Feature 2, Spring 2007

spring 2007

Ties that bind

Rural education is a study of the interdependence between rural schools and the communities they serve.

Kathleen Budge
Boise State University



	FEATURES

“When you lose the school…you’ve lost the town,” stated retired teacher Ruth Anderson in the May 2004 issue of National Geographic. The issue’s feature story, entitled Change of Heartland, highlighted changes in America’s rural Great Plains. Anderson’s proclamation is too often correct. When a rural school is closed or consolidated, it signals the end of the community. Some remnants of a town might remain, perhaps a church, a post office, or a bar; nevertheless, the heart of the rural community is often shattered and a vital part of that which constitutes place is altered.


	Even as the Northwest urbanizes, one in four Idaho children still attend a rural school. Courtesy Rural School and Community Trust.

Rural education is different than suburban and urban education in many ways. The essential difference, however, is the strength of the connection between school, community and place. One cannot fully comprehend rural education without understanding the interdependence among rural schools and the communities they serve. At the same time, the complexity of rural communities cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the importance of place.

Nearly half of Idaho’s public schools are located in rural areas and 26.5 percent of all students attend those schools.

Conceivably, some of these students live in places like Kellogg, Caldwell, Grangeville, Soda Springs, Ketchum, McCall, or Shoshone. Because rural schools and communities are so diverse, Replace: rural education researchers and policymakers acknowledge it is difficult to establish a universal set of characteristics to describe or define rural schools and communities. Currently, a widely accepted definition comes from the U. S. Census Bureau, which defines rural as a residential category of places outside urban areas, in open country, in communities of fewer than 2,500, or where the population density is less than 1,000 inhabitants per square mile. While a quantitative description such as this based upon population density and geographical location is necessary, it does not capture the complexity of rural schools or the communities they serve. Though some aspects of rural places are changing and each rural community is unique, many rural communities possess similar characteristics. These include: 1) decades of economic struggle and a history of economic exploitation, 2) low population density and isolation 3) a devalued way of life, 4) an “out migration” of young talent, 5) a salient attachment to place and 6) a history of conflict regarding purposes of local schooling. Taken together, these attributes expand the definition of rural to one of rurality and provide a means of illuminating the ties that binds rural education, community and place. This bond has implications for both policy and practice.

The ties that bind

In rural communities, the school serves as the cultural and social center of the town. The health and well-being of each is dependent upon the other and the interdependent nature of this relationship is well documented. No aspect of rurality is more closely linked to rural schooling and student learning than the local economy.

Decades of economic struggle and a history of economic exploitation


	Economic distress in rural America has crippled its schools. Pictured: federal farm relief school in Caldwell, 1942. Library of Congress.

          Scholars and policy analysts have argued that rural communities have been exploited for the benefit of the national and global economy. At issue is who benefits from whom and who is dispensable. Industries traditionally vital to rural Idaho have declined in importance and many rural communities have begun to develop more diverse economic bases. Nevertheless, some communities remain vulnerable to the fluctuations of an economy dependent upon a single industry.
          In general, rural economies dependent upon agriculture or extraction of natural resources are weak throughout the nation, and have been so for decades. Lower-paying jobs in trade and service industries replace living-wage jobs. Increasing globalization, weak community infrastructure for encouraging business development and growth, out-migration of skilled human capital, technological advancements, and increased regulations have taken a toll on rural economies. In regions where the economy is dominated by agribusiness or natural resource extraction-based industry, local decision-making has been co-opted by corporations whose leaders reside outside the community. When rural economic sectors (logging, fisheries, agriculture) can no longer compete and contribute to the national economy, these communities are viewed as expendable.
          Rural residents are less likely to have access to systems of political power than are people living in metropolitan areas. Nationally, approximately one-fifth of the electorate lives in rural areas. As population has shifted from rural to urban areas, rural people’s ability to influence state and federal policy affecting the places they live has been significantly weakened. As Salant & Porter claim in the 2005 Profile of Rural Idaho, “Growing urban populations are seeking to use rural resources for multiple purposes other than those that have sustained rural economies in the past. Conflicting demands to use or conserve water, land, and wildlife dominate regional policy debates and have enormous impacts on how some rural people make their living.”

          Economic distress in rural communities contributes to a host of problems that affect rural schools. Weak rural labor markets negatively affect the level of resources available to rural districts. Poverty is concentrated and capacity to generate revenue through local property taxes is diminished. In many states, funding formulas provide inadequate and/or inequitable resources. Nationally, fewer dollars per student are expended in rural school districts than in metropolitan areas. In Idaho, per pupil expenditures of $3,621 for instruction of rural students lag behind the national average of $4,199.
          Poverty and its related social problems (e.g. poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence) are fundamental to understanding underachievement in rural communities. As across the nation, a greater percentage of rural children in Idaho live in poverty than their urban counterparts. The Rural School and Community Trust’s most recent analysis of poverty rates the economic disadvantages facing schools and communities in Idaho as “critical,” with a ranking of 13 among the 50 states. A ranking of 1 is considered most urgent.
          Furthermore, young people’s aspirations and family expectations affect student achievement. Parents of rural students may be more inclined to encourage work or trade school than college. Rural youth are less likely to take college preparatory classes and less likely to attend college than are urban students. These students see less direct connection between education and economic opportunities for their future.1 Fewer opportunities for employment in rural communities, especially occupations requiring higher education, combined with the constraints posed by the cost of a college education, may cause rural students to perceive their chances for social mobility as severely limited. The traditional high school curriculum, primarily focused on preparing students for college, may appear to be a hollow promise for many. Moreover, such curriculum does not adequately prepare students to live well in the local community, in part because it does not connect academic learning to the manner in which one might make a living in the local community.

Low Population Density and Isolation


	Rural students are less likely to enroll in college advance placement classes and attend college. Pictured: Idaho City's 1891 schoolhouse. Library of Congress.

Low population density and isolation pose additional challenges for educators and students. Recruitment and retention of high quality teachers is difficult in many rural communities. Isolation and geographical distance from professional development centers or universities negatively influence teachers’ opportunities for professional learning. In addition, small staff size often necessitates that teachers in rural schools teach courses for which they are not fully certificated.

          Nonetheless, there are benefits for those teachers who chose to live and work in rural places. These may include fewer discipline problems, greater opportunity for personal relationships with students and their families, smaller class sizes, less bureaucracy, and a greater chance to assume leadership roles. Additionally, for inhabitants of rural places, lower population density and geographical remoteness contribute to what is viewed as a better quality of life—slower pace, less traffic congestion, and lower crime rates.
          Isolation and staff size can result in rural students having fewer opportunities for learning, especially in areas such as remedial education, foreign language, and advanced math and science courses; however, the use of distance-learning technologies has resulted in improvements in this area. Some rural citizens feel the supportive ethos found in smaller schools and communities compensates for material limitations. Low student/teacher ratios, as well as small school and district size, have a positive influence on student achievement, mitigate the effects of poverty, and close achievement gaps.
          Studies of rural school districts in five states demonstrated the positive influence of small district size on student achievement. In all studies, small districts and schools demonstrated greater achievement equity. In Idaho, rural student achievement outcomes (as measured by standardized test scores) are mixed. In general, Idaho’s rural schools perform as well as, and sometimes better than, their urban counterparts.2 As is true nationally, standardized test scores in Idaho show academic achievement gaps. White and Asian students as a group score higher than do American Indian, African American and Hispanic groups of students, and more affluent groups of students score higher than their economically disadvantaged counterparts. 3 However, the test score gap between poor students and their more affluent counterparts is smaller in Idaho’s schools than in most states.4 Because smaller districts and schools have demonstrated greater equity in achievement, Idaho’s success in closing such a test score gap may be attributed, in part, to the number of small and rural schools in the state, although this warrants further study.

Out-migration and devaluing rural ways of life

Many rural communities are trapped in a conundrum. Out-migration of the most talented and skilled young people leaves rural communities with weak human capital, which in turn is a disincentive for businesses and industries to locate in these areas. Net migration of college-educated people into rural areas dropped to near zero between 1998 and 2000. Young people understand that prejudice against rural people is strong. Despite a heightened awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural differences, stereotyping of rural people is socially acceptable, hence the prevalence of slurs like “hicks,” “hillbillies,” “bumpkins,” “plowboys,” and “rednecks.”
While Idaho’s population has continued to grow since 2000, 13 of Idaho’s rural counties lost population and several others demonstrated very slow growth. School funding is tied to enrollment; therefore, declining enrollment is a serious problem for many of Idaho’s rural schools. Between 1997 and 2002, a decline in enrollment of at least 10 percent was experienced by 40 percent of the school districts in Idaho’s rural counties.

A salient attachment to place

Despite the historical out-migration of young talent from rural communities, there is something powerful about a sense of place that helps those who inhabit rural places transcend many of the challenges they face. Place is more than geographical location. We are both shaped by, and are shapers of, the places we inhabit. Anthropologist Keith Basso explains, “Sense of place roots individuals in the social and cultural soils from which they have sprung together, holding them there in a grip of shared identity, a localized version of selfhood…(S)elfhood and placehood are completely intertwined.” A sense of place can be communal, spiritual, civic, political, ideological, and/or ecological.


	Longer bus rides to consolidated high schools make rural students less likely to participate in extra-curricular activities. Courtesy MNPS.org.

Whether they choose to leave their communities or to stay, rural youth are more likely than non-rural youth to have conflicting aspirations and are angrier about their futures. Rural youth often have to leave their families and communities to pursue further education and/or careers. Among Appalachian students, for example, researchers found an “aspiration for a sense of place” clearly existed, but this aspiration created tension because students had to choose between leaving their families and communities and educational/career opportunities.5

History of conflict regarding purposes of rural education

The ties that bind students’ educational outcomes to community viability and the well-being of rural places prompts the question “what purposes should rural schools serve?” Whose interest should they serve and to whom are they accountable—the local community, national interests, individual students, all of these?
Since the industrial revolution, reform initiatives have been focused on urbanizing rural schools. Rural educators have lamented such policies as unresponsive to local contexts. In recent years, externally mandated standards-based reform has met with resistance in many rural places. Rural educators have described such reform as usurping local control, anti-intellectual, and narrowly focused on workforce preparation for a national and global economy, to the detriment of local economies and to the exclusion of other purposes of schooling. Many have viewed such reforms as counterproductive and suggested that remedies to rural school problems should build upon the strengths found in rural schools and communities. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is the latest in a century of such one-size-fits-all attempts to reform schools that do not address the unique needs of local schools and communities. In the view of the Rural Schools and Community Trust, NCLB is “fundamentally flawed and provides neither an efficient, nor effective path to improving schooling for all students.” The sentiment that is expressed in the title of the act—no child left behind—should be the aim of public education. The intent of the law is “…to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.” However, NCLB focuses exclusively on test scores as a measure of educational equity. Such policy, which is also short on support and long on sanctions, is likely to do little to accomplish the goal, in part because it fails to account for social structures that have long discriminated based on race, class, gender or geography. The best hope for supporting schools in achieving greater equity is healthy and viable local communities.

The need for place-responsive practice and place-conscious leadership

Paradoxically, in spite of the challenges posed, rural schools must turn to their community if there is to be any hope for both to survive. Indeed rural schools that have improved student learning, despite the odds they face, identify a close and mutually supportive relationship with the community as a key factor. 6 The bridge between school and community must encourage and support two-way travel. Schools should connect with community from the inside and welcome connection from the outside. In other words, educators must not only reach out to the community to bring resources into the school, but also be receptive to ideas that emanate from the community and be willing to engage in projects that strengthen community and place. Moreover, efforts to renew rural schools and revitalize rural communities need to engage youth. Too often, engagement of external stakeholders has lacked authenticity. Educational leaders have been trained to buffer such constituencies and are frequently nervous about involving youth in school and community problems, fearing they may “over-step” their authority.
What is needed are educational and community leaders who are place-conscious. Place-conscious leaders would act from a keenly developed sense of place. They would support teachers who use pedagogy that is rooted in the unique history, culture, economy, and environment of a particular place, such as service learning, outdoor education, work-based learning, and problem-based learning, as well as such practices as community study groups, community and youth organizing, and joint school/community development. Place-conscious leaders would work to conserve what is beneficial to the well-being of students, families and communities, while actively leading efforts that address the challenges and/or contradictions found in the local context. Most important, they would understand the ties that bind and as a consequence promote educational experiences that serve as a springboard for the creation of future generations of students who care about, and are willing to participate in, the improvement of the places they live.