high level policy rec-ommendations result in enhanced edu-cational opportunities and in expandedrural employment opportunities re-mains to be seen.

References

Bailey, G., P. Daisey, S. M. Maes, and J. D.Spears. 1992. Literacy in Rural Amer-ica: A Study of Current Needs andNactices. Manhattan, KS: Rural Clear-inghouse on Lifelong Education andDevelopment.

Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of Amer-ica: Culture and Agriculture. NewYork: Avon Books.

Eller, R. 1989. "Integrating the Local Com-munity into Rural School Curriculum."The Role of Rural Schools in Commu-nity Development: Proceedings. S. Raf-

tery and D. Mulkey (Eds.). MississippiState, MS: Southern Rural Develop-ment Center.

Focus on the Future: Options in Develop-ing a New National Rural Policy. Pro-ceedings of Four Regional RuralDevelopment Policy Workshops. May1988. S.H. Jones (Ed.). College Station,TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Serv-ice, Texas A&M University.

Gjelten, T. May 3-5, 1982. "A Typology ofRural School Settings." Paper presentedat the Rural Education Seminar, Wash-

253S

ington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

Hobbs, D. 1990. "School-based CommunityDevelopment: Making Connections forImproved Learning." The Role of Rural

Schools in Community Development:Proceedings. S. Raftery and D. Mulkay(Eds.). Miriesippi State, MS: SouthernRural Development Center.

Hobbs, D., W. Hefrernan, and L. Tweeten.May 1988. "Education, Retraining, andRelocation Policy." Focus on the Fu-ture: Options in Developing a New Na-tional Rural Policy. Proceedings ofFour Regional Rural Development Pol-icy Workshops. May, 1989. S. H. Jones(Ed.). College Station, TX: Texas Agri-cultural Extension Service, Texas A&MUniversity.

Jansen, A. October 1990January 1991."Rural Counties Lead Urban in Educa-tion Spending, But Is That Enough?"Rural Development Perspectives.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Serv-ice.

McCune, S.D. Fall 1988. "Schools and Re-structuring." Policy Notes. Aurora, CO:Mid-ermtinent Regional EducationalLabcy.atory.

McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfl. 1991."The Education Crisis and Rural Stagna-tion in the 19803." 3duc lion and RuralEconomic Development: Strategies forthe 1990s. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Agriculiure, Economic Re-search Service.

Miller, Bruce. September 1991. "Rural Dis-tress and Survival: The School and theImportance of Community." The North-

west Regional Educational LaboratoryProgram Report. Portland, OR: TheNorthwest Regional Educational Labo-ratory.

Mulkey, D., and S. Raftery. 1990. School-

Community Relationships Within aCommunity Development Framework.Occasional paper. Research TrianglePark, NC: Southeastern Educational Im-provement Laboratory.

Nachtigal, P.M. 1982. Rural Education: InSearch of a Better Way. Boulder Co:Westview Press, Inc.

National Commission Agriculture andRural Development Policy. 1990. Fu-ture Directions in Rural DevelopmentPolicy. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture.

North Central Regional Educational Labo-ratory. 1992. "School-Based Enterprise:Expanding the Walls of the School toPrepare Students for Real Life." RuralAudio Journal 1:1.

Pulver, G.C. 1988. "The Changing Eco-nomic Scene in Rural America." TheJournal of State Government 61:1.

REAL Enterprises, Inc. Spring/Summer1990. Vol. 1. The REAL Soo,. ChapelHill, NC.

Reeder, R.J., and N. Glasgow. February1990. "Nonmetro Retirement Counties'Strengths and Weaknesses." Rural De-velopment Perspectives. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.

Rural Adult Education FORUM. January1990. G. Bailey (Ed.). Manhattan, KS:Rural Clearinghouse for Lifelong Edu-cation and Development.

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

Stephens, E.R. 1988. The Changing Con-text of Education in a Rural Setting.Occasional Paper 26. Char-leston,WV:Appaiachia EducationalLaboratory.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Novem-ber 1992. Rural Development: RuralAmerica Faces Many Challenges.GAO/RCED-93-35. Washington, DC.

Wiggenton, E. 1985. Sometimes a ShiningMoment: The Foxfire Experience. Gar-den City, NY: Anchor Press/Dou-bleday.

wit

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

26 39

5. Policies and Programs Benefiting Rural Education

Until fairly recently, the circumstancessurrounding rural education havelargely been ignored in most policycircles, Rather, throughout most of thiscentury, the trend has been to have tural

schools become more like urbanschools in size and curriculum. In re-cent years, however, the special needsof the nation's rural, small schoolshave gained the attention of Congress,a number of federal departments andindependent agencies, some state gov-ernments, the courts, and several post-secondary institutions, professionalassociations, and foundations. Someprograms that promote equity andquality in rural schools predate this cur-rent interest; many others have beenestablished recently. In the absence ofa special survey on the topic, the fol-lowing information resulted from ex-amining existing sources.

Federal GovernmentWhile there is no overarching federalpolicy on rural education, programs ex-ist that either directly or indirectlybenefit rural schools and their students.

U.S. Department of Education.Some of the U.S. Department of Edu-cation's (ED) administrative strategiesand authorized programs focus atten-tion on rural education and have as-sisted rural students either directly orincidentally.

Administrative action. The U.S.Department of Education Authoriza-tion Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-88,Section 214) directed ED to establish anew organizational commitment to thenation's rural schools and placed re-sponsibility for carrying this out in theOffice of Vocational and Adult Educa-tion (OVAE). The initial response was

to create a committee chaired by theAssistant Secretary, OVAE, with rep-resentatives from all the major ED of-fices. Of the many goals it articulated,the committee over time focused onachieving two: articulating a Depart-mental policy on rural education anddeveloping a rural education researchagenda.

Policy: In 1983, then Secretary T.H.Bell responded to the congressional di-rective by issuing the "Rural Educationand Rural Family Education Policy forthe 1980s," which was specific in itsintent: "Rural education shall receivean equitable share of the information,services, assistance, and funds avail-able from and through the U.S. Depart-ment of Education and its programs."

The statement was accompanied by anarray of activities ED would undertaketo fulfill this policy, subject to theavailability of resources (table 5-1).OVAE monitored compliance with thispolicy for some years and producedannual status reports to the Secretary.

Research: In 1989, the Federal In-teragency Committee on Education(FICE) endorsed a research agenda de-veloped by the rural education commit-tee with advice from specialists fromother federal agencies and from otherresearchers and practitioners.1 The pri-orities covered overall rural s tool ef-fectiveness; curricular provisions;school and community partnerships;human resources; use of technology;and financial support and governance.FICE formally expressed its desire tohave the agenda made "broadly avail-able . . . so that educators in RuralAmerica can be given greater help intheir efforts to improve educationaloutcomes for rural learners of all ages."

2740

Consequently, the Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement(OERI) widely disseminated a bro-chure containing the agenda. The needfor research in this area is great. Onestudy (Barker and Beckner 1987) re-ported that few established scholarsjust 2 percent of 14,000 highereducation faculty members sur-veyedconcentrate on rural issues.

The rural education committee (and aFICE subcommittee on rural educa-tion) were deactivated in 1990. Atten-tion to rural education concerns,meanwhile, advanced in other Depart-mental units.

The Notional Center for EducationStatistics collects data by communitytype in its longitudinal survey instru-ments (e.g., NELS:88), teacher and ad-ministrator samples (Schools andStaffing Survey), and the National As-sessment of Educational Progress(NAEP). Its periodic reports increas-ingly include distinctions by setting,though definitions of "rural" currentlydiffer among these surveys. Of signifi-cance is that NCES has constructed anew typology assigning all schools tomutually exclusive locales, including arural category (Johnson 1989). This ty-pology is now used in the CommonCore of Data, which is the NCES an-nual universe survey of public schools,and is influencing other data gatheringin the Center as well. As a result of ajoint project with the Census Bureau onthe 1990 Census, rural schools will bedefined with even greater precision, al-lowing more sophisticated analyses.The development of software and tar-geted training programs for rural re-searchers will make the data widelyaccessible, permitting direct analysisby state and local officials.

Another example of ED's administra-tive targeting is OERI' s Blue RibbonSchools Program that recognizes ex-emplary schools annually. Because in-itial rural school representation waslow, program staff actively encouragedrural participation, but it has still fluc-tuated. For example, 33 of the 226 ele-mentary schools recognized in 1991were located in small, mostly ruralcommunities.

Discretionary and targetedprograms. Of ED's approximately140 elementary and secondary assis-tance programs, 12 specifically targetor include rural schools, either by stat-ute or agency regulation. Five selectedfor discussion follow:

Chapter 1 Rural Technical Assis-tance Centers. Authorized in 1988 toimprove the quality of education pro-vided to educationally disadvantagedchildren who reside in rural areas orattend small schools, these 10 regionalcenters have a special mission to helprural districts that have declining en-rollments (Request for Proposals, RFP89-054, May 1989).

Rural Education Initiative. This ac-tivity began in fiscal year 1987 with amodest congressional set-aside forcontracts OERI awarded to the regionaleducational laboratories. Beginningwith the new 5-year contract in fiscalyear 1991, OERI required each labora-tory to certify that at least 25 percent ofits annual award supported activitiesserving rural schools (Request for Pro-posals, RFP 91-002, April 1990). An-nual Congressional allocations ofaround $10 million have met or ex-ceeded that minimum each year since.As a result of this program, numerousintervention strategies uniquely suitedto rural schools have been identified ordeveloped by the laboratories andwidely disseminated. Moreover, re-

search on rural schools has been sig-nificantly expanded through the sup-port and concentration at thelaboratories of a cadre of researchersand development experts in niral edu-cation issues

ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Edu-cation and Small Schools(ERIC/CRESS). The Educational Re-sources Information Center (ERIC)system is comprised of 16 centers ondifferent topics. Rural education hasbeen an ERIC component since the in-ception of this major education infor-mation network in the late 1960s.Presently housed in Charleston, WestVirginia, ERIC/CRESS collects anddisseminates educational research in-formation covering economic, cultural,social, or other factors related to edu-cation programs and practices for ruralresidents.

The Star Schools DemonstrationProject. Designed to employ telecom-munications to improve the quality ofschool program offerings and over-come the disadvantages of isolation,this program was authorized in 1988(Education for Economic Security Actof 1988, Title D, Section 905 (c)(1)).Instructional programs are deliveredby satellite to rural communities andunderserved metropolitan areas withscarce resources and limited access tocourses in mathematics, ieience, andforeign languages. Some 6,000 schoolsin 49 states, the District of Columbia,and Puerto Rico participate. In additionto high school- and middle school-level courses, some college and gradu-ate courses are offered for staffdevelopment.

Library Research, Demonstrationand Training Programs. Under Title IIof the Higher Education Act (P.L. 89-329), these programs have included anumber of grants benefiting rural areas.For example, the Center for the Study

28 4 1

of Rural Librarianship was funded toconduct a national survey to determineadult use of rural public libraries.

The remaining ED discretionary pro-grams that include a rural specificationinclude: early childhood experimental,demonstration, and outreach projects(Education of the Handicapped Act(EHA), sec. 623 9 (a)); projects for theseverely handicapped (EHA, sec. 624(c)); Even Start (Elementary and Sec-ondary Education Act (ESEA)); drop-out prevention demonstrations; basicskills demonstration projects (ESEA);and rehabilitation research and infor-mation dissemination by the NationalInstitute on Disability and Rehabilita-tion Research (NIDRR). (Note: TheOffice of Special Education Programsincluded among its grant priorities be-tween 1985 and 1990 training ruralspecial educators. Fifty-three projectswere funded and about 600 teachersprepared for rural placement. Whilethis is no longer a special emphasis,projects to train teachers to work inrural areas continue to be funded.)

Formula grant programs. Ru-ral schools also share in the severalmulti-million dollar state formula pro-grams administered by ED that assistspecial populations, for example, stu-dents who are disadvantaged, handi-capped, or engaged in vocationaltraining. Laws establish requirementsfor fund distribution, and these mayinclude a rural provision. One exampleis the Eisenhower Mathematics andScience Education Stwe Grant Pro-gram (P.L. 100-297). Designed to im-prove the quality of elementary andsecondary school mathematics and sci-ence instruction, it requires states totake into consideration the needs ofstudents in "sparsely populated areas."Moreover, the provision in most EDformula grant programs for benefitingchildren in low-income families or liv-

ing in areas with high concentrations oflow-income families, would bringfunds to the many high poverty ruralareas.

The primary federal program directingfunds to disadvantaged children isChapter I of Title I, Elementary andSecondary Education Act (ESEA). Ta-ble 5-2 shows the percentage of stu-dents receiving services under thisprogram by school location. Chapter 2of Title I, ESEA, allocates funds accord-ing to student enrollments. The legisla-tion permits states to provide higherallocations to districts having the great-est number and percentage of childrenliving in sparsely populated areas, andmost rural states do include a sparsityfactor in their calculations.

Generally, however, the extent to whichrural areas attract ED formula funds isdifficult to assess, in part because theauthorizations do not target funds bylocation, rural, or otherwise. Nor do theoperating units of ED employ standarddefinitions of community types. In ad-dition, states employ their own formu-las for distributing funds. For example,definitions of sparsity used under Chap-ter 2 vary by state.

Three other formula progams have po-tential to help rural areas. One is Im-pact-Aid (P.L. 81-874) that providesentitlements for operating expenses andconstruction directly to school districts.Funding is based on need generated bygovernment activities as in the acquisi-tion of land for federal purposes such asa military installation, a national park,or an Indian reservation and which thusdiminish the base on which local taxesfor schools would be assessed. The pro-gram does not define districts by rural-ity, but given the remote location ofmany such federal operations, a largeproportion of appropriated funds bene-

fit predominately rural districts, in-cluding Indian reservations.

The second is the Migrant EducationProgram. Under this portion of theChapter 1, ESEA formula grant pro-gram, funding is directed to state edu-cation agencies to provide instructionalsupport for the children of migrantworkers. Most projects are in rural ar-eas.

The third is the Library Services andConstruction Act (P1.101-254).Originally established 38 years ago tohelp develop rural libraries, all librariesare now eligible to apply for assistanceunder formula grants to states. Also,eligible Indian aibes, most of whichare located in rural areas, and Hawaiiannative organizations can receive grantsfor public library services. Discretion-ary grants focus on literacy programsand foreign language materials, andmany rural public libraries have bene-fi' d.

Some federal and state programs re-quire that for a school to be eligible forfunds, a minimum number of studentsmust be served. Given their often smallenrollments, many rural schools viewthis as a discriminatory policy since itrenders them ineligible despite havingchildren in need. The Eisenhower pro-gram addresses this issue by requiringthat any school district whose entitle-ment is less than $6,000 must enter intoa consortium with other districts so col-lectively they receive at least $6,000.

Few national studies have attempted toascertain fund distribution by location,and because of the circumstances justnoted above, those that did had diffi-culty. For example, a 1989 GeneralAccounting Office report noted that"[t]he rural percent of the relativelymassive vocational education pro-gramBasic Grants to the States(CFDA #84.048) could not be estab-

29 4 2

lished, nor could [that for] several ofthe smaller scale vocational educationprograms." How much rural studentsbenefit from the Department's formulaprograms, then, remains uncertain.

Other Major Federal Programs.In fiscal year 1991, an estimated 61.4billion federal dollars went toward edu-cation (Hoffman 1993). Of that total,43.3 percent came from ED (table 5-3).Only two other departmentsAgricul-ture and Interior (with its Bureau ofIndian Affairs schools)and the Ap-palachian Regional Commission spe-cifically targeted rural education.However, as with ED entitlements,broad mandates do encompass rural lo-cations. The following are the majorfederal responses affecting rural ele-mentary and secondary level students.

U.S. Department of Agricul-ture. A number of programs and unitsin the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) impact rural education di-rectly or indirectly.

The Child Nutrition Program adminis-ters food programs that address the nu-tritional needs of America'sschool-age children and youth. It is thesingle largest federal program for ele-mentary and secondary schools. Mostschools, including rural schools, offerfree and reduced-priced lunchesthrough this program.

The Economic Research Service car-ries out analyses and issues majordocuments for policymakers on theeconomic and social trends in non-metropolitan counties, including dis-cussion of rural education's role inrural economic development.

The Cooperative Extension System is adecentralized educational network thatfunctions as a partnership involvingUSDA, state land-grant universities,and county governments. It includes

initiatives for youth-at-risk and familywell-being that impact children fromthe pre-school years to the late teensand also sponsors the National 4-Hprogram of informal education foryouth age 9-19. In 1988, the ExtensionService joined the U.S. Department ofLabor, the Southwest Educational De-velopment Laboratory (SEDL), andmany other public and private organi-zations to sponsor four regional work-shops to assess the role of education inrural economic development.

The National Agriculture Library ad-ministers the Rural Information Center,an information and referral service forrural local government, and the YouthDevelopment Information Center, asimilar service for professionals whowork with rural youth.

U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. This Departmentoperates Head Start, which providescomprehensive health, educational, nu-tritional, social, and other services topreschool children who are economi-cally disadvantaged. The program'sformula portion is based on povertymeasures, while the discretionary por-tion is focused on Indian tribes, territo-ries, migrants, and the handicapped.Under both portions, funds would reachrural children.

U.S. Department of Labor. Thisagency administers the Job TrainingPartnership Act and the Job Corps pro-grams that provide employment andtraining to economically disadvantagedyouth. While there are no rural set-asides, allocation formulas targeting ar-eas of unemployment enable ruralyouth to benefit as well.

Appalachian Regional Com-mission. This independent agencyfollows a relatively ambitious agendato address equity and quality issues inrural, small school districts in the Ap-

palachian area of the country. Involv-ing counties in 13 states, it stronglysupports vocational education and con-ducts special studies on such topics asadult literacy, high school dropouts,and the impact of reform on schools inits region.

State Policies andProgramsMany state governments has e long en-gaged in special efforts to promote eq-uity and quality in rural, small schooldistricts. One can classify these effortsinto five broad categories (table 5-4).

Structural strategies. The ap-proach most widely implemented in-volves mandatin- the reorganization ofneighboring districts with small enroll-ments into new, larger administrativeunits, a practice known as consolida-tion. This practice, used extensivelyand wit-. dramatic effects in earlier dec-ades, is still actively under considera-tion in many states, (e.g., Oregon,North Carolina, Iowa, and Minnesota).A number of states now use fiscal in-centives to promote voluntary consoli-dation. Still other states (e.g., WestVirginia) promote merging small en-rollment schools with larger schools inthe same district. Some states also haveestablished special-purpose regionalschools (e.g., special education or vo-cational-technical) or comprehensiveregional secondary schools.

Service delivery strategies. Awide variety of mechanisms are used invirtually all states primarily to assistrural districts. They make availablespecialized programs and services usu-ally beyond the means of systems hav-i ng small enrollments (e.g.,cooperative purchasing, staff develop-ment, curriculum development or man-agement support, and special educationservices). Common structures are state-

30 43

operated, single-purnose, or compre-hensive educational service agencies;regional branches of the state educationagency; multidistrict sharing of wholegades (usually . the secondary level)or the joint employment of staff; dis-tance-learning for course delivery andstaff training; and instructional pro-grams operated by the state.

School lhoice options. Many ad-vocacy gioups now support interdis-trict schiol choice. But its earlysupporters were rural parents in areasof limited possibilities who soughtricher educational experiences for theirchildren. This practice is now permis-sible in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota,Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Revenue enhancement. Severalmechanisms have been designed toaugment support for revenue-poor, pri-marily rural, schools. The most com-mon practice is state-aid formulas thatinclude a sparsity factor to account fordistricts with thin populations.

Administrative tactics. Rural inter-ests are represented through the pres-ence of policy or planning positions atthe state level in a number of cases.

Other InitiativesSeveral public and private agencies, or-ganizations, and institutions have un-dertaken many voluntary actions toenhance the programs of rural, smallschool districts. They are grouped intofour categories.

University-based programs. Pro-gams to train new rural teachers andadministrators exist in some dozen col-leges and universities. Examples in-clude Western Montana College'spolicy of a half-year student teachingassignment in a rural district, and aninterdisciplinary graduate seminar atthe University of Vermont for aspiring

and experienced school administratorsand other human service professionalswho work in rural areas. Also, manypostsecondary institutions located innonmetropolitan areas have for manyyears provided in-service training forschool teachers and administrators. Inaddition, the state of Washington pro-vides incentives for teacher candidatesto do student teaching in rural districts.

Some postsecondary institutions haveestablished rural school research andtechnical assistance centers, while alimited number offer high school andadvanced placement courses via tele-communications. Kansas State Univer-sity, Manhattan, is home to the RuralClew inghouse for Lifelong Educationand Development, which recently de-veloped a telecourse on change in ruralcommunities available through thePBS Adult Training Service. In still adifferent example of postsecondary in-volvement in rural education, the Uni-versity of Maine, Orono, for the lastdecade has published a journal dedi-cated to research on rural education.

Professional associations andorganizations. Several entities existto promote rural education concerns.The oldest continuing organizationdedicated to this purpose is the Na-tional Rural Education Association(NREA) fonnded in 1907. Among itspublications is a quarterly journal, TheCountry Teacher. NREA recently en-dorsed three postsecondary institution-based research centers, attesting totheir quality and investment in ruralstudies. They are the Center for theStudy of Small/Rural Schools at theUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman; theRural Education ResfArch and ServiceConsortium, Tennessee Tech Univer-sity, Cookeville; and the Center for Ru-ral Education and Small Schools,Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Other examples of rurai education or-ganizations are the American Councilon Rural Special Education, the South-ern Rural Education Association, andthe Future Farmers of America. Tnelatter is a school-based, federally char-tem national organization of studentspreparing for a range of careers in ag-riculture.

In addition, rural interest units havebeen established within associationsthat have a wider focus, for example,the National School Boards Associa-tion. (NSBA) and the American Asso-ciation of School Administrators(AASA). In 1989, an umbrella goup,Organizations Concerned About RuralEducation (OCRE), was formed inWashington, D.C. to bring togetherthose interested in rural education is-sues. OCKE membership includesNREA, NSBA, AASA, the NationalEducation Association (NEA), theAmerican Federation of Teachers(AFT), the National Grange, the Trian-gle Coalition, U.S. West, and the Coun-cil for Education Development andResearch (CEDaR).

A major compilation of state and na-tional organizations having a rural in-terest may be found in the RuralEducation Directory: Organizationsand Resources, a joint publication ofthe ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Edu-cation and Small Schools and theNREA.

State-level rural education inter-est groups. Voluntary state organi-zations have sprung up in more than adozen states, including Missouri, Ne-braska, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Manyhave been instrumental in challengingexisting school finance formulas intheir respective states.

Foundations. 'The Annenberg, Ford,Kellogg, and Charlzs Stewart MottFoundations, and the Lilly Endow-

31 4 4

ment, Inc., among others, support awide range of activities to assist ruralschools and communities. Examplesinclude support for research analysis,grants to targeted schools, and fundsfor expanding school-business enter-prises.

SummaryInstitutional activities on behalf of ru-ral education present a mixed picture.On the one hand, a number of initia-tives have been designed to address theneeds of rural schools and their stu-dents. On the other hand, these needs,especially in circumstances of poverty,can be extreme. Lack of adequate re-search and impact evaluations, to-gether with definitional inconsis-tencies severely limit policymakers'ability to know either the effect of fed-eral, state, and local programs on ruralschools or whether rural interests arebeing equitably addressed. Until thisdeficiency is corrected, policymakingon behalf of rural students will be im-peded.

Notes

1. Operated by Executive Order in the1960s, but established by statute in 1979,FICE provides the Secretary of Educationwith a mechanism to coordinate the Depart-ment's education activities with those ofother federal units.

Ref erncesBarker, B.O., and W.E. Beckner. 1987.

"Preservice Training for Rural Teach-e, A Survey." Rural Educator 8:3.

General Accounting Office. 1989. RuralDevelopment: Federal Programs ThatFocus on Rural America and its Eco-nomic Development. Washington, DC.

Hoffman, C.M. 1993. Federal Support forEducation: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

Johnson, F. 1989. Assigning Type of Lo-cale Codes to the 1987-88 CCD PublicSchool Universe. Technical Report CS89-194. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Rural Education Directory: Organizationsand Resources. 1993. Charleston, WV:ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-tion and Small Schools and the NationalRural Education Association.

vreesivil

sit

U.S. Department of Education. 1983. RuralEducation and Rural Family EducationPolicy for the '80s. AdministrativeDocument. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improve-ment. 1990. An Agenda for Researchand Development on Rural Education.Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improve-ment. May 1989. Request for Propos-als. RFP 89-054, Appendix A.Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improve-ment. April 1990. Request for Propos-als. RFP 91-002, Attachment A.Washington, DC.

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-ica's educators in achieving school im-provement has received considerableattention. Yet little notice has beentaken of those in rural schools, partlybecause of inadequate statistical infor-mation. Recently analyzed data fromthe Schools and Staffing Survey(SASS) conducted by the National Cen-ter for Education Statistics (NCES)help remedy this situation. Basic demo-graphic characteristics (including edu-cation and work experiences),compensation, recruitment, and work-ing conditions of rural public schoolteachers and principals are now avail-able. Except where noted otherwise, allinformation reported comes from origi-nal analyses of these new data. In mak-i ng comparisons with nonruraleducators, some conceptions about edu-cation in Rural America have been con-firmed, while others have not.'

Rural TeachersIt has been observed that, "Attractingand keeping competent individuals toteach the 'three R's' in rural schools islargely a function of the 'three C's,'characteristics, conditions, and com-pensation" (Sher 1983). These aspectsare presented in the following para-graphs:

Demographic characteristics.Some 560,000 elementary and secon-dary teachers, or about 24 percent ofAmerica's more than two million pub-lic school teachers, were employed in arural setting in say year 1987-8'3.2

Sex and race-ethnicity. The pro-portion of male and female teachers inrural and nonrural elementary schoolshad virtually no differences of conse-quencefemales outnumbered males

about 7 to 1. At the secondary level,there was greater sex parity. Only 6percent of rural school teachers weremembers of minority groups comparedto 12 percent in nonrural schools. Thispartly reflects the lower proportion ofminority groups in Rural Americawhere 87 percent of the student popula-tion is white. However, there are largeconcentrations of rural black, Hispanic,Pacific Islander, and Indian students incertain regions of the country.

Age and experience. As sus-pected from previous research, ruralteachers were found to be younger thannonrural teachers (table 6-1a), withsomewhat more under the age of 30 (16

vs. 12 percent) and with considerablyfewer over the age of 40 (44 vs. 53percent). Reflecting these age differ-ences, proportionately more ruralteachers had less than 10 years of expe-rience, while fewer (17 vs. 23 percent)had more than 20 years experience (ta-ble 6-1b).

Training. In the context of educationreform, many have expressed concernabout the quality of teachers in ruralschools. One index of quality is amountof preparation. As widely believed, thesurvey confirmed rural teachers gener-ally have less professional preparation(figure 6-1 and table 6-2). The differ-ence was most dramatic at the secon-

Figure 6-1.Degree attainment of teachers, by settingand school level taught: 1987-88

64.1% 60.5%

31.5%Elementary rural

54.4%

4.4%

"41Ni 6.5%

39.1%Elementary nonrural

34.3%Secondary rural

44.5%

46.4%Secondary nonrural

El B.A. or less 1111 M.A. III Pt-7."Teq

SOURCE: U.S. Department ol Education, National Center 101 Education Statistics,Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987-88.

5.2%

9.1%

dary school level where 34 percent ofrural teachers had at least a master'sdegree compared to 46 percent for non-rural teachers. Part of the differencemay be attributable to the rural teach-ers' relative youth. Another contribut-ing factor may be the limited accessrural teachers in more isolated settingshave to continuing education and pro-fessional development opportunities.

Moreover, many teachers had not ma-jored in the subject they were teaching.About one out of five teachers in bothrural and nonrural settings was respon-sible for subjects for which they werenot academically prepared or certified.In rural areas, the mismatch was great-est for two subjects at the secondarylevel: 27 percent of special educationteachers and 24 percent of scienceteachers lacked academic majors orcertification compared to 18 percent ofthe teachers for these two subjects innonrural settings.

This information on experience andtraining is underscored by recent find-ings from a sample survey carried outfor the National Science Foundation(Carisen and Monk 1992). Rural sci-ence teachers in middle and secondaryschools net only averaged 3.1 yearsless experience teaching science, butthey reported taking significantly fewerundergraduate science courses or evenscience methods courses. Moreover,fewer than half (48 percent) of rural

science teachers compared to 65 per-cent nonrural science teachers had ad-vanced degrees.

Compensation. The common per-ception that teachers' salaries are lessin rural schools than in nonruralschools was borne out by the SASSsurvey. Rural teachers' base salary, de-fined as the average of all teacher sala-ries exclusive of any contractedsupplements, was $22,600 in 1988, ap-proximately $4,800 less than thatearned by nonrural teachers.'

Another comparison is that of offi-cially scheduled salaries. Figure 6-2compares the average scheduled salaryof rural and nonrural districts by teach-ers' academic preparation and experi:ence. Rural school districts offeredteachers with a bachelor's degree andno experience approximately $1,600less on the average than did nonruraldistricts, a 10 percent differential.More noteworthy, however, is that ru-ral teachers with a master's degree and20 years on the job earned an averageof $5,000 less, widening the disparityto more than three times that experi-enced by beginning teachers. Such anincome shortfall could be a factor caus-

ing many rural teachers to leave forjobs outside rural areas, and for thosewho remain, could serve as a disincen-tive for obtaining an advanced degree.

Figure 6-2. Average scheduled salary for rural andnonrural teachers

Setting Noexperience

Noexperience

B.A.IMMOINO.

M.A.

20 yearsexperience

M.A.

Rural $16,973 $18,519 $27,245

Nonrural $18,610 $20,303 $32,194

34 4 7

In addition to lower salaries, ruralschool districts tended to offer fewerbenefits to their teachers than did non-rural districts. They paid less frequentlyfor teachers' general medical, dental,and life insurance, and proportionatelyfewer of them contributed to a pensionfund for teachers (table 6-3).

Possibly as a result of these discrepan-cies in compensation, rural teachers en-gaged in supplemental schoolemployment somewhat more than didnonrural teachers (38 vs. 33 percent).But they did not moonlight more, thatis, hold jobs outside school. However,nearly one-quarter of all teachers, re-gardless of setting, took such jobs atsome time during the calendar year (ta-ble 6-4), suggesting possible generalteacher dissatisfaction with income lev-els, though the desire to fill time use-fully during the long summer vacationmay be a factor as well.

Recruitment and retention ofqualified teachers. The supply ofqualified teachers for rural schools hasbeen a concern for some time. Uponexamination, many factors are found toaffect the issues of teacher selection,supply, demand, and shortage in ruralschools.

Teacher selection criteria. Poli-cymakers debate considerably whatqualifications should govern teacherhiring. While most schools employedtraditional criteria, somewhat more ru-ral than nonrural schools reported thembeing used in their districts (table 6-5).Examples are: a major or minor in thefield for which a teacher was being con-sidered (68 vs. 61 percent), completionof an approved teacher education pro-gram (72 vs. 65 percent), and state cer-tification (81 vs. 77 percent).

However, despite the widely publicizednational move during the early 1980s topromote using standardized tests for

teacher candidates before they couldenter the classroom, only a minority ofrural districts used each type (table 6--5). A little more than one out of fourrural districts employed the NationalTeachers Examination and just overone-third used a state test (37 percent),proportions that were slightly less thanthat of nonrural districts. Only a fewused a district examination (3 vs. 11percent). (Note: These data should notbe added; a district may employ morethan one test in its process.)

Recruitment. In school year1987-88, about 12 percent of princi-pals in rural schools reported havingdifficulty recruiting teachers, whileone out of four said recruitment washard only for selected subjects. How-ever, contrary to expectations based onlimited research (Harris 1989; Hattonet al. 1991), it did nor appear to be moredifficult, on average, to recruit teachersfor rural schools than for nonruralschools.

When rural principals were unable tofind qualified teachers, they actedsomewhat differently than nonruralprincipals. While use of substitutes wasthe dominant solution, rural schoolprincipals employed them less often(26 vs. 40 percent)possibly becausesubstitutes were unavailable in rela-tively sparsely settled areas. As a re-sult, they tended somewhat more tocancel a course or to reassign teachers,with nearly one out of five using thelatter solution (table 6-6).

Retention. Attrition is a major is-sue in all education settings becausestability of personnel is necessary forschools to be effective (Purkey andSmith 1983). Between the 1986-87and 1987-88 academic years, the attri-tion rate in rural and nonrural schoolswas 9 percent. Schools with enrollmentunder 150, however, had attrition rates

as high as 13 percent, a relevant findingfor many rural communities wheresmall schools predominate.

Moreover, the proportion of teachersleaving a school for a given reasonvaried by setting. For those leaving theprofession, retirement was the primaryreason, although consistent with dataon age and work experience, propor-tionately fewer rural teachers reportedthis choice (27 vs. 36 percent). Signifi-cantly, former rural teachers were morelikely to have taken a job outside ofeducation than were those who leftnonrural schools (21 vs. 15 percent).That one out of five rural teachers leftthe profession for reasons other thanretirement is consistent with wide-spread reports of teacher turnover inrural areas.

But not all departing teachers are lostto the profession (Rollefson 1990). Infact, over 50 percent of the attrition isaccounted for by those who transfer toother schools. The scant research thatexists indicates rural teachers move toobtain better salaries and benefits(Matthes and Carlson 1986) or to teachin a larger community (Harris 1989;and Hatton et al. 1991).

Working conditions. Recent stud-ies (Chubb and Moe 1990; Corcoran etal. 1988; Rosenholtz 1989) have raisedthe issue of the school as work place,though none addressed rural settings.This perspective reflects an assertionmade at the beginning of the currentschool reform era that the most impor-tant public policy for effecting reformshould be to transform "schools into'good work' places .. . " (Sykes 1983).NCES data revealed rural teachers ex-perienced both advantages and disad-vantages relative to their nonrural peersin conditions they face daily.

35

Workload. While rural teacherswere found to have smaller classes, theaverage class size difference of twofewer students at both the elementaryand secondary levels was not as greatas would have been expected from theresearch literature. However, the dataconfirmed findings from earlier studiesthat secondary-level subject areateachers in rural schools teach moresubjects, requiring more preparations.They were nearly twice as likely asnonrural teachers to be responsible forthree or more subjects daily-31 per-cent as opposed to 17 percent. Lookedat from another way, just over a thirdof the rural secondary school teacherstaught just one subject daily comparedto half of the nonrural teachers.

Spheres of Influencetheclassroom. The data also bore outthe common belief that rural teachersexercised considerable control over tileinstructional process in their class-rooms. Larger proportions of ruralteachers reported they had a high levelof control over five classroom proc-esses: determining the amount ofhomework to be assigned (90 percent);selecting teaching techniques (88 per-cent); disciplining students (74 per-cent); selecting content, topics, andskills to be taught (67 percent); andselecting textbooks and other instruc-tional materials (65 percent). The ruraladvantage was particularly marked inthe last two categories (table 6-7).

Spheres of influencetheschool. By contrast, smaller propor-tions of rural teachers indicated having"a great deal of influence" over variousaspects of school policy (range=20 to46 percent) that included discipline,inservice training, ability grouping,and curriculum (table 6-8). The domi-nant distinction was level, rather thansetting: for three of the four areas, more

elementary than secondary schoolteachers reported influence. And onlyfor discipline at the secondary level (28vs. 23.5 percent) and in curriculum atboth levels (40 percent) did a signifi-cantly larger percentage of rural teach-ers than nonrural teachers report a greatdeal of influence.

Satisfaction. Of special concern,however, is the low level of satisfactionteachers had with their working condi-tionsregardless of setting. A minor-ity of teachers were "highly satisfied"with the key areas of "support and ad-ministrative leadership" (22 percent)and "buffering and rule enforcement"(33 percent), and an even smaller pro-portion had that view regarding "coop-eration among staff' (9 percent) and"adequacy of resources" (2 percent)(table 6-9). Reflecting these expres-sions of dissatisfaction, 24 percent ofthe rural teachers indicated they wouldnot choose to teach again. Two out ofthree, however, said they would remainin the profession as long as possible.Significantly, there were no apprecia-ble differences between rural and non-rural teachers on any of these measures.

Rural SchoolPrincipalsThat the principal is central to aschool's effectiveness has been docu-mented in numerous studies over thelast two decades. Indeed, much of thehoped-for success of the latest reformstrategies hinges on the school buildingadministrator' s skill. Yet little has beenwritten about the rural school principal.Fortunately, the Schools and StaffingSurvey makes it possible to gain infor-mation about those who bear so muchresponsibility for educating the nextgeneration under what may often betrying circumstances. (Note: Thesedata are only on building principals andnot on othn types of administrators,

since other administrators were notsurveyed.)

Demographic characteristics.About one-third of America' s 78,000public school principals said theyworked in rural communities (table 6-10).

Sex and race-ethnicity. 0 fthese rural principals, about 83 percentwere male (21,000 compared to 4,300females); in nonrural areas, 72 percentof the principals were male (table 6-11). As with teachtIrs, just 6 percent ofrural school principals are NativeAmerican, Asian, black, or Hispanic,compared to 13 percent in nonruralschools (table 6-12).

Age and experience. It has beensuggested (Jacobson 1988) that schooladministrators often begin their careersin rural areas, only to move on to non-rural areas or out of the profession. Thesurvey attests to the rural school prin-cipals' comparative youth. One quarterof rural principals are under age 40,compared to 15 percent of nonruralprincipals. Moreover, only 3 out of 10rural principals are 50 years of age andolder, compared to 4 of 10 for nonruralprincipals (table 6-11).

Training. As for education levels(figure 6-3 and table 6-13), just asmany rural principals had master's de-grees as did nonrural principals (overhalf); the same is true for those holding

education specialist degrees (over one-third). But there were significant dif-ferences at either end of the educationspectrum. Less than half as many ruralprincipals held a Ph.D. or similar ad-vanced degree (5 percent vs. 11 per-cent), Correspondingly, about 5percent had just a B.A. or less, whilethis was true of only 1 percent of non-rural principals. The relative youth of

36 4 9

principals at rural schools may be partof the explanation for both phenomena.

Stark differences in educational attain-ment emerged when rural principalswere compared by sex and whenwomen principals in the two settingswere contrasted. Rural female princi-pals were three times as likely not tohave advanced beyond the B.A. (12 vs.4 percent). Moreover, rural femaleprincipals were considerably outpacedby women in nonrural settings. Theywere six times as likely to hold just aB.A. (12 vs. 2 percent) while the rate atwhich they nad advanced beyond themaster's degree was half that of non-rural females (6 vs. 13 percent). Similardiscrepancies characterized males inboth settings, but they were not as ex-treme.

Contrasts also appeared when compar-ing the work histories of principals (ta-ble 6-14). The most striking differencevas by sex, with rural male principalshaving been in the profession consider-ably longer than their female counter-parts (10.4 vs. 5.7 years). A similarcontrast existed in nom-ural settings. Inaddition, rural male principals hadworked in that role for 10.4 years com-pared to 11.8 years for nonrural males.The difference between female princi-pals in the two settings was smaller (5.7vs. 6.3 years). In a lition, women inboth settings had entered the profes-sion later, averaging 3 years moreworking outside the principalship, pri-marily as a result of spending moretime as teachers than men didabout12 vs. 9 years.

Compensation. As shown in figure6-4, rural principals received substan-tially less pay than nonrural principals(table 6-15). The average salary for aprincipal of a rural school was about$36,000 compared to nearly $45,400for a nonrural school :)rincipal. In ad-dition to the basic economic difficulties

that restrain rural salaries, some part ofthis difference may be due to the rela-tively small size of rural schools.Larger, usually urban, schools have thecapacity to attract personnel with morecredentials and experience and to paythem accordingly.

Male rural principals earned more thanfemale rural principals by about$4,600. The male pay advantage in ru-ral areas was nearly three times theadvantage of male principals in non-rural areas (an 11 vs. 4 percent differ-ential compared to female principals).Even greater was the pay disparity be-tween women in the two settings$11,000, or 25 percent. A major

contributing factor may be that a largeproportion of rural female principalshad not attained the academic creden-tials of their nonrural counterparts.

Compensation disadvantages for ruralprincipals extended to the benefitsavailable in their pay packages (table6-16). As shown in figure 6-5, signifi-candy fewer rural principals receivedbenefits such as medical insurance, lifeinsurance, and pensions. Moreover, ni-ml principals were twice as likely toreceive no benefits at all (7.7 vs. 3.3percent).

Working conditions. Large propor-tions of rural school principals exerciseconsiderable control over key adminis-

tredve areas (table 6-17). Both ruraland nonrural principals reported hav-ing considerable influence overteacher hiring and school disciplinepolicy, with slightly more rural princi-pals saying this was the case. But ruralprincipals were far more likely to saythey also had a great deal of influencein curriculum development (64 percentrural vs. 49.5 percent nonrural). Thecomplement to more local control isless outside control. Thus proporlion-ately fewer rural principals reportedtheir district offices had "a great dealof influence" on curriculum (43 per-cent vs. 60 percent).

Figure

Percentage

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

0

SOURCE:

6-3.Degree attainment of public school prirlipals, by setting and sex: 1987-88

-;

.

_ .

,

,.:

B.A. or less M.A. Education Specialist PH.D., M.D., or J.D.Degrees

= Rural male ` \ Rural female Nonrural male 1" Nonrural female

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 public schuol 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 schoolprincipals receiving various benefits:1987-88

Benefits Total Rural Nonrural

Housing 1.0 2.7 0.2

Meals 1.8 3.5 0.9

Tuition 9.4 9.8 9.2

General medical insurance 85.3 80.5 88.0

Dental insurance 60.4 47.5 67.1

Group life insurance 66.6 54.3 73.1

Transportation 35.0 35.9 35.1

Pension contributions 58.5 51.7 61.5

Receiving none of these 4.9 7.7 3.3

38

51

Yet while many rural principals aspireto be instructional leaders, many wearseveral hats. They may be principalswhose contracts require them to teach,coach, or perform the duties of busi-ness manager, personnel director, andtransportation coordinator, or princi-pals who also serve as superintendents(Tift 1990). And of course, because ofthe lack of support staff, considerabletime is spent on day-to-day manage-ment, student discipline, and interac-tions with parents (Chance and Lingren1989).

Rural areas are not immune to societalills that affect schools in more denselysettled areas. When asked to identifyserious problems in their schools, both

rural and nonrural secondary levelprincipals responded similarly (table6-18). But while the problem namedby the largest proportion of nonruralprincipals was absenteeism (18 per-cent), the most frequently identifiedproblem in rural schools was alcoholuse, cited by 15 percent of secondaryschool principals.

Despite difficulties that equal or ex-ceed those of nonrural principals, jobsatisfaction on most indices (e.g. pro-fessional life, working conditions) re-mained as high or higher than that ofnonrural principals (Feistritzer 1988).The major exception concerned in-come. Only 64 percent of rural princi-pals expressed satisfaction with theirpresent salaries. Except for principalsin very large cities where 60 percentexpressed satisfaction, 72 percent ormore of principals in other communitytypes said they were satisfied with theirsalaries.

SummaryTeachers in rural schools were found tobe younger, less experienced, and lesslikely to have completed advanced de-grees than those in nonrural schools.Their salaries and benefits were less,with the salary differential worseningover time. They reported somewhatsmaller classes and significantly morecontrol over the classroom than non-rural teachers. A minority of teachersindicated a great deal of influence overschool policies, and there were unly afew areas in which a proportionatelylarger group of rural than nonruralteachers made this claim. In addition,rural teachers were far more likely tobe confronted with multiple subjectpreparations. Moreover, the rate ofteaching some subjects for which onewas not trained or certified exceededthe national average of 20 percent. Sat-isfaction levels reported by rural teach-

ers were as low as elsewhere in thecountry, and their attrition rates werejust as high.

Rural principals were found to beyounger than nonrural principals. Butin terms of credentials, they differedfrom nonrural principals only at theextremes of the spectrum, with morehaving only a B.A. or less and fewerhaving attained a degree above theM.A. They received considerably lesspay and fewer benefits than nonruralprincipals. Rural female principals, un-like nonrural female principals, hadless education and received consider-ably las pay than males. Larger pro-portions of rural principals indicatedhaving considerable control over keyadministrative areas. But high percent-ages of secondary level principals alsoreported significant problems likethose that plague schools elsewhere.Yet, except for pay, overall satisfactionlevels were high. Possibly, the qualitiesof many rural schools, such as smallsize, homogeneity, and links to thecommunity serve to satisfy a large pro-portion of the principals. And yet theirrelative youth suggests many move on,possibly attracted by the higher salariesin larger communities and a perceptionof greater professional visibility andopportunity.

Notes

1. "Rural" was self-determined by respon-dents who selected from among 10 C-0111111111-

nity types. Choices of rural or farmingcommunity and Indian reservation repre-sent "rural" in this chapter. The remainingoptions constitute "nonrural." Appendix Blists all 10 community types.

2. Unless otherwise stated, data cited arefrom tabulations of the SASS base-yearsurvey that were specially commissionedfor this report. However, because of spacelimitations, only a few of the more than 65tabulations are produced in this volume. A

complete set may be obtained by writing the

editor.

3. There is no way to determine how muchof this contrast is attributable to cost ofliving. Findings from a study in one statesuggest that location accounts for less thanhalf the differences in income (Ghelfi1988). If this were true elsewhere, thensalary differences discussed here and else-where in this chapter would be substantialeven after adjusting for cost differences dueto location.

ReferencesCarlsen, W.S., and D.H. Monk 1992. "Ru-

ral/Nonrural Differences Among Sec-ondary Science Teachers: Evidencefrom the Longitudinal Study of Ameri-can Youth." Paper presented at theAmerican Educational Research Asso-ciation Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Chance, E., and C. Lingren. 1989. 'TheGreat Plains Rural Secondary Principal:Aspirations and Reality." Research inRural Education 6:1.

Chubb, J.E., and T.M. Moe. 1990. Politics,Markets, and America's Schools.Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-tion.

Corcoran, T.B., L.J. Walker, and J.L.White. 1988. Working in UrbanSchools. Washington, DC: Institute forEducational Leadership.

Feistritzer, C.E. 1988. Profile of SclzoolAdministrators in the U.S. Washington,DC: National Center for Education In-formation.

Ghelfi, L.M. October 1988. "About ThatLower Cost of Living in Non-Metro-politan Areas." Rural DevelopmentPerspectives 5:1. Washington, DC:U.S. Departmem of Agriculture, Eco-nomic Research Service.

Harris, M. October 1989. "First YearTeachers in North Dakota." Paper pre-sented at the National Rural EducationAssociation Research Forum, Reno,NV.

Hatton, NB., et al. 1991. "School Staffingand the Quality of Education, TeacherStability, and Mobility." Teaching andTeacher Education 7:3.

Jnobson, S.L. 1988. "The Rural Superin-tendency: Reconsidering the Adminis-trative Farm System." Research inRural Education 5:2.

Matthes, W.A., and R.V. Carlson. 1986."Conditions for Practice: the ReasonsTeachers Selected Rural Schools."Journal of Rural and Small Schools 1:1.

ss-

Purkey, S.C., and M.S. Smith. 1983. "Ef-fective Schools: A Review." Elemen-

tary School Journal 83:4,

Rollefson, M. April 1990. "Patterns of En-try to and Exit from Teaching." Paperpresented at the American EducationalResearch Association Conference, Bos-ton, MA.

Rosenholtz, S.J. :989. Teachers' Work-place. New York: Longman.

gab,

Sher, J. 1983. "Education's Ugly Duckling:Rural Schools in Urban Nations." PhiDelta Kappan 65:4.

Sykes, G. 1983. "Teacher Preparation andTeacher Workforce: Problems andProspects for the 80s." American Edu-cation 19:2.

Tift, C. 1990. Rural Administrative Lead-ership Handbook. Portland OR: North-west Regional Educational Laboratory.

<

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 SchoolDistrict #2. Photo by Larry Lewis.

5340

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

7. Effects of Education Reform in Rural Schools

The education reforms that swept thecountry in the 1980s redefined the bal-ance of authority between state govern-ments and local school districts,although considerable room for flexi-bility and local activism remained(Fuhnnan and Elmore 1990). In theabsence of national data on the impactof reform in rural areas, this chapterreports several rural responses to spe-cific reform initiatives, identifies alter-natives to school consolidation, anddescribes implications of school fi-nance litigation.

Reform Mandates andRural SchoolsProbably at no time since successivestate drives to consolidate schools andschool districts in earlier decades hasso much been demanded of ruralschools. Fl 9rs such as size, geo-graphic la . A, isolation, culture anulanguage, economic status, and legisla-tive contexts have all influenced theways educational reform has been im-plemented in rural settings (Forbes1989). The issue today, as it has beenthroughout this century, is how to re-spond to state-mandated initiativeswhile at the same time retaining localcontrol and creating an education sys-tem that serves community needs(De Young 1990).

The ongoing reform movement haspresented unique opportunities for ru-ral schoolsand great difficulties. Forexample, many observers have notedthat the structure and characteristics ofmany rural schools create an atmos-phere conducive to school improve-ment. These include lowstudent-teacher ratios, individualizedinstruction and attention, cooperative

learning opportunities, close relation-ships and ties to the community, andstrong staff commitment (De Young1987; Stephens 1988; Hobbs 1990;McREL 1990). At the same time, thescarcity of human and fiscal resourcesand the accelerated pace of changehave further strained the capacities ofmany rural school districts, especiallythose already impoverished. This isparticularly the case with more com-plex and comprehensive reforms thatrequire significant time and resourcesto be incorporated fully into districtprocedures (State Research Associates1988).

Key Areas of ReformFollowing the publication of A Nationat Risk in 1983, governors and statelegislatures targeted several key areasfor reform: high school course require-ments, staff training, special needs stu-dents, and school organization. Ruralareas have responded in a variety ofways.

Expanding academic course re-quirements. State reform measuresdefined more rigorous academic stand-ards for secondary students, increasedthe number of courses required for highschool gaduation (Center for PolicyResearch in Education 1990), and insti-tuted state assessment programs (Na-tional Governors' Association 1989).Faced with perennial budgetary diffi-culties, rural districts used numerousstrategies to expand the number of aca-demic courses offered to high schoolstudents. They shared teachers and fa-cilities, employed a variety of moderntechnologies, and added extra class pe-riods when they could afford to (StateResearch Associates 1988),

415 4

But districts with fewer resources wereforced to combine basic and advancedclasses or move teachers from one cur-riculum area to another to comply withstate mandates. The new requirementsalso aggravated a shortage of sciencelaboratory facilities, a problem notreadily amenable to personnel adjust-ments or telecommunications (StateResearch Associates 1988). Further-more, increased academic require-ments have led to a decrease in thenumber of vocational courses and elec-tives offered by rural schools, matchedby a decline in vocational educationenrollment in many rural areas (Fire-stone, Fuhrman, and Kirst 1989; Gen-eral Accounting Office 1989).Concerns have been expressed thatconstraining options for the rural non-college bound will leave them unpre-pared for a productive future (WilliamT. Grant Foundation 1988; State Re-search Associates 1988). Such issuespresent serious challenges to educationpolicymakers.

Improving teachers and schoolleadership. As noted in chapter 6,recruitment and retention of qualifiedteachers, especially teachers certifiedin mathematics and science, are amongthe most pressing problems facing ru-ral administrators (General Account-ing Office 1989). A number of statessuch as New Jersey and Texas re-sponded by enacting alternativeteacher education programs to provideenough teachers for rural (and urban)areas and for critical-shortage subjectsat both the elementary and secondarylevels. Just as with student courses,some rural areas used nontraditionaldelivery systems to provide coursework and other staff-development ac-

tivities. Some examples follow (Officeof Technology Assessment 1989):

Colleges in such diverse locationsas Maine (Community College ofMaine) and Mississippi (Missis-sippi State University) used tele-communications technology toprovide inservice or graduatecourses to teachers in their rural ar-eas.

North Carolina inaugurated a state-wide telecommunications system todeliver teacher training, includingshort and full courses, to all sectionsof the state.

Western Montana College created acomputer network linking teachersin one-room schools, librarians, andothers throughout the state to enablethem to share ideas, request soft-ware and books, and take classes.

An additional example is provided bythe North Central Regional Educa-tional Laboratory, which helped to de-velop and widely disseminate a readingcurriculum training program specifi-cally designed for rural schools (Lewis1992). Key to the success of the Wis-consin Rural Reading ImprovementProject has been a range of technolo-gies for teacher training, includingvideotapes, audiotapes, teleconferenc-ing, and an on-line and audio-videosystem. These technologies enable par-ticipating schools to communicate witheach other, the laboratory, and otherexperts in the field.

Programs for special popula-tions. New and expanded initiatives inthe late 1980s focused on at-risk youth,early childhood and preschool readi-ness programs, homeless children, andspecial education students. Large pro-portions of children with special needsare found in rural areas. Some schoolofficials report that many education-

ally disadvantaged students are experi-encing achievement gains because re-forms have allowed access to remedialinstruction and special programs (Gen-eral Accounting Office 1989).

However, reports by the National RuralDevelopment institute (Helge 1990)and the Charles Stewart Mott Founda-tion (MDC, Inc. 1988) indicate thatprograms and services for rural chil-dren considered at-riskincluding mi-nority, teenage parent, poor, andhandicapped studentsare often notavailable or may not offer a full arrayof education and health services whenthey are available. The plight of some-one in need may be aggravated by dis-tance to services, barriers oftopography found in certain locations,turnover of trained staff, or even im-pediments of language or local atti-tudes (Helge 1991). At the same time,many rural schools successfully inte-grate handicapped students into main-stream classes even when faced withlack of specialty personnel or profes-sional services.

Little is known on a national level ofthe extent to which rural students areheing reached by state initiatives forspecial student populations. But illus-trations of efforts being made on theirbehalf do exist.

Indiana, Iowa, Vermont, and Vir-ginia are among the states with largerural populations that have devel-oped or expanded their programs totarget preschools serving at-riskstudents (National Governors' As-sociation 1989).

The Bloomfield School District inrural New Mexico served grades K-2 in an early-prevention-of-school-failure program, provided analternative secondary program, andoffered a program for teen parentsand their offspring (New Mexico

42 5 5

State Department of Education1988).

The Bureau of Indian Affairs andthe State of Alaska, through partici-pation in the federal Star Schoolsprogram, used distance learning toreach underserved populations onNative American reservations and

remote Native Alaskan villages(Offii:e of Technology Assessment1989).

The Texas Education Agencyfunded dropout prevention pro-grams for migrant secondary stu-dents to enable them to take andpass exit-level graduation examina-tions and testr for admission to col-lege (Texas Education AgencyDropout Information Clearing-house 1990).

School organization and ac-countability. In recent years, schoolreformers have promoted the idea of"restructuring," a term for redesigningthe entire public school system, pro-posed as the only realistic way to im-prove student learning outcomessignificantly while holding educatorsaccountable. A key goal is to decentral-ize authority and decisionmakingthrough site-based management andparticipatory leadership. The purposeis to achieve dramatic changes in cur-riculum and instruction to promote stu-dent acquisition of higher orderthinking skills and create new staffroles, different outcomes measures,and eventually a comprehensive serv-ice system based at school sites (Na-tional Governors' Association 1991a.)

A majority of states have adopted orare adopting state-level initiatives topromote school or district restructuring(Council of Chief State School Offi-cers 1989). These include deregulationand course requirement waivers for

schools (National Governors' Associa-tion 1991b). Many rural districts havean uncomplicated bureaucratic struc-ture that makes it easier to institutechange. Where there is the capacity todo so, therefore, a number of ruralschools and districts are attemptingflexibility in school design and deci-sionmaking. For example,

Course requirement waivers per-mitted a school-within-a-schoolprogram at the Central High Schoolin Springdale, Arkansas, fundedwith assistance from the WinthropRockefeller Foundation. Studentstake four interdisciplinary classesthat promote skills in critical think-ing, problem solving, and commu-nication (Pau lu 1988).

The Southwest Educational Devel-opment Laboratory identified ex-emplary rural school programs thatfeatured key elements of the restruc-turing process. For example, the Lit-tle Axe Public School District, asmall, rural district outside of Nor-man, Oklahoma, employed district-wide goal setting, school-basedmanagement, and participatory de-cisionmaking to design and imple-ment its school improvementprograms (Vaughan 1990).

Research for Better Schools, the re-gional educational laboratory forthe Mid-Atlantic, is developkg anextensive school redesign strategyinvolving several rural schools inthat region. Restructuring guide-lines, frameworks, and models arebeing developed for rural educatorsto facilitate planning and implementreform on a continuing basis (Grove1992).

The Issue of SchoolConsolidationNo discussion of reforms impacting ru-ral schools, and school organization inparticular, would be complete withoutmentioning consolidation. This hasbeen the single policy option usedthroughout the 20th century to try andachieve cost savings and improve edu-cation in rural districts (Stephens1988). Opponents of consolidation ar-gue that it is difficult to place a simplemonetary value on such strengths ofrural schools as the involvement andsupport of parents and the community,individualized instruction, and wide-spread student participation in schoolactivities made possible by smallschool and class size. These benefitsare often lost when schools are elimi-nated and districts enlarged. A growingbody of research is challenging the as-sumptions of consolidation, and manyobservers recommend that each case bejudged on its individual merits (Fox1981; Butler and Monk 1985: Sher1986; Stephens 1991).

Alternatives toConsolidationAlthough full consolidation is seen asa viable option for many rural districts,some local planners have adopted otherinnovative strategies to cope withsparse settlement and limited budgets.They include what has variably beentermed "partial reorganization" (Monk1991) or "clusters" (Nachtigal andParker 1990), and telecommunica-tions.

Partial reorganization. Like con-solidation, clustering increases the sizeof the population served, but each ad-

43 5

ministrative unit continues to exist andretain autonomy. Communities thuscan be strengthened through coopera-tion. Banding together in rural areas isnot new and has been compared to thetradition of barn-raising and harvestingcrews (Nachtigal 1984). Partial reor-ganization strategies are varied, butthey generally involve either two ormore districts or local distficts andother institutions.

Local district cooperation can simplyserve to reduce per unit cost purchasingor to obtain the services of specialiststoo costly for any one district to em-ploy. Some districts even share super-intendents (Sederberg 1985). Morecomplex program objectives usuallyyield formal cooperatives. Purposeshave ranged from enhancing secondaryschool offerings to expanding extra-curricular activities (Ditzler 1984).One example is the South DakotaSmall School Cluster, operationalsince 1981 (Jensen and Widvey 1986).It involves seven small school districts,the South Dakota State University, andthe Mid-continent Regional Educa-tional Laboratory. Begun when a jointinservice day was organized, partici-pants now share teachers and special-ists and have expanded into adult andcommunity education programming.

The long-established practice of hav-ir -ntral high school districts andregional vocational-technical schoolsis a more elaborate form of interdistrictsharing. Central high schools makepossible comprehensive secondaryprograms while allowing elementaryschools to remain under individualcommunity control. This approach alsoavoids long bus rides for young chil-dren (Sher 1988). Regional vocational-technical schools, many of which are

state established, allow small districtsto share vocational education expenseswhile maintaining their own academicprograms.

Districts may seek assistance from re-gional education service agencies in 35states that serve schools in the majorityof school districts (Sederberg 1985;Hillman 1991; Stephens and Turner1991). Examples of the largest are theBoards of Cooperative Education inNew York State and the EducationService Centers of Texas. Some pro-vide regional vocational programs;others offer library resources, businessadministration assistance, or inserviceteacher education.

Cooperatives also exist between localrural districts and institutions of highereducation, community and health serv-ices, and the business community(Dale 1986; De Young 1987; Stephens1988; State Research Associates 1988;Phelps and Prock 1991). Such coopera-tive efforts are still relatively new.Some colleges and universities assistrural schools with teacher training andschool management, or conduct educa-tional research in rural sites. The poten-tial remains for colleges to offervocational-technical programs and ad-vanced placement courses to rural highschool students (Stephens 1991).

The ease or difficulty of sharing serv-ices depends upon the following keyconditions: stability among teachingand administrative staff; consensusamong those involved about the pur-pose of sharing services; benefits to allcollaborating districts; agreement ongovernance of the shared operation;and recognition that sharing servicesrequires operating costs (Berliner1990).

Telecommunications. Rural, smallschools have been in the forefront ofdeveloping innovative uses of instruc-

tional technology. Indeed, the last halfof the 1980s saw a tremendous surge ofdistance-learning activity whereby ru-ral schools provided a wide variety ofcourse work and enrichment materialsfor students and administrators (Officeof Technology Assessment 1989). Dis-tance-learning projects, includingthose supported by the federal StarSchools program, made available hun-dreds of courses to remote sites or lo-cations that could not otherwise affordthe necessary specialists. Included wasinstruction in business and economics,foreign languages, mathematics, sci-ence, and vocational education.

The three most popular delivery sys-tems are satellite, audiographics, andtwo-way TV. Each has advantages anddisadvantages that help determinewhich one a district should choose(Barker 1992). In satellite systems, theteacher is seen by students in multiplereceiving site classrooms, but two-waycommunication, when available, is bytelephone hook-up. Satellite disheswere rarely seen on school campusesjust 10 years ago. But today, 21 percentof districts having fewer than 1,000students use them (Kober 1990). Thelargest provider of interactive broad-casts, the TIIN TelecommunicationsNetwork, based in San Antonio, aloneserves 6,000 students in 30 states.

But more modest approaches are avail-able too. Audiographic teleteaching re-quires just a small network ofcompatible personal computers andcan be quickly created and disbandedas need dictates. Unlike satellite trans-mission purchased from a provider fre-quently many states away, thisapproach allows considerable controlover course content and may be pre-ferred by some districts. Students can-not, however, see the teacher. The mostcostly, for equipment and .nainte-nance, is two-way TV that allows for

44 57

totally interactive communication.Such communication has the advan-tage of visually linking teacher and stu-dents. Such linkage can be particularlyeffective with younger and less moti-vated students.

Some observers believe telecommuni-cation course delivery has the potentialto neutralize arguments for consolida-tion. There are two basic reasons forthis view. Courses a given school couldnot offer can be accessed, and coopera-tive ventures that share costs and teach-ing expertise among school districtscan be fostered. The state may also playa role. For example, Oklahoma has of-fered grants to small school coopera-tives to encourage innovation andbroaden the application of distance-learning technologies (Office of Tech-nology Assessment 1989).

School Reform andLitigationReforms usually in., lye additional ex-penditures, and many rural school dis-tricts confronting fiscal difficulties arehard pressed to fund new initiatives.Objections to the disparities in schooldistrict wealth preceded the reform era.Since the 1960s, challenges to state-ap-proved methods of school financing,often initiated by rural school districts,forced many states to re-examine theissue of resourc, necessary to operateschools in an effective manner. Thematter goes well beyond an ability toimplement state-mandated reforms tothe broader issue of constitutional as-surances of education equity.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly anddramatically than in Kentucky. Educa-tional leaders in 66 poor, rural districtsunited to challenge the state's fundingformula in 1989 (Rose v. Council forL'etter Education). The unexpected andunprecedented result was that dr; Ken-

tucky supreme court declared the entirestate system of education unconstitu-tional (Coe and Kannapel 1991). The1990 measure constituting the gover-nor's and legislature's response to thatlandmark decision addressed not onlyfinance, but also curriculum, profes-sional development, at-risk students,and governance as well.

Nothing less than a complete overhaulof the state's approach to education isunderway. Rural communities stand togain substantially as new systems offamily service centers, early childhoodeducation, and school-based manage-ment are implemented over the nextseveral years (Coe and Kannapel1991). Undoubtedly education reformin Kentucky will have significance forrural communities ever!where and foreducation throughout the country. Buttheir reorganization will not be a sim-ple formula that can be adopted else-where. Wherever change occurs,"Rural school improvement initiativesmust be diverse and reflect the differentvalues and socioeconomic charac-teristics of the rural communities theyserve" (Stephens 1988).

SurnmarYLittle is known on any scale about theeffects of education reform in rural ar-eas. In the absence of summative evalu-ation data, this chapter addressed keyissues of interest to policymakers andpractitioners by using illustrations. Ex-amples of successful approaches to re-form in rural areas were provided, butit is not known how widespread theyare. Effective alternatives to schoolconsolidation reflect a keen interest inretaining local autonomy at the districtlevel, while school finance litigation,often brought by rural districts, hasbroad implications for education re-form generally. Clearly, considerablymore needs to be known about the var-

ied capacities of rural schools to copewith reform demands and the extent towhich the proposed or mandated re-forms actually reach rural students.

ReferencesBarker, B.O. 1992. The Distance Educa-

tion Handbook: An Administrator'sGuide for Rural and Remote Schools.Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouseon Rural Education and Small Schools.

Berliner, B. 1990. "Alternatives to SchoolDistrict Consolidation." KnowledgeBrief San Francisco, CA: Far WestLaboratory.

Butler, R.J., and D.H. Monk. "The Cost ofPublic Schooling in New York State:The Role of Scale and Efficiency in1978-79." Journal of Human Re-sources 20:3.

Center for Policy Research in Education.May 1990. "Decentralization and Pol-icy Design." CPRE Policy Briefs RB-05-590. New Brunswick, NJ: StateUniversity of New Jersey at Rutgers.

Coe, P., and P. Kannapel. June 1991. Sys-temic Reform in Six Rural Districts: ACase Study of First Reactions to theKentucky Education Reform Act of1990. Charleston, WV:AppalachiaEducational Laboratory, State PolicyProgram, and ERIC Clearinghouse onRural Education and Small Schools.

Council of Chief State School Officers.1989. Success for All in a New Century.Washington, DC.

Dale, D., and K.H. McKinley. 1986. Alter-native Instructional Delivery Systemsfor Rural and Small Schools. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED 315 260).

DeYoung, A.J. 1987. "The Status ofAmerican Education Research: An Inte-gated Review and Commentary." Re-view of Educational Research 57:2.

DeYoung, A.J. 1990. Community Schoolsin the National Context: The Social andCultural Impact of Educational Reform

45 58

Movement on American Rural Schools.Greensboro, NC: Southeastern Educa-tional Improvement Laboratory.

Ditzler, L. June. 1984. "These SmallSchools Pooled Resources to Beef UpBare-bones Curriculums." AmericanSchool Boards Journal 171:6.

Firestone, W.A., S.H. Fuhrman, and M.W.Kirst. 1989. The Progress of Reform:An Appraisal of State Education Initia-tives. New Brunswick, NJ: Center forPolicy Research in Education, The StateUniversity of New Jersey at Rutgers.

Forbes, Roy H. 1989. "Rural Education andthe Reform Movement." Rural Educa-tion: A Changing Landscape. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Im-provement.

Fox, W.F. 1981. "Reviewing Economies ofSize in Education." Journal of Educa-tion Finance 6:3.

Fuhrman, S.H., and R.F. Elmore. 1990."Understanding Local Control in theWake of Education Reform." Educa-tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis12:1.

General Accounting Office. 1989. Educa-. tion Reform: Initial Effects in FourSchool Districts. GAO/PEMD-89-28.Washington, DC.

Grove, R. December 1992. "A ConceptualFramework for Redesigning RuralSchools." RBS Report. Philadelphia,PA: Research for Better Schools.

Helge, D. 1990. A National Study Regard-ing At-risk Students. Bellingham, WA:Nafional Rural Development Institute,Western Washington University. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service, No.ED 324 178).

Helge, D. 1991. "At-risk Students: A Na-tional View of Problems and ServiceDelivery Strategies." Rural SpecialEducation Quarterly 10:4.

Hillman, A. 1991. There are No Subwaysin Lickingville. Shippenville, PA:Riverview Intermediate Unit.

Hobbs, D. 1990. "An Overview of RuralAmerica." Rural RevitalizationThrough Education 1:1.

Jensen, D., and L. Widvey. 1986. "TheSouth Dakota Small School Cluster."The Rural Educator 8:1.

Kober, N. 1990. 'Think Rural Means Iso-lated? Not When Distance LearningReaches Into Schools." The School Ad-ministrator 47:10.

Lewis, A.C. 1992. Rural Schools on theRoad to Reform. Washington, DC:Council for Educational Develc7faentand Research znd the Regional Educa-tional Laboratories.

MDC, Inc. 1988. America's Shame, Amer-ica's Hope: Twelve Million Youth atRisk (Prepared for the Charles StewartMott Foundation). Chapel Hill, NC.

Mid-continent Regional Educational Labo-ratory, Rural Institute. 1990. "RuralSchools and Education Reform: TheyMay be Closer than You Think." TheRural Report. Aurora, CO.

Monk, D.H. 1991. 'The Organization andReorganization of Small RuralSchools." Rural Education: Issues andPractice. Alan J. De Young (Ed.). NewYork: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Nachtilial, P. 1984. Clustering for RuralSchool Improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Labora-tory.

Nachtigal, P., and S.D. Parker. 1990. Clus-tering: Working Together for BetterSchools. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Re-gional Educational Laboratory.

National Commission on Excellence inEducation. 1983. A Nation at Risk.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Governors' Association. 1989. Re-sults in Education: 1988. Washington,DC.

National Governors' Association. 1991a.From Rhetoric to Action: State Progressin Restructuring the Education System.Washington, DC.

National Governors' Association. 1991b.State Actions to Restructure Schools:First Steps. Washington, DC.

New Mexico State Department of Educa-tion. 1988. At-risk Youth: A Call forAction. Santa Fe, NM.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1989.Linking for Learning: A New Course forEducation. (OTA-SET--430). Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Paulu, N. 1988. Experiences in School Im-provement: The Story of 16 AmericanDistricts. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement.

Phelps, M.S., and G.A. Prock. 1991."Equality of Educational Opportunity inRural America." Rural Education:ls-sues and Practice. Alan J. DeYoung(Ed.). New York: Garland Publishing,Inc.

Sederberg, C.H. 1985. "Multiple DistrictAdministration in Small Rural Schools."The Rural Educator 7:1.

Sher, J.P. 1986. Heavy Meddle: A Critiqueof the North Carolina Depanment ofPublic Instruction's Plan to MandateSchool District Mergers Throughout theState. North Carolina's School BoardsAssociation.

Sher, J.P. 1988. Class Dismissed: Examin-ing Nebraska's Rural Education De-bate. Chapel Hill, NC: Rural Educationand Development, Inc. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 305194).

State Research Associates. 1988. EducationReform in Rural Appalachia. 1982-87.Washington, DC: Appalachian RegionalCommission.

Stephens, E.R. December 1988. "Implica-tions of Economic, Social, and Educa-tional Developments in Rural Americafor Rural School Systems." Paper pre-sented at the Appalachia EducationalLaboratory's Third Annual State Educa-tional Policy Symposium, Lexington,KY.

46 59

Stephens, E.R. 1991. A Framework forEvaluating State Policy Options for theReorganization of Rural, Small SchoolDistricts. Charleston, WV: AppalachiaEducational Laboratory and ERICClearinghouse on Rural Education andSmall Schools.

Stephens, E.R., and W.G. -ner. 1991. Ap-

proaching the Next Millennium: Educa-tion Service Agencies in the 1990s.Arlington, VA: American Associationof Educational Service Agencies,American Association of School Ad-ministrators.

Texas Education Agency Dropout Informa-tion Cleaiinghouse. 1990. Status Reporton Dropouts and At-risk Students.Austin, TX.

Vaughan, M. October 1990. 'The Effects ofReform in Rural Schools." Paper pre-sented at the NREA Rural Research Fo-rum, Colorado Springs, CO.

William T. Grant Foundation Commissionon Work, Family, and Citizenship. 1988.The Forgotten Half Non-College Youthin America. Washington, DC.

8. Public School Finance Policies and PracticesAffecting Rural Schools

"The problems of rural living . . .arenowhere more obvious than in the un-deifinanced local school systems thatare found in every state in the nation.Rural schools in all states have lessmoney and poorer educational pro-grams than their more wealthy neigh-bors in urban areas.

Kern Alexander,University Distinguished ProfessorVirginia Polytechnic lauitute, 1990

This chapter describes the major stateschool finance practices and their po-tential for benefiting pupils who attendrural schools. It also discusses litigationchallenging the equity of school fi-nance systems in several stateslitiga-tion that has been spearheaded orendorsed by many rural groups.

State Aid StrategiesGeneral state ald. U.S. publicschools are primarily supported bystate and local funds.' States providetheir basic aid fundsthose allocatedwithout specific expenditure restric-tionsthrough one of just a fewmechanisms. Flat Grants (five states)are fixed amounts that do not take needinto account and thus compensate localschool districts only partially for theirincurred costs. States with full-fundedprograms (four states) provide more tothose in greater need. Between the twoare several strategies that offer somedegree of fiscal equalization to offsetlocal limitations in generating funds(41 states).2 Table 8-1 displays thesemechanisms along a fiscal equity con-tinuum and identifies the states that usethem as their primary form of revenuetransfer to their school districts.

Figure 8-1 depicts a typical state sys-tem of public school finance and

graphically displays the relative pro-portion each major grant type contrib-utes, depending on whether the districthas high or low fiscal capacity (i.e., isrich or poor).

Due to characteristics most rural schooldistricts possess (figure 8-2), it is pos-sible to determine which structural fea-tures of state school finance systemswould benefit them more.

Since rural districts are generallypoorer than ones located in nonruralareas, either the fiscal equalization orfull state funding alternatives wouldbring them greater amounts of state aidfrom a given appropriated amount. Flatgrants, by definition, do not take intoconsideration fiscal wealth and thuscompensate local school districts onlypartially for their incurred costs; givena certain total appropriation, less afflu-

ent school districts would receivesmaller amounts of state aid than theywould through fiscal equalizationgrants. Eight states provide foundationgrants based on instructional units(Verstegen 1990) that are more likelyto help the low enrollment and poorschools and districts that exist through-out Rur . America. Some fiscalequalimion grant types (e.g., guaran-teed tax yield programs) place the re-sponsibility upon local citizens toestablish funding levels toward whichboth would contribute. Given the cur-rent economic duress in many districts,taxpayers in some areas are unable orunwilling to generate sufficient fundsto qualify for the state portion, leavingeducation needs unmet.

Locally generated funds. To aug-ment the state contribution, most states

Figure 8-1.A state system of public school finance:A common example

Highfiscalcapacitydistricts

Low fiscalcapacitydistrict

Revenues per unit

Localrequiredfiscaleffort

Stateequalizationaid

Stateflat and/ormatchinggrants

Localleewayfunds

Foundation orguaranteed level

NOTE: The example I. not intended to be representative of any specific state.

Reprinted with permission from Public School Finance Programs of the UnitedStates and Canada, 1986417.

47 60

Figure 8-2.Characteristics of rural schools and ruralschool districts

Rural schools and rural school districts usually enroll small numbers of pupils(i.e., fewer than 1,000 pupils per school district).

Rural school districts commonly are experiencing significant enrollment de-cline.

Rural residents report incomes significantly less than their urban and suburbanpeers.

Rural school distacts usually employ school buildings that house smallernumbers of pupils.

Rural school districts typically are sparsely populated.

Due primarily to small numbers of pupils generally located in large geographicareas, per-pupil transportation costs for rural schools are inordinately high.

Due to the absence of significant trading centers, rural school districts oftenare nearly exclusively dependent on real property taxation for their localrevenue.

permit school districts to raise theirown revenues, which are called localleeway funds. Traditionally, these havebeen drawn from local property taxes.This practice lu..; led to marked dispari-ties in education funding levels acrossthe country and even within states be-cause tax yields are so uneven.

It is surprising thengiven what isknown about their low fiscal capac-ityto find that on average, rural (non-metropolitan) counties spend more perr .1 in public elementary and secon-

chools than do nonrural counties,$1,973 vs. $2,137 (Jansen 1991) (fig-ure 8-3). This partly reflects the greaterfixed costs for providing the basic ele-ments of an education in smaller (oftenrural) districts (Walberg and Fowler1987). To provide even a basic educa-tion, rural school district revenuesoften are obtained by imposing steepertax rates than in nonrural areas wherehigh property values yield more reve-nue at lower tax rates.

And averages mask the considerablerange that exists, particularly in themore rural states, and that PTe a func-tion of wide differences in wealth. In-deed, the range among rural counties isgreater than that among metropolitancounties (Jansen 1991) (table 8-2). Thevariability within states as the drivingissue for legal cases is discussed laterin this chapter.

Categorical ald. States also providesome portion of their assistance toschools in the form of categorical aid(i.e., funds for certain clients like thehandicapped, or programs like voca-tional education). Because they areusually small and less affluent, ruralschool districts often are inadequatelycompensated under these programs.This would be especially true if a flatgrant allocation system were used.Here, a fixed amount of revenue multi-plied by the number of identified cli-ents may not yield enough to pay stafffor the small numbers needing service.If either full-state assumption of costsor fiscal equalization grants are used

4861

instead, small schools, including mostrural schools, stand a better chance ofgetting sufficient funds for the purpose.

Small schools and districts are also pe-nalized fiscally if the state uses a perpupil allocation system in a given cate-gorical program (e.g., $1,000 per stu-dent). As in the example just given,there may not be enough pupils to drawenough money for the needed person-nel. If a range (called brackets) of eli-gible pupils is instead used to calculatethe allocation, say $10,000 for between1 and 10 students, a school's ability tosupport the needed salary is enhanced.

State Aid FinanceStructures and TheirImpact Upon RuralSchoolsIn addition to the basic approachesgoverning the distribution of generaland categorical aid, other state fundingmechanisms exist that have a differen-tial effect upon rural schools. Theseinclude: measures of fiscal wealth;transportation allocations; adjustmentsfor enrollment changes; economies ofscale provisions; sparsity and densityprovisions; consolidation and reor-ganization grants; and capital outlayand debt service assistance. Whetherand how these are computed signifi-cantly affect the fiscal health of pnblicschools in those states where they areemployed.

Measures of fiscal wealth. Con-tained within the structure of all fiscalequalization grants is a method for de-termining school district capacity toraise funds. The traditional and near-universal source of local revenue, asnoted above, is local property taxes,though a few states have allowed dis-tricts to use other measures (e.g., salestaxes and income measures).

Rural school districts receive more fis-cal equalization aid to the extent theyare unable to generat., rficient reve-nue. If a state allocates aif.: based uponassessed property values, rural schooldistricts usually can demonstrate aneed for more assistance. But there arecircumstances when rural property val-ues may be high relative to actualwealth. For this reason, some argue thatincome measures be used becausethese more accurately reflect the lowercapacity of rural residents to fund edu-cation. Likewise, reliance on salestaxes will also necessitate greater stateequalization aid because of the limitedbuying power of rural residents (Jansen1990).

Pupil transportation. In 1991-92,22.9 million public school students

were transported on 391,000 buses,covering 3.7 billion miles at a cost of$8.7 billion in public funds (SchoolBus Fleet December/January 1993).While some places requite student feesto partially cover transportation costs,most provide systems of free pupiltransportation through a combinationof state and local resources (Alexander,M.D. 1990). In urban communities, al-ternatives exist for transporting pupils,including private vehicles and publictransit. But in most rural areas of thecountry, vehicles that are owned andmaintained by the school district, are avirtual necessity. Consequently, pupiltransportation costs, as a percentage oftotal current expenditures, are signifi-cantly higher for rural school districts(Alexander, M.D. 1990).

Less than one-third of the states (16)provide additional allotments for trans-portation where settlement is sparse(Bass 1988). As with general and cate-gorical aid, state transportation assis-tance can take the form of flat,foundation, or equalization support,and so outcomes in terms of equity canbe quite varied. Formulas can evenvary within states. Reflecting this, aidformulas have long been the subject ofconsiderable debate and continuallyundergo reevaluation and redesign.Still, the transportation of pupils to andfrom public schools, an expensivecomponent for funding public schoolsin the rural communities of the nation,are often overlooked in larger policydiscussions.

Figure 8-A.Current education expenditure, elementary and secondary educationType 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.

RuraVadjacent

Rural/nonadjacent

immullmorimmumws.0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Expenditure per pupil (1982 Dollars)SOURCE: A. Janson. Rural Economic Perspectives, 1991.

2,500

4962

Enrollment adjustments. Emigra-tion of pupils from rural schools placesan additional fiscal burden upon theaffected communities since the schooldistrict can experience correspondinglosses in state aid based on per unitallocations. Nearly half the states (24)take this into account by delaying cutsin aid for a period of time throughvarious formula adjustments (Sa)monet al. 1988), thus reflectiq a policydecision to educate the remaining chil-dren where they are (Bass 1988), atleast for a time. Examples include lim-iting percentage aid reductions (Ari-zona, Delaware, and Idaho) and usingthe prior year count (Alabama, Califor-nia, and Colorado) in calculating fundallocations.

Economies of scale provisions.According to factory model productionanalysis, "diseconomies" occur whenfewer units are produced or serviced(Swanson and King 1991). Some stateformulas recognize that larger per pu-pil costs occur when small numbers ofstudents are served, as in rural andsmall school districts. Ten states (table8-3) provide extra funding based onsmall sizesome at the district leveland some at the school level (Ver-stegen 1990).

Sparsity weights. A similar ap-proach is adding weights in state aidformulas to benefit geographically iso-lated schools, a practice in six states(table 8-3). It reflects an awareness ofnecessarily high per unit costs for in-structional services and pupil transpor-tation where the service area is sparselypopulated. Note: Another 11 states (ta-ble 8-3) have provisions in the statefunding formulas to add funds basedon a combination of factors, includingsize and geographical isolation, whilethree other states use different factors(Verstegen 1990).

Contolidation and reorganiza-tion grants. Several states have es-tablished state aid provisions designedto encourage school districts to reor-ganize and consolidate with neighbor-ing schools and school districts.Generally, such grants often providetransitional resources to the combiningschools for a specified number of yearsafter which they are obligated to func-tion through the common funding sys-tem. Another approach is to discourageschool districts from continuing to op-erate small schools by making unavail-able certain state resources (e.g.,capital outlays).

Capital outlay and debt serviceassistance. A major contributingfactor to the poor fiscal health of ruralschools is the absence of sufficient re-sources either to erect or to maintainschool buildings. One study renorted.that the need for capital facilities by thenation's public schools is nearing crisisproportions (Education Writers Asso-ciation 1989). This includes ruralschool facilities, many erected somedecades ago and in dire need of replace-

ment or renovation. A recent survey ofcapital needs for rural schools esti-mated that deferred maintenance costsnow approach $2.6 billion, while costsrequired to replace existing ruralschool facilities were projected at $18billion (Honeyman 1990).

Historically, many state legislatureshave been reluctant to provide fiscalassistance to their local school districtsfor capital outlay and debt service.3Some state constitutions and statuteseven prohibit small rural school dis-tricts from incurring debt sufficient toreplace existing facilities. (Debt limita-tions prohibit a school district fromincurring long-term debt in excess of aspecified percentage of its assessedvaluation of real property.) In addition,rural school districts in many states

often lack sufficient property valuationto issue general obligation bonds orhave low bond ratings and other relatedproblems. The result for many ruralschool districts is the continued use ofrun-down, dilapidated, and outdatedbuildings.

Some states, to further encourage con-solidation, have established capitaloutlay programs for those school dis-tricts that merge their schools or com-bine with other districts (e.g., thecurrent West Virginia Public SchoolBuilding Authority). And while mostof the recent school finance fiscalequalization lawsuits focused primar-ily upon current operating costs, sev-eral courts also ordered their statelegislatures to address capital facilitiesas well, seeing this issue as significantas current revenue in determining pub-lic education equity.

State and FederalPolicies That AffectRural EducationDuring the past decade, state legisla-tures have issued numerous mandatesdirected toward improving the qualityof public education. Particularly hard-pressed to acquire the necessary addi-tional resources have been the nation'ssmall, rural school districts with lowfiscal capacity. In some cases, throughextraordinary local effort, full compli-ance with the state mandates has beenmet. In other cases, reform legislationhas forced consolidation and reorgani-zation of rural schools and school dis-tricts.

The federal government, through ex-.ecutive order, congressional action, orjudicial intervention also has expandedrequirements for public schools, thusincreasing their operating costs. Occu-pational Safety and Health Admini-stration rules governing safety

standards for school buildings and em-ployees; the Education for All Handi-c app ed Children Act of 1975mandating service; and the VocationalRehabilitation Act (Section 504) re-quiring access by all students, haveplaced considerable demands upon lo-cal school systems. Most states xquirethat the burden for compliance at leastbe shared, if not assumed, by their localschool districts.

Again, rural and small school districtshave found these requirements difficultto meet. Indeed, an array of legal issuescontinues to confront local school dis-tricts concerning such matters as spe-cial education services, liability andnegligence, service for certain specifiedclients, and asbestos abatement pro-grams. But the most far- reaching legalcases concern fiscal equity, an issue onwhich rural schools have been proac-tive.

School FinanceLitigationThe complex system of school financ-ing summarized in this chapter haslargely failed to equalize funding ofelementary and secondary education inthis country. Since school finance liti-gation began in the late 1960s and early1970s, over a quarter of the states haveseen a challenge to the status quowhereby the extent of education sup-port is largely determined by a stu-dent's residency (Franklin and Hickrod1990).

The supreme courts in 12 states4 nowhave ruled their state systems of school

finance unconstitutional and have or-dered the state legislatures to designand implement school finance systemsthat will withstand constitutional scru-tiny. The impetus for judicial interven-tion and activism apparently has begunto accelerate; seven statesKentucky,

Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey(for the second time), Tennessee,Texas, and West Virginia have wit-nessed their highest courts rule theirstate school finance systems unconsti-tutional in just the last 5 years.

Almost without exception, state-guar-anteed programs need to be substan-tially augmented by local funds. Ruralschool districts, with their modest fiscalbases, usually cannot generate suffi-cient local resources to supplement ade-quately the state programs the waymore affluent localities can. Reflectingthis situation, most lawsuits that chal-lenged state school finance programswere filed by persons who resided inrural communities, for example, thepending 1991 Ohio suit by the Coali-tion of Rural and Appalachian SchoolDistricts v. Walter. In Kentucky, thesuccessful Rose lawsuit was broughtprimarily by rural school districts andresulted in the largest state funding in-crease for putiic education in the state'shistory, with the poorer districts receiv-ing increases of 25 percent.

Most of the litigation demonstrated theuneven results obtained by propertypocr and property wealthy districts onvarious fiscal input measures. Amongthem were average annual salaries paidclassroom teachers, per pupil revenuesor expenditures, breadth of the curricu-lum, quality of school facilities, numberof library books per pupil, and fundingfor instructional supplies and equip-ment. The lawsuits were based primar-ily upon education clauses and articlesof the states' respective constitutions.Phrases such as "thorough and effi-cient," "efficient system of commonschools," and "uniform system of com-mon schools," typify the constitutionalfoundations upon which the decisionswere made.

51 64

Using instructional expenditures as themeasure, recent research suggests a ma-jority of states saw a lessening of fund-ing disparities between 1980 and 1987.Exceptions included Montana, Ken-tucky, and New Jersey, whose systemswere overturned, as well as several oth-ers where cases are pending. Signifi-cantly, those that had raised their schoolexpenditures the most tended to be theones that made the greatest progresstoward equality, suggesting that at-tempts to improve quality were struc-tured to address equity as well(Wyckoff 1992).

How much this lessening of disparitiesmay have affected rural schools is notknown, however. And progress towardfunding equity may have been impededas a result of the most recent recession.Revenue shortfalls at both state and lo-cal levels have been widely docu-mented, with resulting cuts in educationexpenditures, including state compen-sati on to property-poor districts(Fowler 1992).

SummaryAlmost every state demonstrates re-source disparities among local schooldistricts, reflecting the relative wealthof the communities that support the dis-tricts. In most states, disparities primar-ily affect two classes of districts: thoseat the urban core and those in ruralareas. For a variety of reasons, educa-tion in both settings is expensive asmeasured in per unit costs. The chal-lenge of adequately funding ruralschools has become more dramatic dur-ing recent years and is symptomatic ofthe generally unhealthy financial situ-ation that currently confronts much ofrural society throughout the UnitedStates.

While greater funding equity can bebrought to rural schools through modi-fying various funding mechanisms de-

scribed in this chapter, such as fiscalequalization formulas, capital outlayand debt service programs, or methodsof assessing fiscal capacity and fiscaleffort, change does not come easily.The present economic climate alreadyseems to have slowed progress on thesematters. Fiscal equity, even with thecourts' intervention, may remain anelusive goal for many rural schools forsome time to come.

Notes1. The federal share has never exceeded 10percent of the total; in 1992 the amountcontributed to elementary and secondaryeducation was estimated at 8.3 percent(Hoffman 1993).

2. Absolute fiscal equalization does not as-sure an efficient or adequately funded sys-tem of public elementary and secondaryeducation. It suggests only that little, if any,fiscal disparity exists among a state's localschool districts.

3. Capital outlay is defined as costs incurred

for land or buildings, improvements ofgrounds, construction of buildings, addi-tions to buildings, remodeling of buildings,or purchase and replacement of equipment.Debt service is defmed as costs incurred forthe repayment of loan or bond principal,interest, and service charges.

4. Arkansas, Dupree v. Alma School Dis-trict No.30, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983); Cali-fornia, Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241(1971); Connecticut, Horton v. Meskill,376 A.2d 359 (1977); Kentucky, Rose v.The Council for Better Education, 790S.W.2d 186 (1989); Massachusetts,Mc Duffy v. Robertson, 615 N.E.2d 516(1993); Montana, Helena ElementarySchool District No. 1 v. State, 769 P.2d 684(1989); New Jersey, Robinson v. Cahill,303 A.2d 273 (1973) and Abbott v. Burke,575 A.2d 359 (1990); Tennessee, Small

School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d139 (1993); Texas, Edgewood IndependentSchool District v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391(1989); Washington, Seattle School Dis-trict No. 1 of King County v. State, 585 P.2d71 (1978); West Virginia, State Ex Rel.Board of Education for Grant County v.Manchin, 366 S.E.2d 743 (1988); Wyo-ming, Washakie County School DistrictNo. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (1980).At the same time, supreme courts in ap-proximately the same number of states haveupheld existing school finance systems. Inother states, most recently Alabama andMissouri, challenges were successful inlower courts (Fulton and Long 1993).

ReferencesAlexander, K. Fa111990. "Rural Education:

Institutionalization of Disadvantage."Journal of Education Finance 16:2.

Alexander, M.D. Fa111990. "Public SchoolPupil Transportation: Rural Schools."Journal of Education Finance 16:2.

Bass, G. 1988. "Financing for SmallSchools." The Rural Educator 9:2.

Education Writers Association. 1989.Wolves at the Schoolhouse Door.Washington, DC.

Fowler, W.1. 1992. What Should We Knowabout Schocl Finance? Paper presentedat the American Education Fmance As-sociation Annual Meeting, New Or-leans, LA.

Franklin, D.L., and G.A. Hickrod. 1990."School Finance Equity: the Courts In-tervene." Policy Briefs. Elmhurst, rL:North Central Regional EducationalLaboratory.

Fulton, M., and D. Long. 1993. School Fi-nam. Litigation: A Historical Sum-mary. Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States.

Hoffman, C.M. 1993. Federal Support forEducation: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

5265

Education, National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

Honeyman, D.S. Fall 1990. "School Facili-es and State Mechanisms That Support

S,hool Construction: A Report Fromthe Fifty States." journal of EducationFinance 16:2.

Jansen, A.C. 1990. "Can Sales Tax Reve-nue Equitably Finance Education?" Pa-per presented at the Association ofCollegiate Schools of Planning AnnualConference, Austin TX.

Jansen, A .C. October-January 1991. "Ru-ral Counties Lead Urban in EducationSpending, But is That Enough?" RuralEconomic Perspectives. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.

Salmon, R.G., et al. 1988. Public SchoolFinance Programs of the United Statesand Canada, 1986-87. Blacksburg,VA: Virginia Polytechnic and StateUniversity.

School Bus Fleet Fact Book 1993. Decem-ber/January 1993. Redondo Beach, CA:Bobit Publishing Company 37:1.

Swanson, A.D., and R.A. King. 1991.School Finance: Its Economics andPolitics. New YorY.: Longman.

Verstegan, D. Fall 1990. "Efficiency andEconomies-of-Scale Revisited: Impli-cations fcr Financing Rural School Dis-tricts." Journal of Education Finance16:2.

Walberg, H. J., and W.J. Fowler. 1987."Expenditure and Size Efficiencies ofPublic School Districts." EducationalResearcher 16:7.

Wyckoff, J.H. 1992. 'The Intrastate Equal-ity of Public Primary and SecondaryEducation Resources in the U.S., 1980-1987." Economics of Education Review11:1.

9. Assessment of Student Performance in Rural Schools

With rural communities facing manychallenges today, gauging theirschools' education& quality is moreimportant than ever. It is a time ofincreased expectations, rising account-ability demands, and growing compe-tition for scarce budget dollars.National data reported below comparethe academic performance of rural stu-dents with that of nonrural students. Inthis context, emerging research infor-mation on the relative merits of small-scale schooling, including theavailability of high school courses, isalso presented.

AcademicPerformance byRural StudentsRural education often has been dis-cussed as a deficit model of instructionfrom which relatively low outcomescan be expected (Edington and Koehler1987). While this perspective was rein-forced by some local studies, mostdata, as presented below, do not sup-port this view.

National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress. The most compre-hensive data on student achievement inthis country is gathered by the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress(NAEP), administered by the NationalCenter for Education Statistics(NCES). Established in 1969, NAEPperiodically reports information on theeducational progress of American stu-dents in reading, writing, mathematics,

science, and social studies, as well asother subjects. Performance is meas-ured along a proficiency scale thatranges from 100 to 500, allowing com-parisons across groups, age levels, andyears of assessment. For example, a

proficiency level of 250 in mathemat-ics skills indicates students can usemultiplication and solve simple prob-lems.

Comparing rural performanceto the national average. NAEPuses a definition of rural, called Ex-treme Rural, that encompasses stu-dents in nonmetropolitan areas with apopulation below 10,000 and wheremany parents are farmers or farmworkers. In the earliest NAEP assess-ments, these students consistentlyscored below the national average onnearly every subject (Martin 1983).However, by the 1980s, at the sametime state education reforms got under-way; the scores of rural students wereequivalent to the national average invirtually all subjects tested (NCES1991a).

For example, rural reading scores werebelow the national mean in 1971 for allthree ages groups (9, 13, and 17) and in1975 for 9- and 13-year-olds. How-ever, from 1980 to 1990, of the 12 totalscores (4 assessments times 3 ages),rural students were below the nationalmean proficiency level only once (age9 in 1984) (table 9-1). Nor were ruralwriting scores significantly below thenational mean at any time during thedecade: 1984, 1988, and 1990 (table9-2). In this subject, scores of rural 8thand ilth graders did not change signifi-cantly over time, but those of rural 4thgraders improved dramatically in 1988and that gain was essentially sustainedin 1990.

On the NAEP mathematics assess-ments in 1978 and 1982, the mean pro-ficiency scores for rural students werebelow the national average for all threeage groups tested except for one (age 9

53

in 1978). But by 1986 and again in1990, rural mean scores essentiallymatched the national average (table 93). The story is similar for science. Inthe 1970 and 1973 assessments, ruralstudents were below national means onthe proficiency scale, but in 1977(Welch and Wagner 1989) and thereaf-ter, rural students were at the meanproficiency level at each age tested: 9,13, and 17 (table 9-4).

The academic standing of rural stu-dents may be illustrated further by ex-amining their scores on recentassessments for history and civics(NCFS 1990a and NCES 1990b). Ru-ral scores were equivalent to the na-tional mean in every instance and ineighth-grade civics were significantlyabove the national mean (table 9-5).

Note should be taken of the generaldisappointment with the overall qualityof student performance as revealed byNAEP. Although students are able toperform basic skills, they have demon-strated limited success on measures ofhigher order thinking skills. While ru-ral NAEP mean scores now approxi-mate national averages, much remainsto be done to enhance rural studentachievement as well as that of all stu-dents in this country. However, focus-ing on the issue of rural studentperformance, the fundamental findingis that

NAEP assessment levels of studentsliving in Extreme Rural areas arenow consistently comparable to thenational mean proficiency levelsand have been for a decade.

Comparing rural and nonruralstudents. It is also possible to com-pare rural student performance with

that of students attending schools inother types of communities. As definedby NAEP, the Advantaged Urban set-ting covers schools in or around largecities where a high proportion of theresidents are in professional or mala-gerial positions, while the Disadvan-taged Urban setting encompassesschools in or around large cities with ahigh proportion of residents on welfareor not regularly employed. The rank ofrural students relative to these two met-ropolitan groups has been fairly consis-

tent across subjects.

NAEP scores of Extreme Rural stu-dents were generally higher thanthose of the Disadvantaged Urbangroup and lower than those of theAdvantaged Urban group.

However, rural contrasts with thesetwo groups were not uniform. For ex-ample, on the six subjects noted aboveacross the three grade (or age) levels,Extreme Rural students scored an av-erage of 21 points higher than Disad-vantaged Urban students. The range ofdifferences on the 18 comparisons was+10 to +40, most of which were statis-tically significant (table 9-6). But ruralstudents*averaged only 13 points lowerthan Advantaged Urban students. Andthe range of differences was - 1 to -19,with two out of three score differencesstatistically significant (table 9-7).This means the performance edge Ex-treme Rural students had compared toDisadvantaged Urban students wasmore marked and consistent than theirshortfall relative to Advantaged Urbanstudents.

(Note: When the 1988 12th-grade datawere examined by county type, metro-politan and nonmetropolitan score dif-ferences were found to be negligible.At the same time, an in-depth analysispinpointed the source of any lowernonmetropolitan scores as coming

from the most rural counties as definedby low population density and distancefrom metropolitan centers (Greenberg,et al. 1992), a finding that suggests animportant area for further research.)

National Education LongitudinalStudy of 1988. Rural student per-formance has been documented as wellon the National Education Longitudi-nal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), also ad-niinistered by NCES. The survey ofnearly 25,000 randomly selectedeighth graders covered three commu-nity types: urban, meaning central city;suburban, the area surrounding a cen-tral city within counties constitutingthe Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA); and rural (i.e., outside anMSA). This definition of rural is thusfar broader than that used by NAEP;essentially, rural means nonmetropoli-tan in NELS. In this study,

Rural eighth graders scored at orabout the national average on meas-ures of science, mathematics, read-ing , and history-government.However, they scored significantlylower than their suburban counter-parts on all four achievement tests,but significantly higher than urbanstudents (table 9-8) (NCES 1991b).

In summary, the results from two highquality national surveys are consistent.Whether rural students are defined nar-rowly as with NAEP or broadly as withNELS, their scores approximated thenational average. Marked contrasts ap-pear, however, when comparing theirscores to students in other locations.Rural students scored significantlyhigher than urban students and lowerthan their suburban counterparts on allfour NELS:88 tests and placed betweenAdvantaged and Disadvantaged Ur-ban students on most NAEP assess-ments.

54 67

These score differences suggest theneed to examine the situation of ruralstudents more closely. Research hasassociated weak scores and other pooreducational outcomes with studentshaving to cope with multiple risk fac-tors. Several ( f thes0 factors were iden-tified in the NELS report (NCES1991b)single-parent family; parentshave no high school diploma; limitedEnglish speaking proficiency; familyincome less than $15,000; having asibling who dropped out; and studenthome alone more than 3 hours per day.

Essentially one of four eighth gradershad one risk factor regardless of setting(table 9-9). The percentage of ruraleighth graders that had each risk ap-pears in figure 9-1.

Compared to suburban students, therural rate was significantly greater inthree factors: low-parental education,low-family income, and a sibling whodropped out. Rural students appearedin each risk category at rates compara-ble to urban students, except for thesingle-parent family category wherethe urban rate was considerably higher(tAle 9-10). Somewhat more than half(52 percent) of rural eighth-grade stu-dents were estimated to have no listedrisk factors (table 9-9). This was truefor 47 percent of urban students but 60percent of suburban students.

In the NELS survey, lower test scores,lower grades, more school absences,and lowered expectations for gradu-ation were documented for students asthe number of risk factors increased(NCES 1991b). Using two or more fac-

tors as the threshold,

About one out of five rural eighthgraders were at risk of having seri-ous educational problems.

As with performance scores, the ratefor rural students (22 percent) on this

indicator fell between that of urban stu-dents (26 percent) and that of suburbanstudents (15 percent) (table 9-9).

Research onSmall-Scale SchoolingWhether rural and urban differencesexist in student outcomes has drawnlittle research attention until very re-cently. Somewhat more focus has beengiven to contrasting small and largeschools. This research relates to thecondition of rural schools for two rea-sons. First, the preponderance of ruralschools remains small. Second, themovement to consolidate or reorganizesmall schools and districts into largerunits, a strategy that dominated educa-

tion policy in the 20th century, has beenrevived in a number of states faced withdwindling populations and budgetarypressures (e.g., Georgia, Iowa, Massa-chusetts, New York, North Carolina,Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, andVermont).

Conselidation. Nearly 30 years ago,a study was released that comparedcertain non-academic outcomes insmall and large high schools in Kansas(Barker and Gump 1964). The re-searchers found clear evidence of af-fective advantages for students insmaller schools, for example, greaterparticipation in sports and extracur-ricular activities (e.g., chorus, band,plays, student newspaper) and greater

Figure 9-1.Percentage of rural eighth graders withvarious risk factors

Risk factor

Single parent

Low income (<15K)

Home alone 3 Hrs+

Low parent education

Sibling dropout

LEP status

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nation/1i Center for Education Statistics,NELS:88, special tabulations.

55 66

personal satisfaction (Fowler 1992).The 1964 study received little attentionat the time; rather, the country soonafter experienced widespread efforts toenlarge schools and districts (Fowler1992). These state policies stemmedfrom recommendations made by JamesConant, president of Harvard Univer-sity, who argued in 1967 that highschool classes of at least 100 wereneeded for curriculum comprehensive-ness, particularly in foreign languagesand advanced subjects.

School and district consolidation washardly an innovative strategy by the1960s. On the contrary, since the turnof the century, states have consistentlyviewed the merger of small, usuallyrural, entities into larger units as a ma-jor solution to the twin challenges ofachieving quality and reducing the costof education in sparsely settled areas(Monk 1988). Successive waves ofconsolidation, including that followingthe Conant recommendations, reducedthe number of districts from a high of128,000 in 1932 to 22,000 by the endof the 1960s. There are currently about15,000 school districts (NCES 1992).

Earlier consolidations succeeded inbroadening the tax base and increasingenrollment size, likely bringing cur-ricular and school finance advantagesto many rural areas. But with districtreorganizations encompassing largergeographic areas and with associatedproblems emerging, consolidation isnot proceeding without challenge to itsunderlying assumptions.

Research Findings onSchool SizeNo comprehensive analysis has beenundertaken yet to determine the extentto which consolidation has addressedthe problems for which it has been ad-vocatedschool quality and cost-say-

ings (Rincones 1988). In fact, thestrong push to create large schools anddistricts frequently has been based onanecdotal evidence of the advantages.The limited research carried out in re-cent years has revealed larger size doesnot necessarily yield the anticipatedbenefits.

Costs. One key analysis determinedthat costs in very small and very largeschools were higher than for mid-sizeschools, suggesting an upper limit tooptimal school size (Fox 1981). Trans-portation costs in rural areas have be-come significant, substantially cuttinginto cost savings expected from con-solidation. Moreover, student time onbuses can be co asiderable (Carlsen andDunne 1981) and has been shown toundermine student performance (Luand Tweeten 1973).

Attitudes and behavior. Many feelthe material limitations rural schoolsoften experience are somehow com-pensated for by the supportive ethosfound in smaller communities and theirgenerally smaller schools. There is abasis in research for this view. A recentexamination of school size studiesfound small size had "an independent,positive effect on student achievement,extracurricular participation, studentsatisfaction, and attendance" (Fowlerand Walberg 1991). For example, ma-jor studies found a correlation betweenlow dropout rates and small schoolsize; increasing size negatively influ-enced school climate that in turn con-tributed to the dropout rate (Pittmanand Haughwort 1987; Bryck and Thum1989).

Moreover, studies replicating elementsof the 1964 size-effects research at thestate and national levels were consis-tent in finding that students in smallschools fared better than their peers in

large schools regardless of measure.Among the results documented werethat students from smaller schools hadgreater volmtary participation in extra-curricular activities; a greater sense ofobligation; more feelings of satisfac-tion and sense of belonging; less loneli-ness; and less use of drugs and alcohol(Fowler 1992).

Course availability. The longstand-ing presumption has been that schoolsize is strongly and uniformly relatedpositively to the breadth and depth ofcurricular offerings, meaning largerschools unambiguously are able to of-fer superior educational opportunitiesto their students. For example, one na-tional sample survey of public highschool principals in school year 198384 documented that the variety ofcourses offered in small schools wasless than in large schools, with differ-ences particularly sharp in the areas offoreign languages and advanced place-ment courses (Barkei 1985).

Research conducted since the late1980s has prompted a refinement ofthe prevailing view (Monk and Haller1986; Monk 1987; Monk 1988; Halleret al. 1990; Monk 1991; Monk andHaller 1993). The cumulative findingsfollow:

The effects of school size on highschool curricular offerings vary de-pending on the subject area. For ex-ample, school size is much lesslikely to impact course offerings insocial studies and science than inforeign languages and the perform-ing and visual arts.

The strength of the relationship be-tween school size and curricular of-ferings diminishes as schoolsbecome larger. Increases in the sizeof very small schools are associatedwith greater curricular gains than

56

69

increases in the size of largerschools.

School size is related to the types ofcourses added within subject areas.In particular, school size is posi-tively related to the share of theacademic curriculum devoted to ad-vanced and remedial courses. Inmost subjects, though, advancedcourses grow more rapidly withschool size than do remedialcourses. (See tables 9-11a through9-11d with national data supportingthese conclusions.)

A recent analysis of NAEP data re-vealed extremely low rates in theavailability of advanced courses for12th graders in schools located innonmetropolitan counties com-pared to metropolitan counties(Greenberg, et al. 1992). Neverthe-less, the impact of a rural locationper se on curricular offerings is gen-erally considered smaller than theimpact of school size.

Substantial variation in curricularofferings among high schools re-mains after the effects of school sizeand rural location are removed.There are small schools with richcurricular offerings just as there arelarge schools with modest offer-ings. School size alone explainsroughly half of the variation incourse offerings among highschools.

The mere presence of a course in acurriculum is no guarantee of wide-spread student participation. Re-markably small percentages ofstudents within a school take advan-tage of those courses found onlywithin large school curricula.

Academic performance. With abetter understanding of the relation-ship between school size and both stu-

dent behaviors and course availability,one may now examine available find-ings on academic outcomes. In moststudies, some dating back to the 1920s,little if any difference has been foundin student achievement in small vs.large schools (Howley 1989). The re-cent summary of school size effectsnoted above (Fowler 1992) also identi-fied studies (e.g., Marion et al. 1991)that revealed a positive relationship be-tween small size and achievement.

Data from NELS analyzed for this re-port are consistent with such findingsabout the advantages of small-scaleschooling. Student scores from smallerschools (less than 500 enrollment)were higher than those from medium(500 to 999 enrollment) or largerschools (greater than 1,000) (table 912).1 In fact,

Students in the smallest schoolsscored higher than the national av-erage, and students in the largerschools scored significantly loweron all four NELS:88 tests.

Discussion of student perform-ance. As noted above, while ruralschool outcomes have improved in re-cent years, there are deficiencies rela-tive to suburban settings as well asadvantages over urban settings. At is-sue is the cause of both the improve-ments and the differences. Regardingthe latter, what may be the strongerinfluence depressing rural perform-ance is the poverty of many studentsrather than any limitations imposed bytype of location (Edington and Koehler1987).

The validity of this hypothesis has beenlargely borne out in studies that controlfor socioeconomic status (SES). Re-sults are consistent whether the studieshave been of students in rural vs. urbansettings (e.g., Edington and Martel laro1984) or in small vs. large schools (e.g.,

Walberg and Fowler 1987). Indeed, re-cent studies demonstrated small-scaleschooling has a positive effect on stu-dent achievement, while large-scaleschooling has a decidedly negative ef-fect, particularly where low SES stu-dents were concerned (Friedkin andNecochea 1988, per Howley 1989).

If poverty retards student performance,what then accounts for overall ruralimprovement? And why do studentsfrom small schools, with relatively lim-ited curricula, match or sometimeseven surpass students from largerschools? And similarly, how can non-metropolitan students with fewer ad-vanced courses to take perform nearlyas well as metropolitan students? Gen-erally, researchers have expected in-equities in what is called "opportunityto learn"(NCES 1988) to hold backrural and small school students onachievement measures (Barker 1985).

An illustration of this issue may befound in students' exposure to science.While significantly less involvement inscience learning activities and sciencecourse taking among rural 13- and 17-year-old students was documented in1983, their NAEP scores even at thattime were comparable to the nationalaverages. Perhaps intervening to offsetinput limitations was the supportiveethos of small schcols. That rural stu-dents are outdistanced by more advan-taged students suggests that withgreater curricular opportunities, ruralperformance could improve still more(Welch and Wagner 1989).

The perennial challenge faced by ruralschools to provide cost-effective, qual-ity schooling persists and will surelyincrease as standards and expectationsare raised for all students. These re-search findings suggest there is valuein small size just as proponents of ruralschools have traditionally claimed

57 70

(Barker 1985; Swanson 1988). Anyagenda for improving the outcomes ofrural education could consider how tocapitalize on the advantages of smallscale while at the same time findingways to improve or expand opportuni-ties to learn in smaller schools, particu-1 arly for those students seekingadvanced courses.

And given that many rural students arepoor and live in communities whosefiscal resources are limited, the level oftheir performance is encouraging. In-deed, it suggests that rather than a defi-cit model, rural schools, havingachieved so much with so little, canprovide instead a model of strength(Edington and Koehler 1987) worthstudying and emulating.

SummaryNAEP assessment scores for rural stu-dents in Extreme Rural settings haverisen in the last 10 years and now ap-proximate the mean, a iimling that wasmaintained when "rural" was definedto include a much wider population inthe NELS:88 survey. At the same time,research on small schools, which in-cludes the large majority of ruralschools, revealed definitive advantagesas measured by student attitudes andbehavior. But other research docu-mented inequities in the availability ofcourses at the secondary level, thoughmost small schools offered a basic cur-riculum and not all large schools of-fered an enriched one. Nevertheless,student achievement in small schoolsequaled or exceeded that of students inlarge schools, suggesting that the cli-mate in small schools may propel stu-dents to excel in spite of certainmaterial disadvantages. These findingshave policy implications not only forrural schools, but for schools in anysetting.

Notes

1. Given that rural schools are generallysmall, it is unclear why eighth-grade stu-dents in smaller schools exceed the meanwhile those in rural schools approximate themean.What may be occurring is the less-than-500 category draws in some higherscoring small nonrural schools thus raisingthe group mean. However, little is knownabout the mix and variety of schools thatcomprise the "small" category in the NELSsample, and results are not reported for ruralschools by enrollment size. (NAEP does notreport results by school enrollment so con-firmation checks are not possible in that dataset regarding .chool size effects.)

References

Barker, B. 1985. "Curricular Offerings inSmall and Large High Schools: HowBroad is the Disparity?" Research inRural Education 3:1.

Barker, R.G., and P.V. Gump. 1964. BigSchool, Small School: High School Sizeand Student Behavior. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Bryck, A.S., and Y.M. Thum. 1989. 'TheEffects of High School Organization onDropping Out: An Exploratory Investi-gation" (Report No. RR-012). Centerfor Policy Research in Education.

Carlsen, W.S., and F. Dunn. 1981. "SmallRural Schools: A Portrait." High SchoolJournal 64:7.

Edington, E.D., and H.C. Martellaro.1984." Variables Affecting AcademicAchievement in New Mexico Schools."Paper presented at the American Educa-tional Research Association Confer-ence, New Orleans, LA.

Edington, ED., and L. Koehler. 1987. "Ru-ral Student Achievement: Elements forConsideration." ERIC Digest. Las Cru-ces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on RuralEducation and Small Schools.

Fowler, W.J. April 1992. "What Do WeKnow About School Size? What ShouldWe Know?" Paper presented at the

America Educational Research Asso-ciation Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Fowler, W.J., and H.J. Walberg. 1991."School Size, Characteristics, and Out-comes." Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis 13:2.

Fox, W.F. 1981. "Reviewing Economies ofSize in Education." Journal of Educa-tion Finance 6:3.

Friedkin, N., and J. Necochea. 1988."School System Size and Performance:A Contingency Perspective." Educa-tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis10:3.

Greenberg, E.J., P.L. Swaim, and R.A.Teixiera. December, 1992. "Can RuralWorkers Compete for the Jobs of theFuture?" Paper prepared for the Agri-cultural Outlook Conference, Washing-ton, DC.

E.J., D.H. Monk, A. Spotted Bear,J. Griffith, and P. Moss. 1990. "SchoolSize and Program Comprehensiveness:Evidence From High School and Be-yond." Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis 12:2.

Howley, C. 1989. "Synthesis of the Effectsof School and District Size: What Re-search Says about Achievement inSmall Schools and School Districts."Journal of Rural and Small Schools 4:1.

Lu, Y., and L. Tweeten. 1973. 'The Impactof Busing on Student Achievement."Growth and Change.

Marion, S.F., W.G. McIntire, and H.G.Walberg. April 1991. Mie Effects ofPer-pupil Expenditures, School Size,and Student Characteristics on StudentAchievement and Educational Attain-ment in Rural Schools." Paper presentedat the American Educational ResearchAssociation Conference, Chicago, IL.

Marfin, W.H. 1983. "Student Achievementin Rural Schools: A View from the Na-tional Assessment Data." In J. Fletcher(Ed.). Rural Education: A National Per-spective. International Dialogue Press.

5871

Monk, D.H., and E.J. Haller. 1986. Organ-izational Alternatives for Small, RuralSchools. Ithaca, NY: Department ofEducation, Cornell University.

Monk, D.H. 1987. "Seconda, School Sizeand Curriculum Comprehensiveness."Economics of Education Review 6:2.

Monk, D.H. 1988. "Disparities in Curricu-lar Offerings: Issues and Policy Alter-natives for Small, Rural Schools. PolicyIssues. Policy and Planning Center, Ap-palachia Educational Laboratory, Char-leston, WV.

Monk, D.H. 1991. 'The Organization andReorganization of Small, RuralSchools." Rural Education: Issues andPractice. AI De Young (Ed.). NewYork: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Monk, D. H., and EJ. Haller. Spring 1993."Predictors of High School AcademicCourse Offerings: The Role of SchoolSize." American Educational ResearchJournal 30:1.

National Center for Education Statistics.1988. 1988 Education Indicators. J.Stern (Ed.).Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics.1990a. The U.S. History Report Card.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Center for Education Statistics.1990b. The Civics Report Card. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

National Center for Education Statistics.1991a. Trends in Academic Progress.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Center for Education Statistics.1991b. The Tested Achievement of theNational Education Longitudinal Studyof 1988 Eighth Grade Class. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

National Center for Education Statistics.1992. Digest of Education Statistics.NCES 92-097. Washington, DC.

Pittman, R.B., and P. Haughwort. 1987."Influence of High School Size onDropout Rate." Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis 9:4.

Rincones, R. 1988. "Rural Education: Ex-ploring Alternatives to Consolidation."ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-tion and Small Schools. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 296817/EDORC-88-05). Las Cruces,NM.

Swanson, A.D. 1988, "The Matter of Size:A Review of the Research on Relation-ships Between School and District Size,Pupil Achievement, and Cost." Re-search in Rural Education 5:2.

Walberg, H.J., and WI Fowler. 1987. "Ex-penditure and Size Efficiencies of Pub-lic School Districts." EducationalResearcher 16:7.

Welch, W.W., and T.G. Wagner. 1989. Sci-ence Education in Rural America. Elm-hurst, IL: North Central RegionalEducational Laboratory.

Computer training at the Miami Valley Career Technology Center (enrollment: 1,772 students, grades 11-12), Clayton, Ohio (pop. 600). In apattern typical of many rural areas, Miami Valley draws studzill. t om high schools in several neighboring counties for its programs in vocationaland 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 NatianalFFA 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-day's competitive global economy, thischapter examines rural students' aspi-rations, preparation, academic achieve-ments and vocational careers.Contrasts are made not only with theirnonrural counterparts, but between ru-ral youth who remained in their homecommunities and those who left. Someregional differences are also touchedupon.

Rural Youth in the1980sEmployment opportunities in agricul-ture, mining, construction, and manu-facturing industriesprincipal sourcesof rural jobsare projected to continuedeclining, while information-based in-dustries are predicted to grow (Ham-rick 1991-92). An estimated sixmillion jobs will open up nationally inhighly skilled occupations during thedecade of the 1990s (World Future So-ciety 1988).

To gauge the readiness of rural youthfor the rapidly changing economy, thischapter examines the Class of 1980and, to some extent, the Class of 1982,from the longitudinal survey, HighSchool and Beyc.id, administered bythe National Center for Education Sta-tistics (NCES). Youth were consideredrural if they went to high schools innonmetropolitan counties as definedby the Census Bureau. Nonrural stu-dents were those who went to a highschool within a metropolitan areaur-ban or suburban. (Appendix B providesmore information on the survey.)

Aspirations. Rural students sharecertain attitudes and values that are lesscommon among nonrural students. For

Figure 10-1.Postsecondary educational plans of1960 seniors, by location

30

25

20Percentage

of 1980seniors

15

10

111 Urban Suburb [1:

Vocational <4 Yr.tech. degree

BA/BS Advanceddegree degree

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

example, compared to nonrural stu-dents, seniors in rural high schools in1980 said they valued their jobs moreand academics less (Cobb, McIntire,and Pratt 1989). This perception con-tributed to differences between the am-bitions of rural youth and their nonruralcounterparts.

For example, rural students envisionedthemselves more often in lower level,less skilled positions than did nonruralyouth (table 10-1). Thus rural youthexpected to complete their full-time

7461

education at lower levels of attainmentthan did either urban or suburbanstudents (tables 10-2 and 10-3). Theseaspirations translated into clear differ-ences in postsecondary education plansas presented in figure 10-1 (table 10-4).

Proportionately fewer rural than non-rural seniors intended to pursue collegeand advanced degrees. And more ruralseniors than nonrural seniors had noplans at all (table10-4).

Preparation. Reflecting these long-range perceptions about the future,seniors -;.n rural high schools were lesslikely to have enrolled in academicprograms that would prepare them forfurther academic study and more likelyto be enrolled in general studies pro-grams (figure 10-2) (table 10-5).

As a result, rural seniors in the highschool Class of 1980 completed some-what less course work in the subjectsstudents need for college (Algebra Iand II, Trigonometry, Calculus, Chem-istry, and Physics). Rather, they tookmore vocational and business courses(Pollard and O'Hare 1990).

Postsecondary education. Loweracademic aspirations and less prepara-tion translated into lower college-go-ing rates for rural youth. During the 4years following high school graduation(1980-1984), significantly fewer rural(62 percent) than urban (70 percent) orsuburban (73.5 percent) youth attendedat least one term of college, either part-time or full-time (Marion, McIntire,and Walberg 1991).

At the end of 6 years, 18 percent ofrural members of the Class of 1980 hadearned at least a bachelor's degreecompared to 21 percent for nonruralyouth (Pollard and O'Hare 1990)2

Flgure 10-2.HIgh school program enrollment,by type and location

50

40

Percentage 30of 1980seniors

20

10

0

IP"II Urban Suburb Rural

General Academic Vocational

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

Given that educational attainment is astrong predictor of future incoine,

The lower college-going and com-pletion rates among rural studentsare important indicators that ruralyouth will have comparativelylower future earnings and job status.

Reasons forRural-NonruralDifferences inEducationalAttainmentAn important issue in examining theeducational orientation of rural andnonrural youth is how much the dis-tinctions between them may somehowbe a function of setting. A smail butgrowing body of literature argues forconsidering factors other than place ofresidence to account for rural-nonruraldifferences.

For example, one factor depressing theeducation ambitions of rural youthmay be the lower prevaler. in theircommunities of professional and tech-nical jobs that could serve as voca-tional goals (Haller and Virkler 1992).In fact, a smaller proportion (-9.2 per-cent) of rural youth from the Class of1980 (Haller and Virkler 1992) aspiredto those categories of employment re-quiring college degrees and for whichfew rural opportunities exist.

Another major factor is socioeconomicstatus (SES). The relationship betweenSES and educational outcomes hasbeen documented in the educationaland psychological literature (e.g.,Anderson et al. 1992; White 192,. Asa group, rural students ranked lower onthe High School ald Beyond socioeco-nomic scale compared with suburbanstudents, though they had about the

same ranking as urban students(Marion, McIntire, and Walberg 1991).Thus the generally lower aspirations of1980 rural seniors reflected that a largeproportion came from families rankinglower in socioeconomic status (Co-ladarci and McIntire' 1988; McIntireand Marion 1989).

One element of this status is parentaleducation levels. For half of the ruralstudents, parents had at most a highschool education, whereas this circum-stance applied to just one-third of thenonrural students; at the same time, 12percent of rural seniors had parentswith at least a bachelor's degree, com-pared to 19 percent of nonrural seniors(Pollard and O'Hare 1990). To the ex-tent well-educated parents encouragetheir children to pursue more school-ing, nonrural seniors had an advantagemany rural seniors did not (Pollard andO'Hare 1990), and this backgroundmay help to account for the differencesin their ambitions and choice of coursestudy.

For example, compared to their coun-terparts elsewhere, proportionatelymore rural than nonrural seniors re-ported their fathers were inclined toencourage them to obtain full-time jobs(14 vs. 9 percent) or to attend tradeschool (10 vs. 6 percent) (table 10-6).Proportionately fewer rural studentsreported they thought their motherswere supportive of full-time collegeattendance (60 vs. 72 percent) (table10-6). In addition, while half of therural seniors said their guidance coun-selors and teachers thought they shouldgo to college, the proportion was lessthan for nonrural seniors (56 percent)(Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt 1989). Insum,

Youth in Rural America ofti n per-ceive themselves as lacking guid-ance and support for pursuingadvanced educational studies.

Nevertheless, one must keep the loca-tional differences in perspective.Though below nonrural rates, a largeproportion of rural students had profes-sional ambitions. For example, nearlyone-fourth of 1980 rural seniors (vs. 29percent nonrural) said they expected tohave low-level professional jobs by theage of 30, and about 9 percent (vs. 15percent nonrural) saw themselves ashigh-level professionalsthe sameproportion as expected to becomecraftsmen. These aspirations translatedinto significant levels of educationalattainment for many rural students,many of whom migrated out of ruralareas to realize them. Specifically, forthose rural youth from the Class of1980 who did go to college, well overone-third (36 percent) remained for 4years of education (table 10-7).

This rate of persistence in college,while below that of suburban college-going youth (40 percent), was about thesame as urban students (37 percent).Moreover, when groups of rural andnonrural students from the high schoolClass of 1980 were matched by SES,there was little difference betweenthem in terms of higher educationaloutcomes. In the top half of the SESdistribution, in fact, proportionatelymore rural than nonrural students com-pleted a 4year degree or advanced de-gree (Marion, McIntire, and Walberg1991). Together these data suggest

Rural students who enter collegehave the capacity to succeed; com-ing from a rural area need not be animpediment to completing college.2

Leavers and stayers. Rural com-munities have a long history of losinglarge proportions of their academicallyaccomplished youth to urban and sub-urban communities, a phenomenoncaused by limited educational opportu-nities locally and better employment

63

prospects elsewhere. By 1984, ap-proximately one-third of rural studentsof the Class of 1980 had left for non-rural areas, with males and femalesequally represented among them(Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt 1989). Con-trasting "leavers" (rural youth who left)with "stayers" (those who stayed inRural America) provides yet anotherperspective on rural diversity.

Those who left scored significantlyhigher on the survey's aptitude testsand came from higher socioeconomicstatus families than did those whostayed. In fact, "leavers" most resem-bled suburban youth in their postsecon-dary aspirations, educationalattainment, and quality of life aspira-tions. For example, of the rural "stay-ers," less than half (46 percent) aspiredto a college degree while 61 percent ofrural "leavers" didnearly the same asgraduates from cities and suburbs (ta-ble 10-8). Rural "leavers" actually at-tained some college or a college degreemore often than all other groups (Cobb,McIntire, and Pratt 1989).3

High School DropoutRatesComparing dropout rates. Look-ing at the Class of 1982 permits anexamination of dropping out betweenthe sophomore and senior years of highschool. Between 1980 and 1982, ruralsophomores had a dropout rate of 16percent, which was below the nationalaverage and comparable to the subur-ban rate. The urban rate was consider-ably higher at 24.5 percent (Alsalam etal. 1992). What is not known is thedegree to which rural students for thiscohort had dropped out before thesophomore year.

Light is shed on this question by recentdata on younger students showing 7percent of rural students dropped out

between the 8th and 10th grades (1988-90) compared to 5 percent of suburbanstudents and 9 percent of urban students(Kaufman and McMillan 1991). Thistwo percentage points disadvantagerelative to suburban rates suggests the1980 to 1982 rural dropout rate mayunderstate the longer term rate.

As with plans for college attendance,however, an analysis of the HighSchool and Beyond data set revealedthat dropping out could not be attrib-uted primarily to urban, suburban, orrural location but to differences in thedemographics and social charac-teristics of students who lived in thoseplaces (Barro and Kolstad 1987). Drop-outs gave the same primary reasons forleaving school regardless of highschool location, namely low grades and"school wasn't for me" though ruraldropouts had the lowest educational as-pirations and lowest self esteem of anygroup (McCaul 1989).

Late completion. An understandingof the phenomenon of dropping outmust include an awareness that a sig-nificant proportion of students who donot graduate with their class either takelonger to complete high school or passa high school equivalency examination.Of the Class of 1982, 84 percent of ruralstudents completed high school ontime, a rate comparable to that of sub-urban students (85 percent). (Of theurban students, 76 percent completedon time, i.e., by June 1982.) But thesecompletion rates changed significantlyover the next 6 years. In urban andsuburban areas, completion rates rose11 and 8 percentage points respec-tively.. They rose least in rural areas-6pointsreflecting the lower availabil-ity of programs to prepare youth forequivalency tests (Sherman 1992). Asa result, the rural high school comple-tion rate fell behind the suburban rate-90 vs. 93 percent, and urban-rural

differences lessened (Alsalam et al.1992).

Minority dropout rates. Black andHispanic students in rural areas werefar more likely to drop out than weremetropolitan members of these minori-ties. In comparing groups 25 years ofage and older, for example, rural blackand Hispanic residents in 1991 were farless likely to have had schooling com-parable to 4 years of high school ormore than their nonrural counterparts(table 10-9). Rural rates for bothgroups were low, but the contrast wasparticularly great between blacks in thetwo sectors: 49 vs. 70 percent forblacks and 47 percent vs. 52 percent forHispanics. (School completion ratesfor whites in rural areas were also farlower than for their metropolitan coun-terparts-74 vs. 82 percent.)

Minority groups in rural areas also hadhigher rates of functional illiteracy (de-fined as having completed less than 5years of elementary school)com-pared to rural whites and to minoritygroups in nonrural areas (table 10-10).Rural blacks 25 years of age and olderwere twice as likely as metropolitanblacks to be illiterate (8 vs. 4 percent).Rates for Hispanic residents were high-est, though the rural-nonrural distinc-tion was less extreme (15 vs. 12percent). (Two percent of whitesmatched the criterion, and there was nodifference by place of residence). Butthough illiteracy rates remain high, it isimportant to note the progress made inthe last two decades. The illiteracyrates of black and white Americanshave been cut by more than half, andHispanic adults have seen dramatic im-provements in this measure as well.

Factors influencing droppingout. Given that educational differ-ences are not purely a function of loca-tion but of other circumstances, it is

6477

useful to explore further some of thoseother influences. For example, in localcommunities where obtaining a highschool degree offers no apparent ad-vantage because of limited economicopportunities, students may tend todrop out more (Bickel and Papagiannis1988). Additional light has been shedby recent studies using the High Schooland Beyond data set to track 10th grad-ers in the South between 1980 and 1982(Smith et al. 1992; Beaulieu et al.1990). These studies highlighted twoinfluences on high school dropout be-havior: family and society!

Taken separately, family and commu-nity elements showed varying but sig-n ifi cant influences on dropoutbehaviors. In combination, however,they exerted a powerful force. Whenfamily and community influences wereweak, the dropout rate exceeded 50percent; when both were strong, stu-dents were virtually assured of com-pleting their high school studies(Beaulieu et al. 1990). The rise in sin-gle parent households in Rural Amer-ica, as elsewhere, and the extensivepopulation migration in the last decadereflect unsettled economic and socialconditions that could negatively affectnot only persistence in school, but alsoa host of other behaviors associatedwith preparation for independent adult-hood and responsible citizenship.

EducationalAttainment of theRural WorkforceIn examining the personal and employ-ment potential of rural students, it isuseful to consider levels of schoolingfrom a broader group of working-agerural residents. But first, it is importantto note the tremendous strides RuralAmerica has made in better educating

its students in the last several decades.Just 30 years ago the average rural resi-dent had a ninth-grade education,whereas today the norm is to have ahigh school diploma (McGranahan etal. 1986). And in spite of the employ-ment problems of the last decade, asmaller proportion of rural youth age16-24 had dropped out of high schoolin 1990 (12 percent) than did in 1975(16.8 percent), reducing the gap be-tween rural and rational totals duringthat period (Kau fman and McMillan1991) (table 10".1).

Those of working age (25-44) also nar-rowed the rural-nonrural gap in highschool graduation rates (Swaim andTeixeira 1991) (table 10-12). Examin-ing this age group's further educationalattainment tells a more complex story,however. Not only were rural residentsfar less likely to have attained 4 or moreyears of college (16 vs. 27 percent), butafter 1979, the difference in rural-non-rural rates for college attendance andfor college completion widened con-siderably (Swaim and Teixeira 1991).The proportion of rural people com-pleting 1 to 4 years of college did notdecline; in fact, it increased, at leastthrough 1983. The primary cause of thedisparity is the even greater increase inthe proportion of nonrural workerswho obtained higher education. Sev-eral factors contributed to this phe-nomenon.

First, as noted, rural students had loweraspirations for higher education. In ad-dition, rural residents have limited ac-cess to institutions of higher education(Swaim and Teixeira 1991), an elementthat could also have helped restraintheir aspirations. For example, non-rural counties were three times morelikely than rural counties to have somekind of public college (table 10-13).Even in the case of 2-year colleges, halfthe metropolitan counties had one,

while only 15 percent of the rural coun-ties did.4

The third factor was that in the 1980s,the more educated rural residents leftfor nonrural areas, constituting a returnto the historical pattern. (The influx ofmetropolitan residents to the country-side during the 1970s turned out tohave been a temporary phenomenon.)In these data, such workers, thoughborn in rural areas, are now nonruralresidents and are counted among them.

EmploymentAccording to the U.S. Department ofAgriculture's Economic ResearchService (ERS), the source of the ruralemployment crisis is that the new econ-omy is an urban economy (McGrana-han and Ghelfi 1991). This means jobsthat support this economy, which de-mands a highly educated workforce,became concentrated in metropolitanareas. The result has been an increasein the rural-urban division of labor(McGranahan and Ghelfi 1991)whereby low-education, low-skill jobsstay in the countryside, while high-education, high-s jobs are in the cit-ies and suburbs.

As these work distinctions sharpenedin the last decade, earnings disparitieswidened correspondingly. In 1979, thedifference between the two sectors wasprobably close to the difference in costof living; but by 1987, tho pay differ-ence for rural and nonrural high schoolgraduates had grown to 15 percent andfor college graduates to twice that per-centage (McGranahan and Ghelfi1991).

These economic facts of lifejobs andpaygoverned migration patterns inthe last decade. As one analyst summa-rized it, "Rural areas were net exportersof educated workers" (McGranahan

65 78

1988). Rarely noted, but relevant to theissues of jobs and pay, is that at thesame time, those with the lowest levelsof skills and education increasinglytended to leave metropolitan areas tosettle in rural counties (Lichter et al.1991).

As for the members of the Class of1980, these economic circumstancesnaturally impacted them, as it did oth-ers. Six years after high school, notonly were rural members of the classgenerally less likely to be in white col-lar jobs (50 vs. 61 percent), but this wastrue even for college graduates (77 vs.84 percent) (Pollard and O'Hare 1990).Factors included differences in aspira-tions, preparation, and educational at-tainment. The outcome also reflects thelimited availability of such jobs in thecountryside, as mentioned above.

Members of the Class of 1980 who didnot obtain a college degree (i.e., thosewith a high school diploma or less, alicense or certificate, or a 2-3year vo-cational degree) also had difficultiesthat reflected the broader analysis. Per-sons from rural schools were earningless and had significantly more unem-ployment than did those from urbanand suburban schools (Pollard andO'Hare 1990).

Regional DifferencesAll the findings regarding the Class of1980 were not uniform among the nineregional divisions. One of the moststriking differences concerned SES.Rural students from New England hadthe highest average SES, while ruralstudents from the East-South Centraland West-South Central divisions hadthe lowest. Consistent with the nationalcorrelations of SES and outcomes dis-cussed above, New England stood outas the only census division with a ma-jority of its rural students in academicprograms. This region had the highest

proportion of its students entering col-lege and the highest proportion with atleast a bachelor's degree (30 percent)by 1986 (table 10-14). In the Mountainstates, only 7 percent of the rural stu-dents had attained a college degree.

Regional differences also occurred fordropout rates according to the CurrentPopulation Survey. Most regions sawa decline in dropout rates for 16- to24-year-olds, but again, variations byregion were considerable (table 10-11). For example, rates in the South,though declining, remained high dur-ing the 15-year period, while rates inthe West actually rose. Clearly, poli-cies designed to aid rural schools musttake into account circumstances pecu-liar to the region.

In the South and the Pacific regions,the persistence of low average in-comes, high rates of poverty, and loweducational achievement point to theneed for a regional emphasis on creat-ing higher value economic activity anda workforce qualified for better jobsand improved incomes. In the ruralMidwest, where education and in-comes are high relative to other re-gions, creating jobs in new industriesthat can stem population losses is moreof a concern. The greatest challengesfor amenity-rich areas on both coastsare to manage the impacts of growthand assure the benefits are shared withall their residents (Reid and Frederick1990).

In light of the education and job dis-parities in Rural America, increasingattention is being paid to finding waysto conserve human resources. To raisethe standard of living in rural commu-nities, rural youth clearly must qualifyfor better jobs through education andtraining. But this strategy depends onthe availability of such jobs. The Presi-

dent's Rural Development Initiativehas recognized this two-way relation-ship, and has made rural communityand economic development a primaryfocus. It is important that schools andstudents not be left out of the processbut participate fully in rural develop-ment efforts. 'The application of schoolresources, such as faculty release time,adult education, and class projects thatdirectly involve students in communityprojects have the potential tostrengthen the educational institutionsand the communities.

SummaryProportionately more rural than non-rural students have been shown tocome from families with lower SES, afactor that contributes significantly totheir somewhat lower career aspira-tions and lower tendency to prepare forand enroll in postsecondary educationprograms. Other factors include thepresence in rural areas of fewer jobsrequiring a college education and thedearth of institutions of higher educa-tion in rural counties. Yet diminishedaspirations and lack of continuing edu-cation opportunities come at a timewhen every indication is that moreknowledge and skills are necessary forwell-paying jobs, typically located innonrural areas. Many of those who doprepare, therefore, leave for jobs inmetropolitan locations. The new econ-omy has thus contributed to the emi-gration of Rural America's bettereducated workers, a phenomenon thatwill continue to challenge educatorsand communities in the years ahead.

Notes

1. This actually understates the rural short-fall because it compares those who hadreached their senior year and does not re-flect the higher dropout rates for rural stu-

66 7S

dents prior to that year. According to theCensus Bureau, in the late 1970s, when1980 seniors would have been in theirsophomore and junior years, 9.7 percent ofrural youth age 16-17 had dropped out, thatis were neither in school nor had a highschool diploma, compared to 8.3 percentfor nonrural youth (Reid and Frederick1990).

2. One of the most dramatic illustrations ofthe potential of rural schooling comes froma recent study that examined the highschool Class of 1983 in 11 school districtsin Iowa. A striking 75 percent of thosestudents who entered either 2- or 4-yearcolleges received their degrees within 5years of high school graduation. Almost allof these students grew up in families thatvalued perseverance and education. Thesestudents, in contrast to the general HSBfinding, credited their parents with encour-aging their post-high school plans. Alsocredited was the "ethos" in their ruralschools that fostered a positive school cli-mate and sense of belonging that influ-enced college performance (Schonert etal.).

3. Cobb, McIntire, and Pratt contrasted ru-ral students who had attended a rural highschool in 1980 and who, 4 years later, wereliving in a rural area or small town of lessthan 50,000 ("stayers") with those now re-siding in more urbanized areas ("leavers")Other researchers use different referencepoints to determine migration, includingsimply leaving the hometown (Pollard andO'Hare 1990) or migrating 50 miles fromhome (Pollard et al. 1990). However de-fined, rural "leavers" ("migrants" in Pol-lard's work) have more advantagedbackgrounds and progress further academi-cally than "stayers" ("nonmigrants").Ed.

4. Family variables included socioeco-nomic status and family configuration(e.g., number of siblings, whether themother worked) while "community socialcapital" included positive action on schoolbond issues and how well the student wasintegrated into the community as measuredby long-term residence and church partici-pation.

5. Interestingly, the difference in the avail-ability of colleges and universities locatedin rural counties adjacent and nonadjacentto metropolitan counties was not particu-larly great.

References

Alsalam, N., L.T. Ogle, G.T. Rogers, andT.M. Smith. 1992. The Condition ofEducation 1992. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Cen-ter for Education Statistics.

Anderson, J., D. Hollinger, and J. Conaty.1992. Poverty and Achievement: Re-ex-amining the Relationship BetweenSchool Poverty and Student Achieve-ment. Washington, DC: U. S. Depart-ment of Education, Office of Research.

Barro. S.M., and A. Kolstad. 1987. WhoDrops Out of School? Findings fromHigh School and Beyond. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, Na-tional Center for Education Statistics.

Beaulieu, L.J., G.D. Israel, M.H. Smith.1990. "Community as Social Capital:The Case of Public High School Drop-nuts." Paper presented at tilt.: AnnualMeeting of the Rural Sociological Soci-ety. Norfolk, VA.

Bickel, R., and G. Papagiannis. 1988. "Post-high School Prospects and District-levelDropout Rates." Youth and Society 20:2.

Cobb, R.A., W.G. McIntire, and P.A. Pratt.1989. "Vocational and Educational As-pirations of High School Students: AProblem for Rural America." Researchin Rural Education 6:2.

Coladarci, T., and W.G. McIntire, 1988."Gender, Urbanicity, and Ability." Re-search in Rural Education 5:1.

Haller, E.J., and S.J. Virkler. October 1992."Another Look at Rural-Urban Differ-ences in Students' Educational Aspira-tions." Paper presented at the Rural

Research Forum of the National RuralEducation Association meeting in Trav-erse City, MI.

Hamrick, K.S. Winter 1991-1992. RuralConditions and Trcnds. U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Economic Re-search Service.

Kaufman, P., and M.M. McMillan. 1991.Dropout Rates in the United States:1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Lichter, D.T., D.K. McLaughlin, and G.T.Cornwell. 1991. "Migration and theLoss of Human Resources in RuralAmerica." Paper prepared for the Popu-lation Issues Research Center, Institutefor Policy Research and Evaluation.Pennsylvania State University.

Marion, S.F., W.G. McIntire, and H.G.Walberg. April 1991. 'The Effects ofPer-pupil Expenditures, School Size,and Student Characteristics on StudentAchievement and Educational Attain-ment in Rural Schools." Paper presentedat the American Educational ResearchAssociation Conference, Chicago, IL.

McCaul, E.J. 1989. "Rural Public SchoolDropouts: Findings from High Schooland Beyond." Research in Rural Edu-cation 6:1.

McGranahan, D.A. 1988. "Rural Workersin the National Economy." Rural Eco-nomic Development in the 1980s. RuralDevelopment Research Report No. 69.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Serv-ice.

McGranahan, D.A., J.C. Hession, F.K.Hines, and M.F. Jordan. 1986. Socialand Economic Characteristics of thePopulation in Metro and NonmetroCounties, 1970-1980. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.

67Es

McGranahan, D.A., and L.M. Ghelfi. 1991.'The Education Crisis and Rural Stag-nation in the 1980s." Education andRural Economic Development: Strate-gies for the 1990s, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco-nomic Research Service.

McIntire, W.G., and S.. Marion. March1989. "Academic Achievement inAmerica's Small Schools: Data fromHigh School and ik.yond." Paper pre-sented at the Natioal Rural and SmallSchool Consortiuo Conference, FortLauderdale, FL.

Pollard, K. M., and W.P. O'Hare. March1990. "Beyond High School: The Expe-rience of Rural and Urban Youth in the1980s." Staff Working Paper preparedfor the Population Reference Bureau,Washington, DC.

Pollard, K. M., W.P. O'Haxe, and R. Berg."Selective Migration of Rural HighSchool Seniors in the 1980s." StaffWorking Paper prepared for the Popu-lation Reference Bureau, Washington,DC.

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

Schonert, K.A., J.P. Elliott, and D. Bills.1991. "Rural Iowa Youth: A Descrip-tive Summary of Postsecondary Persist-ence Five Years After High School."Research in Higher Education 32.

Sherman, Arloc. 1992. Falling by the Way-side: Children in Rural America.Washington, DC: The Children's De-fense Fund.

Smith, M. H., L.J. Beaulieu, and G.D. Is-rael. Winter, 1992. "Effects of HumanCapital and Social Capital on DroppingOut of High School in the South" Jour-nal of Research in Rural Education 8:1.

Swaim, P., and R. Teixeira. 1991. "Educa-tion and Training Policy: Skill Upgrad-ing Options for the Rural Workforce."Education and Rural Economic Devel-opment: Strategies for the 1990s.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Economic Research Serv-ice.

White, KR. 1982. "The Relation BetweenSocioeconomic Status and AcademicAchievement." Psychologiial Bulletin91:3.

World Future Society. 1988. /nto the 2IstCentury: Long Term Trends Affectingthe United States. Bethesda, MD.

,0J- -.40'_t

^ .First grade graduates: Tornillo Independent School District, Tornillo, Texas (pop. 600). Photo by Roz Mexander-Kasparik, SouthwestEducational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Austin, Texas.

868

1

Reporting theCondition ofEducation inRural SchoolsBy the most conservative definition ofrural, some 6.6 million students areenrolled in some 22,000 public ele-mentary and secondary schools locatedin rural communities. Size alonenearly 17 percent of America's stu-dents attending 28 percent of itsschoolswarrants considerable atten-don by policymakers to rural issues.Summarized below are the problemsand the achievements of rural schools,as well as samples of missing inforrna-don, implications for resolving the per-ennial problem of defining rural, and avision for the future.

Identified problems. Along withtraditional challenges to education im-posed by location and demography,Rural America faced additionalstresses during the last decade, diffi-culties that have continued into the1990s.

The stability of rural conununitieswas severely undermined becauseeconomic problems in all tradi-tional sources of rural employmentoccurred simultaneously. The re-sulting unemployment and under-employment led to increasedpoverty, emigration, and a dramatic

surge in single-parent families.

This decline in resource capacityand increase in service need oc-curred at a time of greater educa-tional demands imposed not only bystate reforms but also by the emer-gence of a new economy that calledfor different employment skills.

11 . Looking Ahead

Many rural schools are ill-equipped tomeet these challenges.

Yet the system of school finance inthe states leaves property-poorschool districts at a disadvantage inproviding adequate support forschools. High per pupil expendi-tures are a consequence of sparsepopulation concentrations and thehigh cost of transporting pupils.State measures to achieve fiscal eq-uity have, by and large, not beensuccessful. One result is many ruraldistricts have initiated or joined le-gal challenges to state systems ofeducation financing.

Teachers in rural schools have morepreparations, and rural principalsoften have multiple responsibilities.Yet both receive considerably Lesscompensation by way of salariesand benefits. This is due in part totheir relative youth, their somewhatlower frequency of advanced de-grees, and the small size of theirschools. Turnover in small schoolsis particularly high, and it is espe-cially difficult to recruit science andspecial education teachers to ruralareas.

Facilities are in great need of repairor replacement, but many districtsare hampered in their ability to raisethe necessary funds.

The depth and breadth of curriculain small secondary schools are gen-erally less than in larger schools,that is, there are relatively limitedopportunities for alternative and ad-vanced courses.

While rural students in general doas well as the national average and

69 82

better than urban students on certainmeasures of achievement, they doless well than suburban students.Aspirations are lower, and they donot continue in higher education atthe same rate as their nonrural coun-

terparts.

Perhaps most alarming for the fu-ture of Rural America is the extentto which its more educated resi-dents continue to leave their com-munities.

Identified successes. Rural com-munities over the years have shown aremarkable resilience in the face ofdifficulties. Now is no exception.

The link between the communityand the school is a defining featureof most rural settlements and can bea major source of strength to itscitizens and to the quality of educa-tion offered there. Many communi-ties are exploring new avenues forthis relationship to the mutual bene-

fit of the school and the community.

Rural America has made consider-able progress in the last several dec-

ades in increasing the educationlevels of its people and improvingthe test scores of the students. Ruralstudents who do go on to collegestay the course as often as nonruralstudents.

In the face of the misconception bysome that rural education is some-how inferior, learning outcomeshave been shown to be related toeconomic and social circumstances(e.g., parents' education rather thanto community type. Moreover, re-search has documented certainstrengths of small-scale schooling.

The existence of a basic curriculumis not necessarily constrained bysize or location, and many smallschools have curricula as diverse asthose of larger schools. Manyschools address the needs of stu-dents desiring advanced courses ininnovative ways, including coop-eration with other districts, the state,or regional service centers. Tele-communications technology appli-cations have mushroomed this lastdecade to provide courses to bothstudents and teachers in rural areas.

Interest in the needs of rural stu-dents and in the problems faced byrural communities has grown in re-cent years. At the federal and statelevels and in the private sector, avariety of programs were estab-lished, organizations formed, andpolicies fashioned to address theirunique needs.

The definitional Issue. At onetime, when the United States waslargely an agrarian society, "rural"simply meant a farming community,and those who had attended ruralschools were the vast majority of thepopulation. Indeed, not until 1918 didthe urban populatioa exceed that ofrural communities. But with the ur-banization that took place in this cen-tury, a variety of rural communities hasemerged. That is the crux of the prob-lem: there is no longer a single way todescribe "rural." Though definitionsabound, an adequate definition doesnot exist. What is known with certaintyis that Rural America is diverse. Whatconstitutes rural in terms of geography,economy, and culture in a Mainecoastal island has little in commonwith the Mississippi Delta, the highplains of Kansas, or the mountains ofMontana. And as the communities dif-fer, so do the schools.

Given this diversity, one must ap-proach national data on rural educationrealistically. Conditions in a given ru-ral area may be better or worse thannational averages suggestwhetherthe measure is dropout rates, schoolbuilding quality, or test scores. For op-timum practical utility, data need to beclisaggregated to reflic each rural real-itya task beyond the scope of thisreport.

Gaps In information. The breadthof this report was possible because ofthe timing of a number of surveys bythe National Center for Education Sta-tistics (NCES) that tapped informationon rural schools, educators, and stu-dent performance. Yet there remainsmuch undocumented for lack of data.Examples follow.

The impact of programs that assistrural studentseither by design orbecause they are included amongeligible recipientsis largely un-available. Need for this informationon the large entitlement programs isespecially great.

What limited material is availablesuggests the ongoing reform move-ment has had a strong effect on rural

schools. But no national data existson how states have targeted ruralareas or designed strategies to ad-dress particular circumstances. Norhas there been adequate research onhow different rural districts haveresponded or lacked the capacity torespond to reform mandates.

There is a paucity of information onhow rural youth who do not go tocollege cope with the ongoingchange to the rural economy.

Research on rural education has notattracted a great deal of interest in mostacademic circles. The research base issmall, with comparatively few profes-

70 83

sionals devoting time and energy to it.These omissions reflect the relativelylow priority given to rural educationinformation at top policy levels. Tospur more interest, the U. S. Depart-ment of Education's Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement(GERI) published a research agenda in1990 and has conducted seminars forrural researchers in 1993 to acquaintthem with new NCES data bases. Butmore needs to be done at all levels toexpand an understanding of the com-plexities of rural education that will inturn yield suitable policies.

Next StepsThese issuesresolution of the defini-tional problem and research-basedschool improvement strategiesde-mand a variety of responses from poli-cymakers and decisionmakers. Someactivities are underway; for others, op-tions still need to be formulated.

Toward a typology of rural com-munities and schools. A neces-sary next step in better understandingthe condition of the nation's ruralschools is to move ahead in the creationof a typology of rural comniunities.This does not have to start from scratch

because important progress has al-ready been made.

In 1985, to portray better the new real-ity of a diverse Rural America, the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)began developing county classificationsystems. One grouped the 2,443 ruralcounties according to their principalsources of income, employment, orboth (Bender et al. 1985) (e.g., farm-ing, retirement, manufacturing, min-ing, and federal lands) while another(Butler 1990) documented ranges ofpopulation density. Chapter 3 of thisreport includes the first attempt by aresearcher to combine those typologieswith data on schools. The approach

holds considerable potential for furtherrefinement and application for policy

purposes.

Concurrently, NCES has linked its ba-sic school district data file to 1990 Cen-sus data. This will allow access to a vast

resource of demographic information

that can be analyzed by school district.In 1992, NCES invited suggestionsfrom rural education experts in the 10regional educational laboratories foridentifying benchmarks to better re-flect rural districts in this system. Inaddition to gradations of low popula-tion density, dimensions built into thisnew rural school district typology in-

clude adjacency to metropolitan areasand isolation of settlement. Signifi-cantly, the resulting classification sys-tem encompasses rural districts in

metropolitan counties as well as in non-

metropolitan ones.

Rather than compa:ing broad commu-nity types, a typologywhether at thecounty level (USDA) or the districtlevel (NCES)is important for differ-entiating among the multiple ruralrealities, For example, with a classifi-cation system, high school dropoutrates, college-going rates, or test scorescould be compared within or across arange of rural community types. By

more precisely identifying the loca-tions of specified problems, more fo-cused public policy can be crafted atnational, state, and local levels. Themost isolated schools might well betargeted for special electronic distance-learning initiatives. Rural communitiesexperiencing declining populationscould be helped with programs thatbetter involve schools in economic de-velopment efforts to retard emigration.

Moreover, the technology for suchanalyses will be user friendly under theNCES system. Information will be on

CD-ROM and will be accessiblethrough software that will guide theuser; one need not be a statistician tolocate and analyze the data. Tnus, at thelocal, state, regional, or national level,those who need information on ruralschool districts will be able to obtainmore of it than ever before, and vdth

unprecedented ease.

Redesigning RuralEducationRural America is being challenged todevise new approaches to educatingand preparing its youth for the future.A number of elements need to be con-sidered.

Dilemmas. Rural communities mustdecide whether, and to what extent,they should expand their educationalprograms. Without better education,their children's economic futures maybe limited; education makes an ac-knowledged critical contribution to in-

di vi dual economic and socialadvancement. But from a rural devel-opment perspective, rural schools have

been one of the largest economic drainslocally as communities tend to taxthemselves more heavily to supporttheir schools.

For Rural America to be revitalized,attracting and keeping enough of themore educated and talented individualswho have high aspirations for them-selves and their communities is essen-tial. In the present structure, realizinghigh personal aspirations usually canonly be achieved by moving to largerurban areas. At the same time, althoughskilled workers are needed for the jobsbeing created in new industries, somerural workers may have little incentiveto learn those skills before the jobsactually exist. In that important sense,economic development is actually

71 8 4

needed as a precursor to educationalimprovements in important parts of the

rural population (Reid and Frederick1990). Communities thus often havepainful choices about where to investresourcesdevelopment or education.

And there remains a fundamental issueabout the fairness of an educationalfinance system that puts so much bur-den on those citizens who can afford itthe least and whose share in the bene-fits is so low. It is, after all, urban andsuburban areas that are the recipientsof Rural America's more educatedyouth, and thus the net beneficiariesfrom rural school spending.

Creating opportunities. Manyanalysts argue rural communities havenot been well served by the mass-pro-duction model of schooling that has for

so long characterized publiceducation.

Just as education everywhere mustchange in the information age, schoolsin modern rural societies must becomequite different from those that cur-rently exist. Pilot programs that haveused the community as the focus ofstudy and involved schools in commu-nity development suggest that as stu-dents are integrated in a significantway in the life of their community,their attitudes change. They begin tosee the community as a possible placeto stay in or return to, rather than as aplace to depart from as soon as possi-ble. This report notes examples of cur-ricula that offer training inentrepreneurial skills in a context thatallows students to create their own em-ployment rather than depend on find-ing an existing joboften somewhereelse.

Certain charges promoted for ruralschool redesign are the same suggestedin the research literature "3r educationgenerally. They arc embedded in the

recommendations of national curricu-lum studies such as those of the Ameri-can Association for the Advancementof Science's "Project 2061," Becominga Nation of Readers published by theU.S. Department of Education, and thenational standards proposed in 1992 bythe National Council on EducationStandards and Testing. But because ofthe small scale of rural schools and theattendant lack of bureaucracy, becausemembers of rural communities aremore likely to share common values,and because rural schools have readyaccess to the surrounding environmentfor learning, education in a rural settingholds the potential to be at the forefrontof the drive to redesign America'sschools.

But barriers exist. For example, interms of programmatic policy, ruralschools have been disadvantaged on atleast two major counts. First, fewfunded programs in either the public orprivate sector have specifically tar-geted small, rural schools. Second,even where resources have been avail-able, access has been limited becausethe expertise and the luxury of time topursue development funds do not existwithin the small staffs of rural schools.Decisionmakers could help removethese barriers with legislation or ad-ministrative adjustments. Involving ru-ral schools in opportunities for schoolredesign and in the estzblishment ofpartnerships with neighboring institu-tions of higher education and technicalassistance providers represents yet an-other way rurai schools could build ontheir strengths to help transformAmerican education. Such cooperationand pooling of resources could helpthose affected respond better to chang-ing educational and social conditionsin the countryside.

Reversing the decline of much of RuralAmerica and building sustainable rural

communities will take some rethinkingand certain changes in public policy.For instance, the policy concerningschool district organization, which isbased on the industrial notion that effi-ciency and effectiveness are directlytied to school size and therefore thesolution to the rural school problem isschool consolidation, should be recon-sidered. Because it is the cornerstone ofthe rural community and a critical com-ponent of rural development, many be-lieve the rural school needs to benurtured as long as there iq a rural com-munity to serve.

ConcludingObservationsThis report documents how rural con-ditions are sufficiently different fromurban ones to warrant being examined

independently. It endorses the hy-pothetiis that a single set of public poli-cies may not be the best way to addressadequately the various issues involvingeducation in rural vs. urban settings.

While many might be discouraged bysome data reported here and by projec-tions for future change that do not bodewell for Rural America, some see hopefor the future in the characteristics ofrural society itself. As the industrialsociety gives way to an informationsociety, the norms and practices thatare valued are changing. For instance,centralization is giving way to decen-tralization; the integration of servicedelivery is being seen asmore effectivethan disconnected, specialized servicedelivery; and uniformity as a value isbeing replaced by an increased recog-nition of the strengths inherent in diver-sity.

These emerging norms and practicesare reflective of rural reality and as theyincrease, could enhance the chances formany communities to survive, More-

72 85

over, in an information society, whatone does for a living and where onelives are no longer as tightly connected.With access to the information infra-structure, there is potential for an arrayof job opportunities to develop forthose wishing to live in rural commu-nities. Finally, some observers holdthat concerns for the environment, ac-companied by the search formore sus-tainable apiculture, could increase theopportunities to live and work in thenation's countryside.

The rural school once produced mostof America' s workforce. Today, asmaller but a still significant portion of

the school-age population is enrolled inrural schools. Though the data demon-strate overall strength by rural schoolsin terms of academic outcomes, manyof these schools are suffering the ef-fects of major economic upheavals andsocial dislocation. In the face of theselarger forces, the challenge becomeshow best to safeguard the human re-sources in rural communities. Strate-g i es are needed to improve thepotential of local schools to better edu-cate their students for the future. Poten-tially productive avenues discussed inthis report involve strengthening dieschool's connection with the comrnu-nity, using advanced technologies, andcollaborating among a host of serviceagencies.

In sum, despite the severe problemsthis report has documented, the poten-tial for rural schools to thrive does ex-i s t. With an improved researchcapacity to better target rural needs,and with the lead of model ruralschools that are successfully servingtheir students, strategies can be de-signed to extend educational opportu-nities to students everywhere. Thisreport has not offered a blueprint forsuccess. Given the diversity of RuralAmerica and the primacy of local con-

trol, that wluld not be appropriate. Butin presenting a current profile of rum:education, highlighting successes, andsuggesting directions for improve-rnent, this volume may spark greaterinterest in Rural America and serve asa resource to those who would designprograms and strategies to help ruralstudents successfully enter the 21stcentury.

ReferencesBender, L.D. (Ed.), B.L Green, T.F. Hady,

.1.A. Kuehn, M.K. Nelson, LB. Perkin-son, and P.J. Ross. 1985. The DiverseSocial and Economic Structure of Non-metropolitan America. Rural Develop-m en t Research Report No. 49.Washington DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Serv-ice.

Butler, M.A. 1990. Rural-urban Contin-uwn Codes for Metro and NonmetroCounties. Washington DC: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Economic Re-search Service.

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

=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.

738 6

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

11,

Ali

MIL

Pirst-aid instruction at Seeley Lake Elementary School (enrollment: 186 students, gradesK-6), Seeley Lake, Montana. Photo by Tony Kneidek, Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory (NWREL), Portland, Oregon.

' 7

d

4

,

;

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 schoolenrollment, by NCES locale code: 1991-92

Selected indicators Total

Locale code

City Urbanfringe

Town Rural

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 schoolenrollment

521 683 637 498 310

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

9077

Table 3-2.-Percentage distribution of regular public schools andstudents by school enrollment size and type of school, byrural and urban locale: 1991-92

School size

Type of school

Primary Secondary Combined

Locale

Urban Rural Urban Rural

Percentage of schools

Urban Rural

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 EducationStatistics, Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1991-92.

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

Locale

School type

Primary Secondary

Fewer than More than Fewer than More than400 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, CommonCore of Data Public School Universe, 1991-92.

9178

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

Censusdivision State

Numberof

schools

Numberof

students

Numberof nuilschools

Percentrural

schools

Numberof ruralstudents

Percentrural

students

Schoolsper 100sq. miles

Studentsper

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 20.76Virginia 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 3.12Arizona 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 5.66Idaho 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 2.53Utah 651 448,473 173 26.57 72,911 16.26 0.79 5.46Wyoming 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 7.35Alaska 453 113,432 294 64.90 30,294 26.71 0.08 0.20California 7,077 4,947.223 715 10.10 249,267 5.04 4.54 31.72Hawaii 233 174,581 43 18.45 27,752 15.90 3.63 27.18Oregon 1,157 493,764 200 17.29 38,589 7.82 1.21 5.14Washington 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 SchoolUniverse, 1991-92.

79

BEST COPY AVAILABLE92

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

Censusdivision State

Number ofsural

schoolsI-99

100-199

Enrollment size200-399

400-799

800-1,199 1,200+

United States 22,370 17.94 23.00 31.18 23.33 3.60 0.94New 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 0.00Maine 299 28.09 31.77 31.10 8.03 0.67 0.33Masaachusem 176 3.98 6.25 39.20 36.93 9.66 3.98New Hampshire 158 29.75 24.05 35.44 10.76 0.00 0.00Rhode Island 14 7.14 7.14 28.57 35.71 21.43 0.00Vermont 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 2.11Delaware 49 0.00 6.12 18.37 44.90 26.53 4.08District of Columbia 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Maryland 193 2.59 8.29 22.80 51.30 11.92 3.11New Jersey 150 5.33 19.33 30.67 29.33 13.33 2.00New York 524 3.05 5.92 35.69 48.28 4.96 2.10Pennsylvania 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 0.41Illinoia 962 15.45 39.87 35.28 9.08 0.31 0.00Indiana 461 0.65 15.40 37.96 42.52 3.04 0.43Michigan 651 8.00 12.31 40.15 36.92 1.85 0.77Minnesota 698 7.33 29.64 37.60 21.53 2.96 0.94Ohio 982 2.16 12.85 44.50 35.97 4.01 0.51Wisconsin 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 0.28Iowa 758 11.21 45.38 39.71 3.56 0.13 0.00Kansas 964 25.21 28.53 31.02 13.38 1.24 0.62Missouri 836 15.94 30.92 35.14 16.43 1.09 0.41Nebraska 861 57.13 26.27 14.13 2.36 0.00 0.12North Dakota 447 54.81 29.53 14.54 1.12 0.00 0.00South 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 2.28Florida 312 0.32 3.22 14.15 51.45 24.04 6.43Georgia 348 0.00 6.03 25.00 47.13 lb.95 4.89North Carolina 647 1.08 7.88 32.15 49.92 7.73 1.24South Carolina 295 1.02 11.53 35.93 45.76 4.07 1.69Virginia 561 4.99 10.34 35.83 39.75 7.49 1.60West 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 1.27Alabama 374 2.14 9.09 33.69 42.51 11.23 1.34Kentucky 527 3.61 19.20 38.21 34.60 4.13 0.19Mississippi 370 0.54 7.03 29.19 48.92 12.16 2.16Tennessee 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 0.74Arkansas 481 7.69 30.77 45.53 14.76 1.25 0.00Louisiana 329 0.30 11.89 39.33 43.90 3.66 0.91Oklahoma 800 29.79 37.92 25.78 6.26 0.25 0.00TeXAll 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 61Arizona 157 23.38 22.73 28.57 24.03 1.30 0.00Colorado 390 29.43 29.69 27.60 12.50 0.52 0.26Idaho 246 18.37 31.43 33.88 16.33 0.00 0.00Montana 645 72.87 17.67 7.75 1.55 0.16 0.00Nevada 128 25.78 17.19 20.31 28.91 3.91 3.91New Mexico 223 30.49 34.98 18.83 14.35 1.35 0.00Utah 173 18.50 13.29 30.64 24.28 9.25 4.05Wyoming 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 1.38Alaska 294 64.97 21.43 9.86 3.40 0.34 0.00California 715 21.96 14.93 25.62 29.28 6.00 2.20Hawaii 43 4.65 2.33 25.58 41.86 9.30 16.28Oregon 200 30.50 28.00 32.50 9.00 0.00 0.00Washington 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 Public SchoolUniverse, 1991-92.

80BEST COPY AVAILABLE

(13

Table 3-6.Number and percentage distribution of schooldistricts, by percentage of students attending ruralschools: 1991-92

Percentage ofstudentsattending arural school

Number ofdistricts

Percentage ofdistricts

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 forEducation Statistics, Merged file of Common Core of Data PublicSchool 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 Percentnumber 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 attendingrural schools 6.9 million 68.5 31.5

Teachers atrural 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 AgencyUniverse, 1991-92.

Tab

le 3

-8.-

Num

ber

of r

ural

and

urb

an s

choo

l dis

tric

ts a

nd p

erce

ntag

e by

enr

ollm

ent s

ize,

by

divi

sion

and

sta

te: 1

991-

92

Cen

sus

divi

sion

Sta

te

Tot

alnu

mbe

rof di

stric

ts

Per

cent

rura

ldi

stric

:s

Per

cent

urba

ndi

stric

ts

Rur

alU

rban

Num

ber

of r

ural

dist

ricts

Per

cent

unde

r30

0

Per

cent

300

to

2,50

0

Per

cent

over

2,50

0

Num

ber

of u

rban

dist

ricts

Per

cent

unde

r30

0

Per

cent

300

to

2,50

0

Per

cent

over

2,50

0

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

15,0

2946

.40

53.6

06,

973

41.3

754

.24

4.39

8,05

610

.94

48.2

640

.80

New

Eng

land

1,17

335

.04

64.9

641

168

.37

29.9

31.

7076

28.

9262

.47

28.6

1C

onne

ctic

ut16

91.

J1

86.3

923

56.5

243

.48

0.00

146

2.74

55.4

841

.78

Mai

ne22

954

.59

45.4

112

561

.60

'37

.60

0.80

104

13.4

668

.27

18.2

7M

assa

chus

etts

326

8.59

91.4

128

28.5

757

.14

14.2

929

88.

7257

.72

33.5

6N

ew H

amps

hire

163

44.7

955

.21

7361

.64

38.3

60.

0090

12.2

270

.00

17.7

8R

hode

Isla

nd37

8.11

91.8

93

33.3

30.

0066

.67

340.

0038

.24

61.7

6V

erm

ont

249

63.8

636

.14

159

86.1

613

.84

0.00

9014

.44

84.4

41.

11

Mid

dle

Atla

ntic

1,83

720

.30

79.7

037

316

.62

71.0

512

.33

1,46

45.

8756

.83

37.3

0D

elaw

are

1637

.50

62.5

06

0.00

16.6

783

.33

100.

0020

.00

80.0

0D

istr

ict o

f Col

umbi

a1

0.00

100.

000

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.

000.

0010

0.00

Mar

ylan

d24

16.6

783

.33

40.

000.

0010

0.00

200.

000.

0010

0.00

ooN

ew J

erse

y55

511

.89

88.1

166

45.4

553

.03

1.52

489

12.0

763

.60

24.3

4ts

.)N

ew Y

ork

741

27.1

372

.87

201

15.4

276

.62

7.96

540

4.81

58.8

936

.30

Pen

nsyl

vani

a50

019

.20

80.8

096

1.04

78.1

320

.83

404

0.25

49.7

550

.00

Mid

wes

t3,

334

42.5

957

.41

1,42

019

.15

77.3

93.

451,

914

7.84

56.0

136

.15

Illin

ois

942

38.2

261

.78

360

31.9

467

.78

0.28

582

9.97

66.4

923

.54

Indi

ana

295

35.5

964

.41

105

2.86

93.3

33.

8119

00.

0047

.37

52.6

3M

ichi

gan

615

34.3

165

.69

211

20.3

873

.46

6.16

404

11.8

848

.27

39.8

5M

inne

sota

440

65.2

334

.77

287

30.3

168

.64

1.05

153

19.6

145

.10

35.2

9O

hio

614

36.4

863

.52

224

1.79

88.3

99.

8239

00.

2654

.87

44.8

7W

isco

nsin

428

54.4

445

.56

233

8.58

88.8

42.

5819

56.

6760

.00

33.3

3

Wes

t Nor

th C

entr

al2,

483

74.0

225

.98

1,83

853

.65

45.0

51.

3164

532

.40

45.4

322

.17

Iow

a42

569

.41

30.5

929

525

.08

74.9

20.

0013

00.

0076

.15

23.8

5K

ansa

s30

481

.25

18.7

524

725

.10

68.8

36.

0757

3.51

70.1

826

.32

Mis

sour

i53

966

.42

33.5

858

37.7

160

.34

1.96

181

13.8

151

.38

34.8

1N

ebra

ska

770

71.0

428

.93

547

81.9

017

.73

0.37

223

77.5

816

.14

6.28

Nor

th D

akot

a27

290

.81

9.19

247

77.7

322

.27

0.00

2524

.00

40.0

036

.00

Sou

th D

akot

a17

383

.24

16.7

614

452

.08

47.9

20.

0029

10.3

451

.72

37.9

3

Sou

th A

tlant

ic66

629

.73

70.2

719

81.

0166

.67

32.3

246

80.

2114

.96

84.8

3F

lorid

a71

14.0

885

.92

100.

0070

.00

30.0

061

0.00

13.1

186

.89

Geo

rgia

183

29.5

170

.49

543.

7070

.37

25.9

312

90.

7824

.03

75.1

9c.

)C

0

Tab

le 3

-8.-

Num

ber

of r

ural

and

urb

an s

choo

l dis

tric

ts a

nd p

erce

ntag

e by

enr

ollm

ent s

ize,

by

divi

sion

and

sta

te: 1

991-

92-C

ontin

ued

Cen

sus

divi

sion

Stat

e

Tot

alnu

mbe

rof di

stri

cts

Perc

ent

rura

ldi

stri

cts

Perc

ent

urba

ndi

stri

cts

Rur

alU

rban

Num

ber

of r

ural

dist

rict

s

Perc

ent

unde

r30

0

Perc

ent

300

to2,

500

Perc

ent

over

2,50

0

Num

ber

of u

rban

dist

rict

s

Perc

ent

unde

r30

0

Perc

ent

300

to

2,50

0

Perc

ent

over

2,50

0

Nor

th C

arol

ina

133

25.5

674

.44

340.

0050

.00

50.0

099

0.00

5.05

94.9

5So

uth

Car

olin

a91

28.5

771

.43

260.

0080

.77

19.2

365

0.00

15.3

884

.62

Vir

gini

a13

339

.10

60.9

052

0.00

63.4

636

.54

810.

0018

.52

81.4

8W

est V

irgi

nia

5540

.00

60.0

022

0.00

72.7

327

.21

330.

003.

0396

.97

Eas

t Sou

th C

entr

al59

830

.27

69.7

318

11.

6664

.09

34.2

541

70.

4835

.41

64.0

3A

laba

ma

129

17.0

582

.95

224.

5531

.82

63.6

410

70.

0028

.97

71.0

3K

entu

cky

176

35.2

364

.77

621.

6166

.13

32.2

611

40.

8842

.98

56.1

4M

issi

ssip

pi15

543

.87

56.1

368

1.47

66.1

832

.35

870.

0039

.08

60.9

2T

enne

ssee

138

21.0

178

.99

290.

0079

.31

20.6

910

90.

9231

.19

67.8

9

Wes

t Sou

th C

entr

al2,

018

56.9

943

.01

1,15

038

.52

59.2

22.

2686

812

.33

47.2

440

.44

Ark

ansa

s32

462

.65

37.3

520

324

.63

74.3

80.

9912

15.

7962

.81

31.4

0

coL

ouis

iana

6713

.43

86.5

79

0.00

66.6

733

.33

581.

721.

7296

.55

i....)

Okl

ahom

a57

864

.01

35.9

937

051

.62

47.8

40.

5420

827

.88

55.7

716

.35

Tex

as1,

049

54.1

545

.85

568

35.5

661

.09

3.35

481

8.52

45.1

146

.36

Mou

ntai

n1,

241

65.3

534

.65

811

68.5

630

.21

1.23

430

13.7

243

.26

43.0

2A

rizo

na21

740

.09

59.9

187

59.7

739

.08

1.15

130

17.6

943

.85

38.4

6C

olor

ado

186

60.2

239

.78

112

43.7

553

.57

2.68

7417

.57

33.7

848

.65

Idah

o11

363

.72

36.2

872

34.7

265

.28

0.00

410.

0043

.90

56.1

0M

onta

na52

984

.88

15.1

244

989

.98

10.0

20.

0080

25.0

C63

.75

11.2

5N

evad

a17

41.1

858

.82

714

.29

57.1

428

.57

100.

0030

.00

70.0

0N

ew M

exic

o89

52.8

147

.19

4740

.43

57.4

52.

1342

0.00

35.7

164

.29

Uta

h40

35.0

065

.00

1414

.29

71.4

314

.29

260.

0011

.54

88.4

6W

yom

ing

5046

.00

54.0

023

17.3

978

.26

4.35

2711

.11

51.8

537

.04

Paci

fic

1,67

935

.20

64.8

059

147

.38

49.5

83.

051,

088

18.2

936

.86

44.8

5A

lask

a55

76.3

623

.64

4238

.10

61.9

00.

0013

0.00

46.1

553

.85

Cal

ifor

nia

1,03

626

.45

73.5

527

446

.35

49.2

74.

3876

217

.45

36.0

946

.46

Haw

aii

10.

0010

0.00

00.

000.

000.

001

0.00

0.00

100.

00O

rego

n29

136

.08

63.9

210

568

.57

30.4

80.

9518

627

.96

46.2

425

.81

Was

hing

ton

296

57.4

342

.57

170

38.2

458

.82

2.94

126

11.1

126

.98

61.9

0

NrY

TE

: Rur

al d

istr

icts

are

thos

e w

here

75

perc

ent o

f th

e st

uden

ts a

ttend

a r

egul

ar p

ublic

sch

ool i

n a

rura

l loc

ale.

SOU

RC

E: M

erge

d fi

le o

f C

omm

on C

ore

of D

ata

Publ

ic S

choo

l Uni

vers

e an

d Pu

blic

Age

ncy

Uni

vers

e, 1

991-

92.

97

98

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

Code and characteristics1990

population

Percentof

1990population

Populationper square

mile

Percentpopulationunder 18years old

Per capitaincome

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.

99

84

Tab

le 3

-10.

-Num

ber

and

perc

enta

ge o

f sc

hool

s, r

ural

sch

ools

, stu

dent

s, r

ural

stu

dent

s, a

nd d

ensi

ty, b

y m

etro

polit

an a

nd n

onm

eiro

poitt

an c

ount

yty

pe: 1

989-

90

Cod

e an

d ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Tot

alnu

mbe

rof

scho

ols

Perc

ent

of tota

lsc

hool

s

Num

ber

of rura

lsc

hool

s

Perc

ent

of rura

lsc

hool

s

Tot

alnu

mbe

rof

stud

ents

Perc

ent

of tota

lst

uden

ts

Num

ber

of rura

lst

uden

ts

Perc

ent

of rura

lst

uden

ts

Stud

ents

per

100

sq.

mile

s

Scho

ols

per

100

sq.

mile

s

Tot

als

78,6

2410

0.00

22,0

5410

0.00

39,6

48,9

8110

0.00

6,56

5,93

610

0.00

1,33

92.

66

0 M

etro

cen

tral

cou

ntie

s, 1

mill

ion

plus

14,3

0318

.19

410

1.86

10,0

31,5

1825

.31

252,

617

3.85

14,1

3120

.14

1 M

etro

, fri

nge

coun

ties,

1 m

illio

n pl

us11

,501

14.6

31,

339

6.07

6,65

7,51

516

.79

609,

890

9.29

7,14

512

.34

2 M

etro

, 250

,000

to 1

mill

ion

15,6

3519

.89

2,37

110

.75

8,88

7,45

722

.42

1,03

1,54

015

.71

4,00

17.

04

3 M

etro

, les

s th

an 2

50,0

007,

520

9.5t

.1,

667

7.56

3,80

5,20

29.

6058

2,11

48.

872,

137

4.22

4 N

onm

etro

, 20,

000

+ u

rban

, and

adj

acen

t4,

193

5.33

1,36

06.

171,

846,

038

4.66

438,

361

6.68

1,29

22.

94oo c.

n5

Non

met

ro, 2

0,00

0 +

urb

an, a

nd n

onad

jace

nt3,

850

4.90

1,47

16.

671,

593,

265

4.02

416,

105

6.34

648

1.56

6 N

onm

etro

, 2,5

00 to

20K

urb

an, a

nd a

djac

ent

7.52

09.

563,

828

17.3

62,

797,

178

7.05

1,07

8,34

016

.42

671

1.80

7 N

onm

etro

, 2,5

00 to

20K

urb

an, a

nd n

onad

jace

nt8,

991

11.4

44,

654

21.1

02,

836,

614

7.15

1,01

0,35

415

.39

324

1.03

8 N

onm

etro

, com

plet

ely

rura

l, an

d ad

jace

nt1,

622

2.06

1,55

67.

0648

1,10

81.

2145

9,98

57.

0126

90.

91

9 N

onm

etro

, com

plet

ely

rura

l, an

d no

nadj

acen

t3,

489

4.44

3,39

815

.41

711,

086

1.79

686,

630

10.4

613

30.

65

NO

FE: C

ode

desi

gnat

ion

dete

rmin

ed b

y po

pula

tion

size

, urb

an c

once

ntra

tions

, and

adj

acen

cy to

met

ropo

litan

cou

nty.

Exc

lude

s H

awai

i, A

lask

a, a

nd o

utly

ing

area

s.

SOU

RC

E: M

erge

d fi

le o

f C

omm

on C

ore

of D

ata

Publ

ic S

choo

l Uni

vers

e, 1

989-

90 a

nd E

cono

mic

Res

earc

h Se

rvic

e co

unty

type

s.

1 0

010

1

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

Code and characteristics

Number Percentage

Under 100 Under 200students students

Under 400students

Under 100students

Under 200students

Under 400students

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.

86fl2

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

Indicators

Farmdependent

Manufacturingdependent

Miningdependent

Governmentdependent Unclassified

Persistentpoverty

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 schoolsUnder 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's rural education andrural family education policy for the 1980s

The Department will assist educators andadministrators on all levels interested indeveloping outreach and volunteer programs withthe active support and interaction of parents,teachers, civic groups, and the businesscommunity to improve the delivery of educationalservices to rural communities.

The Department will work to expand the database on the condition of education on rural areas,and will provide the necessary technologies todisseminate information relevant to curriculum,organization, personnel, and support servicesneeded for educational institutions serving ruralcommunities. Data collection will focus oninformation relating to regional designations;goals of rural education and rural familyeducation; surveys of rural curricula; test scorecomparisons; tax baselstudent ratios;characteristics of effective rural programs andinstitutions; and descriptions of intermediateservice agency delivery systems. To disseminateinformation to educational institutions andprograms serving rural communities, includingrural school districts, the Department will utilizeState Departments of Education; ERICICRESS;the National Rural Education Association; otherprofessional and service organizations; nationaladvisory councils; youth organizations;intermediate units; American EducationMagazine; and county and local agencies.

The Department, with appropriate control staff,will closely monitor Education programregulations, eligibility and evaluation criteria,subregulatory directives, and administrativepolicies to insure equity for all LEAs regardlessof size, location, or condition. Monitoring willfocus on reducing complexity of criteria forfunding; reducing complexity of application andreporting procedures and forms; and reducingunrealistic requirements in general while insuringcompetent and enlightened staff monitoring.

The Department will assist in identifying anddeveloping special programs available forhandicapped individuals located in rural areas.

The Department will provide personnel tococcdinate the consolidation of available researchon shortages and additional needs for analysis bythe Secretary's Rural Education Committee.Research will focus on effective practices andcharacteristics of effective rural programs andprojects.

The Department will include rural institutions indemonstration and pilot projects and will involvecross sections of rural communities in educationaltechnology planning.

The Department will provide consultative andtechnical assistance to rural educational entities asa means to improve the quality of education inrural areas. To facilitate conununications, theDepartment will support initiatives such as anannual national forum; a monthly newsletter; andutilization of extension services and existingorganizations for dissemination of information.

The Department will assist rural education inimproving the achievement of black students,American Ludian students, children of migrantworkers, and other minorities. To this end, theDepartment will focus on data concerninggraduation from high school and college,including secondary and postsecondary vocationalinstitutions and programs; gains in functionalliteracy, changes in college enrollment, andachievement in adult education.

The Department will assist individuals andfamilies living in rural areas with familyeducation programs and services throughvocational home economics education, anestablished delivery system, as a means ofimproving the quality of rural family education.

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

88

Tab

le 5

-2.-

Perc

enta

ge o

f pu

blic

and

pri

vate

sch

ool s

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g pu

Nlic

ly f

unde

d E

CIA

Cha

pter

1 s

ervi

ces,

by

sele

cted

sch

ool

char

acte

rist

ics:

Sch

ool y

ear

1987

-88

Scho

olch

arac

teri

stic

sA

llsc

hool

sPu

blic

Priv

ate

Tot

alE

lem

enta

rySe

cond

ary

Com

bine

dT

otal

Ele

men

tary

Seco

ndar

yC

ombi

ned

Tot

al10

.211

.114

.84.

912

.13.

33.

7(1

)4.

3

Com

mun

ity ty

peR

ural

/far

min

g12

.112

.416

.84.

611

.75.

14.

0(1

)(1

)

Smal

l city

/tow

n9.

39.

913

.24.

212

.23.

13.

4(1

)(1

)Su

burb

an5.

96.

68.

93.

3(1

)1.

62.

7(1

)(1

)U

rban

12.4

14.1

18.5

6.7

13.7

3.9

43(1

)5.

6O

ther

(2)

20.9

22.1

21.2

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

Scho

ol s

ize

Les

s th

ar 1

5010

.217

.717

.513

.224

.53.

81.

9(1

)7.

6

0015

0-29

910

.713

.215

.05.

913

.65.

45.

7(1

)(1

)cs

)30

0-49

911

.212

.313

.94.

011

.32.

53.

0(1

)(1

)50

0-74

911

.612

.414

.45.

711

.9(1

)(1

)(1

)(1

)75

0 or

mor

e8.

28.

716

.44.

69.

1(1

)(1

)(1

)(1

)

Min

ority

stu

dent

sL

ess

than

5 p

erce

nt6.

47.

39.

92.

69.

01.

815

(1)

(1)

5 pe

rcen

t - 1

9 pe

rcen

t6.

37.

09.

43.

210

.21.

82.

5(1

)(1

)20

per

cent

- 4

9 pe

rcen

t9.

09.

412

.53.

914

.25.

03.

1(1

)(1

)50

per

cent

or

mor

e20

.421

.226

.710

.818

.19.

69.

0(1

)(1

)

NO

TE

: (1)

Too

few

sam

ple

case

s (f

ewer

than

30)

for

a r

elab

le e

stim

ate.

(2)

Incl

udes

mili

tary

bas

es a

nd I

ndia

n re

serv

atio

ns.

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n, N

atio

nal C

ente

t for

Edu

catio

n St

atis

tics,

Sch

ools

and

Sta

ffin

g Su

rvey

, 198

7-88

.

1 0

51

0 6

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

Agency

FY 92 estimates Special programsDollars Percent targeted on

(in billions) of rural, smalltotal school districts

Total

Department of Education

Department of Health and HumanServices

Department of Agriculture

Departmem of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Labor

National Science Foundation

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of the Interior

All other federal agencies*

61.4 100.0

26.6 43.3 yes

10.1 16.5 no

7.5 12.3 yes

4.0 6.4 no

3.3 4.3 no

2.8 4.5 no

2.1 3.4 no

1.5 2.4 no

1.0 1.7 no

.7 1.2 yes

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 forEducation 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

Promotion or structural change strategiesMandated reorganizationMulti-district regional single-purpose schoolsMulti-district comprehensive secondary schools

Promotion of service delivery strategiesSingle-purpose service centersComprehensive service centersState-operated service centersMulti-district sharing whole grades/staffDistant learning technologiesSchool-business partnershipsState-operated instructional programs

Estimated extentof current state use

limitedlimitedlimited

extensivemoderatelimitedlimitedmoderateextensivemoderate

Promotion of revenue enhancement strategiesUse of weighted student enrollment factor

in state aid extensiveState aid based on program unit limitedState aid for capital outlay/debt service extensiveRegional general tax authority limitedRegional categorical tax authority limited

Promotion of public choice theory strategiesInterdistrict parental choice lim itedPrivatization of public schools limitedPrivatization of selected functions moderate

Promotion of administrative tacticsRural school coordinating unit in SEA limitedSEA task force on rural education limitedEducation represented on state rural

d, velopment group moderate

NOTE: Extent of state use: limited = less than ten of the statesmoderate = less than one-half the statesmajority = more than one-half the statesextensive = more than three-quarters of the states

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

10891

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

Schoolsetting

Sex Age Age range

Male FemaleUnder

30 years30-39years

40-49years

50 yearsor more

Under40 years

40 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

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

Schoolsetting None 1-2 3-9 10-20

Morethan 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

92 I S

Table 6-2.-Percentage distribution of rural and nonrural public school teachers, by highest earneddegree, sex, and level: 198748

Setting, level,and sex

Nodegree A.A. B.A. M.A.

J.D./M.D./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)

SettingRural 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)

LevelRural

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)

SexRural

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)

NonruralMale 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

1 1 093

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

Schoolsetting

Medicalinsurance

Dentalinsurance

Lifeinsurance Pension

Trans-portation Tuition

Otherbenefits

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 StaffingSurvey, 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 schoolsetting 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

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

StateGraduationfrom teacher

Majoror minor

Passdistrict

Passstate

Pass NationalTeachers'

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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

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

Sc hoolsetting

Cancelledcourses

Expandedclass size

Increasedteachers' Reassigned

course otherloads teachers

Hiredsubstitutes

Hireditinerants 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

95 !

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

Schoolsetting Homework

Teachingtechniques Discipline

Content, Textbooks,topics, skills instructionalto be taught materials

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 6represented "complete control."

NOTE: Standard errors in parentheses.

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

96 1 1 3

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

LevelDiscipline

Contentof inservice

programs

Groupingstudentsin classesby ability Curriculum

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

RuralElementary 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" and6 represented "a great deal of influence."

NOTE: Standard etrors in parentheses.

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

97 tl4

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

Overall Administrative CollaborativeSetting view of support/ Buffering/ norms/teacherand level of working establish enforcement participation 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 settingRural 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

RuralElementary 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 theirschools. 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 afactor 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

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

School Sex A esetting 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 add to totals because of rounding or missing values incells with too few cases.

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

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

School Sex Agesetting 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 for Education Statistics, Schools and StaccingSurvey, 1987-88.

tic99

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

Race Ethnic originSchool Native Asian/Pacificsetting 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

1100

7

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

Setting, level,and sex B.A. or less M.A.

Educationspecialist

La/MD./Ph.D.

Total 2.5 53.4 35.1 8.9(0.26) (0.51) (0.49) (0.35)

SettingRural 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

RuralElementary 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)

SexRural

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)

NonruralMale 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 Education Statistics, Schools and StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

101 118

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

Setting andsex Principal

Otheradministrator Teacner

Otherelementary/secondary

Outsideelemer.tary/secondary

Total 10.0 2.6 9.8 1.2 1.0

(0.09) (0.04) (0.06) (0.04) (0.03)

School settingRural 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)

SexRural

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)

NonruralMale 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 StaffingSurvey, 1987-88.

119102

Table 6-1S.--Average annual salary of rural and uonrural public school principals, by length ofwork 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 settingRural 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

RuralMale 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 andStaffing 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 Pension None

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 andStaffing Survey, 1987-88.

103 120

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

Setting Curriculum develo ment Teacher hiring Discipline policyand level District Prin- Teach- District Prin- Teach- District Prin- 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 settingRural 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

RuralElementary 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 andStaffing Survey, 1987-88.

1041 ° 1

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

Level Student Teacherabsen-teeism

Tardi-ness

Absen-teeism

Cut- Physicalting conflict

Vandal- Preg- Alcoholism nancy use

Druguse

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)

RuralElementary 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 andStaffing Survey, 1987-88.

105 1 22

Tab

le 8

-1.C

lass

ific

atio

n of

maj

or s

tate

bas

ic e

duca

tion

aid

prog

ram

s, b

y st

ate:

198

6-87

Full

stat

eFo

unda

tion

prog

ram

sfu

nded

Req

uire

sE

ffor

t not

loca

l eff

ort

requ

ired

Perc

enta

ge e

qual

izat

ion

Req

uire

sE

ffor

t not

loca

l eff

ort

requ

ired

Gua

rant

eed

tax

base

/Fl

at g

rant

yiel

d pr

ogra

ms

prog

ram

s

Cal

ifor

nia

Haw

aii

New

Mex

ico

Was

hing

ton

Ark

ansa

sFl

orid

aG

eorg

iaId

aho

Iow

aL

ouis

iana

Mar

ylan

dM

inne

sota

Mis

siss

ippi

Mis

sour

iM

onta

naN

evad

aN

orth

Dak

ota

Ohi

oO

klah

oma

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Ten

ness

eeU

tah

Ver

mon

tV

irgi

nia

Wes

t Vir

gini

aW

yom

ing

Ari

zona

Illin

ois

Indi

ana

Mai

neM

assa

chus

etts

New

Ham

pshi

reO

rego

nT

exas

New

Yor

kR

hode

Isl

and

Ala

ska

Kan

sas

Penn

sylv

ania

Col

orad

oC

onne

ctic

utM

ichi

gan

New

Jer

sey

Sout

h D

akot

aW

isco

nsin

Ala

bam

aD

elaw

are

Ken

tuck

yN

ebra

ska

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Subt

otal

: 422

82

3

Tot

al:

Foun

datio

nFu

ll st

ate

fund

ed: 4

prog

ram

s: 3

0Pe

rcen

tage

equa

lizat

ion:

5

6 Gua

rant

eed

tax

base

/yie

ldpr

ogra

ms:

6

5 Flat

gra

ntpr

ogra

ms:

5

SOU

RC

E: S

alm

on, R

icha

rd G

., V

irgi

nia

Poly

tech

nic

and

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, Bla

cksb

urg,

Vir

gini

a, 1

991.

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 Metromean percent mean percent mean percent

variation variation variation

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

* Not applicableNOTE: Percent variation is measured wing coefficient of dispersion from respective (State, State nonmetro, or State metro) mean expenditure per pupil.Thepresence of only one county of type metro or konmetro results in 0 variation. Estimates of school enrollment by county were derived by multiplying theproporjon of the population aged 7-18 years in 1980 in each county by county poptilation in 1982. Estimates are biased to the extent that there are privateschool students and that there has been a change in the composition of the population of to 18 years since 1980. Alaska and Hawaii are not included inthe 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-January1991.

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

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCalifornia

ColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgia

HawaiiIdahoIllinois X

Indiana XIowa

XKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMaryland

MassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouri

MontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew Jersey

New MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio

OklahcanaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth Carolina

South DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermont

VirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisccesin XWyoming X

N/A

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 and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age andyear of assessment

YearAge and group 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 19909 Nation 208 210 216 211 212 209

Rural 200 204 212 201 214 209Delta -8 -6 -4 -10 2 0

13 Nation 255 256 259 257 257 257Rural 247 249 255 255 262 251Delta -8 -7 -4 -2 5 -6

17 Nation 285 286 286 289 290 290Rural 277 282 279 283 287 290Delta -8 4 -7 -6 -3 0

* Negative rural difference t the p < .05 level.

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.

Table 9-2.---NAEP writing assessment:year of assessment

national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by grade and

GradeYear

and group 1984 1988 19904 Nation 179 185 183

Rural 154 185 186Delta -25 0 3

8 Nation 207 203 197Rural 203 205 200Delta -4 2 3

11 Nation 212 214 211Rural 206 215 211Delta -6 1 0

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.

109 127

Table 9-3.---NAEP mathematics assessment; national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by ageand year of assessment

Year

Age and oui 1978 1982 1986 1990

9 Nation 218 219 221 230

Rural 212 211 219 231

Delta -6 *-8 -2 1

13 Nation 264 268 269 270

Rural 255 258 270 265

Delta -9 -10 1 -5

17 Nation 301 299 302 305

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 and the rural mean.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in ',cadmic Progress, 1991; and special tabulations.

Table 9-4.--NAEP science assessment: national and extreme rural mean proficiency levels, by age andyear of assessment

A e and group

Year

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.

110128

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

Grade and group

Subject

History Writing Civics Reading Math Science

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 11thgrade. 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 levelsfor six subject areas, by grade and year of assessment

Grade and group

Subject

Histo Writin Civics Readin Math Science

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 thgrade. 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 forsix 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 llthgrade. 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

Group

Subject

Science Mathematics ReadinHistory/

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 theNational 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 factorsCommunity 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, siblingdropout, and more than 3 hours home alone.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education LongitudinalStudy of 1988: Base Year Student Survey.

1 31113

Tab

le 9

-10.

---P

erce

ntag

e of

198

8 ei

ghth

gra

ders

with

var

ious

ris

k fa

ctor

s,by

urb

anic

ity

Urb

anic

ity

Ris

k fa

ctor

s

Pare

ntis

sing

le

Pare

nts

have

no

h.s.

dip

lom

a

Lim

ited

Eng

lish

prof

icie

ncy

Inco

me

less

than

$15,

000

Has

asi

blin

g w

hodr

oppe

d ou

t

Hom

e al

one

mor

e th

anth

ree

hour

s

Yes

noY

esno

Yes

noye

sno

Yes

noye

sno

Tbt

al21

.66

78.3

410

.23

89.7

72.

0797

.93

21.1

378

.87

6.39

93.6

113

.49

86.5

1St

anda

rd e

rror

0.44

10.

441

0.42

20.

422

0.28

10.

281

0.57

40.

574

0.20

80.

208

0.26

90.

269

Unw

eigh

ted

22,4

3322

,433

22,6

2622

,626

22,4

0922

,409

21,5

9421

,594

21,9

6721

,967

22,2

1922

,219

Wei

ghte

d (1

,000

s)2,

790

2,79

02,

813

2,81

32,

785

2,78

52,

689

2,68

92,

735

2,73

52,

761

2,27

61

Urb

an28

.73

71.2

712

.08

87.9

22.

8397

.17

26.8

673

.14

6.90

93.1

014

.80

85.2

0St

anda

rd e

rror

1.04

81.

048

0.83

30.

833

0.46

50.

465

1.21

51.

215

0.41

30.

413

0.53

90.

539

Unw

eigh

ted

6,77

46,

774

6,84

46,

844

6,77

26,

772

6,50

96,

509

6,62

36,

623

6,69

76,

697

1.- - a:.

Wei

ghte

d (1

,000

s)68

168

168

868

867

967

965

565

566

566

567

167

1

Subu

rban

18.8

281

.18

8.10

91.9

01.

6598

.35

14.4

785

.53

5.61

94.3

912

.62

87.3

8St

anda

rd e

rror

0.57

70.

577

0.63

00.

630

0.26

20.

262

0.78

80.

788

0.31

50.

315

0.42

90.

429

Unw

eigh

ted

9,28

49,

284

9,36

39,

363

9,27

19,

271

8,92

58,

925

9,09

49,

094

9,20

69,

206

Wei

ghte

d (1

,000

s)1,

213

1,21

31,

224

1,22

41,

211

1,21

11,

168

1,16

81,

191

1,19

11,

203

1,21

13

Rur

al20

.16

79.8

411

.72

88.2

82.

0697

.94

25.7

974

.71

7.06

92.9

413

.69

86.3

1St

anda

rd e

rror

0.66

90.

669

0.77

40.

774

0.72

00.

720

0.96

60.

966

0.37

40.

374

0.44

20.

442

Unw

eigh

ted

6,37

56,

375

6,41

96,

419

6,36

66,

366

6,16

06,

160

6,25

06,

250

6,31

66,

316

Wei

ghte

d (1

,000

s)8%

896

902

902

894

894

865

865

879

879

887

887

132

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n, N

atio

nal C

ente

r fo

r E

duca

tion

Stat

istic

s, N

atio

nal E

duca

tion

Lon

gitu

dina

l Stu

dy o

f 19

88: B

ase

Yea

r St

uden

t Sur

vey.

133

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 80.8Advanced:

At least 1 + base 72.3 100.0 85.4 87.8 90.8 85.8 80.8At least 2 + base 59.9 94.0 83.4 87.0 89.3 85.5 80.8At 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 96.8At least 2 29.9 47.4 59.5 80.8 93.3 88.9 83.6At least 3 19.5 2.4 38.3 50.9 78.3 76.7 73.0At 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 674Unweighted 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 75.9At least 2 + base 26.5 38.2 49.8 66.9 76.5 70.6 74.3At 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 76.4At least 2 11.0 4.7 26.4 21.9 26.9 39.6 45.0At least 3 11.0 - 3.7 7.3 6.0 20.9 17.4At least 4 - - - 2,0 - 2.9 2.8Weighted N 1,541 1,844 2,650 2,611 1,435 821 674Unweighted 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.

134115

Table 9-11c.-Percentage of schools offering levels 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 oflanguagesoffered

Graduating class size

(<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 theNational 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

JobPercentage

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 SchoolStudents: 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

Expectation

Location

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 businessor vocational school

5.8 6.4 10.2

Two years or more at businessor vocational school

11.9 10.3 12.8

Less than 2 years college 3.2 2.8 2.8

Two or more years of collegewith associate's degree

12.3 12.6 12.6

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 SchoolStudents: 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

Level

Location

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 businessor vocational school

5.5 5.7 8.8

Two years or more at businessor vocational school

10.0 9.0 10.7

Less than 2 years college 6.4 5.7 5.2

Two or more years of collegewith associate's degree

18.4 18.3 14.6

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 SchoolStudents: A Problem for Rural America. Research in Rural Education 6 (2): 11-16.

1 38119

Tab

le 1

0-4.

-Pos

tsec

onda

ry e

duca

tiona

l pla

ns o

f 19

80 h

igh

scho

ol s

enio

rs, b

y SE

S qu

artil

e an

d lo

catio

n

Plan

sT

otal

*L

owes

t qua

rtile

Seco

nd q

uart

ileT

hird

qua

rtile

Hig

hest

qua

rtile

Urb

anSu

burb

Rur

alU

rban

Sub

urb

Rur

alU

rban

Sub

urb

Rur

alU

rban

Sub

urb

Rur

alU

rban

Sub

urb

Rur

al

Tot

al N

1,79

24,

470

2846

549

792

863

414

1,03

281

242

31,

186

634

352

1,39

750

9

Perc

enta

ge

No

plan

s16

.915

.723

.824

.733

.638

.918

.921

.725

.113

.911

.013

.43.

54.

18.

1

Voc

atio

nal-

tech

.18

.118

.122

.124

.623

.426

.920

.525

.227

.716

.120

.719

.98.

07.

77.

7

Les

s th

an13

.815

.915

.413

.617

.414

.113

.917

.318

.216

.016

.617

.511

.013

.011

.4i-

+ts

.) (:)

4-ye

ar d

egre

e

BA

/BS

degr

ee27

.726

.523

.520

.315

.1)

13.7

29.5

21.7

17.2

31.4

30.3

33.7

34.8

33.6

38.0

Adv

ance

d de

gree

23.5

23.8

15.1

16.8

9.6

6.5

17.3

14.0

11.7

22.6

21.4

15.5

42.7

41.6

34.8

'The

tota

l sam

ple

is s

light

ly la

rger

than

the

sum

of

the

quar

tile

sam

ples

bec

ause

of

mis

sing

val

ues

on th

e SE

S qu

artil

e va

riab

le.

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n, N

atio

nal C

ente

r fo

r E

duca

tion

Stat

istic

s, H

igh

Scho

ol a

nd B

eyon

d, 1

980-

1986

.

1 3

1 4

I-.

Tab

le 1

0-5.

-198

0 hi

gh s

choo

l pro

gram

type

, by

SES

quar

tile

and

loca

tion

Typ

eT

otal

*L

owes

t qua

rtile

Seco

nd q

uart

ileT

hird

qua

rtile

Hig

hest

qua

rtile

Urb

an S

ubur

bR

ural

Urb

an S

ubur

bR

ural

Urb

an S

ubur

bR

ural

Urb

an S

ubur

bR

utal

Urb

an S

ubur

bR

ural

Tot

al N

1,80

44,

532

2,88

953

779

286

841

91,

032

821

426

1,21

164

235

51,

428

511

Perc

enta

ge

Gen

eral

33.1

33.5

42.5

34.4

43.2

46.3

34.1

37.2

44.7

34.4

33.0

44.8

28.3

25.8

29.5

Aca

dem

ic39

.143

.532

.528

.022

.817

.737

.633

.926

.838

.744

.337

.862

.461

.961

.9

Voc

atio

nal

27.8

23.1

25.0

37.6

34.0

36.1

28.3

29.0

28.5

26.9

22.7

17.4

9.4

12.3

8.6

'The

tota

l sam

ple

is s

light

ly la

rger

than

the

sum

of

the

quar

tile

sam

ples

bec

ause

of

mis

sing

val

ues

on th

eSE

S qu

artil

e va

riab

le.

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n, N

atio

nal C

ente

r fo

r E

duca

tion

Stat

istic

s, H

igh

Scho

olan

d B

eyon

d, 1

980-

1986

.

Table 10-6.-Parental expectations of children's post-high school experience as reported bynonrural 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 SchoolStudents: 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 hadentered college between 1980 and 1984, by location

Rural Suburban Urban

Years in college Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

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 andattainment

Ruralstayers.

Ruralleavers' Suburban Urban

Percentage

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

AspirationsPost-secondary (1980)

No college 28 16 16 17Some college 26 24 21 21College degree 46 61 63 62

Post-secondary (1986)No college 2 1 1 1

Some college 28 17 19 20College degree 7C 82 81 79

MonthsAttainment

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

PercentageAttainment (1986)

No college 64 56 59 64Some college 20 20 19 19College degree 16 24 23 18

Post-secondary attainment as a functionof educational aspirations (1980)

More college 5 3 3 2Less 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 seniorswho 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 Stay or Leave: A ContinuingDilemma for Rural Youth. Presented at the Creating the Quality School Conference, Norman, OK.

1123

44

Tab

le 1

0-9.

-Per

cent

age

of a

dults

' who

hav

e co

mpl

eted

4 or

mor

e ye

ars

of h

igh

scho

ol, b

y ye

ar,

race

, and

com

mun

ity ty

pe

Tab

le 1

0-10

.-Pe

rcen

tage

of

adul

ts' w

ho h

ave

com

plet

edfe

wer

than

5 y

ears

of

elem

enta

ry s

choo

l,by

yea

r, r

ace,

and

com

mun

ity ty

pe

Y.:a

rR

ace

Com

mun

ity ty

peY

ear

Rac

eC

omm

unity

type

Non

met

roM

etro

Non

met

roM

etro

1970

Bla

ck18

.434

.519

70B

lack

26.2

11.0

His

pani

c26

.533

.2H

ispa

nic

26.7

18.2

Whi

te48

.757

.9W

hite

5.2

3.9

1977

Bla

ck31

.145

.519

77B

lack

18.7

7.1

His

pani

c'36

.043

.1H

ispa

nic'

26.1

16.2

Whi

te60

.770

.3W

hite

3.7

2.7

1987

Bla

ck48

.666

.519

87B

lack

10.3

3.9

His

pani

c42

.951

.5H

ispa

nic

15.0

8.5

Whi

te70

.778

.9W

hite

2.2

2.0

1991

Bla

ck49

.370

.219

91B

lack

8.2

4.0

His

pani

c46

.551

.7H

ispa

nic

14.8

12.3

Whi

te73

.981

.7W

hite

1.9

2.0

Pers

ons

25 y

ears

and

old

er.

Dat

a ar

e fo

r 19

79.

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. B

urea

u of

the

Cen

sus.

Cur

rent

Pop

ulat

ion

Rep

orts

.Se

ries

P-2

0, N

o. 3

56; S

erie

s P-

23, N

o. 7

5; S

erie

s P-

20, N

o. 4

28.

14

r

Pers

ons

25 y

ears

and

old

er.

Dat

a ar

e fo

r 19

79.

SOU

RC

E: U

.S. B

urea

u of

the

Cen

sus.

Cur

rent

Pop

ulat

ion

Rep

orts

.Se

ries

P-2

0, N

o. 3

56; S

erie

s P-

23, N

o. 7

5; S

erie

s P-

20, N

o. 4

28.

1 4

f;

Te..) le 10-11.-Status dropout rate ages 16-24, by region and metropolitan status: selected years, October1975-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)

RegionNortheast 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 EconomicCharacteristics of Students," October (various years), Current Population Reports, Series P-20, andunpublished tabulations.

I 4125

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

Item 1971 1975 1979 1983 19R7

Completedhigh 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 moreyears of college

Percentage

Metro 31.9 38.9 44.2 47.9 49.1Nonmetro 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 moreyears of college

Percentage

Metro 17.0 21.4 24.0 26.8 27.5Nonmetro 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, SeriesP-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..

Public

Percentage

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 collegeor 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 collegeor university 31.4 64.5 21.5 22.3 20.9

PrivateUniversity 1.0 4.1 0 .1 0

4-year college 17.8 47.2 9.0 13.0 6.4

Any 4-year collegeor university 17.9 47.5 9.0 13.0 6.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health Professionals, AreaResources File: 1988.

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

Censusdivision

High schooldiploma'

License or2-3 year

vocational

BS/BA oradvanceddegree "

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 with an advanced degree (approximately 0.5%).

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

28 150

B. Statistical Data Sources and Methodology

Sources andComparability of DataThe information presented in this reportwas obtained mainly from federalsources. The data were collected usingmany research methods, including sur-veys of a universe (such as school dis-tricts) or of a sr.mple, compilations ofadministrative records, and statisticalprojections. Users of this report shouldtake particular care when comparingdata from different sources. Differ-ences in procedures, timing, phrasingof questions, interviewer training, andso forth mean that the results from thedifferent sources may not be strictlycomparable. Following are general de-scriptions of the information sourcesand data collection methods, groupedby sponsoring organization.

Accuracy of DataThe accuracy of any statistic is deter-mined by the joint effects of samplingand nonsampling errors. Esdmatesbased on a sample will differ somewhatfrom the figures that would have beenobtained if a complete census had beentaken using the same survey instru-ments, instructions, and procedures. Inaddition to such sampling errors, allsurveys, universe and sample, are sub-ject to design, reporting, and processingerrors and errors due to nonresponse.To the extent possible, these nonsam-piing errors are kept to a minimum bymethods built into the survey proce-dures.

Chapter 2

Employment andearnings dataData on nonmetro employment, unem-ployment and earnings come from themonthly Current Population Survey(CPS), conducted by the Bureau of theCensus for the U.S. Department of La-bor. It provides detailed information onthe labor force, employment, unem-ployment, and demographic charac-teristics of the metro and nonmetropopulation. CPS derives estimatesbased on a national sample of about58,000 households that are repre-sentative of the U.S. civilian noninsti-tutional population 16 years of age andover. Labor force information is basedon respondents' activity during 1 weekeach month. The labor force participa-tion rate describes civilian labor as apercentage of the civilian noninstitu-tional population age 16 and older.

Metro areas. Metropolitan StatisticalAreas (MSAs), as defined by the Officeof Management and Budget, includecore counties containing a city of50.000 or more people and a total areapopulation of at least 100,000. Addi-tional contiguous counties are includedin the MSA if they are economicallyand socially integrated with the corecounty. Metro areas are divided intocentral cities and areas outside centralcities (suburbs).

Throughout this chapter "urban" and"metro" have been used interchange-ably to refer to people and places withinMS As.

129 151

Nonmetro areas. These are countiesoutside metro area boundaries.Throughout this chapter, "rural" and"nonmetro" are used interchangeablyto refer to people and places outside ofMSAs.

Chapter 3

Common Core of DataThe National Center for Education Sta-tistics (NCES) uses the Common Coreof Data (CCD) survey to acquire andmaintain statistical data on the 50states, the District of Columbia, and theoutlying areas from the universe ofstate-level education agencies. Infor-mation about staff and students is col-lected annually at the school, localeducation agency (LEA) or school dis-trict), and state levels. Informationabout revenues and expenditures isalso collected at the state level.

Data are collected for a particularschool year (July 1June 30) via surveyinstruments sent to the states by Octo-ber 15 of the subsequent school year.States have 2 years to modify the dataoriginally submitted.

Since the CCD is a universe survey,CCD information presented in this re-port is not subject to sampling errors.However, nonsampling errors couldcome from two sourcesnonreturnand inaccurate reporting. Almost all ofthe states return the CCD survey instru-ments each year, but submissions are

sometimes incomplete or too late forpublication.

Understandably, when 57 educationagencies compile and submit data formore than 85,000 public schools andabout 15,000 local school districts,misreporting can occur. Typically, thisresults from varying interpretations ofNCES definitions and differing record-keeping systems. NCES attempts tominimize these errors by workingclosely with the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers and its Committee onEvaluation and Information Systems.

The state education agencies reportdata to NCES from data collected andedited in their regular reporting cycles.NCES encourages the agencies to in-corporate into their own survey sys-tems the NCES items they do notalready collect so that those items willalso be available for the subsequentCCD survey. Over time, this has meantfewer missing data cells in each state'sresponse, reducing the need to imputedata.

NCES subjects data from the educationagencies to a comprehensive edit.Where data are determined to be incon-sistent, missing, or out of range, NCEScontacts the education agencies forverification. NCES-prepared statesummary forms are returned to thestate education agencies for verifica-tion. States are also given an opportu-ni ty to revise their state-levelaggregates from the previous surveycycle. Questions concerning the CCDcan be directed to:

John SietsemaElementary and Secondary

Education Statistics DivisionNational Center for Education

Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue NWWashington, DC 20208-5651

Methodology: The discussion aboutrural schools and districts, however,and the types of counties within whichthey are situated is dependent upon thelinldng and analysis of several differ-ent data files, no one of which containsall the basic descriptors needed. Be-cause the analysis is data driven, andbecause locale codes are relativelynew, a review of the data files and howthey were used is provided below.

Schools Me. The CCD schoolsfile contains a record of information foreach public elementary and secondaryschool in the country as reported toNCES by state education agencies.

Locale codes. Beginning in1987-88, one of seven codes was as-signed to each school in the CCD filebased on geographic information froma set of Bureau of the Census files(Frank Johnson. Assigning Type of Lo-cale Codes to the 1987-88 CCD Pub-lic School Universe. Technical ReportCS 89-194. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Education, National Cen-ter for Education Statistics, 1989). Thecodes used are as follows:

Large City: Central city of a Metro-politan Statistical Area (MSA) with thecity having a population greater than orequal to 400,000 or a population den-sity greater than or equal to 6,000 peo-ple per square mile.

Mid-Size City: Central city of an MSA,with the city having a population lessthan 400,000 and a population densityless than 6,000 people per square mile.

Urban Fringe of Large City: Placewithin an MSA of a large city anddefined as urban by the Bureau of theCensus.

Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City: Placewithin an MSA of mid-size city and

130 152

defined as urban by the Bureau of theCensus.

Large Town: Town not within an MSAwith a population greater than or equalto 25,000.

Small Town: Town not within an MSAwith a population less than 25,000 andgreater than or equal to 2,500 people.

Rural: A place with less than 2,500people or a place having a DP codedesignated rural by the Bureau of theCensus.

Johnson's locale codes use the Bureauof the Census definitions of metropoli-tan-nonmetropolitan counties and ur-ban-rural places. The Johnson codescan be summarized into four classes:Central Cities, Urban Fringes, Towns,and Rural. The first three are urbanlocales. In terms of metropolitan status,Central Cities and Urban Fringes areconceptually entirely metropolitan,Towns is conceptually entirely non-metropolitan, and Rural can be locatedwithin both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties.

An advantage of the use of the Censusdefinition of rural in the locale codes isthat because schools are linked toplaces rather than only counties, it ispossible to examine the distribution ofrural schools across the different typesof counties which they are situ-atedincludhig metropolitan areas.

Another advantage is locale codes arepart of a data file that includes basicinformation about most U.S. publicschools. The 1989-90 CCD schoolsfile included records for 85,029 publicschools in the 50 states, District of Co-lumbia, and five outlying areas. Tosimplify comparisons, only regularpublic schools (81,029) were includedfor this analysis. Also, because localecodes were not calculated for the out-

codes were not calcolated for the out-lying areas, only 3chools from the 50states and District of Columbia wereincluded, resulting in a file of 79,307regular public schools. Data elementsincluded identification codes, totalnumber of students, total classroomteacher FTE (full-time equivalent),school size class based on student en-rollment, and school grade type (pri-mary, secondary or other) based on theenrollment by grade.

Local education agency file.In addition to the schools file, the U.S.Department of Education maintains aCCD public education agency file. The1989-90 agency file includes recordsfor 16,967 public school districts in theUnited States. Among the variables in-cluded on the district file, but not in-cluded on the schools file, is the countyin which the district is located. For thisanalysis, records from the CCD districtfile, including county codes and a fewother select variables, were merged tothe schools file. The district identifica-tion codes on the school file and thecodes on the district file matched ex-actly. This linkage between school anddistrict files was done to assign eachregular public school to a U.S. county,based on the county in which its districtoffice is located.

In some instances, schools are not lo-cated in the same county as their dis-trict offices. To assess the extent ofpossible incorrect assignments,schools were also matched to U.S.countis based upon the ZIP code ofthe school's mailing address using aU.S. Postal Service file. A comparisonof the county assigned to a school re-cord based on ZIP code and the countyassigned based on the school's districtshowed less than a 4 percent differencenationally.

Counties file. A file of selectedU.S. county statistics was created forthis study by merging data elementsfrom the 1c90 Census of PopulationPublic Law 94-171 file (the only na-tional 1990 Census file available at thetime), the 1988 Bureau of EconomicAnalysis personal income series, the1980 Census of Population and Hous-ing, and a file of county types from theEconomic Research Service, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture. From theCCD files, selected characteristics ofregular public schools were summa-rized by county and merged to thecounties file. Thus, the distribution ofrural schools and rural districts can besummarized by type of U.S. countieswith associated population and incomecharacteristics. Because, as mentionedabove, some schools are not actuallylocated in the same county as theirdistrict office, the county link is not anexact match for all 79,307 schools.Consequently, a number of schoolswith urban locale codes appear incounties that are classified as entirelyrural. However, the magnitude of thisproblem appears to be only about 4 or5 percent and is not a serious limitationfor the purposes of this analysis.

Districts file. The schools file de-scribed above contains one record foreach regular public school in the 198990 universe, including a locale codethat indicates if the school is in a ruralarea. Unlike the schools file, the CCDagency file does not include locale in-formation. Therefore, for this study theschools file was summarized by dis-trict identifier carrying forward countsof the total number of schools, the totalnumber of students enrolled, the totalnumber of classroom teacher FIE, thenumber of rural schools, the number ofstudents attending rural schools, andthe number of classroom teacher FTE.

131 153

In addition, counts of the number ofrural schools by enrollment size wereaccumulated and the percentage of thedistrict's total enrollment at ruralschools calculated.

The resulting file included a record foreach school district that administeredat least one regular public school in1989-90. If rural school enrollmentwas 75 percent or more of total enroll-ment, then the district was designateda rural distict in this analysis. This isa conservative estimate of the numberof rural districts. Consequently, theproportion of rural schools, rural stu-dents, and rural teachers in urban dis-tricts may be slightly overstated in theanalysis. In any case, the difference isrelatively slight because most districtsare entirely rural or urban, and abroader breakpoint (say, 50 percent)would affect only 246 (1.6 percent) outof 15,133 districts.

Emerging typologies and ex-panding rurai datc sources.Stephens provides a useful summary ofefforts to develop more educationallymeaningful typologies of rural schooldistricts (ER. Stephens. The ChangingContext of Education in a Rural Set-ting. Occasional Paper No. 26. Char-leston, WV: Appalachia EducationalLaboratory). Work to further refinesuch typologies is continuing. Thiswork is bound to be si mulated by thegreatly expanded levet of detail aboutrural areas that is part of the 1990 Cen-sus of Population and Housing. The1990 Census will be available for verysmall levels on geography (blocks)even in rural areas. In addition, 1990Census products include files that willmake computerized mapping and spa-tial analysis of small areas such asschool districts commonplace. Indeed,a cooperative federal and state project

to digitally map the boundaries of allU.S. school districts will be accessibleon CD-ROM shortly. Thus the nextfew years should yield a much clearerpicture of the conditions of schoolingin Rural America.

(Prepared by William L. Elder,University of Missouri)

Chapter 6

Schools and StaffingSurveyThe Schools and Staffing Survey(SASS) data were collected through a5ample survey of school districts,schools, school administrators, andteachers. 'The surveys of schools andschool principals were based on the9,317 public and 3,513 private schoolsin the school samples. In addition,56,242 public school teachers and11,529 private schc,o1 teachers partici-pated in the teacher survey.

The public school sample was selectedfrom the Quality Education Data(QED) file of public schools. All pub-lic schools in the file were stratified bystate and by three grade levels (elemen-tary, secondary, and combined).Within each stratum, the schools weresorted by urbanicity, ZIP code, highestgrade in the school, and the enrollment.For each stratum within each state,sample schools were selected by sys-tematic sampling with probability pro-portional to the square root of thenumber of teachers within a school.

The private school sample was se-lected primarily from the QED file ofprivate schools. To improve coverage,two additional steps were taken. Thefirst step was to update the QED filewith current lists of schools from 17private school associations. All privateschools in the file were stratified bystate and then by three grade levels(elementary, secondary, and corn-

bined) and 13 affiliation groups.Within each stratum, the schools weresorted by urbanicity, ZIP code, highestgrade in the school, and the enrollment.For each stratum within each state,sample schools were selected by sys-tematic sampling with probability pro-portional to the square root of thenumber of teachers within a school.The second step was to include an area-frame sample, contained in 75 PrimarySampling Units (PSU), each PSU con-sisting of a county or group of counties.Within each PSU, an attempt was madeto find all eligible private schools. Atelephone search was made, using suchsources as yellow pages, religious in-stitutions, local education agencies,chambers of commerce, local govern-ment offices, commercial milk compa-nies, and real estate offices. The PSUswere stratified by Census geographicregion, MSA status, and private schoolenrollment. These PSUs were selectedfrom the universe of 2,497 PSUs withprobability proportional to the squareroot of the PSU population. All schoolsnot on the QED file or the lists from theprivate school associations were eligi-ble to be selected for the area-framesample. Schools in the area frame thatcould be contacted were sampled withprobability proportional to the squareroot of the number of teachers. A sys-tematic equal probability sample wasthen drawn from the schools in the areaframe that could not be contacted.

The School Administrator Question-naire was mailed to the administratorof each sampled school in February1988. Weighted response rates for theSchool Administrator Questionnairewere 94.4 percent for public schooladministrators and 79.3 percent for pri-vate school administrators. There wasno explicit imputation for item nonre-sponse and for a small number ofschools found to be missing from theQED lists of public schools. The na-

132

tional estimate for public school prin-cipals is underestimated because ofmissing schools.

For more information about this sur-vey, contact:

Dan KasprzykElementary and Secondary

Education Statistics DivisionNational Center for Education

Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue NWWashington, DC 20208-5651

Methodology: For this chapter, thebase year SASS (1987-88 academicyear) was used. The data from the fol-lowing four SASS surveys were em-pl o ye d: Public School TeachersQuestionnaire; School AdministratorQuestionnaire; Public School Ques-tionnaire; and Teacher Demand andShortage Questionnaire for PublicSchool Districts.

Th respondents were classified forpurposes of analysis as rural or non-rural according to an item on the PublicSchool Questionnaire filled out by theprincipal. Respondents could selectamong the following community typesto describe where the school was lo-cated: (1) rural or farming community;(2) small city or town of fewer than50,000 people that is not a suburb of alarger city; (3) medium-sized city(50,000 to 100,000 people); (4) suburbof a medium-sized city; (5) large city(100,000 to 500,000 people); (6) sub-urb of a large city; (7) very large city(more than 500,000 people); (8) suburbof a very large city; (9) military base orstation; or (10) an Indian reservation.

In this chapter, if the respondents indi-cated the school was located in "a ruralor farming community" or "an Indianreservation," it was classified as ruralfor purposes of analysis and all othercategories were considered nonrural.

154

The items contained in the PublicSchool Teachers Questionnaire focusedon the characteristics of the respondentsand the conditkms in the schools. Of theapproximately 65,000 public schoolteachers sampled, 86.4 percent (56,242)returned the questionnaire. Respon-dents were classified for analyses aselementary if the lowest grade was sixand the highest grade eight, and as sec-ondary if the school included any gradeeight.

The School Administrator Question-naire solicited information from schoolprincipals about the conditions in theschools. The questionnaire was distrib-uted to approximately 9,300 publicschool principals and was returned by94.4 percent.

For a complete explanation of the pro-cedures and design for SASS, the readeris referred to S. Kaufman, 1991, Tech-nical Report: 1988 Schools and Staff-ing Survey Sample Design andEstimation (NCES 91-127). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, National Center for EducationStatistics.

Chapter 9

National Assessment ofEducationalProgressThe Nttional Assessment of Educa-tional Piogress (NAEP) is a cross-sec-tional study designed and initiallyimplemented in 1969. NAEP has gath-ered information about selected levelsof educational whievement across thecountry. NAEP has surveyed the educa-tional attainments of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds and young adults (ages25-35) 10 learning areas. Differentlearning areas have been assessed peri-o&cally, and all areas have been reas-

sessed tc, measure possible changes ineducational achievement.

The assessment data presented in thispublication were derived from tests de-signed and conducted by the EducationCommission of the States (1969-1983)and by the Educational Testing Service(1983 to present). Tbree-stage prob-ability samples have been used. ThePSUs have been stratified by regionand, within region, by state, size ofcommunity, and, for the two smallersizes of community strata, by socio-economic level. The first stage of sam-pling entails defining and selectingPSUs. For each age/grade level (3, 7,and 11), the second stage entails enu-merating, stratifying, and randomly se-lecting schools, public and private,within each PSU selected at the firststage. The third stage involves ran-domly selecting students within aschool for participation in NAEP. As-sessraent exercises have been adminis-tered either to individuals or to smallgroups of students by specially trainedpersonnel.

After NAEP data are scored, they areweighted in accordance with the popu-lation structure and adjusted for nonre-sponse. Analyses include computingthe percentage of students giving vari-ous responses and using Item Re-sponse Theory (IRT) technology toestimate levels of achievement for thenation and various subpopulations.IRT technology enables the assess-ment of a sample of students in a learn-ing area or subarea on a single scaleeven if different students have beenadministered different exercises. Theunderlying principle is that when anumber of items require similar skills,the regularities observed across pat-terns of response can often be used tocharacterize respondents and tasks interms of a relatively small number ofvariables. When aggregated through

133

1 55

appropriate mathematical formulas,these variables capture the dominantfeatures of the data.

Sample sizes for the reading profi-ciency portion of the 1989-90 NAEPstudy were 4,268 for the 9-year-olds,4,609 for the 13-year-olds, and 2,689for the 17-year-olds. Response rateswere 93 percent, 90 percent, and 82percent, respectively. Response ratesfor earlier years (1970-71, 1974-75,and 1979-30) were generally lower.For example, the lowest response ratefor the 9-year-olds was 88 percent in1974-75, and the lowest response rateoverall was 70 percent for the 17-year-olds in 1974-75.

The 1987-88 U.S. history assessmentdata in this report are based on a nation-ally representative sample of 3,950 4thgraders, 6,462 8th graders, and 5,50712th graders. The response rates were:93 percent for 4th graders, 88 percentfor 8th graders, and 78 percent for 12thgraders.

The 1987-88 U.S. civics assessmenttrend data in this report are base,: on anationally representatilm sample of1,938 13-year-olds and 1,786 17-ye.tr-olds. The response rates were 90 per-cent for the 8th graders and 79 percentfor the 17-year-olds in 1987-88. Sam-ple sizes for the earlier years weremuch larger with 19,952 13year-oldsand 17,866 17-year-olds in 1976 and7,268 13-year-olds and 6,751 17-year-olds in 1982. The 1987-88 analyses for4th, 8th, and 12th graders were basedon a somewhat different 1987-88 sam-ple. The sample sizes were 1,974 4thgraders, 4,487 8th graders, and 4,27512th graders. The response rates were:93 percent for 4th graders, 88 percentfor 8th graders, and 78 percent for 12thgraders.

The 1983-84 NAEP writing assess-ment used a stratified, three-stage sam-

piing design. The first stage was coun-ties (or aggregates of counties). Thesecond stage was schools, and the thirdstage involved selecting studentswithin the schools at random. The1983-84 assessment included 24,437students at age 9; 26,228 students atage 13; and 28,992 students at age 17.Student response rates for the 1989-90writing assessment were 93 percent forthe 9-year-olds, 90 percent for the 13-year-olds, and 82 percent for the 17-y ear-olds . Sample sizes varieddepending on the test items and thescoring method used.

The 1989-90 NAEP mathematics andscience assessments were adminis-tered to 6,235 students age 9; 6,649students age 13; and 4,411 studentsstill in school at age 17. The responserates were 93 percent for the 9-year-olds, 90 percent for the 13-year-olds,and 82 percent for the 17-year-olds.

The 1987-88 geography assessmentwas administered to 3,030 high schoolstudents. The response rate for the as-sessment was 77 percent. The NationalGeographic Society provided supportfor conducting the assessment.

The literacy assessment data used inthis report are based on a nationallyrepresentative household sample of21- to 25-year-olds. Blacks and His-panics were oversampled to allowsamples of sufficient size for reliableresults. A total of 38,400 householdswere screened to locate 4,494 potentialrespondents. (No more than one personwas surveyed from any one house-hold.) Of the potential respondents,3,618 young adults participated, result-ing in a response rate of 80 percent.

The 1989-90 NAEP assessed reading,writing, science, and mathematics.Data were collected from a national

probability sample of more than45,000 students per age/grade or a totalof about 146,000 students in nearly2,100 schools. Data were also collectedfor the assessed students' principalsand a sample of their teachers. Repre-sentative state-level data were pro-duced for mathematics at theeighth-grade level. This was the firsttime NAEP had produced data on astate-by-state level.

Information from NAEP is subject tononsampling and sampling error. Twopossible sources of nonsampling errorare nonparticipation and instrumenta-tion. Certain populations have beenoversampled to assure samples of suf-ficient size for analysis. Instrumenta-tion nonsampling error could resultfrom failure of the test instruments tomeasure what is being taught and, inturn, what is being learned by the stu-dents.

For further information on NAEP, con-

tact:

Gary W. PhillipsEducation Assessment DivisionNational Center for Education

Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue NWWashington, DC 20208-5653

National EducationLongitudinal Studyof 1988The National Education LongitudinalStudy of 1988 (NELS:88) is the thirdmajor longitudinal study sponsored bythe National Center for Education Sta-tistics. The two btudies that precededNELS:88, the National LongitudinalStudy of the High School Class of 1972(NLS-72) and High School and Be-yond (HS&B), surveyed high schoolseniors (and sophomores in HS&B)

134 156

through high school, postsecondaryeducation, and work and family forma-tion experiences. Unlike its predeces-sors, NELS:88 begins with a cohort ofeighth-grade students. In 1988, some25,000 eigth graders, their parents,their teachers, and their school princi-pals were surveyed.

NELS:88 is designed to provide trenddata about critical transitions experi-enced by young people as they de-velop, attend school, and embark ontheir careers. I . will complement andstrengthen state and local efforts byfurnishing new information on howschool policies, teacher practices, andfamily involvement affect student edu-cational outcomes (i.e., academicachievement, persistence in school,and participation in postsecondaryeducation). For the base year, NELS:88consists of a multifaceted study ques-tionnaire and four cognitive tests, aparent questionnaire, a teacher ques-tionnaire, and a school questionnaire.

Designed to ensure that privateschools, rural schools, and schoolswith high minority membership wereadequately represented, sampling wasfirst conducted at the school level andthen at the student level within schools.Additionally, oversamples of studentswith Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Is-land heritage were drawn. The data rep-resented in this report are drawn froma nationally representative sample of1,000 schools (800 public schools; and200 private schools, including paro-chial institutions). Within this schoolsample, 26,000 eighth-grade studentswere selected at random. } oilowups tothis survey are to be conducted every 2years.

Further information about the surveycan be obtained from:

Jeffrey A. OwingsElementary and Secondary

Education DivisionNational Center for Education

Statistics555 New Jersey Avenue NWWashington, DC 20208-5651

Chapter 10

High School andBeyondHigh School and Beyond (HS&B) is anational longitudinal survey of 1980high school sophomores and seniors.The base-year survey was a probabilitysample of 1,015 high schools with atarget number of 36 sophomores and 36seniors in each of the schools. A total of58,270 students participated in thebase-year survey. Substitutions weremade for noncooperating schoolsbutnot for students--in those strata whereit was possible. Overall, 1,122 schoolswere selected in the original sample and811 of these schools participated in thesurvey. An additional 204 schools weredrawn in a replacement sample. Studentrefusals and student absences resultedin an 82 percent completion rate for thesurvey.

Several small groups in the populationwere oversampled to allow for specialstudy of t Ain types of schools andstudents , nts completed question-naires and took a battery of cognitivetests. In addition, a sample of parents ofsophomores and seniors (about 3,600for each cohort) was surveyed.

HS&B first followup activities tookplace in the spring of 1982. The sampledesign of the first followup surveycalled for the selection of about 30,000persons who were sophomores in 1980.The completion rate for sophomoreseligible for on-campus survey admini-stration was about 96 percent. About 89

percent of the students who left schoolbetween the base year and first fol-lowup surveys (dropouts, transfer stu-dents, and early graduates) completedthe fffst followup sophomore question-naire.

As part of the first followup survey,transcripts were requested in fall 1982for an 18,152-member subsample ofthe sophomore cohort. Of the 15,941transcripts actually obtained, 1,969were excluded because the studentshad dropped out of school beforegraduation, 799 were excluded be-cause they were incomplete, and 1,057were excluded because the studentgraduated before 1982 or the transcriptindicated neither a dropout status norgraduation. Thus 12,116 transcriptswere used for the overall curriculumanalysis presented in this publication.All courses in each transcript were as-signed a six-digit code based on AClassification of Secondary SchoolCourses (developed by EvaluationTechnologies, Inc. under contract withNCES). Credits earned in each coursewere expressed in Carnegie units. (TheCarnegie unit is a standard of measure-ment that represents one credit for thecompletion of a 1-year course. To re-ceive credit for a course, the studentmust have received a passing grade"pass," "D," or higher.) Students whotransferred from public to privateschools or from private to publicschools between their sophomore andsenior years were eliminated from pub-lic/private analyses.

In designing the senior cohort first fol-lowup survey, one goal was to reducethe size of the retained sample, whilestill keeping sufficient numbers of mi-norities to allow important policyanalyses. A total of 11,227 (94 percent)of the 11,995 persons subsampledcompleted the questionnaire. Informa-tion was obtained about the respon-

135 157

dents' school and employment expeli-ences, family status, attitudes, andplans.

The sample for the second followup,which took place in spring 1984, con-sisted of about 12,000 members of thesenior cohort and about 15,000 mem-bers of the sophomore cohort. Thecompletion rate for the senior cohortwas 91 percent, and the completion ratefor the sophomore cohort was 92 per-cent.

HS&B third followup data collectionactivities were performed in spring of1986. The sophomore and senior co-hort samples for this round of data col-lection were the same as those used forthe second followup survey. The com-pletion rates for the sophomore andsenior cohort samples were 91 percentand 88 percent, respectively.

Further information on the HS&B sur-vey may be obtained from:

Aurora D' AmicoPostsecondary Education Statistics Di-visionNational Center for Education Statis-tics555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20208-5652

Methodology: As reported in thischapter, the variables were eitherdrawn direct'y from the HS&B data setor were composites formed by combin-ing multiple HS&B variables.

Demographic variables.HS&B used the U.S. Census classifica-tion for Context to determine if stu-dents and schools were in rural(N=1,849), suburban (N=4,597), or ur-ban (N=2,927) environments. Divisionwas another HS&B demographic vari-able derived directly from the U.S.Census Bureau's classification of thenine census divisions in the United

States as follows: (1) New England(N=575), (2) Mid-Atlantic (N=1,335),(3) East-North Central (N=1,75', 4)West-North Central (N=746)5)South Atlantic (N=1,301), (6) Fast-South Central (N=481), (7) West-South Central (N=772), (8) Mountain(N=380), and (9) Pacific (958).

Socioeconomic status is an HS&B-cre-ated composite based on five compo-nents: (1) father's occupation, (2)father' s education, (3) mother's educa-tion (4) family income, and (5) materialpossessions in the household (i.e., per-sonal calculator, 50 or more books,place to study, etc.). The socioeco-nomic composite is the simple averageof the non-missing components fromthe 1980 survey, after each of the fivescores has been standardized.

Academic Variables. Stanri-ardized achievement is a HSt B-cre-ated composite that includes a 21-itemvocabulary test, a 19-item reading test,and a 28-item math test. High schoolgrades were students' self-reports oftheir average grades in high school.Values ranged from a score of 1(mostly D's or less than 60 percent) to8 (mostly A's or 90-100 percent).

Two variables were used to assess edu-cational aspirations. The first was post-secondary educational plans(PSEPLANS)taken from a shrgle1980 item "As things stand now, howfar in school do you think you willget?" Choices ranged from "less thanhigh school graduation" to "Ph.D,M.D., or other advanced professionaldegree." The second educational aspi-rations variable was a compositeformed combining the standardizedscores of the following items: whetheror not the respondent's closest friendwas planning to attend college,whether or not the student was plan-ning to attend college, whether or notthe respondent would be disappointed

if he or she did not graduate from col-lege, and expected educational plans,similar to PSEPLANS above. Thestandardized score was then trans-formed into a T-score, with a mean of50 and a standard deviation of 10(Cronbach's alpha = .88).

The education attainment variable wasdrawn from the 1986 survey and re-flects the highest level of educationachieved by the respondent. Choicesare similar to those for the PSEPLANSvariable described above. Academicorientation was a composite computedfrom standardized scores of variablessuch as Clme spent on homework,school work habits, satisfaction witheducation, interest in school, and aca-demic habits of peers (Cronbach's al-pha = .66).

Persistence in postsecondary educa-tion was a computed variable based oncollege attendance patterns assessed onthe 1986 HS&B third followup survey.Respondents were asked whether theyNeexe: in a public or private institution,

enrolled in 2- or 4-year college, attend-ing postsecondary school as a part-timeor full-time student, or if they were notcurrently in school. They were asked torespond .to this item for eight differenttimesfrom October 1980 throughFebruary 1984. The composite vari-able was created by giving 2 points forfull-time attendance, 1 point for part-time attendance, and 0 points for notbeing enrolled in school. Therefore, amaximum value of 16 points would becomputed for a student who had beenenrolled full-time during all eight se-mesters.

Vocational and Career Vari-ables. HS&B data base contains asubstantial amounts of information onthe labor market experiences of the1980 Sophomore cohort. Compositemeasures derived from the second

136 158

(1984) and third (1986) followup sur-veys are described below:

Salary. Dropouts and graduateswere asked to report their current sala-ries at the time of the third followupsurvey in 1986. All reported wageswere converted to an hourly scale. Toeliminate obvious misreports and er-rors, these hourly wages were com-pared with individual's occupations,and implausible salaries were elimi-nated.

Periods of unemployment. Re-spondents to the second and third fol-lowup surveys were asked to reporttheir employment status for eachmonth from June 1982 to July 1986. Acomposite variable was constructedthat reflects the total number of monthsunemployment was reported. A highscore on the measure (scale of 0 to 43)reflects more periods of unemploy-ment.

Number of jobs. Respondents tothe second and third followup surveysalso were asked to indicate the numberof jobs they held between June 1982and March 1986 (up to eight jobs). Ahigh value on this variable reflects agreater number c . jobs during this pe-riod.

Work satisfaction. Participantswere asked in the third followup survey(1986) to rate their satisfaction with 12aspects of the most recent joU. Theseitems pertained to the pay and fringebenefits, importance and challenge,working conditions, opportunity foradvancement with the employer, op-portunity for advancement with thejob, opportunity to use past training,security and permanence, satisfactionwith supervisor, opportunity to de-velop new skills, job-related respectfrom family and friends, relationshipwith co-workers, and the job as awhole. Respondents rated these items

on a Likert scale of satisfaction (1-4)and the standard scores of these itemswere summed to form the compositemeasure (Cronbach's alpha .89).

(Prepared by Scott Marion,University of Maine, Orono)

Bureau of theCensus: CurrentPopulation SurveyCurrent estimates of school enroll-ment, as well as social and economiccharacteristics of students, are basedon data collected in the Census Bu-reau's monthly household survey ofabout 60,000 households. Themonthly Current Population Survey(CPS) sample consists of 729 areascomprising 1,973 counties, inde-pendent cities, and minor civil divi-sions throughout the 50 states and theDistrict of Columbia. The sample wasinitially selected from the 1980 censusfiles and is periodically updated to re-flect new housing construction.

The monthly CPS deals primarily withlabor force data for the civilian nonin-stitutional population (i.e., excludingmilitary personnel and their familiesliving on post and inmates of institu-tions). In addition, in October of eachyear, supplemental questions are askedabout highest grade completed, leveland grade of current enrollment, atten-

dance status, number and type ofcourses, degree or certificate objective,and type of organization offering in-struction for each member of thehousehold. In March of each year, sup-plemental questions on income areasked. The responses to these ques-tions are combined with answers totwo questions on educational attain-ment: highest grade of school ever at-tended, and whether that grade wascompleted.

The estimation procedure employedfor the monthly CPS data involves in-flating weighted sample results to in-dependent estimates of characteristicsof the civilian noninstitutional popula-tion in the United states by age, sex,and race. These independent estimatesare based on statistics from decennialcensuses; statistics on births, deaths,immigration, and emigiation; and sta-tistics on the population in the armedservices. Generalized standard error ta-bles are provided in the Current Popu-lation Reports. The data are subject tononsampling and sampling errors.

School enrollment. Each October,CPS includes supplemental questionson the enrollment status of the popula-tion 3 years old and over. Annual re-ports documenting school ensollmentof the population have been producedby the Bureau of the Census since

159

137

1946. They are the October CurrentPopulation Reports, School Enroll-mentSocial and Economic Charac-teristics of Students.

Educational attainment. Data onyears of school completed are derivedfrom two questions on the CPS instru-ment. Formal reports documentingeducational attainment are produced bythe Bureau of the Census using MarchCPS results. The reports are entitledEducational Attainment in the UnitedStates and are available from the Gov-ernment Printing Office.

Beginning with the data for March1980, tabulations have been controlledto the 1980 census. The figures shownin the table hold for total or white popu-lation estimates only. The variability inestimates for subgroups (region, house-hold relationships, etc.) can be esti-mated using the tables presented inCurrent Population Reports.

Further information is available in theCurrent Population Reports, Senes P-20, or by contacting:

Education and Social StratificationBranch

Population DivisionBureau of the CensusU.S. Department of CommerceWashinIton, DC 20233

This document was prepared in the Of-fice of Educational Research and Im-provement (OERI) by Joyce D. Stern,OERI rural education coordinator, inher capacity as project director and edi-tor. Overall direction was provided byDavid P. Mack, director of the Educa-tional Networks Division, Programsfor the Improvement of Practice,within OEM.

An Editorial Advisory Board com-posed of rural researchers and othersintimately acquainted with rural educa-tion issues guided the project from itsinception. Members were Toni Haas,consultant, and former deputy director,Mid-continent Regional EducationalLaboratory (McREL); Michael Mayo,associate director, Regional Labora-tory for Educational Improvement ofthe Northeast and Islands (NE-I);Steven Nelson, director, Rural Educa-tion Program, Northwest RegionalEducation Laboratory (NWREL);Charlene Popham Rudolf, past presi-dent, National Rural Education Asso-ciation; J. Norman Reid, director,Strategy Development Staff, Rural De-velopment Administration, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture (USDA); E.Robert Stephens, professor, Depart-ment of Education Policy, Planning,;And Administration, College of Educa-tion, University of Maryland, CollegePark; and Todd Strohmenger, consult-ant and former co-director, ERICClearinghouse on Rural Education andSmall Schools and director, Rural,Small Schools Program, AppalachiaEducational Laboratory, Inc.(AEL).

Commissioned background papersprovided the foundation for specificchapters, The authors and where theirmaterial was primarily used in wholeor in part are: Toni Haas, chapter 1;

Acknowledgments

Norman Reid, chapter 2; William L.Elder (University of Missouri), chapter3; Susan R. Raftery (Southeastern Edu-cational Improvement Laboratory,now with Auburn University, Auburn,Alabama), chapter 4; RobertStephens, chapter 5; Joyce Stern andWilliam A. Matthes (University ofIowa), chapter 6; one paper by Mari-anne Vaughan and another one by De-borah Jolly and Patricia Deloney,Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory (SEDL), chapter 7; Rich-ard G. Salmon (Virginia Polytechnicand State University, Blacksburg) andJoyce Stern, chapter 8; Wayne Welch(University of Minnesota), chapter 9;Scott F. Marion, Denise A. Mirochnik,Edward J. Mc Caul, and Walter Mc In-tin!. (University of Maine, Orono),chapter 10; and Paul Nachtigal, chapter11. A paper on rural school operationsby Jerry G. Horn ',East Texas StateUniversity) informed several portionsof this report. Material from these pa-pers was updated as necessary and aug-mented by the editor in the process offinal manuscript preparation. The edi-tor takes full responsibility for any er-rors of fact or interpretation in the finalreport.

Several individuals with broad knowl-edge in rural education issues providedvaluable advice as invited external peerreviewers of the final draft manuscript.They were Thomas W. Bonnett, seniorstaff associate, Council of GovernorsPolicy Advisors, Washington, DC, andformer member, Vermont House ofRepresentatives; Edward W. Chance,director, Center for the Study ofSmall/Rural Schools, University ofOklahoma, Norman; David Dodson,executive vice president, MDC, Inc.,Chapel Hill, North Carolina; DavidLeo-Nyquist, school teacher (rural) of

139 1 60

English and journalism, Weott, Cali-for ni a, and editor, The CountryTeacher; David H. Monk, professor ofeducational administration, College ofAgriculture and Life Scjences, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York; andPaul G. Theobald, rural historian andassistant professor of education, SouthDakota State University, Brookings,South Dakota.

Many others deserve recognition fortheir contributions. Ullik Rouk of theCouncil for Educational Developmentand Research (CEDaR), Washington,DC, helped guide the development ofbackground papers funded by CEDaR(those by William Elder, RobertStephens, Wayne Welch, and JerryHorn). Sharon A. Bobbitt of the Na-tional Center for Education Statistics(NCES) arranged for the special tabu-lations from the Schools and StaffingSurvey for chapter 6 and Susan P. Choyof MPR Associates produced them.For chapter 9, analyses of National As-sessment of Educational Progress data,originally designed by Wayne Welch,were updated by the editor with guid-ance by Doug Wright of NCES andwith statistical functions carried out byBrian Taylor of Pinkerton Associates.Statistical analyses of the NELS:88data set were conducted by BruceDaniels of Pinkerton. Special thanksgo to other NCES stiff for their help atcritical junctures of data preparation,analysis, or review: Nabeel Alsalam,Robert Burton, William Fowler, Char-lene Hoffman, Frank Johnson, LauraLippman, Celeste Loar, Brenda Wade,and Jerry West.

The rural education coordinators at theregional educational laboratories madeimportant content and editing sugges-tions. They are Jack Sanders, deputy

executive director, AEL, Charleston,West Virginia; Stanley Chow, director,Center for School Improvement andPolicy Support, Far West Laboratoryfor Educational Research and Devel-opment (FWL), San Francisco, Cali-fornia; Paul Nachtigal, director, RuralInitiative, McREL, Aurora, Colorado;Joseph D'Arnico, rural program direc-tor, North Central Regional Educa-tional Laboratory (NCREL), OakBrook, Illinois; Steve Nelson, director,Rural Education Program, NWREL,Portland, Oregon; Jim Brough, resi-dent scholar, Pacific Regional Educa-tional Laboratory (PREL), Honolulu,Hawaii; Wyllys Teny, rural programcoordinator, NE-I, Andover, Massa-chusetts; John Connolly, deputy direc-tor, Research for Better Schools(RBS), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania andco-director, Rural Education Project,and Robert Bhaerman, co-director, Ru-ral Education Project; Elliott Wolf, di-rector, Special Programs andOperations, Southeastern Regional Vi-sion for Education (SERVE), Greens-boro, North Carolina; and DeborahJolly, vice-president, Services forSchool Improvement, SEDL, Austin,Texas. Other laboratory reviewerswere Wendy McCloskey, researchprogram manager, SERVE; MichaelSullivan, research associate, SEDL,

and Gary Huang, assistant director,ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-tion and Small Schools. Donna Bron-son of NCREL helped type supportingtables.

Several individuals were invited to cri-tique early drafts of certain chaptersand provided valuable counsel. Theywere Bruce Miller, rural education spe-cialist, NWREL; Richard Reeder, sen-ior economist, Economic ResearchService (ERS), USDA; Anicca Jansen,economist, ERS, USDA; JacquelineSpears, co-director of the Rural Clear-inghouse for Lifelong Education andDevelopment, Kansas State Univer-sity, Manhattan; Janet Poley, director,Communication, Information, andTechnology, Extension Service,USDA; and Theodore Coladarci, edi-tor, The Journal of Research in RuralEducation, University of Maine,Orono.

Within the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, reviews were conducted by TomLandess, Office of the Secretary; AlanGinsburg, Robert Barnes, and DaphneHardcastle, Office of Policy and Plan-ning; Doreen Torgerson and RonnHunt, Office of Intergovernmental andInteragency Affairs; Nguyen NgocBich and Terry Sullivan, Office of Bi-lingual Education and Minority Lan-

140 161

guages Affairs; Walter Steidle, Officeof Elementary and Secondary Educa-tion; Thaine McCormick and LarryCase, Office of Vocational and AdultEducation; Kathleen G. Johnson, Of-fice of Private Education; WilliamWolf, Office of Special Education and

, Rehabilitative Services; and Maris Vi-novskis, Office of the Assistant Secre-tary for Educational Research andImprovement. From the Education Net-works Division, OERI, in-depth manu-script reviews were provided byCharles Stalford, as laboratory teamleader, and Hunter Moorman, as net-works development team leader. Typ-ing assistance on tables was providedby Betty Welch, Annie Thompson, andMelvin Rogers. Paige Johnson format-ted all tables consistently across chap-ters. Adria White provided criticalcopyediting review. From the OBRIPublications Unit, Nancy Floyd servedas copyeditor, while Phil Carr designedthe publication's format and presenta-tion. Donna DiToto typeset the text.

Finally, a special debt of gratitude isowed Craig Howley, director of theERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Educa-tion and Small Schools, for the depth ofknowledge and the editing skills hegenerously and skillfully applied toseveral chapters of this report.

ED/OERI 92-16

1,11111-

tti

410°

A

a...12,v .

"WPC

,

41114.11ftglal01.44:00'11.:AL

_

;"

-L111.'14 '

2

ICrti

4-

.10011-01E010.11110.C*-13

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

United StatesDepartment of Education

Washington, DC 20208-5644

Postage and Fees PaidU.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

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

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and improvement

EEET CPY "VAILLTRE

16,3

Programs for the improvement of PracticePIP 94-1108