ERIC ED528634: Why Rural Matters 2011-12: The Condition of Rural Education in the 50 States. A Report of the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program

0.88 MB·English

by  ERIC

Why Rural Matters 2011-12
The Condition of Rural Education in the 50 States
MartyStrange,PolicyProgramDirector
JerryJohnson,Ed.D.
DanielShowalter
RobertKlein,Ph.D.
A Report of the Rural School
and Community Trust Policy Program
January2012
Why Rural Matters 2011-12
The Condition of Rural Education in the 50 States
MartyStrange,PolicyProgramDirector
JerryJohnson,Ed.D.
DanielShowalter
RobertKlein,Ph.D.
A Report of the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program
January2012
TheRuralSchoolandCommunityTrustisanationalnonprofitorganization
addressingthecrucialrelationshipbetweengoodschoolsandthriving
communities.Ourmissionistohelpruralschoolsandcommunitiesgrowbetter
together.Workinginsomeofthepoorest,mostchallengingplaces,theRural
Trustinvolvesyoungpeopleinlearninglinkedtotheircommunities,improvesthe
qualityofteachingandschoolleadership,andadvocatesinavarietyofwaysfor
appropriatestateandfederaleducationalpoliciesincludingeffortstoensure
equitableandadequateresourcesforruralschools.
Why Rural Matters 2011-12
TheConditionofRuralEducationinthe50States
©2012bytheRuralSchoolandCommunityTrust
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
ExceptaspermittedundertheUnitedStatesCopyrightActof1976,nopartofthis
publicationmaybereproducedordistributedinanyformorbyanymeansorstored
inadatabaseorretrievalsystemwithoutpriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.
TheRuralSchoolandCommunityTrustexpressesappreciationtotheVerizon
FoundationforfinancialsupporttopublishWhyRuralMatters2011-12.
APDFversionofthisreportisavailableattheRuralTrust’swebsite:
www.ruraledu.org
RuralSchoolandCommunityTrust
4455ConnecticutAve.,NW,Suite310
Washington,DC20008
[phone]
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................1
TheData ..........................................................................1
GaugingRuralEducationinthe50States .............................................1
NewandRevisedGaugesandIndicators .............................................3
NotesonReportMethodology ......................................................4
Results .......................................................................................5
ImportanceGauge..................................................................5
StudentandFamilyDiversityGauge .................................................7
EducationalPolicyContextGauge ...................................................9
EducationalOutcomesGauge ......................................................13
LongitudinalGauge ................................................................15
RuralEducationPriorityGauge .....................................................17
ConclusionsandImplications .............................................................19
TheSouthernHegemony ..........................................................19
TheSpecialEducationandPovertyDichotomy ......................................20
SpendingandFiscalCapacity ......................................................20
TheBottomLine ..................................................................21
MapsofStateRankings ..................................................................22
(alphabeticalbystate) .........................................28
State-by-StateResults
(rankingsofall50statesoneachindicator)
Indicators
ImportanceGaugeIndicators ......................................................78
StudentandFamilyDiversityGaugeIndicators ......................................83
EducationalPolicyContextGaugeIndicators ........................................88
EducationalOutcomesGaugeIndicators ............................................93
LongitudinalGaugeIndicators .....................................................98
Introduction
W
hyRuralMatters2011-12isthesixthinaseries schoolsandthepercentchangeinnumberofruralschools.
ofbiennialreportsanalyzingthecontextsand Thisconsistencyisparticularlyimportantbecausepolicy
conditionsofruraleducationineachofthe50 decisionsimpactingruraleducation(e.g.,REAPfunding)
statesandcallingattentiontotheneedforpolicymakersto aremadeusingdistrict-leveldesignationsofruralstatus.
addressruraleducationissuesintheirrespectivestates.
Becauseourlongitudinalgaugeincludesindicatorsthatuse
Whileitisthesixthinaseries,thisreportisnotsimplyan datafromyearspriorto2006(whenthenewlocalecode
updatingofdatafromearliereditions.Onthecontrary, systemwasintroduced)itwasnecessarytoback-codein
fromonereporttothenext,wehavedeliberatelyalteredthe ordertoassignlocalestoschooldistrictsforthoseearlier
statisticalindicatorsandgaugestocallattentiontothevari- years.Todoso,werecodedtheearlierdatafollowingthe
abilityandcomplexityofruraleducation.Ourintentin samebasicmethodologyasthecurrentruralclassification
thesereportsisnot—asitisinmanystate-by-stateanaly- system.Underthecurrentsystem,adistrict’slocalecodeis
ses—tocomparestatesintermsoftheirdifferingratesof determinedbythelocalecategory(city[locales11-13],sub-
progresstowardanarbitrarygoal.Rather,ourintentis(1) urb[locales21-23],town[locales31-33],andrural[locales
toprovideinformationandanalysesthathighlightthepri- 41-43])oftheschool(s)whereapluralityofstudentsare
oritypolicyneedsofruralpublicschoolsandthecommuni- enrolled.Whenwecompareruralandnon-ruralschool
tiestheyserve,and(2)todescribethecomplexityofrural districtsusingthe2008-09data,wearecomparing(1)dis-
contextsinwaysthatcanhelppolicymakersbetterunder- trictswherethetotalnumberofstudentsenrolledin
standthechallengesfacedbytheirconstituenciesandfor- schoolsdesignatedasrural(locale41,42,or43)isgreater
mulatepoliciesthatareresponsivetothosechallenges. thanthenumberofstudentsenrolledinanyoftheother
threelocalecategories(city,suburb,ortown)with(2)dis-
In2008-09(theschoolyearusedinthisreport),9,628,501 trictswherethetotalnumberofstudentsenrolledinany
publicschoolstudentswereenrolledinruralschooldis- oneoftheotherthreecategories(city,suburb,ortown)is
tricts—20%ofthenation’stotalpublicschoolenrollment. greaterthanthetotalnumberofstudentsenrolledinrural
Meetingtheneedsofmorethan9.6millionchildrenisa schools.Toidentifyruraldistrictsforyearspriorto2006,
challengethatdemandsanddeservestheattentionofa wefollowedthesameprocedureusingtheschool-level
nation.Itisalsoachallengethatcallsforlookingatissues localecodesthatwereineffectatthattime.Thus,foryears
frommultipleperspectivesinordertodevelopinformed priorto2006,ruraldistrictsarethosewherethetotal
understandingsthatmovebeyondoverlysimplisticnotions numberofstudentsattendingschoolsdesignatedaslocale7
aboutruralschoolsandthecommunitiestheyserve. orlocale8(i.e.,rural)isgreaterthanthetotalnumberof
studentsattendingschoolsinanyoneoftheotherthree
The Data categories(i.e.,locales1and2[city],locales3and4[urban
fringe],orlocales5and6[town]).
ThedatausedforWhyRuralMatters20011-12werecom-
piledfrominformationcollectedandmaintainedbythe
Asinearlierversionsofthereport,WhyRuralMatters
NationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)andthe
2011-12usesdataonlyforregularlocaleducationagencies
U.S.CensusBureau.Alldatausedhereareavailabletothe
(localschooldistrictsandlocalschooldistrictcomponents
generalpublicandmaybedownloadedintabularformats.
ofsupervisoryunions).Thusweexcludecharterschool-
onlydistrictsandspecializedstate-andfederally-directed
Todefine“rural,”weusedthe12-itemurban-centricNCES
educationagenciesfocusedprimarilyonvocational,special,
localecodesystemreleasedin2006. Ruralschoolsanddis-
oralternativeeducation.
trictsusedinthereportarethosedesignatedwithlocale
codes41(ruralfringe),42(ruraldistant),or43(rural
remote).WhileearlyversionsofWhyRuralMatters(i.e., Gauging Rural Education
thoseprecedingthe2009version)usedacombinationof in the 50 States
school-levelanddistrict-leveldata,improvementsinthe Weframethereportaroundfivegaugesmeasuringforeach
urban-centriclocalecodesystem(specifically,assigningdis- state(1)theImportanceofruraleducation,(2)theDiver-
trict-levellocalebaseduponthelocalewheretheplurality sityofruralstudentsandtheirfamilies,(3)theEducational
ofstudentsinthedistrictattendschool)havemadeitpos- PolicyContextimpactingruralschools,(4)theEducational
sibleforustobeconsistentandusedistrictsastheunitof Outcomesofstudentsinruralschoolsineachstate,and(5)
analysisforallindicatorsexceptforthepercentageofrural theLongitudinalchangesthathaveoccurredineachstate
WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12 1
incertainkeyareas.Eachgaugeiscomprisedoffiveequally ablebecauseoftheirpotentialtomislead.Thepossibilities
weightedindicators—thus25indicatorsinall.Instances forassemblingindicatorstodescribethecontext,conditions,
wheredatawerenotavailablearedenotedwithN/A. andoutcomesofruralschoolsandcommunitiesarevirtually
unlimited.WeacknowledgethecomplexityofruralAmerica
Thehighertherankingonagauge,themoreimportantor generallyandof50individualstatesystemsofpubliceduca-
themoreurgentruraleducationmattersareinaparticular tion,andwerecognizethatperspectivesofferedbytheindi-
state. catorsusedhererepresentonlyoneofmanygoodwaysof
understandingruraleducationintheU.S.
Thegaugesandtheircomponentindicatorsareasfollows:
Toillustratetheproblematicnatureofcomparingastate’s
ImportanceGauge rankingononereportwiththesamestate’srankingin
anotheryear’sreport,considerWashington,astatethat
(cid:1)Percentruralschools
ranked23rdintermsofoverallruraleducationpriorityin
(cid:1)Percentsmallruralschooldistricts
2009(withinthesecondquartile,whichwetermedthe
(cid:1)Percentruralstudents
“Major”prioritycategory).Bycontrast,inthe2011report,
(cid:1)Numberofruralstudents
Washingtonranksinthefourthquartileas42ndintermsof
(cid:1)Percentofstateeducationfundstoruraldistricts
ruraleducationpriority,achangepartlyduetothenewfifth
gauge(Washingtonwasrankedinthesecondquartileonthe
StudentandFamilyDiversityGauge
ConcentratedPovertygauge,butranksinthefourthquartile
(cid:1)Percentruralminoritystudents
ontheLongitudinalgauge).TointerpretWashington’slarge
(cid:1)PercentruralELLstudents
dropinruraleducationpriorityconcernasa“success”might
(cid:1)PercentruralIEPstudents
meanoverlookingtheissuesofseverepovertythatmaystill
(cid:1)Percentruralstudentpoverty
existinruralpocketsaroundthestate.
(cid:1)Percentruralhouseholdmobility
Indiana,ontheotherhand,isastatethatmovedfrom
EducationalPolicyContextGauge
belowthenationalmedianat32ndintermsofoverallrural
(cid:1)Ruralinstructionalexpendituresperpupil
educationprioritytoarankingof18th(withinthesecond
(cid:1)Ratioofinstructionaltotransportationexpenditures
quartile,whichwetermedthe“Major”prioritycategory).
(cid:1)Medianorganizationalscale
Muchofthisshiftbetweenthetwoversionsofthereport
(cid:1)Staterevenuetoschoolsperlocaldollar
canbeattributedtothechangeingauges.Indianaranked
(cid:1)SalaryexpendituresperinstructionalFTE
inthethirdquartileontheConcentratedPovertygauge,
buthasbeenoneofthemostvolatilestatesintermsof
EducationalOutcomesGauge
Longitudinalchangeinruralareas.Ratherthaninterpret-
(cid:1)Ruralhighschoolgraduationrate
ingthischangeasIndiana“climbing14places,”attention
(cid:1)Ruralgrade4NAEPscores(math)
shouldbefocusedonthefactthatIndiana’sstudentpopu-
(cid:1)Ruralgrade4NAEPscores(reading)
lationisincreasinglyrural,andthatthepovertyrateis
(cid:1)Ruralgrade8NAEPscores(math)
growingamongtheseruralstudents.Makinggoodpolicy
(cid:1)Ruralgrade8NAEPscores(reading)
choicesforAmerica’sruralschoolchildrenrequirescare-
fullyconsideringthefullstateprofileandthestorytoldby
LongitudinalGauge
eachindicator.
(cid:1) Increaseinabsoluteruralstudentenrollment(1999-00
to2008-09)
Foreachofthefivegauges,weaddedthestaterankingson
(cid:1) Percentchangeinnumberofruralstudents(1999-00 eachindicatorandthendividedbythenumberofindica-
to2008-09)
torstoproduceanaveragegaugeranking.iUsingthatgauge
(cid:1) PercentchangeinnumberofruralHispanicstudents ranking,wethenorganizethestatesintoquartilesthat
(1999-00to2008-09)
describetheirrelativepositionwithregardtootherstates
(cid:1) Changeinpercentruralstudentpoverty(1999-00to onthatparticulargauge.FortheImportance,Educational
2008-09)
PolicyContext,andLongitudinalgauges,thefourquartiles
(cid:1) Changeinruralstudentsasapercentageofallstudents arelabeled“Notable,”“Important,”VeryImportant,”and
(1999-00to2008-09)
Whilesomeoftheindicatorsusedinthisreportarethe
i Gaugerankingsarenotcalculatedforstatesthathavefewerthan
sameasinpreviousversions,severalarenotandsooverall
threeofthefiveindicatorrankingspresent.Theseinstancesare
year-by-yearcomparisonsofastate’srankingarenotadvis- denotedwithanasteriskandaclarifyingnote.
2 WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12
“Crucial.”FortheStudentandFamilyDiversityandEduca- theConcentratedPovertyGaugewiththeLongitudinal
tionalOutcomesgauges,thefourquartilesarelabeled Gauge.However,therehavebeenafewotherchanges
“Fair,”“Serious,”“Critical,”and“Urgent.”Itisimportantto madeamongtheindicators,andthesearedescribedbelow.
notethatthesecategoriesareintendedtobedescriptivein
onlythemostgeneralway.Thereislittlesubstantivediffer- TheEducationalPolicyContextGaugecontainsoneminor
encebetweena“Crucial”rankingof13anda“VeryImpor- adjustment:thenewindicator“staterevenuetoschoolsper
tant”rankingof14. localdollar”replacesthe2009WhyRuralMattersindica-
tor“inequalityinstateandlocalrevenueperpupil.”This
Lastly,wecombinedthefiveaveragegaugerankingsto improvedindicatormeasurestheextenttowhichrural
determineanoverallaveragerankingii,whichwetermthe schoolfundscomefromthestateversuslocalcommunities,
RuralEducationPriorityranking. withameasureof$1indicatingequalamountsofmoney
comingfromthestateandlocalcommunities,greaterthan
Certainstateshaveretainedahighruraleducationpriority $1indicatingmorestatethanlocalsupportandlessthan$1
rankingfromyeartoyeardespitethefactthatweusedif- indicatingmorelocalthanstatesupport.Ruralschoolsthat
ferentindicatorsandgauges.Forthesestates,ruraleduca- relymoreheavilyonlocalsupportaresubjecttogreater
tionisapparentlybothimportantandinurgentneedof variationinsupportbasedonlocaleconomicconditions,
attentionnomatterhowyoulookatit. propertytaxbase,andindustrialtaxrevenues.Suchstates
arelikelytohavegreaterdisparitiesfromonelocationto
Onefinalcautionfromearlierreportsisworthrepeating. anotherbasedonlocalconditions.
Becausewereportstate-leveldataformostindicators,our
analysesdonotrevealthesubstantialvariationinruralcon- TheEducationalOutcomesGaugewasrevisedconsiderably
textsandconditionswithinmanystates.Thus,whilean fromthe2009report,droppingtwoindicatorscharacteriz-
indicatorrepresentstheaverageforaparticularstate,in ingruralstudents’NCLBproficiencyinreadingandmath
realitytheremayberuralregionswithinthestatethatdif- andtwocomposite(mathandreadingcombinedNAEP
ferconsiderablyfromthestateaverage.Thisisespecially scoresateachoftwogradelevels)andreplacingthem4
trueforindicatorslikepovertyandELLstatus,sincedemo- NAEPscoresthatseparatelyreportmathandreading
graphiccharacteristicssuchasthesetendnottobedistrib- resultsatgradefourandgradeeight.Therationaleforthis
utedevenlyacrossastatebutareconcentratedvariouslyin changewastwofold:(1)statesvarywidelyintheirstan-
specificcommunitieswithinthestate.Inthecaseofsuch dardsforproficiency,makingtheNCLBdatadifficultto
indicators,thestatewideaveragemaynotreflectthereality analyzeandreport,and(2)considerablevariationinNAEP
inanyonespecificplace,withfarhigherratesinsome scoresacrossgradelevelsandsubjectareastronglysug-
placesandfarlowerratesinothers.Itisourhopeinsuch gestedthevalueinconsideringtheindividualscores(i.e.,
casesthatthepresentationofstateaveragedindicatorswill grade4reading,grade4math,grade8reading,grade8
promptmorerefineddiscussionsandleadtobetterunder- math)separately.
standingsofallruralareas.
TheLongitudinalGaugeappearsforthefirsttimeinWhy
New and Revised Gauges RuralMatters2011-12.Itusesfiveindicatorstocharacterize
and Indicators changesoccurringovertime(absolutechangeinthenum-
berofruralstudents,percentchangeinthenumberofrural
Inanefforttorefineandbetterreflectourthinkingabout
students,percentchangeinthenumberofruralHispanic
thecontextsandcharacteristicsofruraleducation,wemade
students,changeinpercentageofruralpoverty,andchange
somechangesfrompreviousreportswithregardtothe
inruralstudentsasapercentageofallstudents).Foreach
selectionandconfigurationofindicatorsandgaugesused.
indicator,wecompareddatafromitsfirstyearofavailability
WhyRuralMatters2009included25indicatorsorganized
to2008-09data.Twoindicatorsinparticular—changein
into5gauges:Importance(5indicators),StudentandFam-
ruralHispanicpopulationsandruralpoverty—showedspo-
ilyDiversity(5),EducationalPolicyContext,(5),Educa-
radicstatereportingatfirst,sowecompared2008-09data
tionalOutcome(5),andConcentratedPoverty(5).The
withthefirstyearofreliabledatafromeachstate.Onthe
2011reportalsoincludes5gauges,eachcomprising5indi-
otherthreeindicators,wewereabletouse1987-88datato
cators(foratotalof25indicators).Themajordifference
understandtwodecadesofchangeinthekeyindicators.
fromthepreviousreporttothisoneisthereplacementof
Thelocalecodingsystemchangedsignificantlyin2006,
ii Priorityrankingsarenotcalculatedforstatesthathavefewerthan makingitinaccuratetocompareraw“rural”datacollected
fourofthefiveindicatorrankingspresent.Theseinstancesare
underthetwodistinctdefinitions.Onesolutionwould
denotedwithanasteriskandaclarifyingnote.
WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12 3
havebeentousethe2005-06schoolyeardataasthemost assignedtoLouisianabasedonitsrankingof14thonthe
recentdataforthelongitudinalcomparisons.However,we samegauge.
feltthatthiswouldnotprovideanadequateexaminationof
currenttrends,especiallywithregardstotheburgeoning Second,againinthisreportweuseregionaltermsloosely.
ruralHispanicpopulation.Thus,tospanasmanyyearsas Now,asthen,theintentisnottoconfuseorobscuremean-
possiblewhilepreservingconsistency,werecodedtheear- ings,buttorecognizenuancesinregionalidentitiesandto
lierdataaccordingtothecurrentruralclassificationsystem. bestrepresentthecontextswithinwhichwearediscussing
Inotherwords,foranygivenyear,adistrict’slocalewas specificrelationshipsbetweenindividualstatesandshared
determinedbywhichofthefourlocales(city,suburb,town, geographicandculturalcharacteristics.Withthisintent,a
rural)contributedthemoststudents.Forexample,adis- statelikeOklahomamaybereferredtoasaSouthern
trictwith3,000studentsinsuburbanschools,2,000stu- PlainsstateinsomecontextsandasaSouthwesternstatein
dentsintownschools,and4,000studentsinruralschools others.ThatisbecauseOklahomaispartofregionalpat-
wouldbecodedasaruraldistrictforthepurposesofthis ternsthatincludeSouthernPlainsstateslikeKansasand
comparison. Colorado,butitisalsopartofregionalpatternsthat
includeSouthwesternstateslikeNewMexico.
Notes on Report Methodology
Third,therankingsystemshouldnotbeinterpretedtosug-
ReadersfamiliarwithearliereditionsofWhyRural
gestthatruraleducationinlow-prioritystatesdoesnot
Matterswillnotethefollowingconsiderationswhenread-
deserveattentionfrompolicymakers.Indeed,everystate
ingthe2011report.
faceschallengesinprovidingahigh-qualityeducational
experienceforallchildren.Thehighestprioritystatesare
First,thequartilecategoriesusedtodescribestates’posi-
presentedassuchbecausetheyarestateswherekeyfactors
tiononthecontinuumfrom1-50arearbitrary,andare
thatimpacttheschoolingprocessconvergetopresentthe
usedmerelyasaconvenientwaytogroupstatesintosmaller
mostextremechallengestoschoolingoutcomes,andso
unitstofacilitatediscussionofpatternsintheresults.Thus,
suggestthemosturgentandmostcomprehensiveneedfor
thereisverylittledifferencebetweenthe“Urgent”label
attentionfrompolicymakers.
assignedtoMississippibasedonitsrankingof13thonthe
StudentandFamilyDiversityGaugeandthe“Critical”label
4 WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12
Results
Thedataforeachstateandstaterankingsforeachindi- discussedbelow.Toprovidesomecontextandtoaidin
catorarepresentedinthechartsandfiguresonpages makingcomparisons,nationallevelresultsarepresentedin
28-77.Theresultsforeachindicatoraresummarizedand Table1.
Table 1. National Rural Statistics
ImportanceGauge EducationalOutcomesGauge
Percentruralschools: 33.0% Ruralhighschoolgraduationrate: 77.5%
Percentsmallruraldistricts: 49.9% RuralGrade4NAEPscores(math): 240
Percentruralstudents: 20.2% RuralGrade4NAEPscores(reading): 222
Numberofruralstudents(USMedian=131,129): 9,628,501 RuralGrade8NAEPscores(math): 284
Percentstateeducationfundstoruraldistricts: 20.4% RuralGrade8NAEPscores(reading): 264
StudentandFamilyDiversityGauge LongitudinalGauge
Percentruralminoritystudents: 25.8% Changeinabsouteruralenrollment
PercentruralELLstudents: 3.7% (median=9,880): 1,735,666
PercentruralIEPstudents: 12.1% Percentchangeinruralenrollment: 22.2%
Percentruralstudentpoverty: 41.0% PercentchangeinruralHispanicenrollment: 150.9%
Percentruralmobility: 12.7% Changeinpercentruralstudentsinpoverty: 9.8%
Changeinruralstudentsasapercentage
EducationalPolicyContextGauge ofallstudents: 2.6%
Ruralinstructionalexpendituresperpupil: $5,657
Ratioofinstructionaltotransportationexpenditures: $11.06
Medianorganizationalscale(dividedby100): 5,203
Ratioofstaterevenuetolocalrevenue: $1.31
SalaryexpendituresperinstructionalFTE: $56,159
Importance Gauge Wyoming,Arkansas,Oklahoma,WestVirginia,Iowa,Mis-
sissippi,NewHampshire,andNorthCarolina)andatleast
oneinthreeofallschoolsisruralin15otherstates.Ingen-
ImportanceGaugeIndicators
Absoluteandrelativemeasuresofthesizeandscopeof eral,stateswithahighpercentageofruralschoolsarethose
ruraleducationhelptodefinetheimportanceofruraledu- wheresparsepopulationsand/orchallengingterrainmakeit
cationtothewell-beingofthestate’spubliceducationsys- difficulttotransportstudentstoconsolidatedregional
temasawhole.Inthissection,wedefineeachofthe schoolsinnon-ruralareas.Predominantlyurbanstateson
indicatorsintheImportanceGaugeandsummarizestate theEastandWestcoastsandintheGreatLakesregion
andregionalpatternsobservedinthedata.1 havethesmallestpercentagesofruralschools.
(cid:1) Percentruralschoolsisthepercentageofregular (cid:1) Percentsmallruralschooldistrictsisthepercentageof
elementaryandsecondarypublicschoolsdesignatedas ruralschooldistrictsthatarebelowthemedianenroll-
ruralbyNCES. Thehigherthepercentageofschools, mentsizeforallruralschooldistrictsintheU.S.(median
thehigherthestateranksontheImportanceGauge. =537students).Thehigherthepercentageofdistricts
withenrollmentsbelow537,thehigherthestaterankson
Thenationalaverageis33%butstatesvaryconsiderablyon theImportanceGauge.
thisindicator,fromalowof6.6%inMassachusettstoa
highof78.6%inSouthDakota.Morethanhalfofall Atleasthalfofallruraldistrictsaresmallerthanthe
schoolsareruralin15states(inorder,SouthDakota,Mon- nationalruralmedianin22states(Montana,North
tana,Vermont,NorthDakota, Maine,Alaska,Nebraska, Dakota,Vermont,Nebraska,SouthDakota,Oklahoma,
1 Hawaiiisexcludedfrommostoftheindicatorsthroughoutthisreportbecauseitsorganizationasasinglestatewidedistrictmakesdistrict-
leveldataunavailableforruralcommunities.
WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12 5
Colorado,California,Alaska,Oregon,Maine,Kansas,New alonehasmoreruralstudentsthantheNorthernand
Mexico,Missouri,Washington,Arizona,Idaho,Illinois, SouthernGreatPlainsstatesofMontana,NorthDakota,
NewHampshire,Massachusetts,Iowa,andTexas).States SouthDakota,Wyoming,Colorado,Nebraska,Kansas,and
withfewornosmallruraldistrictsarelocatedprimarilyin Oklahoma—combined.
theSoutheastandMid-Atlantic—regionsthatarecharac-
terizedbyconsolidatedcounty-widedistricts.WestVir- Percentageofstateeducationfundsgoingtorural
(cid:1)
ginia,astatewhereoverhalfoftheschoolsareinrural schoolsrepresentstheproportionofstatePK-12fund-
communities,doesnothaveasinglesmallruralschooldis- ingthatgoestoschooldistrictsdesignatedbyNCESas
trictthankstoadecadeslongstateefforttoconsolidation rural.Statefundingasdefinedhereincludesallstate-
localschoolsincountywideruraldistricts. derivedrevenuesthatareusedfortheday-to-dayopera-
tionsofschools(thus,capitalconstruction,debtservice,
Percentruralstudentsisameasureoftherelativesizeof andotherlong-termoutlaysareexcluded).Thehigher
(cid:1)
theruralstudentpopulation,andiscalculatedasthe thepercentageofstatefundsgoingtoruraleducation,
numberofpublicschoolstudentsenrolledinruraldis- thehigherthestateranksontheImportanceGauge.
tricts,whethertheyattendruralschoolsornot,dividedby
thetotalnumberofpublicschoolstudentsinthestate. It’snosurprisethatstatesrankinghighonpercentrural
Itexcludesstudentsattendingruralschoolsthatarenot schoolsandpercentruralstudentsalsorankhighonthis
locatedindistrictsthatNCESdesignatesasrural.The indicator. Ingeneral,moststatesprovideaslightlydispro-
higherthepercentageofruralstudents,thehigherthe portionalamountoffundingperpupiltoruraldistricts
stateranksontheImportanceGauge. (basedoncomparingthepercentageofeachstate’sfunding
thatgoestoruraldistrictswiththepercentageofthestate’s
Justover20%ofallpublicschoolstudentswereenrolledin studentsthatareenrolledinruraldistricts).Thisisproba-
districtsclassifiedasrural.Inonlythreestateswereover blybecausemanystateformulastakeintoaccountthe
halfthestudentsenrolledinruraldistricts—Mississippi higherfixedcostsperpupilofsmalldistricts,andbecausein
(54.7%),Vermont(54.6%)andMaine(52.7%).Inthirteen themostruralstates,ruralpovertylevelsarehigh,another
otherstates,overone-thirdofallstudentswereinrural factorconsideredinmanystatefundingformulas.Thisrela-
schooldistricts(indescendingorder,NorthCarolina, tionshipbetweenpercentruralstudentsandpercentof
SouthDakota,SouthCarolina,Alabama,Tennessee,North statefundingdeterioratesinmoststateswherethepercent-
Dakota,Kentucky,WestVirginia,NewHampshire, ageofruralstudentsinverylow,however.Thatmaybe
Arkansas,Georgia,Iowa,andMontana).Thesestatesare becauseruralpovertyisrelativelylowinmanyofthese
concentratedinfiveregions:NorthernNewEngland,the states,andstatefundingformulasthattakepovertyinto
Mid-SouthDelta,theGreatPlains,theSoutheast,and accountwilldeliverlesstoruraldistrictsforthatreason.
CentralAppalachia.Stateswiththelowestproportional Andthisrelationshipisnotuniversalamongstateswith
ruralenrollmentsareprimarilyurbanstatesontheEast highpercentagesofruralstudents.InMississippi,for
CoastandWestCoastandinaridormountainousWestern example,54.7%ofstudentsattendaruralschooldistrictbut
stateswherethepopulationresidesmostlyincitiesand only47.2%ofstatefundinggoestothesedistricts.Andonly
ruralareasareverysparselypopulated. NewMexicoandLouisianahavehigherratesofruralstu-
dentpovertythanMississippi.
Numberofruralstudentsisanabsolute—asopposedto
(cid:1)
relative—measureofthesizeoftheruralstudentpopula- ImportanceGaugeRankings
tion.Thefiguregivenforeachstaterepresentsthetotal Togaugetheimportanceofruraleducationtotheoverall
numberofstudentsenrolledinpublicschooldistricts educationalsystemineachstate,weaverageeachstate’s
designatedasruralbyNCES.Thehighertheenrollment rankingontheindividualindicators,givingequalweightto
number,thehigherthestateranksontheImportance each(seeTable2).
Gauge.
ThetopquartileintheImportanceGaugeissharedby
MorethanhalfofallruralstudentsintheU.S.attend statesinthePrairie/Plains(SouthDakota,Montana,North
schoolinjust11states,includingsomeofthenation’smost Dakota,Oklahoma,andIowa),theSouth(NorthCarolina,
populousandurbanstates(inorderofruralenrollment Alabama,andMississippi),NorthernNewEngland(Maine
size,Texas, NorthCarolina,Georgia,Ohio,Florida,Ten- andVermont),CentralAppalachia(KentuckyandTen-
nessee,Virginia,NewYork,Pennsylvania,Michigan,and nessee),andthePacificNorthwest(Alaska).
Alabama).Thefourstateswiththelargestruralenroll-
ments—Texas,NorthCarolina,Georgia,andOhio—serve ThesevenNorthernNewEnglandandPrairie/Plainsstates
one-fourthofallruralstudentsintheU.S.NorthCarolina holdsixofthetopsevenpositionsbecausetheyscoregen-
6 WHY RURAL MATTERS 2011-12